anomoly_

It's a book written in the 1960s that was one of my favorites as a kid. It's been adapted into a couple of films, the most recent being in the early 90s. Essentially the story of two dogs and a cat that can talk to each other traversing the Canadian wilderness to find their humans.

edit: I got to wondering about the exact dates, so here's some links in case anyone is interested:

1961 book, The Incredible Journey

1963 film, The Incredible Journey

1993 film, Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey

I can't tell if this is a reference to The Incredible Journey or if you haven't read/seen it.

This is it for me. I like that a multiplayer world is something dynamic I'm a part of even when I'm not interacting with it directly.

This broke me. The dot … over the i. That broke me. I’m … I’m done.

The real pro tip is always in the comments

That's a good point and, in retrospect, the multilevel is almost better for the comparison as the people are also multilevel.

If you're here to tell me energy drink body spray is a bad idea, I've heard it before, from a bank and some doctors.

Do you have any preferred sources for learning more about Umberto eco's 14 points of fascism?

I have a pair originally purchased for running but they've turned out to be useful in numerous situations where I wanted to listen to something without losing awareness of my surroundings.

There’s nothing wrong with the article.

I guess I can concede that the article describes what happened, so maybe it was the headline that set off my skepticism. In my opinion there's a big difference between:

'If anything happens, it's not suicide': Boeing whistleblower's prediction before death

and

'If anything happens, it's not suicide': Family friend reports Boeing whistleblower's prediction before death

I know I'm being pedantic, that it's just clickbait, and that's the reality of today's media; but I've spent the last 8-10 years watching some my family radicalized by headlines like this (albeit on different topics) and feel pretty strongly about it, I suppose. After realizing a few years ago the negative effect internet echo chambers were having on me I started to try and be a little more skeptical about things I was reading, especially if I agreed with them. Most of the time I just try to keep quiet but, apparently, felt like trying to start a discussion about it this morning.

claiming that a HR rep and a family friend have the same level of believability is ridiculous.

You probably have a point here. I could have better phrased my statement as something like, "I’m not sure that I’m willing to take the word of a "close family friend" who agrees with my point of view than I am a "close family friend" who disagrees with my point of view" or something similar. For instance, if the women in the article told the reporter, "he was very unhappy and told me he might kill himself" I'd still be thinking there was a convincing chance that Boeing was directly responsible because I wouldn't consider her any more credible just because she's agreeing with me.

I feel the same about the response given that I'm agreeing with everyone's sentiments overall and only questioning the validity of a single source. Suppose I need to get a better feel for the site before trying to be more active.

I'm curious if some one who disagreed with you - on something that they found completely, obviously true - tried to convince you they were right by saying that their mom's friend's daughter made a claim about it, how inclined would you be to believe them or that daughter?

I think we all agree that Barnett suspected that something would happen; and we all agree that Boeing is a terrible company that is capable, and guilty, of terrible things. My point it just that there is concrete evidence of these things and articles should rely on something other than some person made a claim with nothing but, "it's obvious" or "I know" to back it up