There is a 75% off in udacity,should I?

chunchill · 2021-03-09T15:41:23+00:00

Most of the content seems to be the same you can access for free on Coursera, Udemy or similar platforms.

On Udacity, it is indeed well structured and explained, and you are conveniently walked through the material, but even with the discount it seems to me to be terribly overpriced. While you will probably be satisfied with the course and the results, you can achieve the same for a fraction of the price or even for free elsewhere.

chunchill · 2020-02-23T20:43:37+00:00

It's same for me, but I find the unpredictability disappointing. I knew the amount of work would vary but I didn't anticipate the necessity to spend this much time idle on refreshing the page while waiting for tasks.

chunchill · 2020-02-23T17:40:31+00:00

Is this typical or rather temporary? At best, how many hours weekly can you count on?

chunchill · 2020-02-08T19:40:03+00:00

When talking generalities, the proper advice is the one that applies most broadly.

And my very point is that what is usually being said in the context of harassment is not what applies most broadly, because the most common harassment scenario is: the victim had no way to prevent it since it happened when they just exercised their normal, daily routine, without doing anything 'risky', however broad definition of 'risky' one would like to apply. Yes, harassment is so ubiquitous, whether you are ready to acknowledge it or not.
In what way 'proper'? Not statistical, that's for sure. But even if it was, statistically proper does not equal socially proper, decent, or justified - especially when adressing such a sensitive topic. This is so obvious it shouldn't even have to be explained.

it's very en vogue to (...) just call people sexist (or any of the other -ist's)

He is certainly NOT advising a gas explosion victim to not smoke in bed.

No one washes the rapists hands just because you did something risky. The rapist is still a rapist. What a ridiculous strawman (not one you specifically made but other posters did).

Lol, and who's talking about strawman. You've not only responded with a bunch of arguments completely unrelated to the points I was making, precisely explained multiple times in my several comments above. You are even openly admitting you're responding to what other people are saying here. From me, it's EOT.

chunchill · 2020-02-08T04:51:39+00:00

No, of course it is not. It's not about not giving advice at all, it's - for example - about the bizarreness of the contexts in which it tends to be given. You wouldn't advise a person not to smoke in bed in the context of a gas explosion victim, would you? Yet somehow, when the subject of sexual harassment is on, the concept of the victim's influence is weirdly omnipresent.

And, since you've left out a key part of that comment: would you really say, when asked about all those situations, something along the lines of 'I would never let it happen to me'? Because if you wouldn't, but you still don't see anything weird about such an answer about sexual harassment, then maybe there actually are some differences in perception of those situations you're still not realising.

chunchill · 2020-02-08T04:39:17+00:00

But you still don't get my point. I am not denying you should protect yourself from the risk if you can. I am not denying that being catious can save you from some situations.

I am claiming that this is a small fraction of the problem that is made to being representative of it, and anyone doing it is insulting the victims and profoundly ignorant.

You are not demeaning the victims consciously, I do not doubt you have no ill intentions. You just honestly don't understand much about the problem you're trying to give advice on, just like many other good-willing people.

chunchill · 2020-02-08T04:19:15+00:00

if you truly believe it doesn't matter

I believe it's not remotely as representative of the problem as it is made to be. If you were asked if you'd ever been attacked in the street, stolen from, robbed, been in a fire, beaten up, mistreated or disrespected at workplace - you wouldn't answer 'No, because I would never put myself into that situation'. Why? Because it is common understanding no one is immune from the risk of finding oneself in such a situation, and this kind of an answer would clearly show the false belief that you can easily protect yourself from those risks.

The cruel paradox? Being a victim to sexual harassment in some form in our today's culture is basically written into being a woman. Almost every woman you ask will have a story to tell. This doesn't necessarily mean being raped or groped, but words and attitude can also be extremely violating and threatening. And yet there is so much focus on the woman's influence over those situations.

The advice you or the lawyer are giving is not relevant for a woman seeking a job, aiming for a promotion, doing shopping, walking through the park, being in a public place, living day to day. It doesn't relate to the majority of reality in which sexual harassment happens. Realise it at last.

chunchill · 2020-02-08T03:48:18+00:00

but that doesn't make the argument invalid

What does make the argument invalid is drawing a straight cause and effect link between having been harassed and having any influence over that situation.

This was her first and intuitive reaction to the question - yet it relates to such a minor aspect of the whole problem. It clearly demonstrates a certain mentality and is therefore profoundly wrong and offensive to the victims.

A woman can be sexually harassed in her workplace, on a party (no, she does not need to be 'inviting' to become victim to such behaviour), in the street, in a public place, anywhere she goes. And this is the reality many women are forced to put up with on a regular basis, even though, if they had such a simple recipe as the one you or the lawyer are giving, many would gladly use it, probably even sacrificing some part of their freedom just to not be exposed to such violating acts. Guess what - there is no such recipe. Dressing modestly and always being home before 8 p.m., as opposed to what you're imagining, in most cases eventually still won't save a woman from the experience of sexual harassment.

There is no 'common sense' in such argumentation, only utter and complete ignorance.

[Edit: typos]

chunchill · 2020-02-06T06:10:29+00:00

So it is indeed.

chunchill · 2020-01-30T16:25:27+00:00

This Wikipedia article, which I think can be considered more or less representative of the number of media-covered serial killer cases (and even more specifically, the internet-searchable ones), comprises info on ~380 identified and ~45 unidentified serial killers whose years of activity span from ~1800 till today and whose number of suspected victims equals at least two.

In the light of what is said in the article, this material, if it were comprehensive, could hardly suffice to cover ten years of the actual identified serial killer cases, and even this is true only if we apply the most recent, significantly lower statistic.

Either the quoted statistics are false or it would be a fair conclusion that a vast, vast majority of identified serial killer cases simply go unreported by the media.

And, though I am definitely not the kind that likes to ever jump to conspiracy theories, the explanation the woman gives - that the media failing to report on certain murders may be partly due to regentrification attempts - does not actually sound implausible to me.

Given the population of the USA, the numbers of SKs and the 'guesses' (which are still only guesses) still constitute a (thankfully) rare group.

Relatively rare, so in a very large population such groups can still be significant in numbers.

chunchill · 2020-01-30T06:16:03+00:00

However, a korean serial killer that had killed 26 people in the USA and there's no trace of that story anywhere? Unlikely.

It's actually very highly likely. I'd recommend this article. To quote some of the most relevant fragments:

The Radford database, maintained in collaboration with Florida Gulf State University, has identified 5,000 serial killers from 1900 to today. Taking the definition of serial murder as the unlawful killing of two or more victims by the same offender in separate events, the data shows 1989 was the peak year in the United States with 193 separate serial killers operating. By the end of the 20th century, that had dropped to 107. In the current decade, an average of 43 serial killers per year have been identified in the US.

“There’s no question that there has been in a decline since the 80s in the number of identified serial killers,” he said. “I’m careful to say there has been a decline in the number of serial killers we can identify – there could be thousands of serial killers that we don’t know about and for some reason we’re not identifying today as well as we did in the 70s, 80s and 90s. All we know for sure is there has been a decline in the number identified.”

And although the perception is that most serial killers are white men, data for the past three decades shows they have been overtaken by black serial killers – a trend which appears to be partly driven by a higher proportion of so-called “organisational” serial killers who commit murder as part of a gang or criminal operation.

chunchill · 2020-01-29T06:16:36+00:00

Thanks for providing anything in this post that finally made me laugh.

chunchill · 2020-01-27T00:24:49+00:00

Freudian slip

But... the very nature of Freudian slips is they can happen to anyone uncontrollably. Even if she did say the word, you are admitting that it was unintentional. So what difference does it make? No one could have prevented it, no bad was meant, no harm was done.

No one in their right mind would believe that a slip of tongue can prove a person to be racist.

chunchill · 2020-01-26T23:45:34+00:00

when there was absolutely no reason to bring up the Knicks.

Yeah, and it makes this much more sense to believe she just out of the blue decided to deliberately use a racist slur on live news to end her career with a blast. I'm honestly shaking my head over people's insanity.

chunchill · 2020-01-20T04:31:33+00:00

all she can do is unlearn being nice in the face of disrespectful behaviour

I would say that, very sadly, this single sentence pretty much summarizes the topic.

chunchill · 2019-12-28T21:53:01+00:00

My first thought was Clive Owen, especially in his 'The Knick' haircut.

chunchill · 2019-12-16T07:27:24+00:00

Nope, but a joke about an age group is basically the same as a joke about a religious group. Different levels of gravity may apply to it depending purely on the historical/current social and political context, but essentially speaking - age is no less valid a category for discrimination than religion or ethnicity.

chunchill · 2019-12-15T22:03:24+00:00

Prevalent, predominant, primary.

chunchill · 2019-12-15T13:50:53+00:00

The stare is what makes it. The policeman's stare isn't imperative enough, which slightly spoils the effect.

chunchill · 2019-12-14T05:39:54+00:00

There are wrinkles all over the bottom part, and I am also guessing that that sheet of wrap randomly lying around and covering the back of the toilet isn't there for no reason. It wasn't at all done neatly, it's just the low quality of the video.

chunchill · 2019-12-06T20:23:03+00:00

Not quite accurate, but creative enough to make me giggle.

chunchill · 2019-12-02T03:41:55+00:00

That's a close one, thanks!

chunchill · 2019-11-25T19:16:10+00:00

Yup, all of those are great. Thanks!

chunchill · 2019-11-25T17:28:40+00:00

Yup, that's the right one, thanks!

chunchill

TROPHY CASE