for - key insight - dramaturgy of environmental science - biased to some futures and excludes others

Fact check: Information true Many fears and lots of mistrust raised with the "invasion by foreigners dressed in what looked like spacesuits, who took people to hospitals or barricaded tent-like wards from which few returned" (World Health Organization, 2015) Problem: biased, implements feelings onto others

Not sure if I should use trailmarks and listicle here or not? I will choose to use it.

gendered syntax - I understand, but I also pointed out that the evolutionary nature of a language's syntax gives it unique gender characteristics. - I gave the example of my own mother tongue of Cantonese which is syntactically more gender neutral instead of English, which is patriarchal: - Cantonese (play the audio at the following links) - person - https://www.cantoneseclass101.com/cantonese-dictionary/ - man - https://www.cantoneseclass101.com/cantonese-dictionary/ - woman - https://www.cantoneseclass101.com/cantonese-dictionary/ - In the Cantonese language, the suffix (Yan) means person, - It is then modified by the respective female and male prefix - Noi (female) - Nam (male) - This gives us gender neutral syntax, as opposed to English where we have patriarchal gender syntax, where the suffix is male and the female is constructed as a secondary concatenation using the male syntactical suffix - male - FEmale - man - WOman - HUman - HUmanITY - men - WOmen - The English language gives syntactical primacy to the male gender, while a language such as Cantonese does not - What the psychological effects are, I'm not sure of. For within the Cantonese language, there is as much patriarchism as any other culture. It is not a particularly feminine culture. - And the gender neutrality does not even take into account of the more recent transgender category.

to - Cantonese syntax - person - man - woman - https://hyp.is/3wgg0BQOEe-uRQ-kpQf8Eg/www.cantoneseclass101.com/cantonese-dictionary/ - With English, we have to read between the lines and project the author's salience landscape because it's not explicit in the syntax.

PROBLEM - This page does not generate a unique URL for each of the onpage search results returned. - Can Indyweb create unique CID for this?

• for: elephants in the room - financial industry at the heart of the polycrisis, polycrisis - key role of finance industry, Marjorie Kelly, Capitalism crisis, Laura Flanders show, book - Wealth Supremacy - how the Extractive Economy and the Biased Rules of Captialism Drive Today's Crises

• Summary

  • This talk really emphasizes the need for the Stop Reset Go / Deep Humanity Wealth to Wellth program
  • Interviewee Marjorie Kelly started Business Ethics magainze in 1987 to show the positive side of business After 30 years, she found that it was still tinkering at the edges. Why? - because it wasn't addressing the fundamental issue.
  • Why there hasn't been noticeable change in spite of all these progressive efforts is because we avoided questioning the fundamental assumption that maximizing returns to shareholders and gains to shareholder portfolios is good for people and planet.**** It turns out that it isn't. It's fundamentally bad for civilization and has played a major role in shaping today's polycrisis.
  • Why wealth supremacy is entangled with white supremacy
  • Financial assets are the subject
    • Equity and bonds use to be equal to GDP in the 1950s.
    • Now it's 5 times as much
  • Financial assets extracts too much from common people
  • Question: Families are swimming in debt. Who owns all this financial debt? ...The financial elites do.

• meme

  • wealth supremacy and white supremacy are entangled

• for: book - wealth supremacy - 7 myths, 7 myths of Capitalism, capital bias, definition - capital bias

• DESCRIPTION: 7 MYTHS of CAPITALISM

  • The Myth of Maximization
    • example of absurdity of maximization
      • Bill Gates had $10 billion. Then he invested it and got $300 billion. There's no limit to how much wealth an individual can accumulate. It is absurd.
  • Myth of the Income Statement
    • Gains to capital called profit is always to be increased and
    • Gains of labor is called an expense, is always to be decreased
  • Myth of Materiality (also called capital bias)
  • definition: capital bias
    • If something impacts capital, it matters
    • If something impacts society or ecology, it doesn't matter
  • With the capital bias, only accumulating more capital matters. NOTHING ELSE MATTERS. This is how most accountants and CFO's view the world.

• quote: Laura Flanders

  • The capital is what matters. We're aiming for more capital and nothing else really matters. That's the operating system of the economy. So the real world is immaterial to this world of wealth as held in stocks and shares and financial instruments.

Definition - socially based individual learning - an individual learns by interacting with the embedded environment - but the environment is itself biased - so that certain learning outcomes - are more easily learned - than they would otherwise be

How is it biased?

Overall scientific credibility: 'low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Health Feedback's analysis

Surveys in a time of Covid [u/hamilton_ian] (2020-01-28). Reddit. Retrieved from: https://www.reddit.com/r/BehSciAsk/comments/l739ru/surveys_in_a_time_of_covid/

Overall scientific credibility: 'low' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis

Jones, Callum J, Thomas Philippon, and Venky Venkateswaran. ‘Optimal Mitigation Policies in a Pandemic: Social Distancing and Working from Home’. Working Paper. Working Paper Series. National Bureau of Economic Research, April 2020. https://doi.org/10.3386/w26984.

Fenton, N. E., Neil, M., Osman, M., & McLachlan, S. (2020). COVID-19 infection and death rates: The need to incorporate causal explanations for the data and avoid bias in testing. Journal of Risk Research, 0(0), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2020.1756381

Biased towards Piwik Pro.

seeking/keep an eye out for: Would love to see a similar comparison done by the Matomo folks.

Overall scientific credibility: 'very low' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very low' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very low' according to the scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'high', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'debated', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Health Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'low' to 'very low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Health Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'low' to 'very low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'low' to 'very low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to 6 scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'low', according to 12 scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to 8 scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to 9 scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'low' to 'very low', according to 14 scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very low' according to 5 scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the reply+annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very low' to 'low', according to 10 scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the reply+annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to 10 scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the reply+annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to 9 scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the reply+annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to 12 scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the reply+annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Overall scientific credibility: 'very low', according to 7 scientists who analyzed this article.

Find more details in the reply+annotations below and in Climate Feedback's analysis

Wien-konkret.at ist ein politisch rechtes Onlinemagazin, dessen Geschäftsführer Obmann der EU-Austrittspartei ist (http://www.wien-konkret.at/k/impressum/, http://www.euaustrittspartei.at/internes/team/).

Wien-konkret.at wird zu oft mit einem neutralen Stadt-Infoportal verwechselt. Tatsächlich verfolgt es (bzw. sein Geschäftsführer) politisch rechte Ziele. Auf Suchmaschinen sind Seiten dieses Magazins oft höher gereiht als entsprechende unabhängige Portale (wie z.B. http://www.wien.gv.at/) http://www.euaustrittspartei.at/internes/team/