The divide absolutely exists. There is a lot of conditioning for following orders and working as a team. That doesn’t erase conflicting ideologies, beliefs, or even personality conflict. At the extreme the military will remove outliers from the military, but at the individual level you learn who you trust and who you can rely on. Then you do what you can to mitigate those who you don’t trust.

Militaries all over the world also have a long history of killing their own people for not fitting whatever the group around them wants. Sometimes for justifiable reasons, like incompetent leaders likely to get their subordinates killed. Other times for things like someone being uncomfortable with blatant war crimes.

There is nothing magical or special about the military. They just have more weapons. So the solutions are violent more often than the average office job.

Also money and power.

Apple is also joining the ‘AI’ game. They have been bragging about all their ‘AI’ garbage in their new phones. That is specifically why I just got rid of my iPhone. I’m happy with GrapheneOS where they don’t want my info, and have shown no signs of wanting to shove ‘AI’ into any of my things.

To really cut ties they would need to remove all upper level leadersip and the entire board. Also almost every major stockholder would need to divest. So borderline impossible without bankruptcy or sale of the company.

I didn’t say both sides are the same. I made a stupid joke about a garbage operating system and the garbage company that runs it.

And your example of stopping people on the streets to inspect their phones doesn’t really do a great job at making the argument you’re trying to make. We have ICE running around and throwing people into contracted prisons even when they have proof of citizenship. We are trafficking people to foreign concentration camps. We are rocketing at light speed to a techno fascist authoritarian state and the level of surveillance we are under is increasing at a mind boggling pace.

So we aren’t the same, and the people currently in charge are striving to make the differences smaller every day.

Sounds like windows recall…

So, if you get a trainer you get to enjoy the fidgeting without risks of cuts. And most butterfly knives are single edged so one of the handles is relatively safe. I have one largely for the fidgeting aspect.

So a lot of this is going to be difficult to answer as it depends on the work culture and individual personalities of coworkers.

• Fidgeting is generally fine as long as it’s not noisy fidgeting. If it’s something like pen clicking, that is more likely to bother someone. Passing depends on the layout. If there is decent space you should be fine, but if it pushes you really close to other people it may make people uncomfortable.
• People will almost certainly see your screen, whether they care what is on it is pretty dependent. If them seeing it makes you uncomfortable, some offices allow the addition of privacy screens which may help and is worth asking about if it will improve your quality of life.
• Some places make a big deal of always looking like you’re on task while others just care about output.
• Downtime is pretty much the same as the previous answer. Depends on your management and work culture. Might be an easier sell if your reading somehow relates to your work.
• People will be able to hear, but talking is generally acceptable at a reasonable volume. Just be considerate of those around you and don’t distract people if they are busy. Along this same lines, you’ll also hear other people’s conversations. That’s why I wear my loop earplugs age have headphones for music. Helps me focus when I need to.
• I did not disclose my ADHD, but also didn’t request any accommodations since I can have my earplugs and headphones which is really the only thing I needed. I’d love to have an office so I could close people out when I was especially busy, but that doesn’t really fall under reasonable accommodations.

There is definitely some subjectivity. Language isn’t something that is easily parsed and scored. That is why they give examples on the actual report about the kind of biased language they saw, or whatever other issues led to the score given.

I don’t think they mean for their website to be the end all bias resource. More of a stepping off point for you to make your own judgments.

They literally publish their methodology and scoring system.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/

So they do say exactly what their criteria is, and how it is scored. None of that is buzz words, it’s just a summary that fit in a few sentences. You can look at the full methodology if you want more than just that small bullet description.

I’m not saying that you have to agree with their scoring, or that it is necessarily accurate. I just think if you’re going to critique a thing, you should at least know what you’re critiquing.

Why do you say they’re opaque? They detail the history of the publication, the ownership, their analysis of bias within their reporting, and give examples of failed fact checks. I’m not sure what else you could want about how a publication is rated? I’m not saying it’s perfect, but they seem to be putting a solid effort into explaining how they arrive at the ratings they give.

It does. It’s even cited in the abstract, and it’s the origin of bullshit as referenced in their title.

Natural selection isn’t the only thing at play though. That solely refers to the organism best adapted to the environment being more likely to survive and produce offspring. Essentially everyone in our population survives to be able to produce offspring.

Sexual selection plays a much bigger part now. That isn’t someone being the most adapted to the environment, it’s someone being the most attractive to a mate. There are plenty of adaptations across nature that are maladaptive to survival, but are selected for regardless.

Then there are random mutations and genetic drift. Those happen in every population. That is more just a matter of chance.

We have found ways to adapt to our environment outside of evolution. So we no longer have a significant natural selection process.

Pretty much everyone here either misunderstands how evolution works, or is willfully ignoring it to push their viewpoint.

Humans at this point have very little evolutionary pressure from natural selection. We aren’t getting weaker, shorter, taller, or anything like that from natural selection because those traits aren’t killing people.

The main driving factors for human evolution are sexual selection, random mutation, and genetic drift. There are still some poorer areas disease may still play a not insignificant part, but even that is fairly minimal since people largely live to reproductive age.

Human evolution has been fairly stagnant for quite a while. The differences most people would notice are from changes in diet, environment, and other external forces. For natural selection to pressure evolution we would need to have a significant portion of the population sure before they are able to reproduce.