Здесь раздают инвайты

«To get a sense of how total the shift of power has become, consider a story I heard recently, about a prominent scholar who had just been rejected for a named chair at Cambridge. The man was acknowledged to be at the top of his field, but he didn’t even make the shortlist. The kiss of death came when a high-ranking administrator glanced over his CV and remarked, «He’s obviously a very smart guy. But I have no use for him.» That judgment settled the matter. When even Cambridge dons are presumed to exist to further the purposes of managers, rather than the other way around, we know the corporate takeover of the global university system is complete.»

Чтобы понять, насколько радикален переход власти, рассмотрим услышанную мной на днях историю о видном деятеле науки, которого недавно не взяли на должность профессора в Кембридже. Человек зарекомендовал себя как ведущий специалист в своей области, но дальше первоначального отбора не прошел. Ректор просматривал резюме и отметил: «Видно — голова. Но мне без надобности». На этом вопрос был закрыт. Когда считается, что даже кембриджские преподаватели существуют, чтобы благоприятствовать достижению целей руководства, а не наоборот, вне сомнения, корпоративный захват глобальной университетской системы завершен.

FOREFFINSAKE@protonmail.com

Смысл указывать источник, если доступ платный?

Следующий отрывок. ☺
«All of this doesn’t explain why people such as myself (and I have it relatively easy) are expected to spend hours filling out time-allocation studies, writing recommendation forms and meeting notes, calculating measures of my work’s social impact, or providing hypothetical grades on colleagues’ publications to assess how they’d likely be ranked by an outside panel for departmental funding purposes — all during time that I might have otherwise spent discussing the history of social theory with grad students or, God forbid, reading a book. (I can’t remember the last time I read a book. I mean, like, a whole book, cover to cover. It basically never happens....).»
источник

«Hitler’s government reacted swiftly and bitterly to Einstein’s charges. The Völkicsher Beobachter published a series of attacks on him, and more mainstream papers followed suit. One headline read “Good News of Einstein—He Is Not Coming Back!” over an article condemning “this puffed-up bit of vanity [who] dared to sit in judgment on Germany without knowing what is going on here—matters that forever must remain incomprehensible to a man who was never a German in our eyes and who declares himself to be a Jew and nothing but a Jew.” A pamphlet that surfaced some months later reprinted Einstein’s photograph in a collection of enemies of Nazi Germany, over the caption, “Not Yet Hanged.”»
источник

ещё действует

Правительство Гитлера быстро и с горечью отреагировало на обвинения Эйнштейна. «Фёлькишер Беобахтер» опубликовала серию нападок на него, и несколько других основных газет последовали этому примеру. Один из заголовков читался так: «Хорошие новости об Эйнштейне – он не возвращается!», над статьей, осуждающей «этот напыщенный ком тщеславия», [который] посмел судить о Германии, не имя понятия о том, что здесь происходит, – о материях, которые навсегда останутся непостижимыми для человека, который никогда не был немцем в наших глазах, и который заявляет о себе, что он еврей, и ничего, кроме еврея». Памфлет, всплывший несколько месяцев спустя, перепечатывал фотографию Эйнштейна в окружении врагов нацистской Германии, с подписью «Еще не повешены».

warhuman@mail.ru

As the White House scrambled to respond to the deepening political crisis, the homeland security secretary, Kirstjen Nielsen, flew from New Orleans to Washington to face a barrage of questions from reporters, even as Democrats demanded her resignation and the outcry reached a critical mass.

Nielsen claimed that America was a country of “compassion” and “heart” but was unable to square the circle regarding whether the separations were a vindication of the administration’s “zero tolerance” policy towards illegal immigration or an unintended consequence of a law made by the US Congress.

источник

«“Glamorous. Fun. The mansion in perfect condition. Beautiful banquet spreads. You’d go outside and there were flamingos and monkeys. And Hef, who would come downstairs later, was always gracious and cool.”

Some of his male guests? Not so much.

In the mid-1980s, Ms. Magnuson, who was then known as Sharan Lea, and a girlfriend were invited to the mansion on a Sunday: movie night. She was not naïve, and ran with a hard-partying crowd. But she did not expect to find herself cornered outside — near the mansion’s famous grotto, with its three mammoth hot tubs and wooden shelves stocked with jumbo bottles of Johnson’s Baby Oil. A guy who had seemed nice suddenly had nine hands.

“He tried to get me into the cave, and, when I refused, he really manhandled me,” Ms. Magnuson said. “I felt violated.”»

источник

«“Гламурный. Веселье. Особняк в идеальном состоянии. Прекрасный банкет. Ты выходил на улицу, а там были фламинго и обезьяны. И Хеф, который спускался вниз позже, всегда был добрым и спокойным.”

Некоторые из его гостей мужского пола? Не столько.

В середине 1980-х Магнусон, которая тогда была известна как Сара Ли, и подруга были приглашены в особняк в воскресенье: ночь кино. Она не была наивной и бежала с шумной толпой. Но она не ожидала, что окажется загнанной в угол снаружи-рядом со знаменитым гротом особняка, с его тремя гигантскими гидромассажными ваннами и деревянными полками, заполненными гигантскими бутылками детского масла Джонсона. У парня, который казался милым, внезапно появилось девять рук.

Он попытался затащить меня в пещеру, и, когда я отказалась, он действительно избил меня”, – сказала Магнусон. “Я чувствовал себя оскорбленным.”

“Banned from the Playboy Mansion for refusing one of his gross friend’s sexual advances — total badge of honor,” Ms. Magnuson said. (She later added in a text message: “One of the reason ingénues accepted invitations to the mansion was to have a nice meal. Sad but true. I was the proverbial starving actress back then.”)

The debauchery at the Playboy Mansion continued for another two and a half decades. In 2005, Mr. Hefner’s reality show, “The Girls Next Door,” became a tawdry hit and introduced a new generation to the property.

источник

Like so many things in Hollywood, though, the reality had become quite different from the carefully crafted image. Rather than a rollicking pleasure palace, the mansion had become quite sad by 2009, when I spent time at the mansion for an article that would be headlined “The Loin in Winter.” Mr. Hefner’s struggling Playboy Enterprises was renting out the grounds nonstop for corporate events. He had lost most of his hearing but was still trying to pass off his silk-pajama shtick.

I remember being horrified by the aviary, which was stacked thick with white bird excrement. Daylight was not kind to the grotto; a wet, dirty pad resembling a small mattress appeared to be rotting in an alcove. The flamingos that once prowled the property were long gone (or hiding in shame) and the monkey cages, while clean, seemed to epitomize the place — an icky vestige of another era.

источник

Two years later, the grotto pools would be linked to an outbreak of Legionnaires’ disease.

The stone house, built in 1927 for an heir to the Broadway and Bullock’s department store fortune, may well have another act. Located a few hundred feet off Sunset Boulevard and abutting the Los Angeles Country Club, the Playboy Mansion was purchased last year by J. Daren Metropoulos, a businessman and heir to a fortune built on Chef Boyardee meatballs, Pabst Blue Ribbon beer and Bumble Bee tuna. The sale had one condition: Mr. Hefner could live there until his death.

источник

Wither Pixar? Not on Elastigirl’s watch.

“Incredibles 2” arrived to a jaw-dropping $180 million in ticket sales at North American theaters over the weekend — roughly 30 percent more than box-office analysts had predicted early last week — giving Pixar a confidence boost following the forced departure of its creative chief, John Lasseter, earlier this month. “Incredibles 2” received an A-plus grade from ticket buyers in CinemaScore exit polls.

The opening total set a box-office record for an animated release. The touting of sales records by movie studios is usually meaningless spin; they don’t take inflation into account. But not in this case: Even after accounting for higher ticket prices, “Incredibles 2” beat Hollywood’s previous record-holder, “Shrek the Third” (DreamWorks Animation), which collected an adjusted $151 million in 2007, according to comScore data.

источник

The thundering turnout for “Incredibles 2” reflected pent-up demand. The film returns the superheroic Mr. Incredible and his quick-thinking wife, Elastigirl, to big screens after a 14-year hiatus — this time with her in the forefront. Animated movies have also been in short supply, in part because of an ongoing retrenchment at DreamWorks, which was sold to NBCUniversal in 2016. The last animated blockbuster was Pixar’s “Coco,” which arrived in November and took in $807 million worldwide.

“Incredibles 2,” which cost Pixar’s corporate parent, the Walt Disney Company, at least $300 million to make and market worldwide, played more like a broad action film than a PG-rated cartoon. About 25 percent of the audience was over the age of 35, according to Disney, which is planning more “Incredibles” installments as part of an ongoing franchise.

источник

“The ‘Avengers’ crowd went to see this movie — it wasn’t just 7-year-old kids,” Greg Foster, the filmed entertainment chief of Imax, the large-format theater chain, said by telephone on Sunday morning. Mr. Foster said that “Incredibles 2” sold about $14.1 million in tickets at Imax theaters in the United States and Canada over the weekend, setting an all-time Imax animation record.

Mr. Foster credited the movie’s writer-director, Brad Bird, for delivering a sequel that received a rapturous response from critics and positive word of mouth on social media. Mr. Foster also noted that the “Incredibles” characters are now favorites for multiple generations: People who saw the original film as children are now parents.

источник

Ребят, знакомая переводит игрушки для RPGMaker-а, хотела бы попасть на ноту. Почта: ailinsavina701@gmail.com
Черкните в личку мне словцо, если она-таки словит инвайт. Всем спасибо)

Короче, вроде так. imnoob1337@mail.ru
«Толпа «Мстителей» пошла посмотреть этот фильм – это были не только лишь 7-летние дети, – сказал в воскресенье утром по телефону по телефону Грег Фостер, кинорежиссёр развлекательной корпорации Imax, крупноформатной театральной сети. Мистер Фостер сказал, что «Суперсемейка 2» принёс около 14,1 миллионов долларов выручки за билеты в кинотеатрах Imax в Соединенных Штатах и Канаде за выходные, установив рекорд анимации Imax за все время.
Мистер Фостер доверил писателю-режиссеру фильма Брэду Бёрду создание сиквела, получившего восторженный отклик критиков и положительные слова в социальных сетях. Мистер Фостер также отметил, что персонажи «Суперсейки» теперь являются фаворитами для нескольких поколений: люди, которые видели оригинальный фильм в детстве, теперь являются родителями.

neperdity@mail.ru

«На этот фильм шла та же аудитория, что и на »Мстителей«, а не просто семилетние детишки», – во время телефонного разговора воскресным утром заявил Грег Фостер, глава отдела кинопроизводства в корпорации «Имакс», владеющей сетью широкоформатных кинотеатров. В них, как сказал мистер Фостера, на «Суперсемейку 2» по США и Канаде за уикенд было продано билетов примерно на четырнадцать миллионов сто тысяч долларов – рекордный показатель для кинопоказов «Имакс» за всё время её существования.

Мистер Фостер отдал должное режиссёру фильма Брэду Бёрду, сумевшему снять сиквел, вызвавший восторженные отзывы критиков и одобрение пользователей соцсетей. Также мистер Фостер заметил, что персонажи «Суперсемейки» стали любимцами многих поколений. Те, кто в детстве видел первый фильм, теперь сами родители.

“The ‘Avengers’ crowd went to see this movie — it wasn’t just 7-year-old kids,” Greg Foster, the filmed entertainment chief of Imax, the large-format theater chain, said by telephone on Sunday morning. Mr. Foster said that “Incredibles 2” sold about $14.1 million in tickets at Imax theaters in the United States and Canada over the weekend, setting an all-time Imax animation record.

Mr. Foster credited the movie’s writer-director, Brad Bird, for delivering a sequel that received a rapturous response from critics and positive word of mouth on social media. Mr. Foster also noted that the “Incredibles” characters are now favorites for multiple generations: People who saw the original film as children are now parents.

Disney needed “Incredibles 2” to succeed. Although it has dominated the box office in recent years, Disney suffered a major setback last month, when its expensive “Solo: A Star Wars Story” crashed and burned. After four weeks of release, “Solo” has taken in about $193 million — not chump change, but the equivalent of a bomb by “Star Wars” standards.

Then Disney announced on June 8 that Mr. Lasseter would not return from a “sabbatical” that started in October, when he stepped down citing unspecified “missteps” that made some staffers feel “disrespected or uncomfortable.” Mr. Lasseter co-founded Pixar and has been the creative force behind the billion-dollar “Toy Story,” “Cars” and “Frozen” franchises.

источник

Запомните! Прежде, чем переводить, нужно закрыть вкладки с гугл и яндекс переводчиками в вашем браузере. Иначе получится тупая фигня.

Дисней была необходима «Суперсемейка 2», чтобы добиться успеха. Хотя в последние годы он доминировал в прокате, Дисней потерпел серьезную неудачу в прошлом месяце, когда его дорогой «Хан Соло: Звёздные Войны. Истории» провалился в прокате. После четырех недель релиза «Соло» заработал около 193 миллионов долларов не мелочь, но довольно небольшая сумма по меркам «Звездных Войн».

Затем Дисней объявил 8 июня, что мистер Лассетер не вернется из “творческого отпуска”, который начался в октябре, когда он ушел ссылаясь на неопределенные «ошибки», которые заставили некоторых сотрудников чувствовать себя «оскорблёнными и униженными». Мистер Лассетер один из основателей Pixar и был его творческой движущей силой на миллиарды долларов «истории игрушек», «тачки» и «замороженные» франшизы.

Перевожу Пространство но общественный аккаунт не позволяет переводить седьмую книгу.
oleni4ack2011@yandex.ru

Sales of George Orwell’s dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) have spiked twice recently, both times in response to political events. In early 2017, the idea of ‘alternative facts’ called to mind Winston Smith, the book’s protagonist and, as a clerk in the Ministry of Truth, a professional alternator of facts. And in 2013, the US National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden compared widespread government surveillance explicitly to what Orwell had imagined: ‘The types of collection in the book – microphones and video cameras, TVs that watch us – are nothing compared to what we have available today.’

источник

Продажи антиутопической новеллы Джорджа Оруэлла «Девятьсот Восемьдесят Четыре» (1949) дважды подскочили, на днях, в связи с политическими событиями. В начале 2017-го, мысли о 'альтернативных фактах' посетила голову Уинстона Смита, протагониста книги и, как чиновник Министерства Правды, профессионально пользующийся альтернативными фактами. И уже в 2013, информатор Национального Защитного Агенства US, Едвард Шовден, сравнил широкомасштабный надзор правительства с тем, что представил себе Оруэлл: «Коллекционные собрание в книгах – микрофоны с видеокамерами, телевизоры, что наблюдают за нами – все это ничто, по сравнению с тем, что мы имеем сегодня.»

Snowden was right. Re-reading Nineteen Eighty-Four in 2018, one is struck by the ‘TVs that watch us’, which Orwell called telescreens. The telescreen is one of the first objects we encounter: ‘The instrument (the telescreen, it was called) could be dimmed, but there was no way of shutting it off completely.’ It is omnipresent, in every private room and public space, right up until the end of the book, when it is ‘still pouring forth its tale of prisoners and booty and slaughter’ even after Smith has resigned himself to its rule.

источник

What’s most striking about the telescreen’s ubiquity is how right and how wrong Orwell was about our technological present. Screens are not just a part of life today: they are our lives. We interact digitally so often and in such depth that it’s hard for many of us to imagine (or remember) what life used to be like. And now, all that interaction is recorded. Snowden was not the first to point out how far smartphones and social media are from what Orwell imagined. He couldn’t have known how eager we’d be to shrink down our telescreens and carry them with us everywhere we go, or how readily we’d sign over the data we produce to companies that fuel our need to connect. We are at once surrounded by telescreens and so far past them that Orwell couldn’t have seen our world coming.

источник

Да и кому вообще нужен этот сайт? Им вообще 3 пользователя пользуются и всё.

«To get a sense of how total the shift of power has become,
consider a story I heard recently,
about a prominent scholar who had just been rejected for a named chair at Cambridge.
The man was acknowledged to be at the top of his field, but he didn’t even make the shortlist.
The kiss of death came when a high-ranking administrator glanced over his CV and remarked,
«He’s obviously a very smart guy. But I have no use for him.» That judgment settled the matter.
When even Cambridge dons are presumed to exist to further the purposes of managers,
rather than the other way around, we know the corporate takeover of the global university system is complete.»

Дабы понять, насколько кардинальны измениния во власти, рассмотрим историю, недавно узнанную мной,
о выдающемся научном деятеле, ходатайство которого на должность преподавателя в Кембридже было отклонено.
Он представил себя лучшим в своей области, но дальше первой стадии отбора он не прошел.
Высокопоставленный руководитель рассматривал резюме и отметил
«По всему видно, он очень квалифицирован. Но в нем нет нужды.» На сем вопрос был закрыт. Когда известно, что даже проффесора Кембриджа
используются для достижения целей администрации, а не наоборот, становится ясно, корпоративная оккупация глобальной университетской системы выполнена.

gogglesuportt@gmail.com

Не самый простой текст, но я попробовал.
imnoob1337@mail.ru
Что больше всего поражает в повсеместности экранов, это то, как Оруэлл был одновременно прав и неправ насчёт нашего технического прогресса. Экраны теперь не просто часть жизни – это и есть жизнь. Мы так глубоко и сильно погрузились в цифровое взаимодействие, что многие из нас уже не могут представить (или вспомнить), какая была жизнь. Теперь, все события записывается. Сноуден не первым указал, насколько далеки смартфоны и социальные сети от того, что представлял Оруэлл. Он не мог узнать, насколько мы жаждали уменьшить экраны и носить их везде, куда мы пойдём, или как легко мы подпишемся на передачу компаниям данных, которые подпитают необходимость подключения. Мы так далеко зашли в окружении себя экранами, что Оруэлл не мог увидеть, каким будет мир.

Or could he? Orwell gives us a couple of clues about where telescreens came from, clues that point toward a surprising origin for the totalitarian state that Nineteen Eighty-Four describes. Taking them seriously means looking toward the corporate world rather than to our current governments as the likely source of freedom’s demise. If Orwell was right, consumer choice – indeed, the ideology of choice itself – might be how the erosion of choice really starts.

The first clue comes in the form of a technological absence. For the first time, Winston finds himself in a room without a telescreen:

‘There’s no telescreen!’ he could not help murmuring.
‘Ah,’ said the old man, ‘I never had one of those things. Too expensive. And I never seemed to feel the need of it, somehow.’

Though we learn to take the old man’s statements with a grain of salt, it seems that – at some point, for some people – the owning of a telescreen was a matter of choice.

источник

One day in seventh grade, I took out my calculator and started typing while I waited for class to begin. The students nearby found this hilarious.

«What are you doing?» one of them taunted. They laughed. Another answered for me in a mock nerd voice: «I'm calculating my curriculum!» They laughed even harder.

Calculating my curriculum? Do you morons even know that those words don't mean anything?

Besides, what I was really doing was typing «5318008» to see whether, as rumor had it, turned upside down it spelled «BOOBIES.»

If you're like me, you didn't exactly grow up in a society hospitable to budding scientists. We felt the world's priorities were out of whack. The school held pep rallies for sports but not for academics.

источник

I became a scientist because I wanted to help the world. That sounds obnoxiously idealistic, which is why I try not to say it out loud. But it’s true. I knew, growing up, that the world had problems. I knew that scientists used knowledge to fix those problems. So, I thought, if I wanted to help the world, the first step was to become a scientist.

But once I had started down that path, I began to doubt where the power to help the world really lies. During grad school, while at a malaria research conference, I approached the keynote speaker to ask a few questions. I don’t remember who he was, but I do remember that he seemed to be the best-informed malaria researcher I had ever met. So I asked him, “If we could take one action right now to reduce malaria deaths, what would it be?”

источник

Because I was a scientist-to-be interviewing a renowned scientist about science at a scientific symposium, I expected his answer to involve science. I thought he would recommend the discovery of an effective vaccine, or a novel insecticide, or even a futuristic mosquito-zapping laser. But his answer surprised me: To save the most lives from malaria, he said, the United States should lift its African cotton embargo.

I didn’t know much about agricultural policy—I still don’t—so I didn’t catch all the nuances of his explanation. But if I recall correctly, he argued that lifting some sort of restriction on importing African cotton would dramatically improve economic conditions for farmers there, thus enabling them to purchase antimalarial drugs and bed nets, which would have a far greater impact than any scientific advance.

источник

I was baffled. I thought we were talking about science. Lifting an embargo isn’t the sort of solution a scientist seeks. It’s not a discovery; it’s just—I don’t know—a decision. If we can save the most lives simply by making different decisions, why were so many smart people wasting their time with discoveries?

A seemingly obvious solution is for scientists to become the decision-makers, to run for the political offices that would let us become deciders as well as discoverers. But in many ways, our qualities are diametrically opposed to those of stereotypically successful politicians. We prize exactness and objectivity; they thrive on opinions and spin. Scientists ask questions about the world; politicians pretend to have all the answers.

источник

A high test score required faux shame. («I don't know what happened. ... I must have accidentally written the correct answers.») The kid who took out a calculator was worthy of ridicule, but the kid who licked the moving belt sander in shop class on a dare -- now, he was someone to be admired.

Growing up, we wanted to live in a science-based society, one that rewards intellect, values reason, and mandates evidence-based decisions -- not unlike, say, a certain starship commanded by Jean-Luc Picard. Instead, we found ourselves stuck in a world in which emotions dictate behavior, rationality is frustratingly avoided, and the most revered people are the ones who can throw balls far.

источник

Высокий балл требовал поддельного стыда. («Я не знаю что случилось... Должно быть случайно написал правильные ответы.») Парень, достававший калькулятор, удостаивался насмешек, а парень, который на спор лизал ленточную шлифовальную машинку на уроках труда – таким парнем восхищались.

Взрослея, мы хотели жить в обществе основанном на науке, в том, которое вознаграждает интеллект, ценит разум и уполномочивает решения, основанные на разуме – в отличие от, например, определенного корабля под командованием Жана-Люка Пикарда. Вместо этого мы застряли в мире, в котором эмоции диктуют поведение, рациональность удручающе избегается, а самые почитаемые люди – те, кто далеко бросает мячи.

thegreataniki@gmail.com

If only, we thought, we could construct our own societies.

* * *

And so we did. Every day, we occupy little societies made by scientists for scientists. Science decorates the walls, science occupies every corner, and science determines who wins arguments. No one gossips about what you wear, as long as you have closed-toed shoes. You can use polysyllabic words in conversation ad liberandum. You can even use words like «polysyllabic» and expressions like ad liberandum.

We made our own sanctuaries with our own rules. We call them our laboratories.

* * *

Think of those idyllic scientocracies we sought to create: the bright lights, multicolored liquids, press conferences, robot butlers, and super-intelligent, helpful chimps. The machinery from Iron Man with the interface from Minority Report in the facility from Spiderman 2, populated by the grad students from Real Genius.

источник

Unfortunately, you don't work in that laboratory, and neither do I. Our sanctuaries of science manifest many of the same arbitrary, illogical rules we'd hoped to escape. Here are some of the Actual, Somewhat Universal Rules of the Laboratory by which we all abide:

1. No matter how rigorously obtained, results will be mistrusted if they are more than 5 years old, and the experiments will be repeated. This is doubly true if the results came from someone else's lab.

2. A co-worker who routinely shows pristine data must be disparaged and suspected of misconduct. A co-worker who routinely shows lousy data must be disparaged and suspected of incompetence.

источник

3. If a piece of equipment sits idle on a lab bench for weeks at a time and then you and a co-worker both want to use it at 3:00 p.m. on Thursday, a case will be made for purchasing another one.

4. Unlabeled bottles of reagents have a longer shelf life than labeled bottles. («Let's not throw this away,» reasons the grad student charged with cleaning out the fridge. «It could contain something important.» Typically, «something important» means «rampant fungus.»)

5. Random decisions pertaining to lab protocols will become entrenched and will persist unquestioned for years. You can test this one out: If your protocol requires doing something for, say, 30 minutes, change it to 32 minutes and then visit the lab in 10 years. The person who has taken over your role in the lab will still perform that step for 32 minutes without knowing why. Unless, in the interim, someone has decided to test out the random decisions behind lab protocols.

источник

Сотрудник должен быть раскритикован...
(Это чудовищно!).

6. Bringing stellar results to the lab meeting will make you almost as popular as bringing cookies to the lab meeting.

7. Grad students will think that the principal investigator (PI) never does any work. The PI will think that the grad students never do any work. The postdoctoral fellows will have children and stop doing any work. The undergraduates will use lab space to do work for other classes. Paid lab techs will do honest work, but no one will give their results any credence because they're just paid lab techs. Every person will believe he or she does the most work.

8. Safety protocols must be adhered to, rigidly, by everyone else. Not by you, because you're awesome.

источник

9. There are nerds even within nerd-dom: Even though you all love science, you still think, «at least I'm cooler than my co-worker who won't shut up about Settlers of Catan.»

10. The expensive computer purchased to run the isothermal titration microcalorimeter will also, mysteriously, run Angry Birds.

11. If you work in industry, much of your time will be spent filling out forms that don't matter. If you work in academia, nothing you do will matter.

12. If you interfere with someone else's experiment, you are Satan. Even if it wasn't your fault. Even if you apologize. Even if the experiment was about to burn down the building.

* * *

You might think it's time to trot out the old cliché that scientists are human after all, subject to the same emotions and biases as the kid who accused me of calculating my curriculum.

источник

Nuts to that. We are different; every kid in seventh grade made damn sure I knew how different. Either they were right, and we were slow to learn how the world works, or we were right, and our classmates sucked. I, for one, believe they sucked.

This is a call to arms, people. We've let our human side show, and it isn't pretty. Let's tuck it back out of sight and get on with the business of feeling superior. I have written a pledge -- a mantra -- that we should all repeat each time we feel ourselves succumbing to the pettiness and humanity of the Actual, Somewhat Universal Rules:

I am a scientist.

I will do things that make sense.

источник

I will evaluate the results of my experiments objectively, and if they fail, I will say so. No one will steal my lunch money.

I like exactness. How much do I like it? Five.

I like precision. How much do I like it? Several additional fives.

The only emotion I will demonstrate, let alone experience, is triumph at kicking an experiment's ass.

Our mutual aim is to discover knowledge about the universe. So we will be nice to each other and help each other and share resources, because a society of just one person is not a real society. It is the Newt Gingrich campaign.

Only one method will dictate my actions, and that is the scientific method. Hear me, world: I am a scientist. And I am proud to be science's bitch.

источник

Confessions of a former grade grubber

By Adam Ruben | Sep. 19, 2018, 3:50 PM

My grad school molecular biology professor’s problem sets were legendarily impenetrable, but for once I thought I might breeze through. The topic that week happened to be a subject I’d studied in depth for my undergraduate thesis. In fact, the accompanying journal article he’d assigned, while dense and demanding, was one I’d read a dozen times and knew inside and out.

On the problem set, I knew one of the responses the professor wanted. But I also knew certain technical details that made the most straightforward answer not quite right. So—assuming that scientists reward precision—instead of writing a few sentences, I rambled for multiple pages, thinking it was a rare opportunity to impress the professor by pedantically harping on minutiae.

источник

Чтобы понять смысл названия статьи, надо прочитать её хотя бы до середины.

The next week, however, the teaching assistant (TA) returned my problem set with a point deducted—not because I was wrong, but because I didn’t answer exactly as the professor was expecting.

I confronted the TA and argued the hell out of that one point. I pushed, I quarreled, and I may or may not have thrown around the word “injustice.” In the end, however, she never conceded the point that I not only deserved, but I daresay mega-deserved. I still grieve for its loss.

A few years later, when it became my turn to evaluate students’ exams and essays, I didn’t want to inflict that pain on anyone else. I spent an excessive amount of time grading, prioritizing fairness and trying to preempt any accusations of inequity.

источник

This made it all the more maddening when students requested regrades—which they did regularly. One of my students in a biochemistry lab literally said to me, “Please, please, I’m begging you,” over half a point I had deducted on his homework—half a point out of a possible 575 points for the semester. All of a sudden, the behavior I’d performed myself on so many occasions seemed intensely annoying.

“I spent an hour and a half writing thorough comments on your freaking assignment,” I wanted to say. “I considered it in the context of all of your classmates’ papers, not to mention a carefully constructed set of criteria I’ve outlined in the syllabus and used for years. I didn’t just pull your grade out of a Random Disappointment Generator.”

источник

Все стало еще хуже когда студенты просили исправить им оценки, что они делали часто. Один из моих студентов в биохимической лаборатории сказал мне «Пожалуйста, я умоляю вас», я снял с его домашней работы полбалла... полбалла из возможных 575 за семестр. То как я себя вел так много раз в прошлом внезапно стало страшно раздражающим.
– Я потратил полтора часа пока писал рецензию на твою работу, – хотел сказать я. – Я учел работы всех твоих одногрупников, не упоминая о тщательно составленных критериях очерченных в учебном плане и используемые годами. Я не просто получил твою оценку из генератора разочаровывающих результатов.
stalkerdie34@gmail.com

Had I been that irritating as a student? Probably. For example, there was my first graded final exam in college. The class was general chemistry, and the grade was lower than I’d hoped. Without even pausing to check my responses against the posted answer key, I turned to the secretary and asked, “Does the professor still have office hours?”

“No,” she said, “not until next semester.”

“Then can I please schedule a time to meet with him?” I asked. “It’s about my grade.”

I had no real reason to distrust my score on the test. I hadn’t even looked at it, for goodness sake, only at the red ink at the top of the first page. In that moment, nothing mattered to me more than the number on the page and a corresponding indelible letter in the registrar’s database—not fairness to my classmates on the bell curve, not my own dignity, not whether I’d bother the professor, and certainly not general chemistry.

источник

The grade was everything. The grade was the all-important, all-consuming, all-powerful proxy for my identity as a student. I wasn’t about to let it slip through my fingers when I had a possible shot at a higher one. “We’re going to go through this darn exam line by line,” I thought, relishing my upcoming appointment with the professor. “This is a worthwhile use of my time and his.”

I’m not proud of this attitude, which seems all the sillier now as I try to convince my two children that learning is valuable for its own sake. Sadly, harping on the grade itself was my default: Any deducted points warranted a demand for their justification. I assumed my entreaties for teachers and professors to reexamine my marks were all part of a standard academic transaction. It was simply a form of quality control, I thought, that I could impose on the grader’s rubric.

источник

It’s completely valid to want one’s work to be assessed justly. As scientists, we demand accuracy, often at the cost of simplicity or social graces. We feel righteous, therefore, in retroactively pursuing credit we assume we deserve for answers we’re certain are correct.

But it’s also true that many of my complaints—and many that I received from my students—had nothing to do with fairness or accuracy.

By the time I graduated from college, I had mastered all of the grade-grubbing techniques: Arguing that a correct answer had been misinterpreted. Blaming ambiguity in the wording of the question. Finding a rare counterexample in a true/false situation. Disparaging the apparent arbitrariness of the partial credit guidelines. Questioning the wisdom of the assignment itself.

источник

When I graded writing, students often challenged their marks, assuming that the subject’s innate subjectivity meant I could be cajoled into changing my mind. They never came equipped with reasons their papers might actually deserve more points, such as explanations related to the cogency of their arguments. Instead, they came with the same general refrain of, “Please give me a higher grade because I want one.”

It’s normal to want a fair grade. It’s also normal to feel aggravated when students bombard you, demanding points for frivolous reasons—or no reason at all.

источник

Когда я оценивал работы, студенты часто оспаривали свои отметки, полагая, что присущая предмету субъективность означала, что меня можно уговорить изменить своё решение. Они никогда не предоставляли причин из которых бы следовало, что их работы действительно могут заслуживать более высокий балл, например, объяснения неопровержимости своих аргументов. Вместо этого они придерживались стандартного: «Пожалуйста, поставьте мне оценку повыше, потому что я так хочу.»
Хотеть справедливую оценку – это нормально. Также нормально чувствовать раздражение, когда студенты донимают тебя, требуя баллы по надуманным причинам – или вообще без причин.

Replicator001@yandex.ru

Both problems would diminish, I think, if we’d stop placing so much importance on grades in the first place. Students aren’t begging for points simply because they like points. They’re begging for points because the education system has told them that these points are the currency with which they can buy a successful future. These points get you into college, grad school, or med school. These points earn you scholarships, fellowships, and internships. These points convince you and/or your parents that you’re not wasting the insane expense of college. Your academic transcript is a holy document that the registrar keeps under lock and key, only accessible by special request for a fee, and your GPA is so crucial to some sort of ranking that it’s calculated to three decimal places.

источник

Yet we have the nerve to simultaneously assure students that education is its own reward. We even lump together the quest for accurate assessment with the foundationless complaints into a practice called “grade grubbing,” as though such requests are not only misguided but downright cowardly.

In a way, then, grade grubbing can even represent a student’s passive-aggressive rebellion against the establishment: Oh yeah? You’re going to base this much of my future on grades? Then I shall dispute every grade I can, for I am the monster you have created.

источник

20 Inspiring Films that Feature a Strong Female Lead
By Janine Eduljee • Entertainment July 26, 2015 at 5:30pm

Erin Brockovich. Elle Woods. Leigh Ann Tuohy. Leading ladies that we all adore and all wish we could be a little more like. So often the gender inequality in film is subtle enough that it goes fairly unnoticed. But it's an undeniable truth that movies which feature a strong, independent female lead (who isn't just used solely as a foil or love interest for the male lead) aren't exactly in abundance. So when we do get treated to movies of the like, we cherish them, we watch them over and over again, and we tend to never forget the indellible characters which no doubt have shaped our own decisions as women.

источник

20 вдохновляющих фильмов, в которых в главной роли женщины с сильным характером
автор Джанин Эдулджи • Развлечения опубликовано 26 июля 2015 года в 17:30
Эрин Брокович. Эль Вудс. Ли Энн Таои. Известные актриссы, которых мы все обожаем, и всем нам хотелось быть немного на них похожими.
Обычно гендерное неравенство в фильмах настолько неуловимое, что его и не замечают. Однако беспорно, что не так много фильмов, в которых играют сильные и независимые главные героини ( а не только те, которые нужны в качестве любовного интереса главного героя).
Поэтому, когда мы смотрим такие фильмы, то относимся к ним с любовью, пересматривая снова и снова. Как правило мы помним таких незабываемых героин, которые, несомненно, сформировали свои собственные решения, как женщины.
ilerka.ts@gmail.com

These girls aren't perfect by any standards—but the reason we look up to them as our role models is because rather than give up or (more often the case) rely on a man to solve their problems, they choose to pull from their inner strength and in the end they come out on top of the world because they did things their way. Without further ado, let's list the 20 greatest movies with fearless female leads!

20. Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961) – Holly Golightly (Audrey Hepburn)
Everybody knows the iconic image of the ever-graceful Hepburn standing in front of the Tiffany's store on 5th Avenue, quietly indulging in a croissant, dressed in a floor length gown with black gloves, glam jewelry, big sunglasses, and a tiara to crown her messy yet elegant bun.

источник

В связи с тем, что я не могу проверять работы кандидатов вовремя, выдача инвайтов временно прекращена.

Здравствуйте! Только что узнала об этом сайте. Изучая блог, наткнулась на ваш пост. У меня есть небольшой опыт перевода с английского на русский и наоборот. Еще знаю украинский.

Могу помогать с переводами на эти языки.

Я бы хотела попробовать перевести книгу с русского на английский, но не хочу делать это с общего аккаунта.

Не желаю быть «кем попало», поэтому прошу дать отрывок для перевода для проверки моей квалификации; или(раз тема заморожена) – подсказать куда обращаться за инвайтом.

Здравствуйте, а каким-то образом ещё можно получить инвайт?
Я хотел бы закончить перевод The Sims Complete Collection, который был начат ещё на форуме Prosims(http://prosims.ru/forumdisplay.php?f=151). Могу попробовать перевести отрывок, или же предоставить собственные переводы текстов, которые уже имеются.
Почта: dmitrii.zlat@mail.ru

Я добрый зомби и я хочу инвайт, Но меня все пинают ногами. Один раз даже играли моей головой в футбол пока не разбили окно. Представляете как испугались хозяева когда я пришел забрать свою голову? Вообщем, нет нам (зомби) места в этом мире...

Есть желание поучаствовать в переводах и корректировке некоторых игр, возможно – книг. Прошу предоставить инвайт для углубленного ознакомления с этим сообществом, через аккаунт удобнее и практичнее, да и я не планирую здесь быть однодневкой) Предоставьте отрывок для перевода, если уже на то пошло.

Опаньки, народ, кажется, по десятку инвайтов нам накинули, ловите момент :)
У зомби осталось девять 8-P))
И да, спасибо, создатель!

Для осознования, на сколько толстой стала измена власти, поглазеем рассказик, которую я недавно слышал о выдающемся глазастике, которого только что отвергли на стул с именами председателя в Кембридже. Человек был признан на вершине своего поля, но он даже не попал в шорт-лист. Смертельный куннилингус пришел, когда высокопоставленный администратор посмотрел на свое резюме и заметил: «Он, очевидно, очень умный парень. Но я не хочу его ». Это решение решило решение. Когда думать, что даже кембриджские человек существуют для достижения целей менеджеров, а не наоборот, мы знать что заглатывание всевеликой университетской системы кончило.