And people here keep getting ruder and ruder for no reason. It’s not like I have any actual authority to make this happen.

I mean, you could have just said “I don’t like that idea because I’m not creative or innovative enough to contribute something of value that would be cited by others, so that would have prevented me for padding my resume with the stuff that I was able to produce.” That would have been much more courteous.

The woman didn’t sign a EULA with the vendor.

I would say your three reqs are met.

Sue the software company for defamation.

Just being “quotable” isn’t going to get you cited (and thus paid). Your work has to be worth being quoted.

Right now, the vast vast majority of published academic work is absolute garbage that no one will ever care about. Even most of the people writing and publishing the garbage barely care about their own garbage. It’s just cranking gears to pad their resumes.

If we rewarded people for high value work, and incentivised cranking out garbage, then we would get more high value work.

And how will has that really worked?

Wouldn’t publishing a lot of quotation worthy work be better than publishing a lot of work that isn’t quotation worthy?

Just make sure they are really uncomfortable when they do it.

Right. And shouldn’t those people be compensated for their work?

Under my system, a reseacher would be incentivised to sue the publisher claiming their research should have been cited. If anything it would create “research trolls”.

However, a researcher could purchase professional insurance that would handle those claims.

Can’t or won’t?

I don’t deny that male friends can be toxic. What can be worse still is that the man does share these videos with his friends, and the videos themselves are toxic and reinforce toxic behaviors and thoughts, and the friends share affirmations with the man about the video. That happens a lot too.

That man is probably repeatedly sharing videos with the woman because he’s hoping that she returns the same affirmations that his friends do.

I’m just trying to explain the “urge” described in the meme. That’s all.

And at the same time either aggressively or passive aggressively making it clear to him that she is disinterested in the video, which is reinforcing the man’s understanding that she is also disinterested in whatever it was that he found interest in. (That’s literally the whole subtext of the meme.)

Just saying that men share their concerns and feelings differently than women. Men very often share concerns and feelings indirectly. If a guy is repeatedly sharing YouTube videos with the woman that the woman doesn’t find funny or interesting, there is probably a reason the man is sharing them. An active listening woman might ask the man something like “How do you feel about this video?”

Because the meme was literally about the dude.

Women: Men don’t know how to share their feelings.

Men: share feelings indirectly through content because it allows them to place some distance between themselves and their fear of criticism for having insecurities

Women: Gawd, I don’t care!

No, they are the not-a-bank’s not-a-banks.

That’s why you should only bank at banks and not bank at not-a-banks.

Just to be clear, my comment was not intended to withstand scrutiny.

They have to be targeted. They wouldn’t shut the whole facility down if the bomb landed in the remote employee parking lot.

But I don’t see that it’s likely that Iran wouldn’t target their strikes. They clearly have the capability. Hit the targets that maximize disruption.

The drones would not likely need to take out the whole facility. If the drones were particularly targeted, which they almost certainly were, then I can imagine they could take out a particular critical piece of infrastructure that could cause significant disruption.

But yeah, 20% is a lot for sure.