Klar :)
Ein Zirkelschluss, Zirkelbeweis, logischer Zirkel, Kreisschluss oder auch Hysteron-Proteron (aus altgriechisch ὕστερον πρότερον hýsteron próteron, wörtlich „das Spätere [ist] das Frühere“), ist ein Beweisfehler, bei dem die Voraussetzungen des zu Beweisenden schon enthalten sind.
Brockhaus. Weltbildverlag, 2005.
Do you believe that climate change is largely driven by human activity, including the burning of fossil fuels? If not, is there a different cause you would cite?
Didn't say yes.
Here I agree, the question isn't answered.
But:
Do you believe climate change is making disasters such as hurricanes, wildfires and heat waves more intense?
Almost said yes.
"The science is clear. Extreme weather will only get worse, and the climate crisis will only accelerate.’'
How is that not a yes?
Should climate change be addressed through government action or market forces?
Practically a yes. I award a half credit
"Under Harris's climate plan as a 2019 presidential candidate, she advocated for a blend of government action and market forces to combat global warming."
It's not a yes because this is not a yes or no question. It gives a very clear answer though. How is this half credit?
Do you support clean-energy tax credits such as those for electric vehicles?
Again half credit. Not an actual yes.
"In 2022, Harris cast the tie-breaking vote to pass the Inflation Reduction Act, which provides hundreds of billions of dollars in government subsidies for electric cars and other clean-energy technology, including tax credits for clean-energy and energy-efficiency home projects."
That answers the question, again.
So, in 3 out of 4 questions the answers are very clear. And giving a "long" answer to a complex question is, in my opinion, appropriate.
Mein Ratschlag war meine Behauptungen ohne Fakten in den virtuellen Raum zu schmeißen und dann zu behaupten das die Behauptung doch so offensichtlich sei, dass ein Beleg nicht nötig ist.
Wenn du mir zeigst wo ich das getan habe, dann folge ich diesem Ratschlag gerne.
Wenn du keinen Bock hast deine Position mit irgendwelchen Fakten zu hinterlegen dann ist vielleicht einfach nichts schreiben die bessere Alternative.
Is so weil is so und is doch klar ist halt auch kein Argument.
What's cake day?
They don't sound like it is the best choice, just the best avaible one.
TLDR: They had the dataset lying around from previous (unrelated) research and can't get new data because Facebook removed API access after the Cambridge Analytical Scandal.
"This corpus comprises Facebook pages and, within them, views representing different positions towards Brexit, with some being in favour and others against [10]. It was compiled as part of previous research [10, 11], but ethical approval for new analyses was sought and obtained in 2022 from the University of Edinburgh. We chose to analyse our existing dataset for two reasons. First, examining social media data about Brexit, a high-profile event that has been intensely studied, offers significant opportunities for comparing our findings to existing work whilst contributing to ongoing scholarship on public discourse about political phenomena. Second, in the UK and in many other countries, institutional ethics policies require researchers to acquire data in compliance with platforms’ Terms of Service (ToS) agreements. Like other major platforms including X (formerly Twitter), Instagram and TikTok, Facebook’s ToS state that data must be extracted using its application programming interface (API). Yet following the Cambridge Analytica scandal, Facebook closed its public API, making it challenging to acquire additional data from the platform. "
Quoted from part 2.1 Materials
sending random stuff to developing countries is one of the problems.
Relevant Video.
https://palaeo-electronica.org/content/2023/3821-the-osteology-of-irritator
This is the Paper that started it. They used some (at the time) new techniques to 3d model an old fossil they had, if I recall it correctly.
When AI would have been the better choice.
Aber das ist ja eben was vollkommen anderes, als ein Pauschale Verbot. Die Maßnahmen sind aus der Erlebniswelt der Schüler*innen heraus begründet, sind nachvollziehbar und, da ja andere Geräte auch genutzt werden dürfen, keine totalitäre Absage an Medien in der Schule.
As title says :-)
https://swahsociety.com/records/obituaries/obituaries-1880s