Because historically it’s been shown that they are weaker players they were excluded, creating the illusion that they were weaker players

I must be missing some context because I have absolutely no idea what you’re on about.

Who wouldn’t tell who what and why does that matter?

People who spend 2 years on the ISS are generally very well paid for it. They’re not going to have any trouble covering their mortgage.

That is entirely different from having your ability to earn a living taken away by the state even while legally presumed innocent.

However, given the current system, it seems odd to me that they give credit (if we can call it that) for pretrial detention based on detaining the person attempting to flee.

The sentence is based on the crimes they were convicted of, including any aggravating factors. In this case it was a plea deal, so some charges were dropped in exchange for a guilty plea to the remainder.

Time spent in prison on remand is counted towards any eventual custodial sentence because anything else would be outrageously unfair. Not least because the court system grinds so slow, many are held on remand for longer than any eventual sentence (assuming they’re convicted at all).

Because the 'splaining phenomenon is about perceived but unearned superiority which leads the 'splainer to 'splain to someone who knows a great deal more than they do and, crucially, someone who the 'splainer ought to realise knows more than they do but doesn’t because of the illusion created by the society they live in.

I’d have added “(born) middle-class” because that’s an important part of it too.

It fucks your whole life up even if you’re eventually found innocent.

I’m not a fan of carceral solutions but this is not something only abolitionists should care about. Remand (and also, short prison sentences) are viciously unfair, causing disproportionate harm which can never be compensated for.

That’s why you need the appendices, so that you can check the details behind what is in the paper.

Journals have word limits, due to the restrictions of print, and because a 200 page paper is too much for most readers. But some of them will need some or all of those 200 pages (which is usually a shed load of tables and figures, not much text apart from protocols etc).

The quality of the research, and the way it was written up, cannot be assessed by those readers unless all the information is published. And the research cannot be implemented in practice unless it is described in full. There are thousands of papers out there that test a new treatment but don’t give enough detail about the treatment for anyone else to deliver it. Or develop a new measurement scale but don’t publish the scale. Or use a psychometric instrument but don’t publish the instrument. This research is largely useless (especially if the details were never archived properly and there’s no one still about who knows how to fill the gaps).

We don’t (or should not) publish papers for CV points. We publish them so that other researchers know what research has been done and how to build on it. These days we don’t just publish all the summary tables and all the analyses, we ideally make the data available too. Not because we expect every reader to want to reanalyse it but because we know some of them will need to.

As it should be. There’s no point doing research if you don’t publish all the relevant information. Now that journals are electronic, you can and there’s no excuse not to.

If you don’t know why the appendix exists, try reading it.

A very small measure of justice. I hope this brings a measure of closure for the victims, and encourages thousands more to come forward. This was not a one off and these are not the only police perpetrators.

Who is “they”? Who is the second “they”? Who is the we in “our”? What is the question?

Austerity for who? It’s been non-stop austerity for ordinary people since the 2008 crash, and the people who caused the crash have been making out like bandits.

It’s the right time to tax the rich.

See a doctor.

But it might be worth buying a machine to check your blood pressure (they’re not terribly expensive) because it’s hard to capture it in the doctor’s office. Take a measurement or three before you feel light-headed, keep the cuff on and take more measurements when you start to feel light-headed. Keep a record of the measurements (and how you were feeling at the time) to help your doctor rule blood pressure in or out as a cause.

There obviously is a source so could you link to it?

They did it with Trump in 2016. That and a few more examples here.

That’s a fantastically efficient way to destroy their business. There’s no way to get honest reviews of employers from employees who know their identities will be exposed whether they consent or not. Doesn’t even matter if the review is after leaving that job, future employers can go nosing too.

Absolute techbro-brane gold.

Yeah, that’s not happening more than in the past either

Young adults today are less likely to drink than young adults two decades ago – but older adults are more likely to do so, according to Gallup. The share of adults ages 18 to 34 who say they ever drink dropped from 72% in 2001-03 to 62% in 2021-23. (Gallup looked at the data in three-year time periods to allow for reliable age-group analysis.).

The one sense this generation of parents is more like high school kids is their earnings in relation to housing costs. Parents are working longer hours because they have no damn choice.

That is at least consistent with the known facts. But it’s still a hell of a leap to divine all that from one high school fight which turned out uglier than usual.

There’s no point repeating it. This kind of study is hopeless for answering this sort of question. People go on this kind of diet because they’re concerned about their health, often their weight and general cardiovascular health. It’s not surprising that they’re more likely to die of things related to their reason for going on the diet in the first place.

It’s not quite as starkly obvious as “people who choose to jump out of planes are more likely to die in a parachute accident” but it’s close.

Where does the article say the problem started with AI? It doesn’t even mention LLMs, just the explosion in grifter apps since it became easier to produce a grifter app.

If you read the article, you did not read it properly.

Parental age has been steadily increasing for decades, it can’t be an explanation for things appearing to have got worse recently. What’s your reasoning?

Have you got a source for that? The article is pretty clearly stating that previous attempts to ban it were unsuccessful. And this suggests there is no ban even though they allow small exceptions for the countries listed as having a ban.