Not taking any sides other than that of conservation, do you think it's possible that the Greens have already saved many artifacts from nutty religious types like ISIS, and that their efforts will continue to do so in the future?
No they did not. They are just encouraging and creating an illegal market. The US also lacked proper laws against the importation of antiquities. For all we know it could have come into the states on a military plane and ISIS would have nothing to do with it. No museum worth its salt, with professional curators and staff would have accepted such a "loot" and as a matter of fact also reputable auctioneers. In any case it is important to study artifacts in the context where they were found, stratigraphy, nearby archaeological sites etc.
I mean I’m not a conservator of ancient artifacts, but the pictures [0] of them dunking mummy masks in dish water to decompose them so they could check whether they were made with scrap bible papyrus… those did make my stomach turn a little. Felt a little closer to desecration that preservation.
I pretty much see them on a daily basis in the Driftless Area of Wisconsin and Illinois these days, which is great because I don't think I had one sighting for the first 30 or so years of my life.
Yeah, don't have high expectations for things you pay for but don't own. It's a sad truth, but I've accepted it (I also bought some dvds in 2024 which is something I never thought I'd do again).
Not sure about DVDs, but CDs weren't designed to last longer than 10 years. Most of my CD collection has physically rotted. Because I was using Windows Media Player and iTunes, I ripped most of collection in M4A format, which, at the time, was better than MP3. A couple of years ago, I decided that I wanted to re-rip my CD collection (some 200 odd CDs) in FLAC format instead of m4a format (don't ask). And some significant portion (50%?) of the new FLAC rips were missing tracks due to physical read errors on the original CD media.
Completely unrelated and misleading comparison. A proper comparison to the issue with apps is if Amazon employee would walk into your house and physically destroyed CDs. CDs rotting is a force of nature, not corporate greed/incompetence.
Perhaps, but I'm of the opinion that if a sentence is unjust, or if the means to convict violated the defendant's rights, then the defendant should walk. While this may seem unreasonable, it's the only way to check the state which has unlimited resources when it decides to go after somebody.
I don't really have an opinion on this case because I'm not completely familiar with all the details. It's certainly going to be contentious.
HR is to protect the company, first and foremost. Sure, they'll discuss protecting the worker's rights, but that's in order to protect the company from a scenario where a worker's rights have been violated and they have a legitimate complaint against the company.
Which is why I thought this line of reasoning from the article is extremely disingenuous
> Tim Glowa, the founder and CEO of HR Brain, says that "rather than venting online, reporting helps build a proper case while ensuring confidentiality and protecting your professional reputation," adding, "What you post online can follow you indefinitely."
If you read between the lines on this it’s clear as day that they are saying speaking up is bad for your career, without saying those words explicitly.
Executives, VPs and SVPs hate being held accountable by their workers, that’s my main takeaway here
There’s more nuance. When you go public with an accusation or problem, you can’t control when, who or how it is used. It’s unlikely that you’re going to be able to frame the narrative effectively to get something of value.
For example, an issue related to something that you expressed in your public can be picked up, embraced and extended and turned into a racial or other high attention/impact issue. The press can run with it and create a mess. More likely, nobody cares, and you’ll be painted as a crazy person, and crazy people go away.
The article said Latin, but I don't know what script that is. It looks like it was written right-to-left so maybe it's Latin written in Hebrew script? I'm not even sure if that was a thing.
The design of the stands "met the safety standards at the time."
Isn't that always the way? Technology advanced in a rush and no one adequately modeled the risk. Spectators, trusting the purveyors of the entertainment, were slaughtered.
Yeah, that is indeed often the case. Sometimes technology advances at an incredible rate in a short time, and safety standards are horrifically behind. I'm reminded of internet and smart phone technology.
