I'd also add that the very popular New King James Version (NKJV) is both copyrighted and uses different source material from the KJV which means that differences in wording are not just old to new English, but also differences in meaning.
Does anybody actually keep statistics on this? I’ve never seen it used, and I’ve been to probably 15 different churches in 2 geographical regions. Most of the churches I got to say avoid anything new and copyrighted. So no I don’t have citation but I ask you for the same. Let’s see some citation that both NIV and NKJV are the most popular.
I disagree. By not playing, you're protecting yourself from future retribution, deserved or (more commonly) not. And not being on social media - or more precisely, not posting on social media - doesn't mean you're out of touch or lacking in influence. Not by a long shot.
To that, genuinely curious - what is the alternative you see to social media to build influence and visibility? One of the key benefits of Twitter is that you can make your work, be it in the arts, software or literally anything else, visible to a large audience. What’s the alternative if one is not to use Twitter? How do you publicize your findings or insights to a broad population?
> What’s the alternative if one is not to use Twitter? How do you publicize your findings or insights to a broad population?
If you can, you do it behind the shield of a faceless corporate entity (that you own) doing the promoting, rather than tying statements to your own personal identity. You don't stop using Twitter or Instagram et al., you stop using them to project your personal opinions out into the world. Your opinionated discussions are reserved to people you trust and to smaller in-person environments where you can have a real dialogue of understanding and exchange.
If you want to build value in your own identity, you take on the risks to chase the rewards. I'd suggest strictly talking about work, and never deviating from that. If you leave that lane, these days everyone knows the risks they're taking, it's blatantly obvious.
You publicize your findings, you don't spout off about such and such highly charged partisan social cultural revolution topic that is just begging to get you in trouble if you twitch the wrong way. I think that's really plainly obviously the way you handle it. What's so hard about that? Oh I just couldn't help throwing out my meaningless 2cents on BLM while discussing my work on using machine learning to recognize giraffes standing next to stop signs; I just had to get my opinion about black-white relations out there in the open, because what I have to say about BLM is super important and could change the world. No, just publicize the findings.
I believe you have good points about keeping your work and personal lives as separate as possible and I believe your advice is very pragmatic. I don't, however, think it should be necessary nor is it realistic. Let's all go into sterile work environments for 8+ hours a day where we have to self-censor based solely on observations of how other people fucked up and angered the mob. Let's never celebrate each other's humanity at work in case they accidentally "twitch the wrong way", as you put it. Let's all just sand in line, the oppressed among us silent and powerless because they've been told they have no voice.
In reality, people's work is important and meaningful to them. People need the freedom to express themselves without having to calculate whether it's worth finding a new job tomorrow because a mob sniffed them out.
I don't think he was implying that you have to live by what he perceives as an out to the social quagmire to be found in social media. Let the screaming masses have it and they'll eventually destroy themselves or move on to another quagmire.
Ultimately, those "screaming masses" will vote and determine the future of this country. And by "eventually", I mean in less than 4 months.
> they'll eventually destroy themselves
Not before Election Day.
The social media groups have proven themselves to be powerful coalitions of voters, capable of coordinating mass movement and determining the future of our country.
Don't consider this a personal need but a game theoretic challenge. Those who pursue influence and visibility also end up shaping public perception, policy etc. Considering how much channels like twitter tend to amplify foolish ideas than nuanced and balanced perspectives, participating in that discourse in the name of reason and wisdom becomes virtuous itself.
I would posit that our definition of 'meaningful' has dramatically changed since the C64 days. Nowadays, if you aren't doing it online or collaborating with someone, it's not considered 'meaningful.' Back in 1983, this was not the case.
I think a better comparison would be to do the things a C64 was good at on a modern computer with modern workflows, and see which is easier/faster/more satisfying. I'm talking word processing, gaming, printing, etc.
I bet the C64 wins.
(Side note: you can get that C64 online and onto IRC or a telnet-enabled BBS; there are plenty of products to do that)
Yep. I throw 30-40 year old lenses on my 10 year old E-PL1 and go out and just have fun with photography. I never worry about taking it out on the beach, or on a boat, or any other place that cameras die. If it dies...I just pick up another one cheaply and continue having fun, and because I'm not as concerned about it, I take it places and get shots that others don't.
It's like having a beat up old 4x4 pickup. It gets the job done, and if you bang it up a bit in the process...oh well.
You're only hearing the transmissions they made (likely recorded via the ATC side). Any in-cockpit conversations/panic would not have been recorded, or at least not released.
Any news article that mentions the number of new positive cases without mentioning the number of new tests is doing it for the clicks. One is fairly useless without the other.
150 cases out of 150 tests? Yikes! 150 cases out of 150,000 tests? Yawn.
Florida is a much different story, as their cases have increased the testing has not kept up, and the positive test rate has gone from 2.3% at the end of May to 12.2%
One thing that everyone should keep in mind, even if you could attribute all of the increase in confirmed cases to testing, tests don't give anyone the coronavirus. The only thing increased testing can do is give you a more accurate picture of how bad the situation is, it can't make the situation worse.
The second metric is obviously more important, but when a pandemic as an Ro of more than 1, any increasing number of cases is a huge issue. Hence why the hospitalizations are on the way up, which is also reported in that article..
you've actually got it backwards. 150 cases out of 150 tests mean that testing isn't indicative of the infection rate, and is a yawner because the test itself is telling us almost nothing.
Or if that data is copyrighted, but allows free usage of small selections.