I feel like this is going to be highly variable depending on individual personalities, industries, and even specific employers. The largest employers do tend to be shittier, which probably does a lot of heavy lifting for this statistic.
Most other people who you interact with aren't actually seeing you individually. Instead they are confronting images they've previously developed regarding one or two characteristics they noticed. Don't take what they say too personally.
You got downvoted hard but you’re not actually wrong.
I've noticed several issues like this which are prominent on both the right and the left, where the consensus is obviously wrong, but it's framed as such a deeply partisan issue that too many people refuse to even consider it, and everyone involved looks like ideological zealots for it.
Dude. Power seekers have been doing this shit since ancient times, and you're getting your panties in a twist about people who fight back against them? Anons know this stuff because they've been dealing with it since the dawn of the net.
It's a test of pattern recognition. The difficulties come from trying to apply similar measurements between disparate populations, as the questions themselves tend to rely upon common understandings of the world. You can measure two people from two different cultures with two different tests, but then it's more difficult to claim that the resulting scores are comparable. As long as people understand that it's a rough approximation rather than something akin to video game stats, it's quite useful.
I mean, whatever money value you want to attach, you're still burning plenty of fossil fuels needlessly in it's manufacture, transport and application. Takes up people's time which could potentially be spent on more important things also. Just to spitball a few things that could be gained.
Honestly not a bad idea. Fluoride doesn't actually provide much of any benefit for those who brush their teeth. If anything we ought to be asking why we keep spending money on it now that brushing is entirely normal.
I have a hard time understanding why some people feel the need to make completely obvious lies to try and prove a point? Aren't there enough things which are actually real that you can make arguments from?
Why do we keep paying people like this to enshittify everything?
Because if you refuse to destroy yourself, your family, and the rest of the world, they'll import 3rd worlders who will do it because they're being threatened.
It's quite something how they're trying to force the Internet to work as an artificial version of things we already have, instead of using it for the unique purposes which it can actually fulfill.
No, as a scientist it's idiots trying to lecture me on what science is that are much closer to being an enemy. Waaaay too many people think that quoting someone with an impressive title makes them personally smart.
The scientific method and majority rule are literally incompatible. The entire purpose of the scientific method was to establish a mechanism within society for breaking from majority rule.
I feel like this is going to be highly variable depending on individual personalities, industries, and even specific employers. The largest employers do tend to be shittier, which probably does a lot of heavy lifting for this statistic.