Modern cable systems are more akin to satellite broadcast systems than they are to the terrestrial broadcast systems of yore.
There's an order of magnitude more content on cable these days. When you tune a channel now, instead of simply tuning to a frequency and demodulating the signal, content is spread across many frequencies, each of which carries a QAM-modulated MPEG transport stream that carries many programs. It takes longer to tune QAM than baseband analog or even PSK. So the physical frequency change takes longer than it used to do. Once frequency is tuned, decoder may need to check provisioning in order to be able to decrypt whatever program you've requested, so that adds to the time it takes.
An informative look into Amtrak's genesis and a well-reasoned argument for the establishment of national passenger rail from a policy perspective. No discussion of rail from an energy-use standpoint, though.
I feel like Wikipedia is doing a pretty solid job of holding onto that dream: no shouty content, pure information that's maintained by those who are interested in it, and a fairly well outfitted battalion of bots that fend off adversarial edits
Wikipedia is pretty good for its specific purpose but it’s far from the promise of the open web. Wikipedia has a number of authoritarian moderators who will revert people’s changes for opaque and arbitrary reasons.
Maybe if you took all wikis as a collective then you could get something a bit closer. There’s still the matter of finding them so it’s not ideal. Then there’s the matter of ads. Wikipedia doesn’t have them but other wikis are rife with them.
If we take the meaning of a "crinkle crankle structure" to be something like an "economically self-supporting structure", then it's justifiable by definition. The question then becomes: What, in the realm of software engineering, fits this description?
If crinkle-crankle walls protect fruit, then I suppose the analogous software might run on some Apple device that's unnecessarily expensive, technically lagging, and probably beautiful. Hard to justify economically, but still attractive.
Is your question asking about how to understand who's visiting your site and what their motivations are without engaging in creepy, dragnet-style tracking?
We want to know which campaigns (and thus landing pages) are converting well, and which are not. So that we can invest in user acquisition in an effective manner.
Apart from that, not much else. We do not have an advertising model so we don't need intimate details of our users and visitors.
You don't need to collect everything; can just use unique landing pages, log a hit, and for signup include a specific campaign key (like "hn-spam-upvoted-190530") in the <form> and you more or less get a funnel without massive dragnets.
What sort of men? Cisgender men? Heterosexual men? Arabic men?
There's no such thing as a man -- "man" an abstract concept that needs definition before any useful statement can be made about people in that category.
"The requirement for participation [in this study] was having a heterosexual orientation and a former romantic relationship that had lasted at least 4 months."
You are essentially arguing that all gender studies are useless because there is parity among individuals in each gender. It's true there is parity, but the scientific division between male and female is very clear. It seems VERY useful to study the differences. To throw them away because all men and women aren't identical feels to me like a terribly short sighted perspective.
That's besides my point. My reply was directed at OP's statement. Just crack open Webster's and pick the definition that fits in the context. We don't need to make English any harder.
From a sociological standpoint: Because you're doing bad social science. When you're talking about values/cultures, those things are inherently rooted in a culture. Saying "all men X" is almost entirely useless because there's almost always going to be a culture or subculture that makes it "most men" instead.
This specific article was based off a study conducted in Austria with mean ages of men/women involved in their 20s. IDK what this says about world cultures as a whole, or even the culture of Austria as a whole. I would assume that the possibility of people late stages of life might have different feelings on the matter exists and they don't mention it as a variable they accounted for. Never mind all the other variables that one could suggest might affect this matter that aren't specifically mentioned in the abstract. And, in fact, they mention that this paper they're presenting is the first to really delve into the subject of ex-partner feelings, so their results might be completely disproved as more people look into the matter.
Thanks for explaining in more detail. This is not my area of expertise at all. Would it not be possible to draw strong conclusions about “men’s” behavior broadly in the same way we do for male Chimpanzees for example?
Dear burner troll: What? There's nothing about my points that this study is not done independent of cultural influences that implies a blank slate or lack there of. It's entirely tangential at best. Cultures exist. We know this. They're observable and have observable differences. To say "men" implies "all men regardless of cultural and age factors which we didn't control for in any way in our experimentation".
There can be both: inherent differences in biology that influence behavior AND cultural difference that influence behavior, and pointing out that a study doesn't control for one or the other doesn't imply the belief or non-belief in it.
doctor_m's question is legitimate though. "Men" is a very large group (obviously), and subgroups may have very different behaviors on this topic; hence asking for "which men?" (although they badly phrased it)
And it's worth noting that the study only focus on heterosexual people, so a more accurate title would be "Heterosexual men hold more positive attitudes towards ex-partners than heterosexual women do"
> And it's worth noting that the study only focus on heterosexual people, so a more accurate title would be "Heterosexual men hold more positive attitudes towards ex-partners than heterosexual women do"
At some point you're just going to have to read the paper if you want full accuracy.
But the articles title just says "men" and "women" not "straight/heterosexual men/women". Seems like a more accurate title would include the fact since you're talking about people in relation to their sexual partners.
Hackernews: this title is clickbait and offends me!
Also Hackernews: Why would you expect this article's title to explain what it's about?!
My point: Unclear title is unclear and misleading, and striving for clarity of language isn't a bad thing. If you're going to talk about science, be more clear or expect to be called out on your bad titles.
