I agree that “RTFM” can be insensitive, and even mean. However, the place it comes from is genuine. It’s nobodies job to tell you exactly what page to look at. If you’ve dug through the docs and still can’t find your answer, make it explicit that you’ve searched the manual, and perhaps be explicit about parts you don’t quite understand.
The whole “RTFM” thing was born from people asking for help when they obviously hadn’t made a proper try themselves first.
I was surprised to see all the nordics abstaining from voting (really, almost all of Europe). I would say that abstaining is a long-shot from voting “no”, especially if you see it as overwhelmingly likely that this will go through without your vote. Voting no is explicitly stating that you’re against the formulation, while voting yes is saying that you’re explicitly for it. Abstaining can indicate that you are (for example) for the intent, but have reservations about the specific wording. In that case, you may not want to stop the declaration from going through, but still want to signal that you have reservations and don’t want to unequivocally support it.
What you’re saying makes no sense… you drawing an equivalence from the existence of an objective reality to some people controlling how that reality is perceived. If anything, you gotten it all flipped around: If reality is subjective (which itself is absurd) then any interpretation of it is equally valid. In that case, anyone is free to believe in their own reality, regardless of the objective facts that prove them wrong. This is basically what’s going on with the MAGA movement: A bunch of people deciding that “reality is what I want it to be”, and acting based on “alternative facts” in complete disregard for the objective, observable, facts around them.
That doesn’t even remotely answer my question though? My impression was that you have some kind of belief that an objective reality doesn’t exist in the first place, and that just doesn’t make any kind of sense to me.
Sure. They just occupied, blockaded and displaced a shitload of the people that now live in Lebanon, because their homes were stolen and their families were killed by Israelis.
I honestly don’t even think I get your position here. Do you somehow not believe that you live in some kind of objective reality together with the rest of us? Do you think this is all just going on in your head? Like… is this some kind of far-out simulation theory thing? Even if we do live in a simulation, that simulation itself must exist in some kind of “real world”.
Please explain
Yeah. When someone comes to your house, shoots your parents, kicks you out, and “settles” in your neighbourhood you should just leave them alone. After all, they would never have done that if you hadn’t… shot rockets at them after they did it??
Or conclude that they were accumulating mass some other way, such as
My bet would be on (1) and/or (2).
I want to fill in on the fact that any journal can end up publishing garbage science if someone is able to dupe the reviewers. This means that no matter what journal you’re reading, you need to read science critically. Sensational claims require sensational evidence, and ideally any work should be 100% reproducible based on the information given in the article.
Depending on the field, you can also often get a good indicator by investigating the authors of the article (checking out the last author first is a good tip). This mostly applies to very recent research where looking at citations is a poor indicator of quality, but where research is often dominated by a few reputable research groups around the world.
For older research, looking at how often the article has been cited, by whom, and why, can give you a very good indicator of the quality of the research. Solid research is often built upon later, while garbage is often refuted and then abandoned.
Of course, none of the above is infallible, but if you read critically to ensure the research makes sense, find that it originates from a reputable group, and see that others have based newer research on it, it’s probably trustworthy. After a while you start building up an impression of the most important names and journals in the field, but that requires reading quite a few articles and noticing which names and journals repeatedly show up.
Awake people can preemptively consent to being woken up however they like. Source: I have actively requested and enjoyed being woken up like this.
Not an edit: I REALLY hate it when other people try to tell me what I can and cannot consent to, so this personally grinds my gears.