A person's perception is highly informed by how well or poorly they understand the subject or situation in question.

Let's say you got stood up by a first date because they got hit by a car on their way to you. Your perception of them is going to vary wildly depending on whether or not you know the facts behind why they didn't show up.

Similarly, knowing how you actually fit into things at your job - i.e. your importance to your working group, the company, it's customers, society itself, allows you to have a more accurate set of facts to base your perception on.

So yes, the truth matters.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this.

People have all sorts of beliefs that can qualitatively be proven as right or wrong. For example, all the wingnuts who believe that the COVID vaccine has trackers from Microsoft. Their beliefs are 100% bereft of reality.

Now, can they go ahead and act on those mistaken beliefs? Sure. But that doesn't make their beliefs correct in any way.

While I get that this is an article geared to laymen/the general public, I do think we should be holding science communication to a higher standard.

I agree with you 100%.

It's worth pointing out that feeling like you work in a pointless, meaningless job doesn't necessarily make it true. This paper is solely about people's perceptions, not facts.

A light breeze is enough for Google to lock accounts, and they make it nearly impossible to re-access. And they have no reliable customer service you can call or email.

But the final straw for me was when they started this bullshit of saying "tell me your phone number so we can make sure it's you". They never had my number in the first place, so it was clear that this was pure bullshit of them trying to associate real world identities with their accounts.

After that, I said "fuck em", changed to other providers, and haven't look back since.

Go ahead and delete my accounts - your service is pure garbage anyway.

You won't find that level of detail in typical articles, because they are intended for the general public and are intended to be an overview that a layman can comprehend.

However, the paper itself, which the article links to, has more detail including deformation testing.

Believe it or not, you're the one being racist now - by painting all of the US and all Americans with the same brush.

You don't hear about all the people that are perfectly fine folks and all the places that aren't insane because that makes boring news. So the only news you hear about are the whackjobs and bottom-feeders like this.

Don't make the same mistake of judging an entire country by a partial set of facts because that puts your feet on the first steps of the same path the people in this article walked.

I understand what you're saying completely. I'm not even saying that I disagree with you - to be honest, I'm not quite sure what to think about this circumstance.

However, I will say that there are limits to being lax on someone just because they are a child. This was a serious offense that could have cost multiple people their lives and a serious response is justifiably warranted.

If we were talking about shoplifting, sure. This case is more serious, however, and I'm not sure the same approach would be taken under the circumstances.

Your issue is that she's still there? The article implies that this only happened yesterday, so she's only been there for 1 day. That's not unreasonable for a felony.

This entire topic is about shortening the work week without any loss in pay.

Have you not been reading articles on this topic? Yes, we are talking about a 32 hour work week with no loss in pay.

Changes have to be made in the pay scale first, and then we can remove tipping...

I understand what you're saying, but that's just not how things work. As long as tipping is the norm, that pay scale will never change.

The only way it will change is if tipping stops and restaurants find themselves with no staff because they can no longer hire anyone for $2/hour.

Sometimes, communal sacrifice is the only way to get bad practices to change. I agree with you that it hurts, but the simple fact is that restaurants will not stop underpaying staff unless they are forced to.

And attempts to put this into law was fought by the servers themselves because enough of them make more money off of tips than they would from a straight salary.

So it's just not going to happen unless society forces their hand by saying "no, this is ridiculous" and stops paying extra for everything.

It shows 5 if you scan w14.monkrus.ws.

And this is Quttera's analysis here:
https://quttera.com/detailedreport/w14.monkrus.ws

Whether there is a real problem or not, it might be something the monkrus admins want to look into in order to address it.

But if anyone else has a better understanding of what's going on with their site, I'd love to hear it and it's probably good information for the rest of this sub.

The two authors and their editor need to go back to school and re-learn what an order of magnitude is.

JFC, the answer to your question is literally the first sentence of the article. It would have taken you less time to read it then to post your question.

For the last month or two, my AV blocks their site because it detected a ScrInject.B trojan.

And yes, it's the correct site (monkrus.ws).

The size of a person's household or whether they live in the city are not the sole factors that go into a decision on what car to purchase.

A person can live alone but regularly car pool with coworkers, get together with multiple friends, go on day trips with family, or make extra income by driving for Uber (larger vehicles can charge more). Heck, sometimes just needing extra leg or head room rules out most regular sedans and makes an SUV more comfortable.

In addition, if a person's activities require a lot of cargo capacity, that essentially leaves you with either an SUV or a pickup as the primary options. So whether it's for luggage, buying stock for a family store, etc... that could be another reason for purchasing an SUV.

Sometimes, people feel that having a higher view of the road is safer because they can see more of what's ahead of them.

So don't fall prey to judging people as only needing an SUV if they have a large household or live in rural areas. It's a lot more involved than that.

Not that enriched if you're trying to insult people with "OK, Boomer".

That's an excellent point and very true.