
Mist. Anfang verpasst. Hat Tim Good Morning gesagt?
ErnstgemeinteFrage. #AppleEvent
Ja, klingt fürs so eine Marketingpräsi bestimmt gut, beruhigt mich jetzt noch nicht so wirklich. #appleevent
FCPX „bis zu“ 6x schneller Rendern? Und was ist mit iMovie! Denkt doch mal wer an iMovie!!! #appleevent
Aber 17-18 Stunden Akkulaufzeit ist schon goil. Wenn ich dann noch denke, dass iMovie/FCPX deutlich weniger verbraucht. All day editing incoming. #appleevent
Wo ist 5G? Das war doch die Zukunft. Warum immer noch Hotspot von iPhone/iPad, wenn ihr doch dicke genug Akku habt, um das mal reinzupacken. Oder zumindest als Option wie beim iPad? #appleevent
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.

Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)

There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.

At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?