Unions often don't represent the beliefs of their members, they usually represent the beliefs and goals of the highest ranking members (and sometimes the people that pay them off, unions are not exempt from corruption). Sometimes the goals of the leaders line up with the goals of the majority, sometimes not. When I was in a union, many items were decided without a vote and no effort was put in to informing new members on how to be represented within the union.
I should also add I don't think unions should not be involved in politics; I think they are used as crutch for democratic representation. The real solution is removing corporate lobbying.
Work is for talking about work, not anything else. A few cordial off-topic comments here and there are fine, but if I have time to discuss politics at work that's time that I could have spent doing my job, and likely and subsequently more of my free time will be taken finishing up projects.
Talking politics == my free time, and I don't want to exchange my leisure hours for talking politics with my co-workers. The entire rest of your life can be talking about politics with your friends, your life shouldn't just be work.
It seems the real problem is too much of people's lives is work and so they think they have no time to talk politics.
I've never met a single person who was not taught about that in school a decade or two ago, from a very conservative area. That is just my experience of course, but I do find it perplexing. Was this many decades ago that it was not taught, or in a specific area?
In my experience at least, the cars I always have issues with are new ones with stock headlights, not modded cars. There are far less modded cars of course, but they always seem to be aimed lower to the road because they are lower cars in general.
This is the problem with hypotheticals, they are never an accurate representation of human psychology just like a ball ignoring air resistance. The two problems are not the same, the human brain KNOWS that pushing a large man onto tracks is not guaranteed to save the people on the trolley, even if a researcher tells them it will. The subconscious recognition of that uncertainty will affect the result. Flipping a switch is a guaranteed outcome, one which cannot be swayed by subconscious thought.
In addition, one could also throw themselves on to the track in the second problem, and if you decide to push the large man on to the track you will also have to weigh the guilt of knowing you may have been able to stop it by sacrificing yourself.
This is just one example, but it shows how such research is flawed. The human brain isn't designed to think in terms of guaranteed outcomes, and a researcher cannot assume that two decision are equal just because they say they are.
There may be concerns that TikTok's algorithms manipulate content to push certain trends and control public opinion so hypothetically there could be value in releasing the algorithms. They could also just as easily lie and leave out important sections. At this point there is no point except for empty posturing because no one will trust anything they release.
This concept that people breath too much when exercising never really made sense to me. I generally do believe it because I have experienced it myself, but why would the body default to a less effective form of breathing? Shouldn't we feel that breathing more steadily through our nose is more natural than trying to take big gulps of air when running?
I believe you are misrepresenting the situation. No one expects corporations to archive and preserve all data, especially not data that they are not associated with.
However, if they create a monopoly on that data they have an obligation to preserve it, especially in the case of a corporation outright aquiring data instead of simply "out competing" for data. And as everyone mentions, of course they are in no way legally obligated to do so, but they are by any reasonable standard ethically obligated.
I do think that the government could and should archive data, but there is currently no system in place for doing so and likely will not be for a long time, if ever. Corporations would simply have to maintain the data that they already have.
For me, setting myself up to be productive and have focus is more impactful than anything I try to do in the moment of trying to be productive. Running or biking a few miles, eating food that makes me feel healthy, not drinking alcohol, and getting good, quality sleep.
Being physically healthy is exponentially more effective than any anti-procrastination tools or techniques I have very tried.
The article says more about the state of tech blogging than it does GPT-3. I kept thinking "great, another one of these, when are they actually going to show me any results?"
We've been conditioned to accept articles where there's a lot of words and paragraphs and paragraphs of buildup, but nothing actually being said.
I should also add I don't think unions should not be involved in politics; I think they are used as crutch for democratic representation. The real solution is removing corporate lobbying.