CharonY

I don't the term means what you think it means.

It is a rule on the forums to allow discussion without actually full videos. As such it is requested that at least some of the points are summarized so that one could decide whether the time investment is worthwhile. Does the doc at least address some common criticism. I.e. how is it that apparently all countries are great in keeping this particular secret? Or is it because all aliens end up in the US exclusively? Are there any specific claims that could be discussed? I.e. anything more than e.g. uncorroborated witness accounts? The way OP is set up is quite defensive- if there is really world changing material in there, it should be easy to use them and set them as starting point of discussion. If one needs a full cinematic experience to make a point, then that point is not really strong to begin with.

The examples provided seem to be more the commercial interest in the education industry itself, which I agree is a problem. However, I understood the OP as other industries altering the curricula to keep students willfully uninformed, which may not have been the intention. I also think that the religious aspects are a different mechanism (usually the school board), but those appear to influence the curricula (rather than cash flows) more directly.

At the college level, teaching is somewhat separate from research and thus is not subject to the capricious nature of funding. Also, the nature of tenure allows the educator to determine the specific details of a given course. I.e. even if someone spends a lot of money on admin, they cannot really pressure someone to teach something specific. That does not mean that individual educators could not be bribed, so to speak. However, if made public, it would be quite destructive to their reputation.

Oh, I see your point, I misunderstood your argument. It is a bit worrisome that there is an industry related to food normalizing junk in many cases (in Germany kids generally bring their own lunch, so I do not have personal experience with that). I was thinking more on the curriculum in the class room, though there the obsession with assessment is indeed an issue.

That sounds a bit like conspiracy theory to me. In school much of the basic maths is taught and I have seen that in some areas of the US as well as Germany in highschool the way interests work are taught. The issue with check book balancing and other things is that it s very specific to a particular system. I am also not sure how teachers are supposed to teach networking skills at the high-school level (it is difficult enough in college). Rather than some ominous lobbying I suspect it is simply something that no proper curriculum has been developed yet. And frankly, many students are not going to sue it immediately and forget by the time they need it, anyway. So these are various economic models and while I think they are interesting at the college level, I am not sure how well it works in high school.

So if you read up on folks that study him the consensus seems to be that at least within his context he is considered to be a rational actor. Even the purges and assassinations he ordered could be seen as steps to secure his position. The most positive speculation I have seen is that by playing up Trump as the madman he is able to push through changes in the relationship with SK that he would not be able to do without risking loss of power.

It is. The whole thing went into a completely different direction than I thought it would, when I was younger. I assumed that the next generation would be more savvy technology-wise and be much better in finding and organizing information, since we had much more limited access. As it turned out there seems to be just too much, and it is getting harder to separate signal from noise. Some countries try to implement media awareness in schools. But I guess it will take at least another decade to see whether it will change anything.

Can you imagine how hard it is to teach social sciences under that climate?

Rather unfortunately the vast amount of information, coupled with an equal amount of misinformation makes it rather easy to be misled, even if one is not entirely locked in. The trouble is that few make the effort to try to understand the available info. Of course, it used to be the case that in former times one would rely on experts, but that is now systematically eroded.

But you still decided to build a meta-narrative around false facts? Would you revise it now?

Actually, I'd like to revise my guess. My assumption now is the googled term was "Iran agreement cheating" or something to that effect. This is precisely what I have been critical about (as I see it increasingly with the students nowadays). The tendency of using "first hit that kinda seems to state what I am thinking" together with a lack of effort to understand, contextualize and critically evaluate these kind of hits, provides folks with the feeling that they understand something. Even worse, because they do feel like that, they become more resilient to actually changing their minds and learn the actual context. It sometimes feels like you have to actively make them unlearn things, before you can teach them.

Interestingly, the head of the Iranian-German chamber of commerce stated that they were preparing for that move for a while and had cut off US suppliers and staff.

Where the heck do you get your info. There were quite a few news articles that have investigated that particular talking point. Obama is around 16th in terms of numbers of total executive orders and is ranked even lower if one takes the years in office into account. Perhaps unsurprisingly FDR signed the most orders (ca. 10x the amount of Obama). Among the Presidents from more recent years Reagan, Clinton, Nixon, Carter and Bush signed more orders than Obama.

On top of it he is conveniently forgetting all the other agreements the US is pulling out of and the fact that allies have already stated that they cannot rely on the US anymore, which is a huge deal. You really need to improve your reading and perhaps a basic understanding of the context of the texts you pull. The JCPA was reached in July 2015. Your own link (which you apparently did not read) just describes the clandestine efforts Iran has made to circumvent sanctions. The JCPA specially addresses these issues and pretty much everyone (except the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia) have declared that they are abiding to the conditions. My guess is that you just googled the Joint Plan of Action which was an interim agreement but is not the one under discussion. Also note that pretty much everyone already suspected that Iran was developing capabilities- after all, this was the main reason for the sanctions and negotiations in the first place.

That precisely would make it undependable. Essentially what you are saying is that no one should agree to conditions with the US that go beyond 4 years as the next administration may just throw things out of the window, even if all conditions of the original negotiations are met. That would severely harm any long-term strategies the US may have.

If Trump did pay it off out of pocket in order to avoid a scandal prior to the election, he could have done so. But he would have ahd to report it. The only scenario where it would be not in violation would be if the hush money was totally independent of the the campaign. But various statements by Trump and his people (most recently Giuliani) cast doubt on that scenario. For the investigation her motives are of no relevance. Also it is not necessarily clear how much she benefits from it, especially as she likely incurs significant legal costs. There is also the allegation that she was threatened to keep her mouth shut, so there may be other motives at play, too.

On the one hand it is the usual yuck factor of someone having an affair in the public space, especially if there are multiple allegations. Even worse, Trump seems to trip himself up in multiple lies, which, for any other politician would be an issue. it is also a story of the abuse of power. However, none of these is actual the important bit. In the US campaign contributions are limited to a certain amount (~$2700, IIRC). Now if lawyer paid her off specifically to protect Trump's campaign, it could be seen as an in-kind contribution which violates these laws. The FBI raid was aimed at whether campaign finance as well as wire transfer laws were violated. On top of that recent findings indicate that Cohen had access to funds provided from various sources, including Russian (and note, they were not his clients). So one rather ugly scenario is that these contributions from foreign powers could have been used for the Trump campaign to silence potential salacious stories prior to election. And if that was the case, it would directly be in the sights of the collusion investigation. Whether Daniels and her lawyer profit from that is at this point secondary at best.

Well, competence does not seem to be high on that list of desirable traits. Looking at the new ambassador to Germany or perhaps even worse, the ambassador to the Netherlands, they pretty much fail on what they are supposed to do: diplomatic engagement.

Biotin/strep purification almost always co-purifies some other proteins (I am not sure how precisely your synthesis/pulldown set up is so can't comment on that). To identify what you co-purified I would suggest to simply digest the sample and run it through an MS to identify them (i.e. a shotgun approach). At least that will give you an idea what you are dealing with.

Had the same thought when I read "The sorrows of young Werther".

That is not the only issue, though it is part of source evaluation. The bigger one, I think, is that with social media we get more access to all the weird stuff individuals may (or may not) believe. As such it is possible to find at least one person to say the darndest things. While that is utterly inconsequential as such the sheer emotional impact of such sillyness elevates them above information of actual relevance. It is like celebrity worship on steroids, where inconsequential things are elevated. And then some folks take it seriously and spread it even further. It is utter distraction and we see that they are eventually weaponized by folks with an agenda. It creates an alternate reality where internet memes are treated as real or of relevance. Note that this is not something new, celebrity cults have been around for some time and they have slowly eroding the power of real reporting. Yet, the scope and weaponization seems to have kicked up a notch. It leads to a lot of problems, including utter disruption of public discourse, as we now cannot even agree on the same facts. In addition it also dilutes the conversation when folks who are or could be in position power say stupid things.

So basically hours after the new ambassador to Germany started his position, he made the same demands (as mentioned above) and got rebuked by Germany (obviously). Way to start a relationship...

I suspect that if I speed it up to my liking it will sound like read by Mickey Mouse.

I think a good salesman establishes a great relationship maximizing total yield rather than short-term benefit. A fantastic salesman can eke out a tad more for him/herself while still making you believe that it was to your benefit. Having a reputation as being ruthless does not really help in either scenario. That only works if you have something that you can leverage. And that seems to be the totality of Trump's playbook.