I'm going to have to disagree with you on this.
People have all sorts of beliefs that can qualitatively be proven as right or wrong. For example, all the wingnuts who believe that the COVID vaccine has trackers from Microsoft. Their beliefs are 100% bereft of reality.
Now, can they go ahead and act on those mistaken beliefs? Sure. But that doesn't make their beliefs correct in any way.
While I get that this is an article geared to laymen/the general public, I do think we should be holding science communication to a higher standard.
I agree with you 100%.
It's worth pointing out that feeling like you work in a pointless, meaningless job doesn't necessarily make it true. This paper is solely about people's perceptions, not facts.
A light breeze is enough for Google to lock accounts, and they make it nearly impossible to re-access. And they have no reliable customer service you can call or email.
But the final straw for me was when they started this bullshit of saying "tell me your phone number so we can make sure it's you". They never had my number in the first place, so it was clear that this was pure bullshit of them trying to associate real world identities with their accounts.
After that, I said "fuck em", changed to other providers, and haven't look back since.
Go ahead and delete my accounts - your service is pure garbage anyway.
You won't find that level of detail in typical articles, because they are intended for the general public and are intended to be an overview that a layman can comprehend.
However, the paper itself, which the article links to, has more detail including deformation testing.
I understand what you're saying completely. I'm not even saying that I disagree with you - to be honest, I'm not quite sure what to think about this circumstance.
However, I will say that there are limits to being lax on someone just because they are a child. This was a serious offense that could have cost multiple people their lives and a serious response is justifiably warranted.
If we were talking about shoplifting, sure. This case is more serious, however, and I'm not sure the same approach would be taken under the circumstances.
Your issue is that she's still there? The article implies that this only happened yesterday, so she's only been there for 1 day. That's not unreasonable for a felony.
This entire topic is about shortening the work week without any loss in pay.
Have you not been reading articles on this topic? Yes, we are talking about a 32 hour work week with no loss in pay.
Sequestering is absolutely not bullshit. It's done for very important reasons and judges are very careful about not ordering it unless it's truly necessary.
A person's perception is highly informed by how well or poorly they understand the subject or situation in question.
Let's say you got stood up by a first date because they got hit by a car on their way to you. Your perception of them is going to vary wildly depending on whether or not you know the facts behind why they didn't show up.
Similarly, knowing how you actually fit into things at your job - i.e. your importance to your working group, the company, it's customers, society itself, allows you to have a more accurate set of facts to base your perception on.
So yes, the truth matters.