You complained they never got a "trial." The person you're responding to was quite correctly pointing out that was completely their choice, a disciplinary hearing would allow all sides to present information, but she effectively plead guilty instead (i.e. take the ultimate sanction).
That isn't necessarily true. Even being accused of things can cause significant damage. Also, a huge grant organization had already pulled their funding.
And you need to source your claims. Nobody has reason to believe a word of what you write.
Presumably, it is based on claims by Russian and Syrian authorities. These are not impartial sources, and they delayed access of international inspectors to the site.
OPCW has confirmed use of chemical weapons by Syrian government during the civil war at several separate occasions.
I love it, that direct on-the-ground reporting from the location of the alleged events is "conspiracy-like". I suspect I've rethought my "position" a lot more than you have.
You may want to look into media bias and the One America News Network. I suspect you haven't rethought your position at all, and rather parrot the position you see on the media you consume. Think outside the box.
OMG I had literally never heard of OANN until referred there by some leftists I follow. They hate MSNBC too. You can't even see the box. You actually believe that it's "right wing" to be skeptical of excuses for war. I am a pacifist who is against all USA military violence of the last several decades. This has been a journey for me, since after all I did vote to re-elect Bush the Lesser. Fool me once.
Leave all that aside. The way to contradict an on-the-ground report the bias of which is obvious and unacceptable to you, is to show us an on-the-ground report that contradicts it, the bias of which is more acceptable to you. This has the benefit of being less insulting than shallow assumptions about my media habits, oh and also it has the benefit of making any logical sense whatsoever, in contrast to the three sentences of meaningless pablum we see here.
However, Iraq WMD's were all reported by legitimate news sources at the time. Sometimes in the present, it is never clear as to what may or not be ultimately revealed.
"Bucketing a company as racist" is not the point. The point is that the CEO is the head of, represents, and consequentially speaks for the company. Their personal opinions are reflected in the company's internal and external image. Don't we all have better things to do than argue moot points in nested comment threads? ;)
Is your problem the labeling of the company as racist because the CEO is (presumably) racist, because I really don't see much of a difference between Pewdiepie "being racist" and Pewdiepie doing racist things (like using the n-word ... repeatedly). Is it any better if we say the company is ran by a racist and supports racist employees rather than itself "being racist"?
I don't know Marc DeForest or S2, I've never played HoN, I don't know the history here, and none of this directly matters to me, but my immediate comparison is to James Gunn/Dan Harmon -- both of them said some offensive things years ago, and both of them have apologized. Whether you think it was right for Disney to fire Gunn or for Adult Swim to retain Harmon, there's been atonement for that. Has DeForest atoned for his behavior, or is he continuing to make a lot of money being racist?
> Because the fossil remains were found in deep waters where coral typically can't survive, the researchers suspect that the reef drowned due to rising sea levels leaving behind the newly discovered fossil structure and a small section of living coral, which was able to stay in shallow water.
Not related to the mechanism that is killing the Great Barrier Reef, which has survived sea level changes.
> The psychologists think this has something to do with child psychology and have written 10,000 pages on it.
If you mean that 10000 pages in total in 10-page papers, you have read the literature, and become the hero child psychology needs by writing a paper refuting this.
On the other hand, if you did not read the literature wider, how do you know that you are first to do so, or that the misconception is even shared by other than the authors of those papers. Of course, the implicit assumption in all this is that psychologists are stupid.
Yes. However, systemd did this part certainly right --- the service files and their dependencies are much easier to understand compared to e.g. its counterpart in upstart.
There's nothing strange: GP is giving those as historical examples of this sort of behavior by the industry, not claiming the jury is out today on these topics.
Especially with climate change, there is no doubt the industry has done all it can to cloud the issue in the past, and still continues it. You could add other things (e.g. smoking) to the list.
According to the article, the "punishment" on table was a disciplinatory hearing. The PI decided to resign rather than undergo that.
The situation is not materially worse than someone getting fired for a reason, and I don't see many stories on HN about that.