![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/44bf11eb-4336-40eb-9778-e96fc5223124.png)
No. I also checked to see if I refused any cookies too and I didn’t
No. I also checked to see if I refused any cookies too and I didn’t
I haven’t noticed it being small. Any app recommendations?
i don’t think the nukes are where the drills take place, that would be quite stupid
Yeah, a contributing factor for sure. Just like whatever company produced the pencils used by Einstein was a contributing factor to the theory of relativity. Not a sole factor. No, not a sole factor but a factor. Yes
you’re attributing a state of fact to a cause that has nothing to do with it. I’m not nitpicking, i’m pointing out a fallacy: the effect doesn’t prove the cause, it only works the other way around
what relevance would that have over the time span discussed here?
And no, whatever you read about agile, the development speed comes down to people not to procedure. That’s true even if we disregard the fact that very few companies claiming to use agile actually understand what agile is
The project management approach does not dictate the feature priority. The business dictates the priority. Project management is just a tool
I disagree, this has nothing to do with software development models, It’s all about purpose. If your website must start making money quickly, then you can be sure it will have a payment model regardless of how things are developed. Social media business (and others) translated user growth into investment models: you give us this much money at this “completely made up valuation” and we’ll use it to grow our user-base by this much.
This was possible because interest rates have been very low for the most of the 2010s. This meant that investors would be losing money if they held on to it so they just threw it at “the new tech” hoping something would stick. In the past few years, inflation has driven the interest rates very high and it means that money is not cheap anymore so all these businesses now have to transition to a money making model. That’s all.
haven’t all UI changes in most product made things worse lately? The “2010s generation” of software solutions has been growing up on investment rather than profit for a long time and we’ve experienced a weird decade in which getting users was more important than getting money from them. Now we’re seeing the other side in which squeezing profit form each user is more important than retention. All solutions are getting crappier because they not meant evolved for their intended purpose anymore.
let me put it this way: if you have money, time can be whatever you want it to be
the bible also contains accounts of god helping his people conquer land and uproot the residing population from it. I wouldn’t use it as a moral reference.
In fact, let’s be honest: there is no point in quoting any religious text, regardless of religion, when discussing morality. These texts are horribly dated and should be considered as historically interesting, but nothing more.
What data though? This article doesn’t contain data - that’s my issue. You’re right, it’s not asking fishermen if they think we should eat fish. It’s asking nutritionists if they like fish.
No. I’m saying that “77% of Top …etc” is a stupid way of conveying the importance of the information.
why does anyone care what experts think?!
That’s not what I said at all, is it? I’m simply pointing out that we’re reacting to a poorly written article which plays on our emotional side instead of discussing the actual facts. Yes, scientists doing research in an area believe that their research is going to confirm their hypothesis. That’s how research works. In this case, I’m surprised it’s not 100% to be honest.
The whole premise of the article is stupid. Not global warming, not the fact that we’re heading towards more than 2.5C global warming by 2100, not the people answering the questions. What’s stupid is the idea of “conducting an opinion poll” in that specific group.
I’m in no way a climate change denier and I too believe that the current path leads us there. However, isn’t it normal for 80% of climate scientist actively researching this to think this way? Would they not spend their efforts somewhere else if they would think this isn’t happening?
A survey among mathematicians showed that 80% consider that mathematics has the answer they’re looking for.
We need to discuss hard data and proper research, not surveys.
You’re being hypocritical when you claim that McLaren had an easy choice in refusing Trump’s access when you (as per your claim) know full well how the sport is organized.
you are taking a hypocritical position though. As per your claims, you’re well aware of FIA and Liberty Media’ corruption and money grabbing schemes, but somehow you draw the line at a perfectly innocent event in which McLaren has landed. This is hypocritical
i’m sure you’d do that individually, but not in an official capacity. This comparison is very funny, F1 used to race in Sochi and Putin himself handed over the trophies. This only stopped when international sanctions were placed on Rusia. There are none on Trump so no, an F1 team cannot cause an international incident by itself. Stop pretending you don’t understand this
ISIS? Hamas? any number of such organizations would happily use some mass murdering weapons if given access to them. Putin has shown that he doesn’t care about what happens to russian citizens if he can win something out of their suffering so empowering terrorist organizations to harm people, even russians, is not a big price to pay to make his point