As the baseline comparison of inflation rate to all other examples of "year-over-year" is pretty obviously skewed by circumstances, it would be potentially less misleading to the general public to say something contextual like "2021-over-2020" than "year-over-year".
By simply telling people the same thing several times, almost literally word-for-word, people will go from blank stares almost miraculously to collaborating with and understanding the simplest explanations. Or else.
That's correct. It's a simple propaganda tactic but telling someone the same thing several times, almost literally word-for-word the same, works. People will start to show understanding.
I think you missed the sarcasm here. techbio's point is that by repeating something over and over, you aren't necessarily convincing people, you're just making it clear that non-belief or arguing with you about it is a dead end and they have to comply. Then you mistake their parroting your own words back at you for 'understanding'.
If I may, I would like to tell you a couple of anecdotes from a colleague of mine and myself, which lead me to notice what is going on (and made fun of up there).
That former colleague of mine, being student, once had to make presentation for Sociopsychology (some complex area outside of tech student typical field of expertise) class and he has two days to do so - he was that lazy. And all he got for his work were two dictionaries, one for Psychology and another for Sociology and nothing else. Frustrated, he repeatedly read dictionaries' definitions of keywords from the theme of his presentation, for three hours straight, as he told me. At the end of that third hour he started to somehow connect these two things together and started to look for other things that he felt are connected to the theme. Next day he had quite solid presentation sprouted from definitions from the dictionaries and common sense and knowledge. He got hard 5 for his work (top score).
I myself experience something like that when I tried to understand video compression standard - intermittently reading just glossary for several days brought me enough understanding that actual text of the standard just filled some of the not quite important gaps.
Repeating the same thing allows my vis-a-vis to connect dots he or she missed the first time, if the answer is clear misunderstanding. It allows him or her to link what I am trying to convey to his or her experience - with life, code base, user experience, etc.
And, of course, repeating not quite sensible things that cannot be ruled outright as nonsense is a propaganda tactic - and this make regular people to fall to a propaganda as they manage to connect dots that were missing.
I dont dispute that repetition does work to ingrain information. All educators, marketers, and propagandists know that.
But changing a deeply held belief, one tied to a person’s identity, is different than teaching a new concept or selling a product a shopper is reluctant to buy. It is more closely tied to political propaganda, but as Hitler proved with the Big Lie, it can change minds there as well.
I still prefer deep canvassing. It might not be a good fit for Russia, but in many places, it’s a healthy and mutually beneficial process… assuming of course the mind you are trying to change would actually benefit from the change, e.g., a dialogue that opens up a qanoner to the possibly that they have been duped.
The point is, the infection rates, etc. are not comparable. Taken in aggragate and on a long enough time line just about anything can look dangerous. Sans, evidently, preventable diseases. Then we sweep those aside, even before Covid.
Again, all that's being suggested is more transparency and honesty, and less hyperbole and statistical fueled manipulation. That is all.
If something is so obvious as to need no explanation, it just might be worth understanding what about it is causal. What can be done given the predisposition to obesity in a time of abundant necessities? It seems your conclusion is to let it go to the joint processes of sin and natural selection, which would tend to call into question your moral certainty.
EDIT: Another post today titled "Causal Information Affects Decisions" seems relevant here:
I don't care about the moral aspect, I just thought it was established that obesity causes the body to be less able to handle ~any kind of stress. Is that actually incorrect?
Like, my confusion is that I didn't think we needed to go look for a new mechanism unique to Covid here.
Yes but the point is your point is added onto buy the possibility (likliyhood given the study) that being fat has a particular mechanism for it being worse than all the other co-morbidities we're talking about. That's what the paper is studying!
Since GP refers to ubiquitous systemic issues, not xenophobia, not technological ventures, "ships to trade" seems to be a red herring. Also worth noting: "congratulations" reads more than a bit disingenuously.
These types of foods are more tasty and snackable than following the money and/or turning the justifiable complaints of overworked healthcare professionals to effect systematic prevention.
If you don't then solve it, you burned $100,000 in good will and a year of your life. Better not to even suggest it, there's little enough going around as is.
Sure it gets more people to vote, but for whom, and how are the benefits distributed, and by whom?
Not proof, and I may not like the inevitable conclusion, but this would be immediately corrupted by the democracy it intends to improve, if not sooner.
I had to Google ubiquitin to verify that this wasn't a dryly elaborate reddit-surprise thread. It is indeed a well-named compound, ubiquitous among eukaryotes, and even if "boc" and "fmoc" are basically just fizz and buzz to me, it sure sounds like you know what you're doing.
