Senior 2011 slogans

CeruleanForLife: The Cerulean Regiment Barracks of the Periwinkle Army and the NoFapWar

2015.11.08 23:55 LuckyJB CeruleanForLife: The Cerulean Regiment Barracks of the Periwinkle Army and the NoFapWar

Subreddit of the Cerulean Regiment in the Periwinkle Army of the NoFapWar http://www.reddit.com/NoFapWa

2017.11.02 09:58 Swaye73 Blockchain-based platform for Global Distributed Supply Chain Finance & Trade Services

AXenS is a secure and curated digital market place to provide both liquidity and efficiency to the import-export supply chain. It is a place that is trade-focused from the ground-up and that is secure not only by cutting-edge cryptography but also by customizable trust models, which make it possible to guarantee both the data privacy and auditability required by the many players in the industry.

[link]

2024.05.15 17:04 antiope333 Left and Returned?

Has anyone left the industry and returned?
I have been licensed since 2011 and worked as an esthetician at a day spa, hotel casino spa, and wax studio for 2 years following that. I went back to a 9-5 and have been climbing the ranks ever since. I went from making 24,000 at a 9-5 in 2016 to 57,000 a year…but I hate it. I feel so unfulfilled. What I LOVED about esthetics is working with the clients (when the senior esthi’s weren’t moving them from my books!) what I disliked, and made me leave the industry were the other therapists, so bitter, catty, and just straight up mean. I’ve the last 3 years I have been going back and forth with myself on whether or not I should dip my toe back in and return to the treatment room. Money is a big factor in that, it’s not like I am making gobs of money, I just feel like I have worked so hard to get where I am that I am afraid to let that go.
Has anyone experienced anything similar? Did you return? How did it go?
Any advice would be helpful.

submitted by antiope333 to Esthetics [link] [comments]

2024.05.14 18:46 _briz_the_wiz_ Resume Help Needed

I am a recent retiree from the Army. I have been interviewed for one position I did not get, and I am looking for pointers on improving my resume. I also use the USA.jobs resume creator when required. I have 15+ years of operations experience up to the Sergeant Major level but also just graduated with an accounting degree with honors. I am trying to leverage my education and experience, but also applying to the fields separately. I keep getting conflicting advice on my resume, so any help is appreciated.
Citizenship: Yes - United States Citizen Security Clearance: Active Secret Clearance Availability: Full-Time/ Permanent
PROFILE SUMMARY
Accomplished leader with over 15 years of experience in operations, strategic planning, and team leadership. Dedicated to driving organizational excellence through dynamic strategies aligned with institutional objectives. Proven track record of adept leadership, fostering cohesive teams, and ensuring timely project delivery. Skilled in problem-solving and communication, adept at identifying and resolving operational challenges. Proficient in fiscal management and cost optimization, resulting in budget-friendly solutions and improved profitability. Experienced in organizational development, enhancing work culture, and boosting employee engagement and retention.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
[U.S. Department of the Army](): Senior Operations Manage Operations Sergeant Major 1-314^th Infantry Battalion - Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, NJ April 2022 to Retirement (40 Hours per Week)
~Duties & Related Skills:~

Trained and supervised staff on financial databases and digital systems crucial for accurate financial record-keeping and daily operations
Received formal recognition for administrative expertise, driving successful financial operations, and influencing process improvements
Collaborated with operational partners to facilitate two Army-level training exercises and coordinate financial aspects of all training activities
Conducted specialized correspondence training for financial and operational staff, enhancing financial reporting accuracy and efficiency
Identified, remedied, and approved Defense Travel System travel claims, resulting in substantial cost savings and heightened quality assurance in financial processes

U.S. Department of the Army: Senior Operations Manage Future Operations and Planning Lead & First Sergeant Fort Drum Garrison Headquarters & 10^th Mountain Division Headquarters - Fort Drum, NY September 2019 to March 2022 (40 Hours per Week)
~Duties & Related Skills:~

Provided direct administrative and technical support to senior executives and a team of 15,000 personnel
Revamped and optimized the future operations staff section, fostering a professional environment focused on organizational enhancement and superior customer service
Handpicked to lead a planning and future operations cell, surpassing fifteen highly qualified candidates based on proven expertise and exceptional results
Conceptualized, developed, and implemented standard operating procedures for expeditionary logistics nodes, resulting in considerable time savings for outload and mission command establishment
Demonstrated mastery in overseeing six digital automation networks and executing senior operational actions for five international training exercises, ensuring seamless mission command
Successfully planned and executed training exercises involving over 3,000 personnel across a dispersed area spanning 250 miles, achieving a 100% success rate

U.S. Department of the Army: Senior Operations Manage Current Operations Lead & First Sergeant 1-504^th Parachute Infantry Regiment & 82^nd Airborne Division Headquarters - Fort Liberty, NC December 2015 to August 2019 (40 Hours per Week)
~Duties & Related Skills:~

Supervised division current operations section, enabling rapid worldwide deployment of contingency forces within 18 hours
Demonstrated effective communication, interpersonal, multitasking, and leadership skills, driving results in dynamic environments
Maintained precision and diligence in performing duties, consistently delivering accurate results
Excelled in planning and organizing tasks under adverse conditions with minimal supervision, achieving exceptional outcomes
Conducted data analysis, program evaluation, and risk management for eleven joint-level exercises, earning formal recognition from executive leadership
Coordinated real-world deployments, humanitarian missions, international exercises, orders production, emergency responses, casualty affairs operations, and daily correspondence with upper echelons
Projected an expert proficiency with Microsoft Suite tools, PowerBI, and Tableau.
Managed a $15 million renovation and transformation of a joint task force operations center, overseeing assets worth over $2.5 million

CIVILIAN EDUCATION
Institute: Southern New Hampshire University Degree: Bachelor of Science – 2024 Major: Accounting Honors: Summa Cum Laude (3.9 GPA)
MILITARY EDUCATION
Basic, Advanced, and Senior Leadership Course U.S. Advanced Airborne School Air and Unit Movement Officer U.S. Air Force Air-load Planner Combat Lifesaver Emergency Medical Technician
CERTIFICATIONS
· U.S. Defense Counterintelligence & Security Agency – DOD Mandatory Controlled Unclassified Information, Awareness & Reporting · U.S. Department of the Army – Information Security Program, Army OPSEC Level 1 · U.S. Department of Defense – Certified OPSEC for EOP Operators/ OPSEC Awareness for Military Members, DoD Employees & Contracto Combating Trafficking in Person for Investigative Professionals/ Combating Trafficking in Person General Awareness/ Combating Trafficking in Persons for Acquisition & Contracting Professionals/ Level 1 Antiterrorism Awareness, Military Occupational Code, Managing your Transition, Financial Planning for Transition, Employment Fundamentals of Career Transition, Identifying & Safeguarding Personally Identifiable Information PII, Introduction to Privacy Act 1, 2, & 3
SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS & ABILITIES (KSA)
· Demonstrates comprehensive understanding and proficiency in deployment and mobility operations, including wartime contingency plans and adherence to relevant instructions, regulations, directives, and local operating procedures.
· Proficient in handling classified and/or protected documents, with adeptness in utilizing various automated data management systems.
· Proficient in budget analysis and administration, encompassing knowledge of budgetary methods, practices, policies, procedures, regulations, and precedents, as well as the accounting system for budgetary information.
· Skilled in implementing security methods, rules, regulations, and principles, supporting security administration, resolving security-related issues, and performing diverse security assignments.
· Proficient in providing authoritative consultation and conducting complex training administration, with the ability to assess program needs, evaluate status, and recommend/implement improvement solutions.
· Proficient in applying tact and diplomacy in advising individuals and high-level officials on complex and sensitive issues, related to planning, organizing, and directing functions of small organizations.
· Demonstrates entry-level proficiency in applying basic principles, concepts, and practices of the occupation.
· Effective communication skills in conveying factual and procedural information clearly, both orally and in writing.
· Proficient in assessing and measuring organizational trends, concerns, and needs, identifying gaps in services, and providing recommendations for effective plans and tools.
· Ability to analyze problems, identify significant factors, gather pertinent data, and utilize critical thinking skills to recognize solutions.
· Skilled in conducting one-on-one training, group presentations, and training sessions through oral communication.
· Demonstrates ability to plan, organize work, follow instructions, and manage multiple ongoing projects effectively, with proficiency in locating, assembling, and composing information for reports, inquiries, and limited technical correspondence.
· Proficient in identifying training needs, instructing personnel, and communicating effectively both orally and in writing.
ADDITIONAL DUTIES
Budget Analyst 2022 [– ]()2024 Knowledge Management Officer 2016 – 2018 Digital Master Gunner 2016 – 2018 Army Instructor 2011 – 2013 DTS Authorizing, Certifying, and Reviewing Official 2008 – 2024
AWARDS
Eagle Scout Bronze Star Medal Meritorious Service Medal (4) Army Commendation Medal (6) Army Achievement Medal (5) Army Good Conduct Medal (7) Drill Sergeant Identification Badge Combat Infantryman Badge Expert Infantryman Badge Command Cyber Readiness Award First Army Commanding General Award Friends of Lynn Woods Cyrus M. Tracy Award
ORGANIZATIONAL PARTICIPATION
National Eagle Scout Association Veterans of Foreign Wars National Infantry Association 82^nd Airborne Division Association
VOLUNTEER ACTIVITY
Habitat for Humanity 2022 - Present Salem Hospital 1992 - 1996
EDUCATIONAL FOCUS AREAS
Organizational Leadership, Leadership Communication, Operations Management, Principles of Management, Human Relations in Administration, Principles of Finance, Financial Accounting, Managerial Accounting, Intermediate Accounting I II & III, Advanced Accounting, Cost Accounting, Auditing Principles, Auditing and Forensic Accounting, Financial Statement Analysis, Business Valuation, Federal Taxation, Microeconomics, Macroeconomics, Business Law I & II, Global Business Dimensions, Driving Business Opportunities, Critical Business Skills for Success, Applied Marketing Strategies, Data Analytics for Financial Professionals, Statistics, and Technology in Society.

submitted by _briz_the_wiz_ to usajobs [link] [comments]

2024.05.14 13:08 Glitched-Avocado Worth upgrading to 335i with higher mileage before college?

I’m a senior in high school and have a 2011 328i xdrive with only 35000 miles, no issues. I want a 335i but would only be able to afford one with 90-120 miles. Are they reliable enough that high or would yall stick with this?

submitted by Glitched-Avocado to E90 [link] [comments]

2024.05.14 05:28 dirtydiaperdumpster Changing eyecolor?

I was always told I had brown eyes ever since I was little. Then I was told that they turned amber when I got older, and now I’m told they’re definitely hazel, but some have said I had central hetrochromia. I just need an outside opinion. The first photo is from when I was a kid, roughly 2011. I started getting told I had amber eyes when I was in high school mainly by my mom and a couple of friends. The second photo is from the beginning of my senior year, 2020, in the natural sunlight. Now I’m told they’re 100% hazel. The last 2 photos were taken 10 minutes ago with my phone flash on. I tried doing a front photo and one from the side just to see how the light manipulates the look of the color. I DEFINITELY believe I have always had brown/hazel eyes, but the lighting in certain situations just made people think otherwise. I mean, there’s time I’ve definitely noticed them to be more green, brown, or golden than normal, but it was always in different lights, so I don’t think I can say my eyes change colors. Tell me I’m right please 😂

submitted by dirtydiaperdumpster to WhatisMyEyeColour [link] [comments]

2024.05.12 23:41 solace1234 My grandpa says I shouldn’t be a home aide with a car because it’ll break down. (Upstate NY)

I had this 2011 Nissan Cube which seemed to work fine, butt it lasted about 4 months before the transmission fluid fucked up and completely stopped accelerating so I scrapped it. I was driving to multiple patients, admittedly making the decision to drive all over the place and my Grandpa blames the inconvenience on this schedule. I wouldn’t go farther than 40 - 50 minutes to a patient, but I had 4 patients so I did a lot of driving regardless. Sometimes, two on the same day.
I love being a home aide. It’s quite a simple job and the pay is better than anything else that would hire me. Plus the schedule is incredibly flexible. The other jobs I’ve tried since losing my car (dishwasher, deli service, etc) are PURE STRESS and they don’t even pay nearly as much as my Home Aide Job, so I’ve decided to start biking to my patients or catching a bus when available and the pay + work is fulfilling enough to be worth it. If I do this temporarily, I can get a new car in, like, a month or two. I want to move out of my grandparents’ place before 2025 and i’m willing to do anything, even travel an hour and a half for this job.
However, my grandpa is a bit old fashioned and seems to think I would do better working at Lowe’s. They would be paying me 15 to do all sorts of uninteresting bs, while my Current job would pay 17+ for medically helping senior citizens and simply being good company.
My main question…
My grandpa’s opinion: Getting a ~$3,000 to $5,000 car would be pointless if I kept the Home Aide job, because my patients are far and my car would simply break down very quickly again. I agree with his lesser-emphasized point that I should get a job that doesn’t depend on me having a car, but it’s limiting and not perfectly possible (getting hired is hard).
My opinion: I find it hard to believe that a Home Aide’s used car breaking after 4 months is so common. If I simply get something with low mileage and decide to work a more practical schedule, perhaps even with a different agency that has closer patients, a used car could be fine for at least like a year or two while I save up, right? I admit I don’t know a single thing about cars besides driving them.
Either way I’m going to purchase a car asap by grinding, with this bike and my Home Aide job. But should I keep trying to work in Home Health Care once I get a used car, or try something else? An employment agency’s agent said they could hook me up with something, and if it pays higher I really might not mind depending on what it is.

submitted by solace1234 to cna [link] [comments]

2024.05.12 16:15 PoisonedWhispers [Part 2] An analysis of the behaviour that leads to misinformation on the subreddit and in general; methods to curb this; and other malarkey.

The Short Version can be found here.

Part 1 can be found here.

Example 5 - There's more to a BBC YouTube title

Returning to this dastardly subreddit, for my next example, points 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 are relevant. OP provided a screenshot of a BBC YouTube title, stating: "Israeli hit squad dressed as doctors kill Palestinians in hospital." Per point 2, by failing to immediately link to the video, or immediately mention what the video contains, folk could come away with the conclusion that the BBC never reports that these were militants. In other words, some might believe that the misreporting here extends past the video title, when it does not, and this could be avoided by providing salient details sooner rather than later. This submission was made during the temporary ban, and I thought it was interesting enough as a case study to come back to.

Example 6 - Oxfam's full position

For this submission/meme, points 1, 2, and 6 are relevant. I saw that we weren’t going to get good-faith engagement with the entirety of Oxfam’s position here on why they initially opposed airdrops, and I attempted to outline the full extent of their views so that it can be critiqued appropriately. This meme is not too dissimilar from some Twitter leftist fixating on one short clip of Destiny during one of his heated gamer moments; his actual positions aren’t being engaged with, and it’s intellectually dull. There’s more to Destiny’s positions than a twenty-second clip; there’s more to Oxfam’s position than the one tweet. The fact of the matter is that there’s a long series of tweets here, and while the tweet OP chose to highlight is risible, is dumb, and is insufferable, we are more than capable on this subreddit in being more nuanced and fair when it comes to our criticism.
As I highlight, there were some concerns here that were not entirely unreasonable. At the time of my comment, there weren’t yet any reports on injuries due to airdrops. These reports appeared in the following days and weeks, where Gazans were killed when a parachute in an airdrop failed to deploy, and some drowned in their attempts to retrieve parcels that landed in the sea. Retrospectively, I wouldn't say that aid should not have been airdropped merely because it would result in these deaths, but a fair assessment of Oxfam here at the time should have taken these concerns into account.
Oxfam’s associate director also endorses a Twitter thread where some prescriptions are given on how ought this aid delivery be facilitated. He recommends that the Gaza port be reopened, and to open more crossings. The Biden administration recognized that airdrops would not sufficiently alleviate the problem of being unable to get sufficient quantities of aid distributed, and while the port was not reopened, Biden did announce that a temporary port would be built. Further, Israel approved the reopening of the Erez crossing.
The misinformation in OP’s post stems from the fact that folk will be disinterested in reading the twitter thread or any additional threads where they might have elaborated on views. Out of the thousands that interact with the post, a significant chunk will come away with the incorrect belief that Oxfam’s opposition to airdrops was merely due to what was stated in the meme. That is misinformation being propagated — not the most egregious, Hamas-esqe level of misinformation in the world, but misinformation nonetheless.

Example 7 - NYT: Bananas, or Cool as a Cucumber?

For our final example points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are relevant; it’s the whole shebang. To give a quick recounting here, Hobbitfollower isn’t the only masochist that might, occasionally, choose to exclusively sort by new. When I saw the submission, I read the article, and I was a bit annoyed that the Jerusalem Post article doesn’t even link to the mission report that I was interested in reading. I searched for it, posted a link to the report in the very first comment of the thread as surely my fellow dggas would also like to read the report, and then I, well, read the report.
When I returned back to the thread, I quoted favourably from the mission report to support another individual's comment. (I would again quote from it in another thread the next day to highlight why Israel struggled to acquire forensic evidence.)
But as I scrolled down the thread I came across the subject of our example; 50 upvotes, no article linked, and clearly a charged comment. Consider the steps involved to truly engage with this comment; one would need to:

Click and read the article.
Search for the mission report.
Read the mission report (as some folk probably won’t wanna read 20 pages right off the bat).
Search for the NYT article; bypass the paywall (which is trivially easy nowadays but is still a barrier, and people are lazy); and read the article.

This is a very charged thread: there are going to be a large group of pro-Israel folk browsing this thread, frustrated and irate as bad memories are invoked of all the times they’ve had to deal with or seen pro-Hamas folk engaging in rape denialism. In much the same way a leftist sub is not going to be interested in a dispassionate analysis of an Israeli strike with high civilian collateral damage, this sub — at times — will struggle to calmly assess the subject matter. An expected behaviour isn’t necessarily the correct behaviour — the actions we believe one ought to take.
When a misleading tweet goes viral, the damage has already been done, as a considerable amount of people won’t see the subsequent Community Notes that might be slapped on it. Likewise, some of the thousands who see OP’s highly upvoted comment will think, “Oh, this has a lot of upvotes, I guess it must be true. How horrible of the NYT to frame this as a both sides issue”, and thus misinformation has spread. This incorrect belief will mold their perceptions of the NYT. When they encounter more reporting by the NYT on I-P in the future, they might even think back to this moment: “Ah, I remember when these bozos tried to say that the Israeli accusations were the same as the Palestinian accusations.”
I also referred to OP’s comment as disinformation. In every example discussed so far, I don't assume malicious intent. I just begin with the foundation that a mistake was made, and I don’t enmesh myself by throwing out accusations of lying. In this case, however, OP has indirectly acknowledged that I was correct, but they still haven’t bothered to edit their original comment. Once again, this comment is a really good example of point 1. I obviously also disagree with their conclusion, and the process by which they’re arriving at their conclusion is still very flawed — and other people are simply going to adopt their conclusion while not even attempting to reach there by their own independent assessment. If you see someone quote from an article, and they don’t even link it, and the comment is very charged, I would encourage y’all to seek out the article yourself; you may come away with a different interpretation.
I'm sure you've seen this meme before: "I'm just waiting for Destiny to comment on this so that I know what to think 😎." We meme about it, but there is, of course, an undercurrent of truth here, as we have confidence in Destiny's ability to research, and thus we feel comfortable adopting his beliefs and opinions. It's nice not having to do the research ourselves. Lazy fucks.
This applies to Reddit comments you see as well. Don't just adopt the conclusion of someone else because their beliefs align with yours and they're speaking with authority. Do the legwork yourself; be mindful of The Six Points; and you might find that someone on your own side is actually spreading misinformation, or is espousing an opinion that you disagree with.

Purgatory

I was perma-banned some time after my previous comment for a comment I made in a different thread. Before I get to that in the next fuck-me-who-knows-how-I'm-gonna-write-that-I'm-so-fucked section, I did want to bring up two final examples.

Example A - Haaretz and Amputations

For Example A, points 1, 3, 4, and 5 are relevant. Obviously, I can’t attempt point 6 because I was banned. Now, I actually agree with OP as I share their skepticism towards the notion that these amputations are “routine”, but referring to the article as a "fake story" is too strong, and, as always, their process here is flawed. The claims they make here about the Haaretz article and CNN article are misleading, but it is immediately upvoted because it feels right, particularly because the first reply just poisons the well. Haaretz did not speak to an anonymous person, they are reporting on a letter they have seen written by a doctor and sent to senior Israeli officials; the doctor did not justify the claim that the event is routine based on having seen only two amputations, that's merely the amputations they saw in the week they wrote the letter (but the phrasing here is ambiguous, as the doctor could be referring to the handcuff injuries as being the "routine" event); and the IDF did not confirm or deny all the claims, but gave a fairly standard, boilerplate response instead. The misleading claims in this comment was eventually addressed — and, as I’m sure you’re irritated by the repetition by now, the goal of this post is to turn this “eventually” into an “immediately.”

Example B - Wikipedia and Devious Editing

For Example B, points 1 and 5 are relevant. I want to be very careful with this one as I don't want to be misconstrued. Similar to the previous example, I mostly agree with their conclusion that these Wikipedia pages can be very flawed, and partisan editors can tarnish the objectivity that we wish could be maintained across all articles. However, you know the drill by now, point 1. There’s much to be said about the infamous “24-hour window” debacle, and I made a submission a while ago on this. I think there are parts of this story that both the pro-Palestine and pro-Israel crowd get wrong — but the latter is generally more correct, and I would agree with OP here that the information here is, at the very least, incomplete.
However, per point 5, the articles they are critiquing are not linked. How many people here actually sought out the two articles referenced here? As I’ve already demonstrated, we know how many misleading or false claims you can get away with before they’re finally addressed. A user in that thread made some edits to the contentious lines in question in the Wikipedia article. This was the Wikipedia article at the time OP’s comment was made. OP quotes this section:

Prior to the raids, Israel had called for the more than a million people living in the north half of the Gaza Strip to evacuate during a 24-hour window, while Hamas instructed those residents to stay put.

The two citations here are a Reuters article and a Politico article. The Politico article is arguably redundant, but it’s not being cited because it’s supposed to make a statement about a 24-hour window; it’s being cited to support the statement about Hamas:

Hamas is complicating the situation, urging residents to stay in their homes.

The Reuters article also mentions this:

“We tell the people of northern Gaza and from Gaza City, stay put in your homes, and your places," Eyad Al-Bozom, spokesman for the Hamas Interior Ministry, told a news conference.

Contrary to what OP said, both articles use the word “evacuation” at some point. The first part of the quote from the Wikipedia page is supported by this statement in the Reuters article:

On Friday Israel gave more than a million residents of the northern half of Gaza 24 hours to flee to the south to avoid an onslaught.

In a follow-up comment OP claims that the archived link, which pulled the earliest version of the Reuters article available, does not support the line. This seems to have been an error on the part of whoever chose this hyperlink. When the Wikipedia article first mentions calls for evacuation, this was how the Reuters article cited looked like at the time; regardless of the veracity of the claim, the article did support what the Wikipedia page mentions.
To reiterate, OP is completely correct about this pernicious problem with Wikipedia. It’s just that in this example, I don’t think it qualifies as a case of those darn pro-Palestine editors back at it again. The nuanced position here is pretty difficult to get to, and I don’t think the editors wrote this line in the interest of distorting the truth to serve their own side.

Example B.5: A better yet slightly flawed post on Wikipedia and Euro-Med Monitor

This post about how Hamas supporters are influencing Wikipedia does better in terms of substantiating their claims — but there are issues here that I would have loved to address, and there is a good critique on OP’s prescriptions that was buried at the bottom. Unfortunately, OP has been suspended from Reddit. If you’re reading this mate, call me 🥺.
There are a lot of hyperlinks in OP’s post (lol, sez fucking me), and it’s completely reasonable that someone won’t feel inclined to click every single one; that’s not an expectation I would ever demand. From going through the post, there are several small critiques I would have made (e.g., while I don’t believe the Mondo article should have been cited, OP claims that in the article, “The only people criticizing Wiesel here is the author of the opinion piece.” FWIW, the article does reference and cite a Haaretz article, and a Foreign policy article, both of which levy criticism against Wiesel), but I’m just going to focus on this line:

In fact, it is owned by a man named Ramy Abdu, who is a literal Hamas lobbyist.

If you’re going to call someone a literal Hamas lobbyist, that is definitely a link I’m clicking. What I know about Abdu is simply what I can assume about his beliefs from various tweets I’ve seen by him over the past several months; but I’ve never looked into their background other than being aware of their position at EMM. Upon opening the link I see… a 2013 article about Clare Short. From reading the article, it looks like OP missed some steps in outlining how they arrived at their conclusion, and I saw only a few people inquiring about this. To fill in the steps on what I presume OP wanted to say, from the article they linked:

Moshe Ya’alon, former IDF chief of staff, outlawed the Council for European Palestinian Relations (CEPR) – a Belgian non-profit organisation that lobbies on behalf of the Hamas-led Gaza Government – using emergency defence regulations.

I haven’t looked into CEPR, and they obviously disputed the lobbying charge; I’m just going to take the claim at face-value. In 2011, Abdu was assistant director of the CEPR, and still held a position there for several years. They've since left the organization, but per point 1, if this is how OP arrived at the conclusion that Abdu is a “literal Hamas lobbyist”, I think it could use a bit more work, with additional clarification on what they mean by lobbyist here. I’m sure they can do it, it just happened to not be in this post.
I'm not going to harp on about point 5 here as I only apply that to incidents where a claim is made; one or two articles are linked; and then no one reads them, assuming the claim must be true as long as articles are provided. I would literally never make the prescription that if someone writes an effort-post, we must click every hyperlink to fact-check. I mean, it's not like I would have any other motivation for saying that... sweats profusely 🙄
Just to make one final point on EMM, it is a rubbish outlet, and any time I encounter one of their articles, I roll my eyes knowing I’m going to get some outlandish claim where I can find fuck-all for corroboration from other outlets. However, sometimes there is corroboration, where EMM was the first to notice that the IDF labelled a bicycle as an RPG in the drone footage they published, and then the NYT confirmed the finding (except for the other stupid claim made in the tweet.) But anyways, these moments are astronomically rare.

Example C - A Mysterious Royal Website (What a weaselly little --)

Okay, I lied, one final example as it’s interesting to see how people here parse articles and headlines, but before I address the example, let me talk about Reuters headlines.

Reuters headlines

They’re not always consistent on this front, but I generally like how Reuters writes their headlines. A Reuters headline will often contain the phrase “US says”. [30] [31] [32] What I’m expecting in the article when I see a headline containing this phrase is some official representing the Biden administration outlining what their particular policy, position, belief, etc., is on whatever the subject matter may be, or some action they took which makes it clear what their position is. In the given examples, we have statements from Biden, Blinken, the US military, and so on. Sometimes the US officials remain anonymous, sharing information in private briefings.
If there isn’t an official statement by the US available on a matter, the headline might use the phrase “source says” to talk about ongoing developments. [33] [34] “Reuters will use unnamed sources where necessary when they provide information of market or public interest that is not available on the record. We alone are responsible for the accuracy of such information.” [35]
Relevant to Example C, Reuters uses the same guidelines for “Saudi Arabia says” [36] [37] and “sources say” for information relevant to Saudi Arabia. [38]

Israeli outlets, A royal family website, and Saudi sources: An amusing chain of events

Keeping the previous section in mind, when I came across this version of a Jerusalem Post article posted to this subreddit, you can imagine what I’m expecting here — particularly because this would be momentous news to see Saudi Arabia make a public statement that they helped defend Israel. Instead, we get reporting on what Saudi Arabia’s royal family said on their website, and what a source connected to the Saudi royal family told KAN, another Israeli outlet — and we don’t get links to either of them. If there was no statement on the royal family’s website, this would have been a bad headline to write based on what this source said. Unfortunately for the JP, there is no official website for Saudi Arabia’s royal family. You’ll see in the current version, they remove the reference to that website, and also add the following line:

The Al Arabiya news site said sources had informed it that Saudi Arabia had not participated in the interception of Iranian drones and missiles.

Here’s the article by the Saudi state-owned outlet, which is essentially their mouthpiece to deny the ongoing report. I24news, however, didn’t get the memo:

Saudi Arabia publicly acknowledges role in defending Israel against Iranian attack
While Jordan had openly disclosed its role in the defensive maneuver, Saudi Arabia's acknowledgment came in the form of a summary on its official website

When I first saw the JP submission on this subreddit, I bookmarked it for later to come back to and find the sources, as it’s not the first time I’ve seen dubious reporting from KAN news. I was also curious if anyone in the thread was going to highlight some of the discrepancies in the article, and, well, shoutout to this keen reader! Fact-checking the JP article slipped my mind, but thanks to a comment I saw on another subreddit, they correctly pointed out that the website referenced was not affiliated with the Saudi royal family, and thus the article the JP and other Israeli outlets had presumably read should not have been taken as an official statement. Christ, this is obvious from the very first line:

A source from the Saudi royal family, who prefers anonymity, converses with the Kan public broadcaster. The individual subtly acknowledges Saudi Arabia’s supposed involvement in thwarting Iranian attack drones bound for Israel the previous evening, citing that Saudi Arabian airspace automatically intercepts “any suspicious entity”.
The same figure takes a swing at Iran, accusing them of instigating a conflict in Gaza. This, they suggest, is a deliberate attempt to unravel the progress established towards normalizing relations with Israel, as per Kan’s report.
In the words of the official, as put forth by Kan, “Iran is a nation that endorses terrorism, and the world should have curtailed it much earlier.”

Why would the official Saudi royal website use an anonymous source within the royal family to make their public announcement, and why would they quote what the official said to an Israeli outlet?!
It’s fascinating to see this play out: the supposed source spoke to Kan News; Houseofsaud presumably sees this and makes an article on the Kan segment; the JP sees this article and the segment, poorly reads it, and then cites it and the original Kan segment; outlets like the Daily Wire pick up on the story from the JP; and then on it goes, spreading like wildefire, before the Saudis take note (“oh fuck, oh fuck, where are these reports coming from?”) and disseminate a message denying that any “official” website publicly confirmed their involvement. The Saudis are involved, and they’re keeping tight-lipped about the extent of their involvement.
Just to quote one more line from the i24news article because it’s shockingly poor:

The post subtly hinted at Saudi Arabia's involvement in intercepting suspicious entities in its airspace, highlighting the kingdom's proactive stance in safeguarding regional stability.

This is written based on this line from the HouseofSaud article:

A source from the Saudi royal family, who prefers anonymity, converses with the Kan public broadcaster. The individual subtly acknowledges Saudi Arabia’s supposed involvement in thwarting Iranian attack drones bound for Israel the previous evening, citing that Saudi Arabian airspace automatically intercepts “any suspicious entity”.

It’s the individual/source who is being subtle, not the post itself as i24 news mentions.
Anyways, this is not a case of misinformation by the subreddit. There's nothing wrong with posting a JP article, and this is easily the least offensive Example, but point 5 is nicely relevant here. I thought y'all might find this to be interesting, particularly because some people probably still believe that Saudi Arabia has publicly acknowledged their involvement, and maybe that could be someone reading this section. It's also another example where, because I’m banned, I can’t offer a bit of nuance. stares intently at 4THOT
It’s a shame Destiny didn’t finish reading the article, I’m curious what he would have said. He speculates that the report was from intelligence or monitoring, but moves on before finishing the article; it’s also the updated version of the article, without the tidbit about the Saudi royal family website.

Finito

I'm going to close out this section here. There's always more to include, more examples that demonstrate the aforementioned points, but I'd rather focus on my own comments instead of threads where I was unable to contribute my thoughts. There's been a plethora of discourse here surrounding the campus protests, and maybe those are still ongoing if I manage to post this at a sooner date. For completely legitimate and fair justifications, all of these threads are going to be very charged; and maybe upon reading this post some of y'all might feel more inclined to analyze these situations dispassionately, mindful of cases where the reporting might not be the greatest.

Example D - A Late Fact-check (Still lying, dude!)

I fucking lied again, there’s more. Literally the day after I finished writing the above paragraph, a new example popped up that I can’t resist the temptation to include. Stop giving me material! As I spoke of above, the campus protests have resulted in a charged atmosphere on the subreddit, which means that this post stating that a “Jewish-Israeli family’s restaurant was targeted in a hate crime” is immediately catapulted to the front page. The biggest problem here is that, per point 2, the presentation of the post led folk to believe that this was a recent event because OP had omitted the date this took place, and this led to one user to thoughtfully suggest that it might be worth setting up a GoFundMe to help the owners with the repairs.
To reemphasize the point I’ve made throughout this post, I’m looking to incentivise better behaviour to occur sooner. It took nearly 10 hours before one jolly chap came along to do the fact-check. Naturally, had I seen this post while browsing arnew, I would have done the same, and so would a couple other users here as well who are good for this sort of thing — and that's unfortunate that I’m saying a “couple” instead of “many.” There is no curiosity amongst everyone who interacted with this post to inquire into the event; not even something simple as requesting OP for an article. So folks, always ask for a source if OP doesn’t provide one just so you have a bit more context. (Also, I am fascinated with the anecdote OP attached to this post. Did they just make up their credentials?)

Example E - Hebrew Sources and False Confidence

This is a wonderful example to close out this section because it exemplifies so many of the problematic behaviours that I have demonstrated in this post. I was only made aware of this thread because a user here DM'd me a link to the thread. I will refer to the individual posting misinformation in the comments as "OP", and I'll refer to the submitter of the post by their username, Sylmd. The rebuttals to OP are excellent, and I will focus more on the behaviour here.
Sylmd posted a submission doing a quick lil' fact-check on a Destiny tweet, noting the fact that he seemed to have misread or misremembered a particular report. I say "seemed" here in case Destiny was referring to some other report or article he had read, but that seems unlikely as he has referenced this report in several of his debates, and the report was the subject of his previous tweets. Regardless, it was a small mistake, and apart from failing to immediately link the tweet and the report (link your sources you silly goose), Sylmd's post is civil, calm, and makes no accusations of malicious intent.
According to OP, Destiny was actually right, and 300+ IDF soldiers were in fact injured. Now, there's so much that is astonishingly problematic with OP's comment, and I gotta... mention it all! Sorry!
Naturally, they don't ever quote from their sources, which means it's on us to try and find the relevant sections. OP claims that the articles linked will demonstrate that 380 Israelis were injured -- despite the fact that Sylmd is obviously doing a fact-check on how many Israeli soldiers were injured, and that's literally the subject of Destiny's tweet.
Whatever, I'm sure the articles at least "discusses around 380 injuries"? Fuck no they don't! There's no mention of this figure anywhere, and OP somehow racks up 50 upvotes when they accuse Sylmd of lying after they correctly point this out. Did these people actually read the articles, find this magical 380 figure, and think, "Grrr, Sylmd you mendacious scumbag, I see through your Hamas propaganda." Sylmd was sitting at -31, one hour after the thread was made. (If you refer back to Example 2, you'll see that I felt compelled to make a submission when I saw a user was being downvoted for correctly pointing out that an article did not prove a particular claim.)
It gets worse. Apparently, you have to "click through all the links in these articles buddy." Well, okay, that's pretty elaborate, how silly of us not to realize this. OP wants us to open up nine Hebrew articles, translate them, and then tally up the number of casualties. Problem? Surely we get to the 380 figure if we click through all the hyperlinks in the article? Fuck no we don't! And even if we did, this is the most blisteringly cumbersome way to prove a claim. The sheer condescension in OP's comment is equivalent to that of a Twitter leftist: "It's not my job to educate you honey, you must read the literature."
So where does this mysterious figure come from? Well, as Sylmd correctly pointed out (before OP mentioned it), they are grabbing this figure from Hebrew Wikipedia. Sylmd doesn't provide a link to the article in question, so I will provide it here, and as you can see, the two articles that OP linked came from this Wikipedia page. I'm not convinced OP actually read either of these articles.
That's not all. They then linked a report in Hebrew in their edit. Where did they get this report from? It's not on the Wikipedia page, maybe this is something they have bookmarked? Nope, they got it from another user in the thread! After all is said and done, they still somehow racked up 270 upvotes for this awful rebuttal, and they were, "Proud to take a blast for defending the truth."
Do I even need to mention the points here? It's an authoritative comment; the linked articles give an "aura" of being correct; and there's confidence in all their comments.
To quote from Example 1:

Anyways, since I began this post it looks like the upvotes and downvotes on the original comment have since shifted. Mashallah. It's the behaviour I was describing before: all the low-effort garbage gets upvoted first, and then other people break the circlejerk and try to add nuance. But it would be nice if the nuance was added first and foremost without the need for tedious fact-checks.

That still holds true today.

Consistency and Principles

Do I only address misinformation from the pro-Israel side? Not that it should matter, but no, I will address misinformation from the pro-Palestine on this subreddit if I see it and I feel like addressing it. I was irritated to see muppets like Rob Rousseau spread conspiracies about a "suspicious link" between ISIS and Mossad, and I encountered a user here who was sprouting similar conspiratorial nonsense. You’ll notice that (1) I was blessed to be called a “Reddit pseudo intellectual libtard” (not wrong, not false, this hurts bro); and (2) I apply the exact same methodology here as I do for the examples of misinformation I've addressed elsewhere — which isn’t to say I’m doing anything commendable here. I just read the articles, trying to find the primary sources where relevant, and then see if the “reporting” accurately conveys what was said or written.
However, digging up the original source can be a time-consuming endeavour, and compounded by the fact that I might not speak the relevant language — which means that there was a case where I inadvertently made a comment containing misinformation. A couple months ago someone requested a steelman of the argument that Israel is conducting a genocide against Gazans; I offered one, and to support the case I used a misquote taken from a Bloomberg video which omitted a crucial part of Yoev Gallant’s statement: the reference to Hamas, and thus radically changing the context of the statement. I hold myself to the same principle when it comes to curbing misinformation, and I was more than content to edit my comment to ensure it did not propagate further than it already had.
Some of you eagle-eyed readers might recognize this Gallant quote, as it made a very marked appearance within… South Africa's genocide case against Israel. Here, that salient reference to Hamas is also omitted, and the accompanying footnote cites the same Bloomberg video that I did. As I wished in another reply, Bloomberg did indeed take the video down eventually. Now, I can be excused for my mistake as I’m not making the positive case outside of my steelman. For South Africa, this is unbelievably shoddy work when you're officially bringing a genocide case against another state.
Anyways, I've gone through many examples in this schizo-post, and it's entirely possible that I've made an error at some point; the irony is not lost on me. Feel free to point these errors out. I might not agree with your assessment, but I'm always willing to hear the arguments.

Prescriptions: The Six Points (Déjà vu)

I'm going to end with The Six Points because that's the focus of Part 1 and Part 2. As previously mentioned, this post is not intended to demonstrate that the misinformation the pro-Israel crowd spreads is as egregious as the misinformation the pro-Palestine spreads, whether in general or on this subreddit. While misinformation from the pro-Palestine crowd slips by every now and then on the subreddit, I would make the case that, generally speaking, it is quickly addressed. In my experience, however, I was finding quite a few cases of misinformation from the pro-Israel crowd were taking a concerning amount of time to be addressed; and in the interest of ensuring that it does get addressed in a more timely manner, I believe the following prescriptions would be helpful to keep in mind when browsing the subreddit:

Value the process just as much — if not, more — than the conclusion.
Be wary of how the presentation of information or the omission of pertinent information can lead to the inadvertent spread of misinformation.
Be aware of how “charged” topics/threads lead to poor reasoning that lacks dispassionate analysis.
Be aware of how pre-existing beliefs about an individual or organization alongside the usual biases leads to a reluctance to fact-check, where claims are taken at face-value because they feel right.
Link the article. Read the article. (Thoroughly.)
Redirect criticism to areas where it will be the strongest.

Click here for Part 3. Warning: you might get stung by a bee 🐝

submitted by PoisonedWhispers to Destiny [link] [comments]

2024.05.12 00:31 Substantial_Item_828 No, It’s Not Joever: How 2024 Polling Is Underestimating Joe Biden

Note: This essay was written about a month ago, for a school project. Some of the numbers and polling averages may be slightly outdated, but the point of the essay still stands.
Introduction
“DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN.”
That’s what the front-page headline of the Chicago Tribune said on November 3rd, 1948. It’s also what the polls had all been saying for months: that New York governor Thomas Dewey would defeat incumbent president Harry Truman and become the next president of the United States. And yet, he didn’t. Truman won reelection in a massive upset, defying the polls. Somehow, Truman had gone from trailing Dewey in polls by so much that cartoons like the following were created, to winning the election.
https://preview.redd.it/oqba22kugvzc1.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=92204f20feee6faea87f731a797760140c4a0814
Truman was a very unpopular president. His campaign was also plagued by third parties threatening to split his votes: Strom Thurmond on the right and Henry Wallace on the left. The way he was able to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat can’t be described as anything less than amazing.
Historians still debate over it, but the most popular theory is that Truman was able to win many voters who disapproved of him because he successfully painted Republicans as being worse than he was. This strategy was aided by Dewey’s weak campaign. Many voters didn’t like Truman, and when polled, wouldn’t say they would vote for him, but when the time came, they held their nose and pulled the lever for the president. The election was a lesson to not treat polls as gospel.
Today, the nation faces another presidential election. The Democratic candidate is incumbent president Joe Biden. He’s running for reelection despite concerns about his age and rumors he wouldn’t run again due to it. On the Republican side, former president Donald Trump is the nominee. He faced opposition in the primaries, most notably by former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley, but beat her and his other opponents without too much trouble. The election is the first presidential rematch since 1956. Several independent/third-party candidates are running too, the most notable being Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK Jr. for short), nephew of JFK. He’s been polling very high for a third-party candidate, getting double digits in many polls.
Biden beat Trump in 2020, but opinion polls have been showing Trump leading Biden, often by large margins. As of April 1st, Trump leads Biden by 1.1% in the national polling average according to racetothewh.com, an election prediction/poll aggregation website. Biden won the popular vote by 4.5% in 2020, so this is a sizable swing right. Trump also leads Biden in all seven swing states. Below is a chart comparing the 2020 presidential election margin and the 2024 polling average in the seven swing states.
https://preview.redd.it/9wvdn2yzgvzc1.png?width=631&format=png&auto=webp&s=e9c69e14cedfecc11d866837b9533d3e39a30db0
It seems like Biden’s doomed. He needs to win at least some of the swing states to win the election, and right now he isn’t winning any of them. It looks like Trump is on track to becoming the second president ever to win a non-consecutive second term, after Grover Cleveland.
But there’s something else going on.
Biden’s bad polling situation seems simple on the surface. He’s incredibly unpopular, having an approval rating of 39.1% (net -16.3%) according to FiveThirtyEight. His bout of unpopularity seems to have started around the Afghanistan withdrawal, although when asking someone their reason for disliking Biden they’ll probably say something about his age or the economy instead. So, it makes sense that Biden would be polling badly. He’s an unpopular president, and people would rather have Trump.
But it isn’t that simple. Because looking deeper, there are some things that don’t make sense. Crosstabs of polls showing massive realignments not seen since the Civil Rights era. Other indicators of a president in trouble not showing up. Things that when put together, suggest Biden may not be in as much danger as the polls say.
When all the evidence is put together and analyzed, it’s clear that Biden is not doomed, not at all. Biden’s bad polling can be explained by two things. First, bad polling methodology underpolling his supporters. Second, people who are supporting third parties now, but will eventually return to Biden. These two things are both making Biden’s polling look bad, although which one has a stronger effect depends on the poll and the demographic group. Additionally, all the indicators other than the polls, like primary elections and special/off-year elections, don’t show Biden in too much trouble.
Explaining Racial and Age Depolarization
First, context is needed for the rest of this essay to make sense. So, as was said earlier, 2024 polls are showing Biden doing much worse than his 2020 performance. That makes sense – Biden is less popular, so naturally fewer people want to vote for him. The strange part is what demographic groups Biden is slipping with. Instead of a mostly uniform shift, which would be expected, almost all of Biden’s losses seem to come among nonwhite voters – most significantly black and Hispanic voters. He’s also losing ground among young voters (usually defined as voters between the ages of 18 and 29). The Democratic Party traditionally does well with these groups, so this is of course concerning for Biden. Even more strange is that in some polls, Biden is actually making some inroads among the demographics that are historically the base of the Republican Party – those being white voters and seniors. Looking at the aggregation of crosstabs of polls during February, there are many abnormalities.
The aggregation shows Trump making massive gains among black and Hispanic voters (swings of R+28.4 and R+18.5 respectively) but making almost zero gains among white voters (R+0.1, but right under that there are slight blue swings with both college educated and non-college educated whites, likely a product of not all polls recording results for those groups). This is strange, to say the least. White people seem to be perfectly fine with Biden, while nonwhite people suddenly despise him. This phenomenon is called racial depolarization, or racedep for short.
Swings among different age groups are also odd. Trump is improving by 16.1 points among voters aged 18-29 but losing 1.8 points with seniors and 4 points with voters aged 50-64. Young voters are much more liberal than older voters. Every opinion poll and election result suggests this. Unless they’ve suddenly become much more conservative, them supporting Trump over Biden doesn’t make sense. Along with racedep, age depolarization ("agedep") is common in crosstabs of 2024 polls.
Those are not the only depolarizations supposedly going on, as can be seen in the tweet. Urban and suburban voters moving towards Trump while rural voters move towards Biden. Democrats moving towards Trump, Republicans moving towards Biden. Geographical and political polarization have been increasing in recent years, so this suggests a strange reverse of that trend. 2024 probably won’t be a large realignment, it’s more likely something is just wrong with the polls.
Explaining Primaries
Presidential primary season has been going on for a few months, after the Iowa caucus kicked it off in January. While Biden and Trump both won their primaries easily, how strong their performances were in different areas can reveal a lot about how certain groups are feeling about the candidacies of the two – like black, Hispanic, and young voters. But first, protest voting has to be explained.
When an incumbent president is running for reelection, they usually do not face much opposition in the primaries. Typically, only no-name minor candidates are the other people on the ballot besides the president. They do not have a chance at winning, but they do serve as a way for people who are upset with the president to express it. Sometimes, the “Uncommitted” option is also used to protest. Look back to 2012, when Obama was running for reelection. He swept the primaries, but his worst performances were in West Virginia, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, where he got under 60% of the vote.
The four states all had something in common: a lot of the registered Democrats were white conservatives who before 2008 voted Democratic, but switched to McCain because they didn’t like Obama’s dark vision for America. They voted against Obama in the primaries because they didn’t like him and didn’t want him to be the nominee. Those voters would then go on to vote Republican in the general election. The places that swung the hardest against Obama in 2008 were also the places where he did the worst in the 2012 primaries.
2004-2008 swing
2012 Oklahoma Democratic presidential primary
2012 Arkansas Democratic presidential primary
2012 Kentucky Democratic presidential primary
2012 West Virginia Democratic presidential primary
Now, those four states were already very red even before 2008, Obama was not going to win them and he did not need to win them. But if a candidate is doing badly in a potentially competitive state’s primary, they should heed the warning – or risk losing. Another good example of protest voting can be found in the 2016 Democratic primary. Hillary Clinton did very poorly in the Rust Belt states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania – losing the first two to Sanders and coming close to losing the last. And where Sanders’s support was strongest was in rural areas – also the areas that swung the most towards Trump in the general election. Trump narrowly flipped all three of those states, winning him the presidency.
2016 Wisconsin Democratic presidential primary
2016 Michigan Democratic presidential primary
2016 Pennsylvania Democratic presidential primary
2012-2016 swing
The polls said Clinton would easily win all three states, while the primaries said she would struggle in them – and the primaries were right.
The 2024 Primaries
Presidential primaries can give an idea of where a candidate might underperform in the general election, and 2024 primaries are no exception. If black, Hispanic, and young voters are upset with Biden, like the polls are suggesting, then they will protest vote against him. The first primary that will be examined is the South Carolina primary. South Carolina is 26% black according to the 2020 census, and that number is even higher among Democratic primary voters thanks to the racial polarization of the state – Biden won 90% of black South Carolinians in the 2020 election, while Trump won 73% of white South Carolinians.
https://preview.redd.it/x2t8cnl3hvzc1.png?width=338&format=png&auto=webp&s=2b5982c343da804a10a1221e623b2de84b2f1b86
South Carolina was also the first primary state (so Biden did not have momentum from winning contests at that point, nor was he the presumptive nominee), and the primary was open (meaning independents could vote), so the conditions for protest voting were as good as they could possibly be.
But despite all that, Biden got 96% of the vote.
If black people really are upset with Biden, they clearly don’t hate him enough to cast a protest vote against him. And looking at individual counties, there’s not even a correlation between the percent of black people and the percent of opposition vote. Biden got 97% of the vote in Allendale County (73% black, the blackest county in the state) and he got 95% in Pickens County (7% black, the least black county in the state). If anything, Biden did better in counties where there are more black people. And it’s not just South Carolina – in pretty much every state where black people make up a significant percentage of the Democratic electorate, Biden won by huge margins. He got 99% in Mississippi, 95% in Georgia, 90% in Alabama, and 86% in Louisiana. Biden came close to losing a few counties in Louisiana – but not the ones with lots of black people. The counties he did the worst in are heavily white. The same kind of people who gave Obama trouble in the 2012 primaries voted against Biden, too.
Evidently, black people aren’t protest voting against Biden. Young voters will be looked at next, using the Michigan primary. Just like South Carolina, Michigan has open primaries.
There was an organized campaign for the “Uncommitted” option in Michigan to protest Biden’s policy on Gaza and pressure him into calling for a ceasefire. The Uncommitted option did modestly well, getting 13% of the vote, slightly higher than it did twelve years ago when Obama was running for reelection. The Uncommitted campaign achieved their (unambitious) goal of 10,000 votes, getting slightly over 100,000. Biden got 81% of the vote, while Williamson and Phillips took the remaining 6%.
What’s interesting though, is where Uncommitted did the best. Its strongest performance was in Wayne County (which includes Detroit and a few other cities), where it got 17%. Wayne County is home to 140,000 Arab Americans who make up 7.8% of the county’s population, so the strong Uncommitted performance wasn’t surprising. The second strongest county for Uncommitted was Washtenaw County (also 17%), which doesn’t have many Arab Americans. What it does have, however, is the University of Michigan. With over 50,000 students enrolled, it’s one of the largest colleges in the country. Looking at a precinct map of the results for Washtenaw County, Uncommitted did well because UMich students were protest voting against Biden.
https://preview.redd.it/nov5qkx5hvzc1.png?width=629&format=png&auto=webp&s=cec905bdfdd4fa10be01d03a97a220925d4ffa6d
Ann Arbor, the city where UMich is located, had a very high percentage of Uncommitted votes. There’s no doubt about it, college students were voting Uncommitted to protest Biden’s handling of the war in Gaza.
Looking at college counties in other primaries, there was generally a trend of the Uncommitted option (or whatever name the state has for it) doing well. In Dane County, Wisconsin (University of Wisconsin), there was lots of protest voting against Biden. “Uninstructed” got 15% in Dane vs 8% statewide.
“None of these names” did well in Douglas County, Kansas (University of Kansas), getting 14.5% of the vote, compared to the statewide average of 10.3%.
And Uncommitted got a sizable 21% in New Haven, Connecticut (Yale University), compared to 11% statewide.
There’s definitely some protest voting against Biden by young voters. But remember the reason most of them are unhappy with Biden in the first place: it’s because of Gaza. Trump is more pro-Israel then Biden, so it makes no sense for them to support him. That’s different from Haley voters, who are ideologically between Biden and Trump. Things may be more complicated than they seem, as will be discussed later, but first here’s the analysis of the third group Biden has been slipping with in polls: Hispanic voters. The Texas primary is a good place to judge how Hispanic voters are feeling about Biden. Texas has open primaries, like Michigan and South Carolina.
Biden did the worst in South and West Texas. One of the places he underperformed the most was the Rio Grande Valley (RGV). He got percentages in the 60s, 50s, and even 40s in many RGV counties, with his worst performance being in Zapata County, where he got a pathetic 40% of the vote.
The RGV is heavily Hispanic, so at first this seems like a validation of the polls showing Trump making massive gains among Hispanic voters – but it isn’t the only place in Texas where Hispanic people live. Biden performed very strongly in El Paso County, an 82% Hispanic county home to the city of the same name.
He also did well in places like Bexar County (San Antonio, 59% Hispanic), Dallas County (Dallas, 40% Hispanic), and Harris County (Houston, 43% Hispanic).
Looking at other states, it seems like Biden’s RGV performance was the exception, not the rule. He got 81% in Imperial County, California (86% Hispanic); and 83% in Santa Cruz County, Arizona (83% Hispanic).
Hispanic voters have been slowly trending towards Republicans over time, so Biden’s performances are even more impressive when that factor is taken into account. According to exit polls, Hispanic voters voted for Obama by 44 points, Clinton by 38 points, and 2020 Biden by 33 points. A lot of the people voting against Biden may be registered as Democrats but didn’t vote for him in 2020.
https://preview.redd.it/h35vewo8hvzc1.png?width=407&format=png&auto=webp&s=3c5b78394104a627ae1b8019db62aa1c3a4a1b70
https://preview.redd.it/jlo9nlhdhvzc1.png?width=377&format=png&auto=webp&s=726526e7da2a9c8690ab01e00a12e2e49265445d
https://preview.redd.it/l4tremrehvzc1.png?width=458&format=png&auto=webp&s=0744e5c12f7c0c4eb05ec84b59a070174b017b98
Overall, primaries don’t support the polls showing Trump making huge gains among black/Hispanic/young voters. There’s zero evidence black voters are upset with Biden. As for the other two groups, there are some signs of discontent, but not enough to warrant the double-digit swings polls are showing. Biden’s underperformances in college counties/Hispanic counties, when present at all, are usually less than 10 points worse than his statewide performance. And that’s assuming every single person protest voting will go for Trump. If all protest voters really do vote for the other party in the general election, say hello to Biden’s second term, because Nikki Haley regularly gets twice the number of votes in Republican primaries as Biden’s opposition does in Democratic primaries. Even after she dropped out.
Midterms, Off-Years, and Special Elections
At the same time Biden has been doing well in primaries, Democrats have been scoring wins in special/off-year elections. These elections are historically correlated with the popularity of the president, so they conflict with the polls showing Biden down. Look at elections during the last three presidencies to know what happens when a president is unpopular.
While Trump was in office, he was quite the unpopular president, and his party lost many elections because of it. Through 2017-2019, Republicans lost a net 8 governorships, going from 34 to 26; and a net 41 House seats, going from 241 to 200. The only chamber they managed to gain in was the Senate (thanks to a very favorable map and increased polarization causing many Democrats in red states to lose) – but not without losing a special election in Alabama, a deep red state that had voted for Trump over Clinton by almost 28 points.
This pattern continues to back when Obama was in office. From 2009-2011, when he was at the height of his unpopularity due to the state of the economy and Obamacare, Democrats lost big. They went from 28 governorships to just 20, 257 House seats to only 193, and 59 Senate seats to only 53. Like Republicans with Alabama during Trump’s presidency, Democrats managed to lose a Senate special election in a state considered safe for their party – Massachusetts, which had voted for Obama by 26 points in 2008.
And it goes even further back to Bush’s presidency. Backlash over the wars caused Republicans to lose 6 governorships from 2005-2007 (going from 28 seats to 22), 30 House seats (232 down to 202), and 6 Senate seats (55 to 49).
But despite Biden’s unpopularity and bad polling, Democrats have been doing well in elections despite precedent saying they shouldn’t be. The 2022 midterms, which were supposed to be a red wave, were anything but. Democrats flipped a net 2 governorships and 1 Senate seat, and only barely lost the House. The small majority Republicans won has been giving them trouble when trying to govern. Already, one Speaker was ousted and it’s possible a second might be too.
More recently, Democrats won the governorship in Kentucky and almost won it in Mississippi, both very red states. They flipped the Virginia state house and won a supreme court election in Pennsylvania by a large margin. Two months ago, they won a competitive special election for a House seat in New York by a decisive 8-point margin.
Interestingly, the normal pattern of an unpopular president’s party doing poorly manifested early in Biden’s term. After his approval rating crashed during the Afghanistan withdrawal, Democrats went on to lose the governorship (and state house) of Virginia, and almost lost the governorship of New Jersey. Both states voted for Biden by double digits in the 2020 election. Something changed between November 2021 and November 2022 to cause this shift. It might have been the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe V. Wade and allow states to ban abortion. In several special elections right after the decision, Democrats overperformed massively. For example, Republicans won the special election for Nebraska’s 1st congressional district, which voted for Trump by 11 points in 2020, by only a 5-point margin. The election took place just four days after the Dobbs decision.
The Trump-backed candidates nominated in many Senate and governor elections could also be the ones to blame. Thanks to Trump’s endorsement, many extremist candidates won the primaries in key races. They often denied the results of the 2020 presidential election and had other problematic views. Most of them went on to lose the general election, sometimes by huge margins. Below is a table of all the results.
https://preview.redd.it/vx1ilmujhvzc1.png?width=633&format=png&auto=webp&s=2771b74c5d4257d66b4825078ada46216b0be9bd
Whatever the cause, Republicans flopped in 2022 and haven’t recovered since. And it doesn’t seem like Trump will be able to avoid the problems plaguing his party. His handpicked candidates were the ones that did terribly while other Republicans often did well; and the abortion issue isn’t just going away, not to mention Trump’s the one responsible for getting Roe overturned with his SCOTUS appointments.
Of course, there’s a counterargument: that Biden is somehow breaking historical precedent, and he’ll do badly while other Democrats do fine. That seems like a reasonable theory, until the fact that Biden vs Trump and the generic congressional ballot are polling exactly the same is considered. As of April 5th, at least.
https://preview.redd.it/l0ecq2slhvzc1.png?width=753&format=png&auto=webp&s=d8c231135e068129cc1f9c3e1a3b9b2ce41be3fb
Since work on this essay has started, Biden has experienced a little surge of support in the polls. It could just be noise, but it might be something else.
https://preview.redd.it/m14gsmjmhvzc1.png?width=1043&format=png&auto=webp&s=43bc8d8146b31f5a613a1e7a4adc4ca30a858750
Biden has also been polling as well as (or sometimes even better than) hypothetical Democratic candidates for president like VP Kamala Harris, California governor Gavin Newsom, and Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer.
It could be argued Biden is only doing better because he has higher name recognition, and Democrats who don’t know the other three candidates are answering undecided. But Michelle Obama being extremely well-known didn’t stop her from trailing Trump by the exact same amount as Biden in a poll.
https://preview.redd.it/7h189dpnhvzc1.png?width=1200&format=png&auto=webp&s=42aa042e9462022d397bbe212c428e41f4d40c99
Democrats are doing much better in actual elections than in polls, and Biden’s polling the same as other Democrats. It stands to reason that Biden would also do better in an election than in polls.
The Problem with the Polls
While primary and off-year elections suggest Biden isn’t doing badly, they still don’t explain the polls. One theory is that the black/Hispanic/young voters who don’t like Biden aren’t voting in any elections, that’s why Democrats are doing well. Perhaps the biggest proponent of this theory is Nate Cohn, the chief political analyst for the NYT.
This theoretical group of low-propensity Trump supporters who love answering polls but don’t vote in any elections sounds dubious, and that’s probably because it doesn’t exist at all. Biden’s bad polling is caused by two main things. The first is bad methodology, but before that is discussed, how polls work must be explained.
Polls work by contacting a certain number of voters, usually around a thousand, and asking them how they plan to vote. The 2024 options are usually Biden/Trump/Undecided/Other. Sometimes Other is changed to real third-party candidates, like RFK Jr. Polls also ask information on the voter, like their race, sex, age, and region. After data is collected, polls are weighted to reflect real demographics. For example, if a poll’s raw data has 40% of respondents living in urban areas while 60% live in rural areas, and the actual percentage of voters is 50% urban and 50% rural, then the responses of the urban voters are weighted higher. If that poll has urban areas voting 60D/40R and rural areas 40D/60R, then the raw data is 48D/52R while the weighted (and final) data is 50D/50R.
This seems like an effective way to avoid bias in polls, and account for lower response rates from certain groups. If rural voters are answering at a higher rate, just give them less weight. If Hispanic voters are answering at a lower rate, give them more weight. The thing is, voters don’t belong to just one group. A person can both live in a rural area and be Hispanic. And while groups (rural voters, Hispanic voters) are weighted, subgroups (rural Hispanic voters) are not.
Say, rural Hispanic voters are more Republican than urban and suburban Hispanic voters. Say, they’re answering polls at higher rates as well. Rural voters will be weighted lower in the poll, but that’s just all rural voters combined. Rural Hispanic voters are not weighted vs other Hispanics. That would lead to Hispanic voters in the poll being more Republican than they are in reality.
A typical poll has around a thousand respondents, and a margin of error of about ±3%. The sample sizes for different groups, however, are much smaller, which means a bigger margin of error. Let’s say Hispanic voters are 10% of the poll’s respondents, or a hundred in total. That’s a margin of error of ±8%, much larger than the ±3% for the poll as a whole. And if rural Hispanic voters are 20% of all Hispanic voters, that’s a margin of error of ±18%! Small inaccuracies in subgroups can cause a ripple effect that makes the whole poll wrong. Let’s do a simulation to show this effect off.

True voting intention among all Hispanic voters is 63% Biden, 37% Trump (D+26).
True voting intention among all non-rural Hispanic voters is 65% Biden, 35% Trump (D+30).
True voting intention among rural Hispanic voters is 55% Biden, 45% Trump (D+10).
100 Hispanic voters answer the poll.
Rural Hispanic voters make up 40% of the poll’s respondents (40 people), they make up 20% of the real Hispanic population. Since subgroups are not weighted, their influence on Hispanic voters in the poll is double what it should be.
Due to the large margin of error of ±13%, rural Hispanic voters who answered the poll said they’d vote 45% Biden, 55% Trump. That’s 22 Trump voters and 18 Biden voters answering the poll. A proportional sample would have 22 Biden voters and 18 Trump voters. That’s just a 4-person difference.
Non-rural Hispanic voters in the poll said they’d vote 65% Biden, 35% Trump (the true number).
The average of Hispanic voters in the poll is 57% Biden, 43% Trump (D+14), a 12% swing from the true numbers.

And all that must happen for this problem to occur regularly is for Trump-voting rural Hispanics to answer polls at a slightly higher rate than Biden-voting rural Hispanics, and rural voters to answer polls at a higher rate than urban voters. And since polls collect responses from people who answer the polls first, the effect can happen easily.
You guessed it, this is happening in real life. And not just with Hispanic voters, but with everyone.
A pattern among 2024 polls is that rural voters are answering at a higher rate than urban/suburban voters. In one NYT/Siena poll (Trump+4), rural voters made up about 35% of the respondents, when they only made up 19% of the 2020 electorate.
In another poll by Grinnell College (Trump+7), rural voters made up 27% of the respondents. Voters who said they lived in a “town” made up 17%, and it’s likely at least some of them would break for rural if they had to choose between urban/suburban/rural.
Looking at the 538 poll database, a clear pattern emerges. Polls that have Trump leading Biden have a proportion of rural voters that is way too high. Polls where Biden leads Trump have more normal numbers.
Rural voters tend to be more conservative and vote Republican, and sure enough, Republicans are answering at a higher rate then Democrats. (scroll to "Do you consider yourself a Democrat, a Republican, an independent or a member of another party?" for the NYT/Siena poll and the top of page 6 for the Grinnell College poll. Both show more Republicans answering the poll than Democrats.)
One pollster, Susquehanna Polling and Research, remarked that Trump supporters seem to have higher enthusiasm than Biden supporters, and so are answering polls at a higher rate.

The second reason why Trump may not be winning Pennsylvania has to do with who is answering polls. We suspect because Trump is the only candidate with “enthusiastic” voters, it’s Trump voters in particular who are disproportionately talking to pollsters. It’s the reverse of what happened in 2016, when the phenomenon of “shy” Trump voters meant that many pollsters undercounted Trump’s base of support. Many voters were afraid to admit they were Trumpers back then. Today, we suspect many pollsters are not adjusting their samples to account for this “non-response” bias, as it’s typically called. But SP&R is doing so.

Polls also say that Trump voters are more enthusiastic than Biden voters.

Republicans are slightly more enthusiastic ahead of November’s general election, edging out Democrats, according to a new survey.
In the poll, released Thursday by Gallup, 59 percent of Republicans said they are more enthusiastic about voting in the upcoming election than in previous years. Fifty-five percent of Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents said they felt the same.

Groups like seniors and white voters may not be swinging towards Trump because there isn’t an enthusiasm gap, unlike with black/Hispanic/young voters. According to a YouGov poll, groups that aren’t swinging towards Trump in the crosstab aggregate are also paying more attention to the election (and therefore are more enthusiastic, and answering more polls). When black/Hispanic/young voters start paying more attention, they’ll get enthusiastic and start answering polls, which should improve Biden’s polling.
https://preview.redd.it/0899t1ephvzc1.png?width=1074&format=png&auto=webp&s=4f9fe91a2d30381a9f08e7e1883b90679aefd6a0
And that rural Hispanic voter hypothetical was based on something real. Rural Hispanic voters were already more Republican than other Hispanics in the 2020 election; and Biden did badly in the rural RGV in the primaries while doing better in cities like El Paso. The difference may be even larger than it was four years ago, with rural Hispanics swinging against Biden while urban and suburban Hispanics don’t. Rural Hispanics make up a small percentage of Hispanic voters (scroll down to "Area type"), so this swing doesn’t mean much for Biden’s electoral prospects. It screws with the crosstabs of Hispanic voters, however.
As Biden’s voters become more enthusiastic and the gap closes, polls may start swinging towards him as more of his voters answer polls. There have already been signs of this happening, like that surge in support mentioned earlier. Perhaps it’s because of the recent ad blitz by Biden energizing his supporters?
Oversamples, and the True State of the Election
Biden voters are not answering polls as much as Trump voters, and this is creating big swings in crosstabs thanks to low sample sizes. Polls with bigger sample sizes would be much better. The margins of error would be much smaller and the crosstabs much more accurate. Unfortunately, it’s too expensive to make polls with huge sample sizes, but there’s still the next best thing – oversamples.
Oversamples are polls that poll only one specific group. While a normal poll polls everyone, an oversample might poll only black voters, for example. Because of the big sample sizes, oversamples are much better for determining the voting intentions of groups than just looking at the crosstabs of normal polls. Oversamples can also use more advanced methods of polling to reach people who may not respond otherwise.
There are three oversamples that are going to be examined here. The first is by Black PAC, and it’s an oversample of black voters.
https://preview.redd.it/epcr7xeqhvzc1.png?width=680&format=png&auto=webp&s=6938941ae9e6b345778035bfd45f7ceb81aa98ed
Trump gets a pathetic 8% of black voters, less than half of the polling aggregate showing him getting 18%. This, along with Biden’s strong primary performances, suggest that the bad polling for Biden among black voters is entirely due to bad polling methodology.
Next, Hispanic voters. An oversample of Hispanic voters by Univision shows Biden leading Trump 58-31 (27 points). Again, that’s completely different from the polling aggregate showing Biden winning them by only 6 points. It is a slight decrease from 2020, where he won them by 33 points; but like stated earlier, Hispanics have been trending right for a while, so Trump making small gains among them isn’t surprising.
And finally, young voters. Split Ticket, an election prediction and analysis website, polled young voters. They used live text interviews, rather than a normal method like calling landlines.
In the poll, Biden leads Trump 35-25, a 10 point lead. Biden is disapproved of by 68% of young voters, while Trump is disapproved of by 70%. Of the three oversamples, this is the only one that lines up closely with the crosstab aggregate (Biden+8). Biden won young voters by 24 points in 2020, so it looks Trump is making large gains among the group.
But it’s not that simple.
Biden and Trump have a similar total disapproval rating, but the number of respondents who strongly disapprove of Trump is 61%. For Biden, it’s just 44%. This means Trump likely has a lower ceiling of support with young voters than Biden does – it’s hard to get someone who hates you to vote for you.
Additionally, young voters who disapprove of both Biden and Trump overwhelmingly prefer Biden to Trump. RFK Jr. actually wins this group, but like all third party candidates, his support is declining as the election gets closer. The combined voteshare in polls for RFK Jr. and Cornel West (a left-wing independent candidate) has been steadily decreasing. 6 months ago, it was 17.9%. Today, it’s only 11.5%. This raises the question of who RFK Jr.’s supporters will break for when they realize he can’t win.
https://preview.redd.it/zt0t5ptzhvzc1.png?width=763&format=png&auto=webp&s=fd1f7c717e66e750c57e76eaa617966708ebd222
Based on the approval ratings of Biden and Trump, and the “double haters” who already have chosen sides, it seems like the vast majority of young RFK Jr. supporters will go for Biden. His lead among young voters will only increase as time goes on. Of course, it wouldn’t be a bad idea to run ads like these to speed up the process.
Split Ticket also conducted a poll using a more normal method, an opt-in web panel. This poll had Trump doing much better with young voters than in their live text poll. So yes, some commonly used polling methods don’t work correctly!
Conclusion
Biden has been polling badly lately. He’s been trailing Trump nationally as well as in swing states. Polls say key parts of the Democratic base, black/Hispanic/young voters, are abandoning Biden in huge numbers. But when looked at closely, it’s not so simple. Other signs for Biden are pretty good. He’s been doing pretty well in primaries, and Democrats have been doing well in special and off-year elections. Polls are underestimating Biden’s support due to bad methodology and Democrats not answering polls. Oversamples show Biden doing fine with black voters, and mostly fine with Hispanic voters. The only group he really needs to work on is young voters, by trying to decrease RFK Jr.’s support.
So, 2024 won’t be a red wave where Trump wins big. But current signs don’t suggest 2024 is going to be a blue wave either, just another extremely close election like 2016 and 2020 both were. But there’s reason to believe Biden might outperform his 2020 showing despite that.
The American public is not very engaged right now, as there’s still seven months until the election, so Trump’s latest ventures with the legal system aren’t on people’s minds. When people tune in more, he can only get hurt from it. There’s also the massive fundraising gap between the two, which Trump is scrambling to close.
Here’s a prediction for how the election will actually go (margins are 20+, 15-19.9, 10-14.9, 5-9.9, 1-4.9, <1).
https://preview.redd.it/ufw3oxa2ivzc1.png?width=810&format=png&auto=webp&s=55a5dcc6c246cb34381165d211b17181717ef196

submitted by Substantial_Item_828 to AngryObservation [link] [comments]

2024.05.11 18:55 YodelingYoda Gentlemen, a short view back to the past.

I was in the process of cleaning out my old stuff and came across a couple of old Lacrosse Magazine from 2011. I figured you all would appreciate some of it. It’s been so long since I’ve had anything to do with lacrosse but it was a nice bit of nostalgia for simpler times.

submitted by YodelingYoda to lacrosse [link] [comments]

2024.05.11 13:39 xiaodaireddit List of Asian executives in non-Asian countries

Name	Position/Company/Year	Comment
Jack Zhang	CEO/Airwallex	founder
Jensen Huang	CEO/Nvidia	founder
Lisa Su	CEO/AMD
Manny Maceda	Worldwide Managing PartneBain & Company/2024
Theresa Tam	chief public health officer of Canada	Theresa Tam FRCPC (Chinese: 譚詠詩) is a Canadian physician and public servant who currently serves as the chief public health officer of Canada, who is the second-in-command of the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC).
Bei Ling	Wells Fargo/ Head of Human Resources	Bei Ling leads Human Resources for Wells Fargo and serves on the Wells Fargo Operating Committee. She is responsible for all aspects of the company’s human capital strategy. Bei and her team work closely with leaders across Wells Fargo’s global footprint to build a world-class culture and foster an inclusive environment committed to attracting, developing, engaging, and retaining the best talent. Before joining Wells Fargo in 2021, Bei was managing director and global head of Talent Development and Total Rewards at JPMorgan Chase. She was accountable for driving strategy and implementation across global functions, including leadership development and succession planning, learning, career development, compensation, benefits, and workforce data and analytics. At the same time, she was head of Human Resources for the Commercial Bank, leading end-to-end human capital strategy and programs for the business. Bei previously was deputy head of Human Resources at PNC Financial Services and co-chaired PNC’s Management Committee. She led multiple large-scale HR initiatives, including the PNC/National City merger and a redesign of the bank’s talent programs. She also held a variety of Human Resources and Global Finance roles at Merrill Lynch. A graduate of Beijing University in China, Bei earned her master’s degree in business administration from the Marshall School of Business at the University of Southern California. She serves as a board member for CareerWise USA, as well as on the Corporate Advisory Board for USC Marshall.
Thong M. NguyenBiography	Vice Chairman	Thong M. Nguyen is Vice Chairman and Head of Global Strategy & Enterprise Platforms at Bank of America. He serves as a member of the company’s executive management team, reporting to Chairman & CEO Brian Moynihan. Nguyen oversees Corporate Strategy, Enterprise Payments Strategy, Enterprise Data, Artificial Intelligence Governance, Operational Excellence/Change Management, Business Continuity, and Procurement/Vendor Management. Previously, Nguyen served as President of Retail Banking, with responsibility for operations of Bank of America’s coast-to-coast financial centers, contact centers and ATM networks, the nation’s leading digital banking platform, and Military Affairs Banking overseas. Nguyen has also served as the Strategy, Sales and Operations executive for Consumer Banking at Bank of America. Earlier, he was Bank of America’s Corporate Strategy, Planning and Development executive, responsible for M&A/dispositions activities, New BAC (a long-term initiative to simplify operations and reduce costs at Bank of America), the BAC Private Equity portfolio, and the China Construction Bank strategic assistance effort. Nguyen also held various other roles, including West Division executive for U.S. Trust; head of Fiduciary Solutions at U.S. Trust; head of Private Advisory Services at Global Private Banking; Global Corporate and Investment Banking business executive; and head of Global Wealth and Investment Management’s Marketing and Business Development groups. Before joining Bank of America in 2003, Nguyen worked at GE Capital and McKinsey & Co. Nguyen received a B.S. in mechanical engineering and an MBA in finance and marketing from Columbia University.
Lu Qi	Microsoft high up	Left Microsoft after losing CEO role to Nadella. Went back to China to work for Baidu and got micromanaged out.
Peter Chun	CEO/UniSupe?-2024-?	Born in Hong Kong. UniSuper is one of the biggest superfunds in Australia ranking 5th in total assets (AUD127.45b as of Jun 2023)
Kelvin Vi Luan Tran	Group Head and Chief Financial OfficerTD Bank Group/2024
Tracy Bryan	Executive Vice President, Direct Channels and Enablement/Scotiabank/2024	Tracy was named Executive Vice President, Direct Channels and Enablement in November 2023, with overall responsibility for the Bank’s Client Care Centres, Online and Digital Channels, Canadian Banking Internal Controls, and Real Estate, bringing together a number of our client-facing channels to develop a more seamless, effective, and efficient client experience. Since joining Scotiabank in 1994, Tracy has held progressively senior roles in Retail Banking, International Banking, Technology, and Global Operations. She was, most recently, Executive Vice President, Global Operations, with overall responsibility for the leadership, strategic direction and performance of the function and for ensuring that effective partnership with the business lines to improve our client experience. Tracy is an avid speaker at women’s mentoring events internally and externally on behalf of Scotiabank. https://www.scotiabank.com/ca/en/about/our-company/executive-management/tracy-bryan.html
Fleur Pellerin	French minister	Korean adopted by French parents
Philipp Rösler	Vice Chancellor of Germany/2011-2013	Vietnamese adopted by German parents
Raymond Chun	Group Head, Canadian Personal BankingTD Bank Group/2024
Penny Wong	Foreign Minister of Australia	Halfie
Zhao Pun	CEO of Citadel Securities/2024	USD10m+ salary

submitted by xiaodaireddit to bambooceiling [link] [comments]

2024.05.11 13:29 Objective-Data8240 Help! Need advice to improve my resume, is it being seen or just too vague?

I have been laid off not too long ago, have a family to support. Super stressful and surreal situation that most people like I have been experiencing. I have not updated my resume format / style in a while. I need some expertise as to how to improve it. Would greatly appreciate all the input before paying someone to review and potentially scammed.
Looking for a position in leading a team of test automation developers. I feel like my job title is not reflective of what I do. Please roast hard.
https://preview.redd.it/dkb0ejbb9szc1.png?width=696&format=png&auto=webp&s=25a5cca0fb7e956f7083abc98e6974e27075ad87
https://preview.redd.it/gh8f77vb9szc1.png?width=666&format=png&auto=webp&s=20051e4bd5c6a627c3fb3c15598a63dc6a4011ff

submitted by Objective-Data8240 to resumes [link] [comments]

2024.05.11 02:02 Sensitive-Soft5823 next year the last zalphas are gonna be allowed on reddit

This is based on this subreddits definition (09-12)
The Zalpha Kids in 2025:
2009 kids are gonna be able to drive in the US, prob used to taking AP classes, but they're juniors so they gotta worry about the SAT and stuff
2010 kids are gonna be 15 and can go to drivers ed and stuff, and has to learn to balance that with school
2011 kids are gonna go into high school mostly, and have to learn time management for real
2012 kids are gonna be teenagers
Other years that are some times referred to as zalpha, (2008,2013,2014)
2008 kids are gonna be seniors and are prob applying for colleges and are prob a little too old for zalpha
2013 kids are 12 and are starting to enter the phase where they think they teens but they not, they act like a teenager, but don't get the teenager perks, like getting to freely be on social media (they gonna do it anyway, but they can't say their real age)
2014 kids are gonna enter middle school and they get introduced to grades and quizzes, and their life is still easy, but not as easy, has to learn some time management, also prob a little too young for zalpha
2007 and 2015 kids are sometimes considered zalpha, but there is no way they are zalpha. 2008 and 2014 is a maybe, and 2009-2013 is def zalpha

submitted by Sensitive-Soft5823 to gen_zalpha [link] [comments]

2024.05.10 16:22 Altruistic_Cream5407 Future of San Marino

https://preview.redd.it/8v6maer2zlzc1.png?width=1748&format=png&auto=webp&s=e055a1a64350f41d027fef14bd4c5afa3790cefc

submitted by Altruistic_Cream5407 to TheOldZealand [link] [comments]

2024.05.10 11:24 JG98 Today I want to highlight Jaswant Singh Khalra, the prominent human rights activist from Panjab.

Jaswant Singh Khalra (November 2 1952 - September 6 1995) was a prominent human rights activist who shone a light on the dark period of violence in Charda Panjab. He is remembered for his bravery in uncovering illegal killings and cremations by the state police during the militancy period.
Born in Amritsar, Khalra came from a family with a history of activism. His grandfather, Harnam Singh, participated in the Ghadar movement, advocating for India's independence. In 1914, Harnam Singh was even among the passengers on the famous Komagata Maru ship, denied entry to Canada and forced to return to India, where he faced imprisonment for his activism.
The events of 1984 Sikh genocide, and the subsequent police state, marked a turning point for Jaswant Singh Khalra. Witnessing the violence and the broad powers given to Police during the counter-insurgency period, Khalra became determined to fight for justice. He embarked on a mission to document human rights abuses, meticulously investigating disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and the chilling practice of secret cremations employed by the police. His research extended beyond civilian deaths; he even documented the alleged killings of around 2,000 police officers who refused to participate in these acts.
Khalra's relentless pursuit of the truth led him to investigate specific cases that exemplified the human rights violations taking place. One such case involved the death of a man named Behla in police custody, highlighting the dangers of custodial killings. Another case exposed the use of civilians as human shields by security forces, resulting in the deaths of innocent people. Perhaps most disturbing was Khalra's discovery of a horrifying pattern - state Police cremating a staggering number of unidentified bodies. His research in Amritsar alone suggested over 2,000 such cases, raising serious questions about the legitimacy of these deaths and the lack of proper investigations. Khalra's most explosive finding, however, may have been the alleged killings of around 2,000 police officers who refused to participate in these human rights abuses. This documented internal conflict within the police force painted a grim picture of the situation in Panjab.
Khalra's pursuit of the truth wasn't limited to individual cases. While searching for missing colleagues, he made a chilling discovery in municipal corporation records in Amritsar. These records contained the names, ages, and addresses of those killed and cremated by the police, revealing a much larger scale of human rights violations. Further investigation across Panjab unearthed thousands more cases.
The horrific truth that Khalra uncovered was corroborated by official sources. The National Human Rights Commission released a list of identified bodies cremated by police in Amritsar, Majitha, and Tarn Taran districts. The Supreme Court of India and the National Human Rights Commission validated this data. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) also independently investigated and concluded that police had illegally cremated over 2,000 people in just Tarn Taran district alone. These findings strengthened the credibility of Khalra's broader claims about the human rights violations that had taken place.
On September 6, 1995, while washing his car in front of his house, Khalra's fight for justice was tragically cut short. Witnesses reported seeing him abducted by plain clothes Police personnel and taken to Jhabal Police Station. Despite these statements implicating the police, including Director General Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, authorities initially denied any involvement and claimed to have no knowledge of Khalra's whereabouts.
However, the fight for truth continued. In 1996, the Central Bureau of Investigation found evidence that Khalra was held at a police station in Tarn Taran. The CBI recommended prosecution of nine police officials for murder and kidnapping. The wait for justice was long, with charges against the accused coming only ten years later. It's important to note that one of the suspects, Senior Superintendent of Police Ajit Singh Sandhu, was himself murdered in 1997, though his death was staged as a suicide.
Finally, in 2005, a glimmer of justice emerged. Six police officials were convicted for Khalra's abduction and murder. Two defendants received life sentences, while the others faced seven years imprisonment. The following years saw further legal battles. In 2007, the Punjab and Haryana High Court extended the sentences to life imprisonment for four of the remaining accused. The Supreme Court of India upheld these sentences in 2011, dismissing the appeal that was filed.
The legacy of Jaswant Singh Khalra has inspired many documentaries and even a feature biopic, 'Punjab 95'. The film starring Diljit Dosanjh as Jaswant Singh Khalra was supposed to premier in 2023 at the Toronto International Film Festival, but it was pulled due to censorship requirements from the Indian film board (21 cuts and a title change from the original working title 'Gallughara'). The film makers have challenged the cuts and hope to release the full uncut biopic in the near future.

submitted by JG98 to punjab [link] [comments]

2024.05.10 05:12 appleman33145 Ashton Forbes has Solved the Case of MH370

All Pertinent Evidence
The Videos
Archive Satellite - http://web.archive.org/web/20170606182854/https://youtube.com/watch?v=5Ok1A1fSzxY

Oldest version from ‘RegicideAnon’
Received - March 12th, 2014, Uploaded - May 19th, 2014, Source - Protected

Archive MQ-1C Gray Eagle with Thermal Layer added-
https://web.archive.org/web/20140827060121/https://youtube.com/watch?v=ShapuD290K0

Oldest version from ‘RegicideAnon’
Received - June 5th, 2014, Uploaded June 12th, 2014

Requirements to Understand the Videos to be Authentic

2017 DoD Navy UAP videos that show drone FLIR
2019 Trump Satellite image from USA-224 (2011)
Advanced theoretical physics concepts (ER = EPR, macroscopic quantum coherence, bose-einstein condensate)
LK-99 and emergence of room-temperature superconductivity
AI, ChatGPT in common use and Quantum Computers

Video Facts

Videos proven to date back to 2014 from archives and people who saw them
Satellite perspective changes 8 times with coordinates visible in 6
Satellite coordinate shifts prove the location is in the Nicobar Islands
General Atomics MQ-1C Gray Eagle or MQ-9 (same chassis)
Drone cannot catch the plane, must have intercepted it
Likely drone deployment locations are Cope Tiger exercises, Car Nicobar or Port Blair
MQ-1C Thermal using advanced electro-IR camera
Purpose for SBIRS and SIGINT - tracking boats and planes, electronic signals monitoring, intelligence, and battlefield awareness
SBIRS Video from Lockheed Martin - SBIRS Mission Overview - Lockheed Martin
Alternate sources in higher quality exist that point to none of these users being the original source
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS9uL3Omg7o
- https://vimeo.com/104295906
Clouds move and evolve dynamically
Videos show coordinates in them that change but not when the mouse moves
Videos show satellite designation NROL-22, the first launch for SBIRS system HEO-1
Mouse moves off the screen in the bottom left and top right, indicating a large field of view
Viewing custom video software (SBIRS), coordinates only 2 axis, tracking the ground
6fps indicative of a high field of view which requires more resources to render
Plane is making a left hand turn and descending consistent with max capabilities of a 777-200
Plane's altitude is low based on how close they are to the cumulus cloud (1k-5k feet)
The MQ-1C is cropped out of the Satellite video, just out of view
The user closes the window after the plane disappears, indicating this was not recorded in real time
Googling SIGINT Payload top hit references MQ-1C Gray Eagle
Regicide defended the veracity of the videos per later uploaded videos
When the drone video zooms in we can see the clouds change size and clear parallax
Drone deployed from Car Nicobar or Port Blair, direction of travel consistent with angle of camera view
Raytheon AN/DAS-2 Electro-IR camera with rainbow palette
Night vision cameras such as sionyx nightwave can make nighttime look like daytime
Drone video starts once the plane gets into view of the right hand side camera

Video Speculation

SBIRS produced satellite video using data from USA-229 (NROL-34)
NROL-22 released in 2006 is presumed to be a relay satellite due to it's Molniya orbit and clear view of the satellite that took the video
Smoking Gun : USA-229 at the right location, time, apparent angle, with a sister 'debris' satellite capable of taking the stereoscopic video at ~18:40UTC
- USA-229 Flyover using historical data - USA-229 Flyover MH370 18:40UTC
Satellite Video Explainer - MH370x Satellite Video Explainer
Sentient AI is used to operationalize satellites and fuse multi-int for entity resolution, geolocation, and tracking
Reports that Sentient can track aircraft movement
Satellite video computer program may be Sentient producing a large battlefield space
MQ-1C with Aerial Surveillance Loadout
Original videos may have been leaked to a private forum
Mouse acceleration explained by (Pluraview 3D mouse) with Stealth or Softmouse 3D controllers
Screen capture of terminal running at some resolution of 30fps
Citrix remote terminal running at default of 24fps
Streaming a remote/virtual desktop at a resolution of 24fps
Remotely navigating around a very large resolution video playing at 6fps
Leaker of these videos was likely caught and went to prison
Leaker was a US Military operator who saw the event in real time and had an emotional reaction

MH370 ‘Fake’ Video Requirements

Unclaimed $150,000 bounty for hoaxer & proof of source/draft work (expired)
Between 4 and 72 days to create (March 12 or May 19)
No reference to copy from
How to create realistic volumetric clouds
How clouds form at a low altitude (cumulus clouds)
How to accurately light 3D volumetric clouds (‘zap’ accurately illuminates clouds in the foreground and background)
Recreate what MH370 looked like exactly
What the turn radius of a Boeing 777 is at a certain altitude and in descent
Know the location of the turn into the south indian ocean 9+ days before raw telemetry data was made public, as indicated by coordinates in the video and Kate Tee’s sighting
Accurate coordinate shifts relative to the location
How to animate the coordinates shifts
That the military are using the Citrix environment
Frame rate difference of the mouse created by capturing sat footage on a Citrix remote terminal
How/why to make the satellite video look like a cropped screen recording
What the weather was like in the Nicobar islands
Aware of the fire scenario (smoke coming out the back, too low for contrails)
How to accurately create the smoke trailing the plane using particles in two videos
How to anime the heat signature in the belly of the plane that morphs realistically
Accurate camera shake on the drone and increased shake when zooming in
Knowledge of military classified systems unknown to the public
What satellites the US have in operation and what their payload is NOSS USA-229
What false color IR looks like
How to animate orbs including the heat signature that rotates on the axis
How to create a particle system for the orb forward facing geodesic engine
How to animate the final frames where the orbs flatten and plane blurs
What a MQ-1C drone looks like
Accurate delay in tracking the plane manually from the operator
What the MQ-1C drone payload is
Where that payload is located to get the exact camera angle
How to accurately animate cameras
Better VFX skills than the lead VFX artist for Top Gun Maverick
Marvel VFX Expert says it would take at least 4-6 months with today’s technology
Better understanding of physics than most PhDs
Understanding of zero point scalar interferometry and mixed wave interferometry
Understanding of topological monopoles before the science was publicly published
How not to use low quality, 90s video game 2D VFX in a 3D environment
How to turn a 2D cloud picture into a fully 3D rendered environment
That we would never find a plane even 10+ years later

The Flightpath
Note - We started by trusting all the official data and systematically ruled it out as not factual or itself riddled with inconsistencies.

MH370x Flightpath Video - MH370 Flightpath
MH370x Flightpath Explainer Video - MH370x Flightpath Explainer
Lost trust in the WSPR data and Inmarsat pings after 18:40UTC
Satellite pings switch to IOR at 15:59UTC and never change back to POR despite the plane flying East towards it
Going east until 17:21 UTC the plane should have pinged POR but doesn't
Pilot says goodnight MH370 at 17:19UTC
At UTC 17:21 MH370 disappears from all civilian radar due to both ADS-B and ACARS being shut off
17:30UTC last radar contact according to transport minister
Radar says the plane makes impossible altitude changes from 5000ft to 55,000ft
Radar data not released for weeks and sent to Americans within five days
“The armed forces knew much earlier that the aircraft could have turned back. That is why the search was expanded to include the Strait of Malacca within a day or two”
“But the military did not confirm this until much later due to resistance from senior officers, and the government needed to step in. We wasted our time in the South China Sea.”
Defense Minister claims they knew it was a civilian airliner but didn’t know it was MH370
Defense minister claims they knew its civilian and not hostile without identification
Plane changes directions and heads to Penang, airport, the closest airport that can accommodate a 777 in an emergency
Wired article argues this would be the correct decision in an electrical fire
When the plane gets over Penang, the co-pilot's cell phone pings
Last Malaysian military radar is between 18:15 and 18:22 UTC, ~200 miles West by Northwest of Penang
Reports the next day had loss of contact at 18:40UTC
Anomalous ping data at 18:40UTC and subsequent limited data (ten rows) for the time between 19:41UTC and 23:15UTC

Plane didn’t crash into the South Indian Ocean

No debris field found
‘Experts’ say plane crashed at 15,000ft per minute, would have exploded into thousand pieces
Most expensive search in history didn’t find a single piece of the plane above or below water
No Black Boxes will ever be found despite being able to produce a signal for up to 30 days at depths of 20,000ft
Black Boxes would prove the conspiracy
None of the four redundant ELT beacons activated on crash
SOSUS would have heard it like the Titan sub where the Navy said nothing for 5 days while oxygen countdowns were on TV
Western Australia and Diego Garcia hydrophones had no acoustic detections
Thailand, India, Indonesia and JORN (Australia) radar systems would have seen the plane
Diego Garcia, Coco Islands, and Pine Gap military bases should have tracked it
Active shipping route
No witnesses despite supposedly crashing in the morning
Official flightpath has it running out of gas, there's nowhere else for it to go
Official search searched everywhere along the final ping arc and along the flightpath, South Indian Ocean, Malacca Straits, and Andaman Sea
19 families of victims signed statement saying they could call the victims phones for up to four days
1 person proved they could call the passenger on live TV
Some social media sites have shown missing passengers as still being 'online'

submitted by appleman33145 to conspiracy [link] [comments]

2024.05.10 04:16 hguz1987 Seniority swap

Hello people! I’m a locomotive engineer from the NorCal SU interested in swapping seniority with anyone in the AZ hub. I have a 2011 seniority date as a CON/BR1/SW1 and a 2015 date as an engineer. Check out rosters CON 220490 and ENG 220201. If interested or if you know someone that might be interested please message me I have plenty of info I can share with you. Thanks for reading!

submitted by hguz1987 to UnionPacific [link] [comments]

2024.05.09 21:50 RedditVaccineInjury "What The News Isn't Saying About Vaccine-Autism Studies"

Full article here:
https://sharylattkisson.com/2016/11/what-the-news-isnt-saying-about-vaccine-autism-studies/
A Small Sampling
Many of the studies have common themes regarding a subset of susceptible children with immunity issues who, when faced with various vaccine challenges, end up with brain damage described as autism.
“Permanent brain damage” is an acknowledged, rare side effect of vaccines; there’s no dispute in that arena. The question is whether the specific form of autism brain injury after vaccination is in any way related to vaccination.
So what are a few of these published studies supporting a possible link between vaccines and autism?
As far back as 1998, a serology study by the College of Pharmacy at University of Michigan supported the hypothesis that an autoimmune response from the live measles virus in MMR vaccine “may play a causal role in autism.” (Nothing to see here, say the critics, that study is old.)
In 2002, a Utah State University study found that “an inappropriate antibody response to MMR [vaccine], specifically the measles component thereof, might be related to pathogenesis of autism.” (“Flawed and non-replicable,” insist the propagandists.)
Also in 2002, the Autism Research Institute in San Diego looked at a combination of vaccine factors. Scientists found the mercury preservative thimerosal used in some vaccines (such as flu shots) could depress a baby’s immunity. That could make him susceptible to chronic measles infection of the gut when he gets MMR vaccine, which contains live measles virus. (The bloggers say it’s an old study, and that other studies contradict it.)
In 2006, a team of microbiologists in Cairo, Egypt concluded, “deficient immune response to measles, mumps and rubella vaccine antigens might be associated with autism, as a leading cause or a resulting event.”
A 2007 study found statistically significant evidence suggesting that boys who got the triple series Hepatitis B vaccine when it contained thimerosal were “more susceptible to developmental disability” than unvaccinated boys.
Similarly, a 5-year study of 79,000 children by the same institution found boys given Hepatitis B vaccine at birth had a three times increased risk for autism than boys vaccinated later or not at all. Nonwhite boys were at greatest risk. (“Weak study,” say the critics.)
A 2009 study in The Journal of Child Neurology found a major flaw in a widely-cited study that claimed no link between thimerosal in vaccines and autism. Their analysis found that “the original p value was in error and that a significant relation does exist between the blood levels of mercury and diagnosis of an autism spectrum disorder.”
[quote]The researchers noted, “Like the link between aspirin and heart attack, even a small effect can have major health implications. If there is any link between autism and mercury, it is absolutely crucial that the first reports of the question are not falsely stating that no link occurs.”[/quote] (Critics: the study is not to be believed.)
A 2010 rat study by the Polish Academy of Sciences suggested “likely involvement” of thimerosal in vaccines (such as flu shots) “in neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism.” (The critics dismiss rat studies.)
In 2010, a pilot study in Acta Neurobiologiae Experimentalis found that infant monkeys given the 1990’s recommended pediatric vaccine regimen showed important brain changes warranting “additional research into the potential impact of an interaction between the MMR and thimerosal-containing vaccines on brain structure and function.”
A study from Japan’s Kinki University in 2010 supported “the possible biological plausibility for how low-dose exposure to mercury from thimerosal-containing vaccines may be associated with autism.”
A 2011 study from Australia’s Swinburne University supported the hypothesis that sensitivity to mercury, such as thimerosal in flu shots, may be a genetic risk factor for autism. (Critics call the study “strange” with “logical hurdles.”)
A Journal of Immunotoxicology review in 2011 by a former pharmaceutical company senior scientist concluded autism could result from more than one cause including encephalitis (brain damage) following vaccination. (Critics say she reviewed “debunked and fringe” science.)
In 2011, City University of New York correlated autism prevalence with increased childhood vaccine uptake. “Although mercury has been removed from many vaccines, other culprits may link vaccines to autism,” said the study’s lead author. (To critics, it’s “junk science.”)
A University of British Columbia study in 2011 that found “the correlation between Aluminum [an adjuvant] in vaccines and [autism] may be causal.” (More “junk science,” say the propagandists.)
A 2011 rat study out of Warsaw, Poland found thimerosal in vaccines given at a young age could contribute to neurodevelopmental disorders. (Proves nothing, say critics.)
A Chinese study in 2012 suggested that febrile seizures (an acknowledged side effect of some vaccines) and family history of neuropsychiatric disorders correlate with autistic regression.
A 2012 study from the Neurochemistry Research Marie Curie Chairs Program in Poland found that newborn exposure to vaccines with thimerosal (such as flu shots) might cause glutamate-related brain injuries.
In 2013, neurosurgeons at the Methodist Neurological Institute found that children with mild mitochondrial defect may be highly susceptible to toxins like the vaccine preservative thimerosal found in vaccines such as flu shots. (“Too small” of a study, say the critics.)
In 2016, Frontiers published a survey of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children. The vaccinated had a higher rate of allergies and NDD (neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism) than the unvaccinated. Vaccination, but not preterm birth, remained significantly associated with NDD after controlling for other factors. However, preterm birth combined with vaccination was associated with an apparent synergistic increase in the odds of NDD.
Then, there’s a 2004 Columbia University study presented at the Institute of Medicine. It found that mice predisposed for genetic autoimmune disorder developed autistic-like behavior after receiving mercury-containing vaccines. (Critics say that’s not proof, and the work was not replicable.)
There’s Dr. William Thompson, the current CDC senior scientist who has come forward with an extraordinary statement to say that he and his agency have engaged in long term efforts to obscure a study’s significant link between vaccines and autism, heightened in African Americans boys. (The CDC says the data changes made were for legitimate reasons.)
There’s the current CDC immunization safety director who acknowledged to me that it’s possible vaccines may rarely trigger autism in children who are biologically or genetically susceptible to vaccine injury.
There’s the case of Hannah Poling, in which the government secretly admitted multiple vaccines given in one day triggered her brain injuries, including autism, then paid a multi-million dollar settlement, and had the case sealed from the prying public eyes under a confidentiality order.
There was the former head of the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Bernadine Healy, who stoked her peers’ ire by publicly stating that the vaccine-autism link was not a “myth” as so many tried to claim. She disclosed that her colleagues at the Institute of Medicine did not wish to investigate the possible link because they feared the impact it would have on the vaccination program.
There’s former CDC researcher Poul Thorsen, whose studies dispelled a vaccine autism link. He’s now a “most wanted fugitive” after being charged with 13 counts of wire fraud and nine counts of money laundering for allegedly using CDC grants of tax dollars to buy a house and cars for himself.
And there are the former scientists from Merck, maker of the MMR vaccine in question, who have turned into whistleblowers and accuse their company of committing vaccine fraud.

submitted by RedditVaccineInjury to conspiracy_commons [link] [comments]

2024.05.09 21:50 RedditVaccineInjury "What The News Isn't Saying About Vaccine-Autism Studies"

submitted by RedditVaccineInjury to conspiracy [link] [comments]

2024.05.09 20:55 RedditVaccineInjury "What The News Isn't Saying About Vaccine-Autism Link"

submitted by RedditVaccineInjury to DebateVaccines [link] [comments]

2024.05.09 01:46 marcoETmx Job Hunt Mastery Bundle

🚀 Elevate Your Job Search Game with the **Job Hunt Mastery Bundle *🚀***
Struggling to land that dream job? Say no more! The Job Hunt Mastery Bundle is your go-to resource for job hunting success.
🌟 W*hat's Inside: *🌟

Customizable Resume Templates
Cover Letter Templates
Interview Preparation Guides
Job Search Checklists

But wait, there's more! For the next 48 hours, we're offering a 20% DISCOUNT you simply can't afford to miss!
Why settle for less when you can have the best? Time is ticking. ⏳
👇👇👇
https://l.marcoelizalde.com/JobHunt50Reddit
https://preview.redd.it/1v6muqpthazc1.png?width=1200&format=png&auto=webp&s=fd89b2110ec5185e987fe8f1647318d8201295c7

submitted by marcoETmx to NotionGeeks [link] [comments]

2024.05.09 00:26 Articlaus Today Goatselu become legend of following clubs.

submitted by Articlaus to realmadrid [link] [comments]

2024.05.08 19:52 SuburbanDJ Guess my band’s show themes!

I’ll jump in on this.
Try to guess my high school band’s show themes for every year!
A couple might be tricky, so if you need another clue, let me know!
Freshman (2010): 🟩☘️❌🌎
Sophomore (2011): 🎺 🧑🏻‍🌾
Junior (2012): 📻🎶🪩🕺
Senior (2013): 🇬🇧🕵🏻

submitted by SuburbanDJ to marchingband [link] [comments]

2024.05.08 19:15 zeeyaz Worried about getting into graduate programs from prior bad decisions in life

Hi all, I will try to make this brief, since you get so many of these types of questions (I checked the search bar, there's a ton but none that was like mine so far).
I graduated high school in 2007, and went to Job Corps after and graduated with a few certificates in IT. In 2011 I joined the military, and in 2013 went to school. I went off and on, as I wasn't doing the best in my college career for Software Development. When I wasn't in school, I worked low-tier jobs, and only for a few months at a time before swapping. Life was not working for me well after the military and I 'didn't have a purpose', and decided to officially drop out of college for good in 2019, when I had my first child. I decided that my life was now to only work and nothing else.
In 2022, while at work, I was approached by a customer who was a student at the local university. We chatted some as I was doing his order (I made websites at this time in my life), and he suggested I should give school another shot. He seemed pretty happy in his life, so I asked what he was going to school for. Turns out, it was psychology. We chatted more throughout the weeks and I did some research on what Psychology is on my own time, and turns out, I was interested in it! So I signed up for school again in 2022, and changed majors to Psychology.
However, my GPA at the time was a 1.21 (from all my previous semesters), so I had to go before a committee and appeal my choice in transferring majors, as well as to even be accepted into the school. After showing my work history, they decided to give me another shot. Worked out perfectly! I have gotten all A's and B's in my courses; just this semester, I got 3 A's (Research Methods, Behavioral Neuroscience, and Senior Capstone Project) and 1 A- ( Psychology of Morality), the best I have even done in school, period! I feel I am doing well for being 35 and not having ever considered psychology before, always focused on other fields that I never excelled at.
My Major GPA is a 3.65, and over the past two years, I have raised up my cumulative GPA from a 1.21 to be a 3.04. However, I only have 1 more semester (Fall 2024) of courses, and then I graduate with my Bachelors of Science in Psychology. I do not believe I can get any higher than possibly a 3.1 or like a 3.15.
Is this going to be a dealbreaker for me to try to get into graduate schools with such a low cumulative GPA? I'm worried that, even though I have been doing well in my undergrad with my new major, I will not have the GPA to be able to get into graduate schools. A PhD or a PsyD was my dream, but I am not sure if that's feasible.
Oh redditors of ClinicalPsychology, please help me make sense of how I am currently doing in school, and what paths you would suggest for the near future.

PS: I do have a family member who has been a licensed therapist for over 25 years. They own a private practice, and also work with the DoD. They are interested in me possibly working and eventually taking over the business, as they want to retire. Not sure if that helps at all.

submitted by zeeyaz to ClinicalPsychology [link] [comments]

http://rodzice.org/