Marvin_Martian

Germany was facing the cutoff from russian gas, which had provided more than half of its gas imports, and was also in the process of shutting down its last nuclear reactors.

To suggest that the return of those coal power plants was due to renewables underdelivering, seems to be misleading at best.

Personally, that whole fiasco served as a reminder of the dangers of fossil fuel imports from undemocratic states.

Thanks for the article, it was an interesting read, since I was mostly going of the WSJ stuff before. I nonetheless feel that with social research in the private sector absolute certainty or even studies that would pass peer review are a bit too high of a bar to meet before we can talk about the organisation knowing something. But I guess thats more of a semantic argument.

After reading the NYT article it still seems to me that a more ethical company would have done more to address the probable issues. Meta did very little and seemed to cherrypick the most favourable public studies. Anyyway, all this doesn't seem suprising or even unusual to me. I generally don't think that we should expect companies to act very ethical. Rather, incentive structures should be created/amended in a way so that purely self interested companies act as if they were ethical.

Its more that people are shocked* that facebook communicated to the outside that such problems were nonexistent, despite knowing that this was a lie.

*not sure wether shocked is the right term to begin with, it seemed more like indignation to me.

If by "this whole thing about imposter syndrome" you are referring to people talking about imposter syndrome the way your parent comment talked about it, than yeah I agree completly: its just a humble brag, nothing else.

I originally understood your comment to mean impostor syndrome is never used in a valid way. I have seen these statements being made about mental health disorders, including very serious once like depression. I think they can be really damaging, since they convince people not to seek help. This is why I disagreed.

Well, in the AIs case we could E-Mail the creator and ask: "Did you build a soul into this thing?"

This opinion is comparable to saying: "Depression is not real, everybody gets sad sometimes" or "ADHD is not real everybody gets distracted sometimes".

Just because some attribute exists in normal doses in most people, does not mean that it can exist in debilitating doses in a minority.

Of course, a big difference between imposter syndrome and the aforementioned illnesses is that imposter syndrome is not in the DSM-5. But if you look at the history of the DSM-5, you will notice that adding a new illness is a very slow and politicized process. And a large number of psychologists are treating it a bit to seriously for it to be just a "humble brag".

That doesnt mean everybody talking about their imposter syndrome would really classify as having it. Similarly people who checked webmd and now believe that they have cancer, also do not necessarily have cancer. That still doesnt mean that every cancer-sufferer is a fraud.

Some comments might be off the mark, but the article itself is completly honest about the fact that they cannot prove that any chinese officials were even involved in this mess.

The underlying criticism is more that the professor (and if you want to extrapolate swiss institutions as a whole) engaged in some "working towards the fuhrer" behaviour. She took very drastic steps (ruining this students career) on the basis of what would be in the interest of the CCP.

And I would argue that this behaviour is very much incentivized by the CCP. Take a look at how censorhip within the country works: The laws are often quite vague, but enforcement is draconian. This leads people and institutions to guess what the government would want and act (self-censor) accordingly.

One of the original journalists published another article two days later that voices this criticism more clearly: https://www.nzz.ch/meinung/china-und-die-hsg-wo-die-angst-re...

Thats not evidence. That is just a claim made by the professor, which is denied by the former student and which, according the the article, is not reflected in the tone of the emails exchanged at this time, either.

Considering that the UBS put their chief economist on a leave of absence (initially they communicated that he had been let go of completly), for calling pigs in china "chinese pigs", I think ever mentioning that topic alone would already be to much.