I called into a video conference this week. There were attendees from multiple sites. During the first presentation, which was rather long, the camera feed remained stuck on one of the sites. Inspection showed the attendees were on mute, chatting or working on other projects. Not very polite for presenter, but clear for all to see. So let this be a warning.
The guy who dropped the homeless man who sucker punched two elderly women is called a Good Samaritan in this article. Why? Because he immediately ran up and attacked the perpetrator. Full marks for dropping the perp, but ‘Good Samaritan’ is not quite the analogy from the Gospel (St. Luke, I think).
Or so I have learned from the estimable popehat.com. Non-specific complaints, lack of factual arguments, threats, hedge wording (“if you and your colleagues do not stop with the hit pieces that are full of lies and defamatory statements” – ie, presumably no complaint with hit pieces that are true). I sense bluff by Michael Avenatti.
where Letita Chai will be invited to present her dissertation. Ms Chai is the Cornell student who presented her thesis in her underwear. Big temptation for job interviewers, too.
The accusation is from former First Lady Michelle Obama. There is thinking and the correct thinking (my emphasis).
“Former first lady Michelle Obama said Saturday that she was “concerned about us as women and how we think” in the wake of Donald Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election.
Obama was the keynote speaker at the United State of Women Summit in Los Angeles, where she was joined on stage by “Black-ish” star Tracee Ellis Ross.
“When the most qualified person running was a woman, and look what we did instead, I mean that says something about where we are,” said Obama in reference to the election, in which 41 percent of all women — and 52 percent of white women — pulled the lever for Trump.”
Fake non-apology is next.
“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” Now in play in the comments at Andrew Gelman’s website where he discusses proposed EPA rules on open data. Some commenters are upset. “It also puts many of us in the position of arguing against open data policies in order to support better policy-making. As I said, it is unfortunate that this issue has been set up this way. I’d prefer to support open data AND support EPA research based on the best data they have available, even if it cannot be publicly released.” [my emphasis]