Everything the author describes can still be accomplished by being diplomatic and understanding without being confrontational and direct. Plus, you build a better, more resilient team that way.

I'm not really sure the author learnt what he thought he learnt.

It's just a meme that keeps on giving

God, the whole of Lemmy is such a meme right now; the majority of women voted Trump as well!

Lmao!...

Lmao, much of the reason rovers weren't included in the base game was it would take about 3 min to reach one end of the loaded map, before you have to return to your ship and click on another map marker in the UI.

That did not make for exciting exploration, but I guess they forgot about that

Alright.. now I'm willing to bet that most people on here, if asked, believe strongly in criminal rehabilitation. But the comments here make me think 'maybe not'.

Would someone please explain that?

The whole article reads like a pathetic plug for her new book.

When trying to click on the authors web page, Ingtid Jaqcues, the link is broken. To me, the whole article gives the gross vibe of being written as a favor.

Reports? There is video evidence of the fact..

Hamas is a terrorist organization

Ohhh gottem!

She is now legally obligated to sex this man.

edit: programmers code

It took me literally less than a minute to google and disprove that claim in this 'article':

The Olympic records for the event are 2:06:32 hours for men, set by Samuel Wanjiru in 2008, and 2:23:07 hours for women, set by Tiki Gelana in 2012.

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathons_at_the_Olympics#%3A%7E%3Atext%3DIn_2020%2C_both_the_men%27s%2Cby_Tiki_Gelana_in_2012.?wprov=sfla1

This article is not scientific, its simply an opinion piece and should be treated as such. And honestly I don't even think it was a good opinion piece. And why is it hosted on Scientific American?

There is something particularly amusing and very ironic that a mega-corp like Apple, the most valuable company in the world, is standing up to defend a communist dictatorship and won't accept any dissent.

It's a clause within GDPR which is usually misinterpreted and sometimes (as is most probably the case here) abused.