"Revelations" is not emotional, it's a form of "reveal".
"After PRISM Revelations" simply means "After PRISM was revealed", since it was hidden from the public before. So, Snowden revealed the existence and scope of PRISM to the group of people whose search behavior this study is analyzing (the general public).
Not an emotional word and, overall, not bad writing in the study.
Don't lie and pretend to be an individual just making a reservation for a night out on the town.
Maybe this has value, is good or bad, whatever: but be clear with restaurants that you're a for-profit scalping business making money off their inventory.
The douchiness of scalping reservations can be argued....
But there is not a single logical defense for LYING to the restaurants about being an individual. Writing a blog post about why you're lying doesn't make it okay, either.
Be clear with businesses about what you're doing with what THEY broke their backs to build, and let them opt in if they want. Cool, could be a good service and help some restaurants out or something.
But stop lying. That is douchey, is unethical in every way with no justification, and is worthy of all negative media — regardless of how overkill SF media can be sometimes.
There are a lot of shitty survey-type studies, but there is some good mechanistic research you can turn up just by searching the specific chemical names on Pubmed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed)
Who cares if thinkers use drugs? They have since the dawn of time, and it's helped all of us by letting already brilliant people get an extra boost. Whether it's psychedelics, marijuana, or nootropics, we know substances can not-insignificantly impact our creativity and inspiration.
Nevermind what a specific college or professional sports organization has to say about this; maybe someday they'll start thinking themselves, perhaps with the help of some substances, and realize that maybe the "college entrance exams, program entrance exams, and other educational competitions" are themselves a bit silly in the context of trying to truly find important ideas.
It can't still be illegal here in the United States if it wasn't overlooked; ask the average person if non-psychoactive marijuana was used to make cars at one point and most will look at you with confusion, if they even answer.
The history and incredible, incredible use of hemp is extremely overlooked in general. Good luck finding it mentioned more than in passing in a high school text book, or finding a politician aware of the fact that it's almost incomprehensibly better for paper, clothing, and could create - oh my god - so many jobs, the thing a lot of politicians seem to be talking about and promising; but directly preventing (this is both parties, by the way).
Just some great writing on this idea of being a "balanced" human, and how that influences, informs, and improves your skills. His skills were as a samurai, but the principles apply pretty universally. I got a lot out of the book, you can find it free on iBooks, Kindle, etc.
The last thing the tech world needs is people walking around calling themselves "growth hackers".
Actually, the last thing the tech world needs is stuff like this, from the article:
If a startup is pre-product/market fit, growth hackers can make sure virality is embedded at the core of a product. After product/market fit, they can help run up the score on what’s already working.
Stop making up "markets" and "niches", then making crappy products to try and be "viral" in these areas, then calling yourself a "growth hacker" or something as ridiculous and valueless.
Build something because you love it, not because a "growth hacker" determined that it was a "pre-market fit".
This attitude annoys the creative person in me as well, who loves writing software.
But you can't be mad at the business people moving in, optimizing the process because they got into the business because they saw an opportunity to make money.
I'm sure tv writers felt the same way about the first rise of infomercials and televangelists. Hucksterism works and it's good capitalism. And it always annoys the creative people who see themselves as artists or artisans.
If they're stupid and sacrificing the quality of the actual art/software/website/thing, that's not good. It's easy to get mad at this.
And when there's so many of these types of people doing so much damage and causing so much waste, that's really not good. It's very easy to get mad at this.
True, I didn't phrase that well. It's easy to get mad at it but you are mad at capitalism and human nature.
Since I have decided not to take these things on, I find it better to not get mad at them but to remain detached.
I can constantly be angry about the hucksters and not do anything about it or accept it as an inevitable outcome of the systems I live in and not do anything about it. This doesn't mean I don't admire/support those who have decided to attack these problems.
I think algebra is necessary, and calculus, and geometry, and trigonometry, and everything else I don't understand in the realm of mathematics.
But they're important in the context of real life.
So, yes, we should keep these classes, keep having kids go through algebra and calculus and geometry...
...But you shouldn't be bound by arbitrary rules. Algebra is important, but if you find "x" by doing something other than some arbitrary thing where you subtract both sides, etc., you shouldn't get an F in the class.
Same with calculus, geometry, everything. The importance is the thinking and the logic, and what real-life application you can take from your knowledge. Making hard rules for these math courses, for example, definitely hurts this and does some of the things this article claims.
But true, honest exploration in math and thinking about it is very important, and if it's free and done in an honest way there is no question about whether it's necessary or not.
> ...But you shouldn't be bound by arbitrary rules. Algebra is important, but if you find "x" by doing something other than some arbitrary thing where you subtract both sides, etc., you shouldn't get an F in the class.
In middle school at least this kind of thing was allowed as long as we could show why what we did worked. The idea being that we would have to understand what we did in order to know either when it would work or when it would fail so that we could apply it correctly. If we could do that we weren't given full credit for anything because the homework/tests were meant to check that we understood how to get the correct answer (other than copying from the nerds like me).
"After PRISM Revelations" simply means "After PRISM was revealed", since it was hidden from the public before. So, Snowden revealed the existence and scope of PRISM to the group of people whose search behavior this study is analyzing (the general public).
Not an emotional word and, overall, not bad writing in the study.