This blog is aimed to help you figure out the most common UX fails that breakdown the mobile experience. Make sure to learn from the mistakes done by others and create a UX that would be loved and appreciated by the majority of your target audience.

It would be relevant here and should be mentioned that Elon Musk's compensation is conditioned on enormous growth of the company, and he receives nothing if that does not happen.

More accurately: $0 package, UNLESS value of company goes up 18 fold, to $650 billion, at which point it seems fair to let him have 0.5% of that....

Makes one wonder if the other pay packages are equally misrepresented, here, and perhaps the entire conclusion is flawed.

What about examples of future sorts of annotations/redactions like these with emerging technologies? Stories about deepfakes (like Obama calling Trump a "dipshit" or the Youtube Channel Bad Lip Reading redubbing the words of Senator Ted Cruz) are becoming more prevalent and these are versions of this sort of redaction taken to greater lengths. At present, these examples are obviously fake and facetious, but in short order they will be indistinguishable and more commonplace.

Utah's low cost of living attracts tech companies to operate in Utah. This will make more outsiders to relocate to Utah for jobs which can further aggravate the burden of housing shortage and pricing.

More accurately: $0 package, UNLESS value of company goes up 18 fold, to $650 billion, at which point it seems fair to let him have 0.5% of that....

Makes one wonder if the other pay packages are equally misrepresented, here, and perhaps the entire conclusion is flawed.

It would be relevant here and should be mentioned that Elon Musk's compensation is conditioned on enormous growth of the company, and he receives nothing if that does not happen.

Here is the math: 2020-2023 4 years (Jan 1-Dec 31). 1 million annual is 4 million. That is way more than the 1.7 million

bad argument IMO - completely irrelevant to main point as this compares terrorism on a whole to other crimes, as opposed to comparing islamic terrorism to terrorism on a whole

Irrelevant statistics IMO

"Bad or inferior breeding or bringing up; hence, Bad manners, rudeness" (OED).

oh god kill me now.

A medicinal model of education. "Hi, I'm Thomas Sheridan. All these dumbasses are hopelessly lost because they don't speak correctly. They'll never do anything good, or see what good is, because bad speech runs rampant. The only hope is to heal them by teaching them to speak well. That is, like me."

Staying safe online is the most important aspect of learning internet usage. Knowing the repercussions of online sharing and how if it gets into the wrong hands can turn very dangeruos, very fast can help us to stay safe and continue to present ourselves in a safe environment.

Is Lanham suggesting that the "Weak Defense" argues that rhetoricians have an "us" vs. "them" mentality?

ceiling effect for control group

Rather than feeling satisfied that you've ripped off DFW's style, how does the writer or editorial staff NOT mention Sandgren's racism?

This article reviews a longitudinal study of graduate students in a Master's degree program that collected both good and bad learning experiences. The comments collect from the participants resulted in themes that were repeated throughout all three years of comments. The comments were compiled to and reviewed to determine adult student perspectives on the learning process. The authors noted that their is a need to balance suppor of students with challenging students. This is a ground work of student perspective and requires further investigation to implement appropriate changes and then review student perspective after the changes.

Rating: 7/10

Excellent example of badly used statistics.

The bad actor problem of the Left

So, bootstrapping without replacement doesn't allow for ANY bootstrapping regardless of sample size?

Wow, that's judgemental. The "bad" attitude could be because many OER people don't like "walled gardens" where only those with money or membership get to learn.

Two images of the same message. America is the way, the truth and the how. The first image shows how nurturing the United States can be, giving the people who are defenseless and feeble creatures a new take on life and feeding them some well deserve knowledge and information while their former way of living will lead to death. Quite arrogant of America to have this way of thinking but it was completely normal in this setting and time period. To the right is America being stern showing that we can offer a more sophisticated way to be. As you see what is presumed to be the european students learning, you see the african, native american and asian counterparts all in lesser positions in relation to their current living arrangements. Two extreme interpretations and only time can tell what is best for those individuals. The way that the world has evolved, it is hard to argue if that it was best for those countries to conform but as America has grown and become political aware, we are one of the better countries for anyone to be apart of.

The author almost realized the much more important conclusion of the fact he lived. He shouldn't conclude the article by asking "what is the purpose of studying maths?" and then giving an three stupid answers.

He should have asked: is this actually "knowledge" as they say academia brings to society? Is the money researchers earn being well spent? Did I actually deserve to be remunerated by this piece of work no one understands -- and, in fact, no one has read except for maybe three people?

Here, on page 2, a study on infrasound conducted by Mr. Richard James is referenced. Mr. Richard James references Nina Pierpont's "Wind Turbine Syndrome" in articles he has written, namely "Wind Turbine Infra and Low-Frequency Sound: Warning Signs That Were Not Heard," see this link. Wind turbine syndrome is not a real medical syndrome, see this link and this link. In fact, Mr. Richard James and his methodologies for measuring sound has been discredited in a Michigan court, see Rick James – A Technical Discussion of His Deposition and Testimony in the Spencer / Kobetz Lawsuit.

On page 7, we learn that Mr. Richard James trained a field technician to set up sound measuring equipment at a dozen homes within the Shirley Wind Farm. It's unclear if Mr. Richard James was present to ensure set up and staging of equipment was per professional protocol. The trained field technician is stated to live within the Shirley Wind Farm. Mr. Richard James also collected weather data using a website called wonderground.com [sic]. Note that the field technician didn't record weather data via actual observation while domiciled within the Shirley Wind Farm. Also to consider is the likelihood of gaps in the collection of data, "On many occasions, there was an observer recording the events of the turbines..." This sounds fuzzy. Brings doubt to the reliability of collected data.

On page 13, the Brown County Board of health declares the Shirley Wind Farm a human health hazard.

As a result of Brown County's declaration, the Governor of Wisconsin will spend $250,000 to study health effects of wind power.

In what concentrations? "Toxic" is pretty meaningless.

Like this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyrFWbGiGOc

This is way too much.

Again, not bad advice, but for the wrong reasons.

Wikipedia is a good starting point and a great place to get a reasonably reliable overview. The real resource that Wikipedia provides is the Citations and References sections. These are the sources for the detail in the article and recommended further reading to get to the guts of what you're researching.

Other sources are always recommended. More reliable references are always a good thing and being able to get them cited in a Wikipedia article is a good way of giving extra validation given the process required to get something added to an article. It makes the Wikipedia article better and will cause the source article to appear higher in search results also.

This is a fair thing to ask of people. The explanation is flawed and the advise is a little too firm but in general it is not bad.

If you are referencing a general topic linking to Wikipedia is fine.

If you are referencing a specific thing you should link to the source material rather than a general article. Chances are reasonably good that if your source material is well researched you could get it added to the sources in the Wikipedia article and maybe even update the general article too.

Wikipedia has rules around editing that ensure factually correct information makes it through. Editing can be challenging but if you adhere to these editing can be quite rewarding.

Dangers of persuasive rhetoric

An interesting argument in defense of rhetoric.