I've never made a decision on few points of information, often I know researchers or their output for years before we interact, so it makes sense I don't have to care what language they use as this is a low correlation signal on their output.

My background in academia colors me but the level of office politics some describe in the private sector genuinely sounds like a middle school drama club at times. I've personally witnessed incredibly talented individuals at FAANG companies get the boot for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with their competence. Think messy personal dynamics, bosses having affairs with coworkers aiming for a position.

It makes me wonder about this ingrained necessity for pretense and obfuscation in private sector communication. Why the need to constantly play these games as if acknowledging reality is somehow detrimental? In academia, while not devoid of its own issues, the selection process for students at least attempts to prioritize merit and potential. The idea that some of the most brilliant minds I've encountered might be filtered out by arbitrary corporate "standards," while incapable but politically savvy individuals thrive, seems counterproductive.

Do you think this is helping you select better people?

I think this is selecting for fakers and cheaters.

It's undisputable he did badly in university and could not hold himself in academia because of this metric.

https://ethz.ch/en/news-and-events/eth-news/news/2021/07/fro...

"We do allow allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation."

The carve out also focuses only on LGBT people. If calling someone abnormal and mentally ill can reasonably be considered insulting then according to this TOS you can't say it to someone with ADHD but you can say it to a gay person.

The TOS is not about enforcing truthfulness, it is about promoting good behaviour. For example according to this TOS you cannot call someone stupid if they have limited intellectual capacity. It doesn't matter if it's true or not because that's not the purpose of the TOS. I can't see any reason for a carve out specifically for LGBT people that allows this sort of technically justifiable insulting language when there is no such carve out for other groups.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41535003

Points: 23

# Comments: 3

Look at her most famous quotes for a snippet:

https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/874602.Ursula_K_Le_G...

I also didn't claim Journalists and Intelligence Agencies are bearers of truth but it stands that to study something like Lab Leak or Havana Syndrome is a question in the realm of investigation, not science. No?

Peter is risking criminal consequences based on evidence gathered by investigation, not the scientific process. Also not because of purposefully misleading research but dangerous research and lies while testifying, which isn't fraudulent science.

Subsequent evidence debunked that "post-mortem", as another user posted.

We've seen, with evidence, China pressure research groups and Nature into calling the lab leak hypothesis a conspiracy theory. Like "fake news", "conspiracy theory" is now actively used by China as a way to shut down evidence.

From subpoenaed communications we even know that certain figures who publicly denounced the lab-leak theory as a conspiracy, privately believed the theory was likely.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-covid-lab-leak-deception-an...

Government covert operations are not the kind of phenomenon science can properly study because it's not reproducible and data is not open. It's the realm of investigative journalism and intelligence.

Obsessing over silly details like these can be deceptively tempting procrastination.

Didn't claim it wasn't antisemitic, it is, a lot!

So things that are woke get called goyslop (as opposed to Jewish as you imply).

It's Darwinism at play not an attempt at science.

Sometimes it is.

>you're probably being market pitched and what you see is fiction

Sometimes you are being market pitched.

It's all Steve Jobs did yet he's the classic example of good Power Point presentations.