> I can assure you that when I was young, I did not listen to older people's advice and I tried to do everything my own way.
Hot take: This reads like a person who was difficult to work with.
Senior people have responsibility, therefore in a business situation they have authority. Junior people who think they know it all don't like this. If there's a disagreement between a senior person and a junior person about something, they should, of course, listen to each other respectfully. If that's not happening, then one of them is not being a good employee. But if they are, then the supervisor makes the final call.
"In February the BBC apologised over "serious flaws" in the making of the programme about children's lives in Gaza, after it was revealed its 13-year-old narrator was the son of a Hamas minister."
There was no correction on what was actually said though. It's a terrible state of affairs when who someone is related to, is of more concern than the horrific and constant terrors they and other children have had inflicted upon them by Israel for nearly 2 years.
There were some fairly questionable translations, like translating "Yahud" (Jews) to "Israel" or "Israeli forces". To me that's more of a red flag than any Hamas affiliation.
agree. Typical propaganda approach, harp on some minor point to change the discussion. Some say Neta created Hamas to weaken another organization at the time. The whole history of what's been happening there is very complicated and nuanced. The motto of their intel org reads, "by way of deception, though shalt do war" so it's not surprising that truth seems artificially scarce.
Because they couldn't independently verify or revise, and Israel can't be trusted either. It's ridiculous how so many BBC articles are like "source: Hamas." This documentary reveal wasn't even surprising, I thought it went without saying.
I used to be analyst in a related area. I was impressed by the difference in the treatment of commercial databases (e.g. LexisNexis) and government databases that had data that was controlled under laws.
As far as the commercial databases were concerned, I don't think we were told much more than this costs money, so don't waste searches.
But as for things like criminal history searches ("RAP sheets") we had training that stressed the illegality of looking up anyone without a justifiable legal reason. We were told to log the reason for doing every search. The training materials included news clippings about former police officers who were in prison for invalid use of the criminal history database. Once a year we were audited and asked to justify a selection of lookups we had done.
All systems are faillible and can be misused by bad actors. All systems are subject to cost-benefit analysis.
But I think it's valid that we have a system of law enforcement, that it be able, under appropriate circumstances and laws and checks and balances, to gain information that is sensitive and not publicly available.
From someone who has dabbled in information theory (the real one), I am just as confused as you.
What I have observed in the past decade is that calling things “information theory of something” makes it somehow more palatable for a broader audience.
One published study does not equal scientific truth!
There's a more temperate article in the New York Times, that's worth reading analytically. Look at the carefully-phrased responses of other scientists. Some of them appear to be struggling to say something polite about the study. "Interesting," is word used both by victims of amateur chefs and fellow scientists reading a new article when confronted by something they're not sure about swallowing.
Alex Hall, the director of the Center for Climate Science at the University of California, Los Angeles:
"the findings did not signal to him that any collapse of that ocean system might be imminent"
"we don’t really know the reaction we’ll cause"
Andrew Pershing, director of climate science at Climate Central:
"The work is fascinating"
"The big challenge is, what do we do with that information?"
Susan Lozier, a physical oceanographer and dean at the College of Sciences at Georgia Tech:
She also called Dr. Boers’ study “interesting,” but said she wasn’t convinced that the findings showed that circulation in that ocean system is slowing.
Hot take: This reads like a person who was difficult to work with.
Senior people have responsibility, therefore in a business situation they have authority. Junior people who think they know it all don't like this. If there's a disagreement between a senior person and a junior person about something, they should, of course, listen to each other respectfully. If that's not happening, then one of them is not being a good employee. But if they are, then the supervisor makes the final call.