The trolley problem itself was formulated by the descendent of a two term president in 1967, more or less amid the first Long Hot Summer. She actually offered several formulations in a row; the version with a trolley is #3. But here is the original formulation:
January 30, 2025 at 4:32 PM
The trolley problem itself was formulated by the descendent of a two term president in 1967, more or less amid the first Long Hot Summer. She actually offered several formulations in a row; the version with a trolley is #3. But here is the original formulation:
The NYT essay titled Climate Activists Need to Radically Change Their Approach Under Trump is more peculiar than most—not for the familiar pro-fossil falsehoods that it propagates, par for the course, but bc it swiftly argues THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF ITS TITLE
December 8, 2024 at 2:43 PM
The NYT essay titled Climate Activists Need to Radically Change Their Approach Under Trump is more peculiar than most—not for the familiar pro-fossil falsehoods that it propagates, par for the course, but bc it swiftly argues THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF ITS TITLE
the sustained worrying over brody's professional status bespeaks, I think, a deep anxiety about the possibility that there might be an adequate level of expertise among the general population to just do stuff like this
December 6, 2024 at 1:59 PM
the sustained worrying over brody's professional status bespeaks, I think, a deep anxiety about the possibility that there might be an adequate level of expertise among the general population to just do stuff like this
rather than, say, method is entirely uninspected in the column. Things get considerably more strange rather quickly, however, when he suggests that retrospectively, we should have been able to decipher unforeseen consequences of previous events. This, I assure you, is weird as fuck. Why? ->
November 13, 2024 at 2:37 AM
rather than, say, method is entirely uninspected in the column. Things get considerably more strange rather quickly, however, when he suggests that retrospectively, we should have been able to decipher unforeseen consequences of previous events. This, I assure you, is weird as fuck. Why? ->
today's NYT column by @adamgrant.bsky.social is staggeringly bizarre. It takes as its theme the proposition that our sense of how the next 4 years will unfold is certainly wrong; the basis of this claim is that most prognosticators are wrong. Surely true, but offering as explanation HUMAN NATURE ->
November 13, 2024 at 2:37 AM
today's NYT column by @adamgrant.bsky.social is staggeringly bizarre. It takes as its theme the proposition that our sense of how the next 4 years will unfold is certainly wrong; the basis of this claim is that most prognosticators are wrong. Surely true, but offering as explanation HUMAN NATURE ->