And people here keep getting ruder and ruder for no reason. It’s not like I have any actual authority to make this happen.

I mean, you could have just said “I don’t like that idea because I’m not creative or innovative enough to contribute something of value that would be cited by others, so that would have prevented me for padding my resume with the stuff that I was able to produce.” That would have been much more courteous.

The woman didn’t sign a EULA with the vendor.

I would say your three reqs are met.

Sue the software company for defamation.

Just being “quotable” isn’t going to get you cited (and thus paid). Your work has to be worth being quoted.

Right now, the vast vast majority of published academic work is absolute garbage that no one will ever care about. Even most of the people writing and publishing the garbage barely care about their own garbage. It’s just cranking gears to pad their resumes.

If we rewarded people for high value work, and incentivised cranking out garbage, then we would get more high value work.

And how will has that really worked?

Wouldn’t publishing a lot of quotation worthy work be better than publishing a lot of work that isn’t quotation worthy?

Right. And shouldn’t those people be compensated for their work?

Under my system, a reseacher would be incentivised to sue the publisher claiming their research should have been cited. If anything it would create “research trolls”.

However, a researcher could purchase professional insurance that would handle those claims.

Can’t or won’t?

At the end of 7 years the car is fully depreciated. Optimistically it’s going to be worth 15-20% of the original value minus any necessary repairs. Legitimately, it could be worth less than zero.

Meanwhile, in that same time, you could have had 3 new cars with lower payments less maintenance issues.

No, they are the not-a-bank’s not-a-banks.

That’s why you should only bank at banks and not bank at not-a-banks.

I mean, I would rather lease than paying a 7 year note on a car.

That’s crazy. The car legitimately might not last that long.

Guys, just lease the damn car.

Just to be clear, my comment was not intended to withstand scrutiny.

They have to be targeted. They wouldn’t shut the whole facility down if the bomb landed in the remote employee parking lot.

But I don’t see that it’s likely that Iran wouldn’t target their strikes. They clearly have the capability. Hit the targets that maximize disruption.

The drones would not likely need to take out the whole facility. If the drones were particularly targeted, which they almost certainly were, then I can imagine they could take out a particular critical piece of infrastructure that could cause significant disruption.

But yeah, 20% is a lot for sure.

Iran just did more to slow global warming than Just Stop Oil.

But while you should focus on the no. 1 stuff, you are far too easily distracted by the no. 2 stuff.

The Scouts news this weekend is a perfect example. Functionally nothing changed in the program, but they are able to make you go insane like a puppet.

Yes, I do think they are dropping this issue. I think Hegseth realized that he wasn’t going to get the traction on this he wanted so he agreed a nothing burger and declared victory for himself.

I’m not ignoring the concerns of the Trans youth, it’s just that the “demands” won’t actually change them. The BSA has already issued a statement that trans youth are still welcome in scouting. No one is going to be checking anyone’s birth certificates. Literally nothing changed.

Get a grip.