Yes.

That’s true, and we should also note for further discussion that there are related major issues.

The traditional publishing process through the major journals is entirely broken, because the journals are making a ton of money, and often the research is paid for by taxpayers, and often the researchers and reviewers don’t make much at all.

Also, it depends on the country, but many universities are hiring fewer tenured faculty members. When people are on one year contracts, or on several year contracts, they have strong incentive to get things published before they change employer. If they have job security, they’re much more likely to do proper research before sending things off.

Nobody wants to destroy their own reputation, but they are more likely to take a risk if it’s a make or break point in their career.

As others mentioned, it’s been blocked. The judge up in Missouri continued the block.

The reasoning is the same as before, and none of it makes sense. It’s so bizarre that the courts are allowed to prioritize lenders over ordinary citizens. It’s not like the lenders are going to go bankrupt, so why should the injunction go in their favor? Meh. We know why. Politics.

I feel like the headline is somehow meaningless. You can’t put those words together and construct something that makes sense. I don’t think anxiety of any kind would be considered a luxury.

Further analysis gets even more muddled, because while anxiety in itself can be challenging for people, I don’t think you would want to define that as the pressing problem here. The authors know that, so they’re trying to get cute, but it ends up creating a situation where you don’t know what they’re talking about because they’re using words in misleading ways.

I would rather have a person who I disagree with be honest about their views and goals, because at least then maybe we could talk about things openly, even if we couldn’t come to an agreement.

It’s so annoying dealing with chronic liars, because they keep bringing in falsehoods whenever it’s convenient, whenever they think they can get an edge.

I don’t think Tim Walz was chosen to attract left-wing voters. He’s not center left or far left.

I agree with you that the Democrats tend to ignore the left, and it’s incredible annoying, but at the same time in my opinion Harris is a better candidate than Hillary was. It’s a small improvement, but it’s an improvement. (Obviously this depends on your views on various issues, so you could disagree reasonably enough.)

States have their own murder statutes. Federal law would be irrelevant.

If it’s an official act, yes. It’s not hard to tell a story where it becomes an official act. I I think he could still be impeached FWIW.

Because of Trump’s unhinged tactics, we know that top military leaders and (presumably) TLA bigwigs have discussed what they would do in situations like this. What you’re describing is very close to a coup d’etat, and in a situation where they get ordered to perform such an action, do they do it? What was framed as a question of SCOTUS rulings becomes, in reality, the question, “Am I willing to throw this entire democracy away on this President’s absurd orders?” Every high-up in government knows this… They signed up to serve the people, not a dictator.

Of course we have no idea how each person would act, but my point is that pure legality is only one challenge Biden would have to overcome if he wanted to do such a (horrible) thing.

Your argument falls flat, because even interpreted in the best possible light, it only points out that the plaintiff’s lawyer was sleazy, just like Disney’s lawyers are. As if that somehow justifies the behavior.

But everyone already knows that liability is this weird area, where many of the lawyers appear kind of slimy, but even if they are, the outcome matters because the plaintiffs are normal people. That’s not news. And if in fact Disney didn’t have liability because their only connection was land ownership, as you claimed, of course the judge would have checked them from the case. There would have been no need for gamesmanship. There would have been no need to throw their reputation in the toilet. All of which is to say, if we interpret the facts generously to you and Disney, they still look terrible.

Yeah but let’s keep things in perspective. You don’t have to delete Puff Daddy from your iPod, but you probably don’t want to play him at your political rally.

Can you give us more information about the types of scenarios that are not working for you? I hesitate to give any recommendations, because it seems like you’re mixing together a bunch of possible issues, and that could easily lead to misunderstandings on someone’s part.

The first question you ask is how to get other people to speak with you. But then right after that you say that you don’t know how to respond. Which I think means they are speaking to you. So what’s happening here? Is it a situation where you can do back and forth for only two sentences, or perhaps four sentences? Details matter.

And then you say that you’re not a chatterbox, which implies that you wish you were a chatterbox, which is totally different from the opening two questions which seem to be about getting a conversation started and not about keeping it going for minutes or hours on end.

So I guess what I’m wondering is, what scenario do you want to address first? What specific situation are you in where you’re very troubled because you don’t know what to say?

Your second question has a general answer. Most languages use tones, which means tones change in the course of a sentence. If the tone changes for all sentences, then it also changes for questions. I know that’s not what you were trying to ask, but that’s the answer to the question you did ask.

If you need a way to indicate that something is a question, you could do what English does… You could use question words at the beginning of the sentence. You could change word order. You could add extra words… Which is to say, you’re not dependent on intonation, though you could use it if you want to.

After the pandemic I think a lot of teachers changed our lines. The reality is that people have a lot of reasons to be late or absent. It’s the people who are chronically late who have issues, not because the tardy count is important, but because they didn’t learn the material that was covered when they weren’t in class.

All of which is to say, it doesn’t matter if you have a good excuse or a bad excuse. It matters if you’re learning what you’re supposed to learn.

How much effort does it take to pay your staff more? Almost none. You don’t even actually have to do anything except tell your accountant to raise their pay.

Perhaps you are asking a variation of the “genetics vs. environment” question. If so, there are many answers on the subject. Also, money is somewhat attractive to almost everyone, to some degree, for practical reasons.

That’s true but I think irrelevant. People are posting examples of things that used to be bad and have improved. If you want your science fiction framing, just consider the timeline where those things didn’t improve, and you have your answer.

Because so many of us didn’t interpret the question properly at first, maybe the question could have been written more clearly, and it wasn’t and that’s okay, but I hope people looking for answers would be willing to do a little bit of logical reasoning.

Many of us realized that the simplistic labels don’t apply. We have views on issues, some of those views are quite clear and others less so, but you can’t capture our positions in a few words.

Honestly, you just become more protective of your stuff and things you consider yours as you get older.

Isn’t that plainly false? When I was in college, and just after that, I had almost no money, so I was incredibly protective of my stuff and things I considered mine. Later my income went up, so I didn’t need to worry about it as much. Surely many other people have had similar experiences.

You’re bringing up a good point. People who say we’ll become more “conservative” are usually equivocating on the meaning of the word. It’s not like we’re going to wake up tomorrow and decide that global warming is a hoax, or that we should stop eating cats and dogs. Of course we’ll keep doing those things.

What if we change your question. What if we ask about asylum seekers? Does that make it any clearer?

If you spend about 20 minutes online, you will find out that many people are fleeing their home countries because they don’t want to be killed, forced into slave-like conditions, or forced into occupations such as prostitution. Or they want to prevent that from happening to their children.

If you were to ask people in situations like this what country they’d like to go to, in the abstract, they might not say the United States. But their options are limited. So, what country are you suggesting as an alternative? If someone is starting in El Salvador, to pick a random country in Central America, where do you think they should go?