If you have a VR setup and you haven't tried either IL-2 Sturmovik (for WW2) or DCS World (for modern jets and helicopters), you're missing out. You can even try out DCS World for free, with two planes.
For a high-traffic train, you need to have someone manually open and close the doors. You can't use automatic doors like on an elevator because someone will invariably keep them from shutting, either on purpose or by accident.
>Like the student and other forms of personal debt that prepare undergraduates to say two words—“Yes, boss”—the ideal of the entrepreneurial self serves a fundamentally disciplinary function: reinforcing the precarious nature of work in today’s digitalized, low-wage, precariously employed, and increasingly automated capitalism, one in which you are casually expendable and which places a premium on everlasting metamorphosis: upgrade your skills, your profile, your resume. But don’t worry, complain, or God help you, call a union: losing your job or seeing your skill set rendered obsolescent is an opportunity for “growth,” creativity, empowerment. When your own exploitation can be recast as a project rather than a problem—a source of fulfillment rather than an instance of injustice—then solidarity with others can be vilified as conformism, the herd instinct of normies, the last refuge of losers and mediocrities.
Reading this, one might think capitalism is cruel and entrepreneurship is a horrible struggle. Or one might conclude it perfectly mirrors nature and life. I'm not sure what the fuss is about.
The moral worth of the individual has been lost, leading to more and more what I would define as “market barbarism.” Social relations are now completely profane and not objectively striving for meaning beyond the temporal.
In every HN comment section, there's always, 100% of the time, at least one person who only reads the title of the piece (in this case, a song lyric from The Verve) and still has the nerve to post a comment.
So what? The headline is dumb. Nothing wrong with pointing that out and saying why.
The fact that you say you read the article and this attack was your best comment... well I’d say one of these comments is basically worthless and it’s not the guy who pointed out the problem with the title.
Furthermore, a lot of people go to the comments first for a variety of reasons. Nothing wrong with that either.
>Abstract
This study evaluated the rape fantasies of female undergraduates (N = 355) using a fantasy checklist that reflected the legal definition of rape and a sexual fantasy log that included systematic prompts and self-ratings. Results indicated that 62% of women have had a rape fantasy, which is somewhat higher than previous estimates. For women who have had rape fantasies, the median frequency of these fantasies was about 4 times per year, with 14% of participants reporting that they had rape fantasies at least once a week. In contrast to previous research, which suggested that rape fantasies were either entirely aversive or entirely erotic, rape fantasies were found to exist on an erotic-aversive continuum, with 9% completely aversive, 45% completely erotic, and 46% both erotic and aversive
I’ve always heard it was because the budget dried up after we beat the evil commies to the moon. Could you point to a source that talks about the safety angle? I’d love to read about it.
Every HN submission from a real news source (newspaper, CNN, whatever) will always have at least one commenter complaining about the link title being click-baity, as if they've never before seen or heard of what is known as a "headline."
