Relying on logic and rationalism is just intelligence. Emotional Intelligence is understanding and to some degree using peoples emotions, if you want to be very correct. You dont use emotions to define social policy, and hopefully, any social policy will be devoid of emotions, because that can only lead towards confusion, biasedness and group mentality.
If you want to define EI as ability to step away from one's own emotions. Sure. We can agree with that. Personally I would just call that intelligence.
That is complete unfounded fluff words. No paper would be published if it was biased and as selective as you say. Look at the paper at least briefly and we can discuss.
Of interest maybe would be the indicators of a campaigns success:
The outcomes of these campaigns are identiªed as “success,” “limited success,” or “failure.” To be designated a “success,” the campaign must have met
two criteria: (1) its stated objective occurred within a reasonable period of time
(two years) from the end of the campaign; and (2) the campaign had to have a
discernible effect on the outcome.40 A “limited success” occurs when a campaign obtained signiªcant concessions (e.g., limited autonomy, local power
sharing, or a non-electoral leadership change in the case of dictatorship) although the stated objectives were not wholly achieved (i.e., territorial independence or regime change through free and fair elections).41 A campaign is
coded a “failure” if it did not meet its objectives or did not obtain signiªcant
concessions.42
They werent selectively chosen. " An original, aggregate data set of all known major nonviolent and violent resistance campaigns from 1900 to 2006 is used to test these claims." As well as any researcher who isn't a complete buffoon would only look at statistics that has only a 2-3 sigma chance of only being stochastic noise.
I guess that's a fair example. But logically sounds impossible for such control over the population to be had. If a group went out to the streets to oust the government, you would say at least maybe 45% would join.
It, honestly, is not. If you want to decide what is fair, what is true, what is good, you dont fucking believe the universe god flows through your emotions. Instead, you think logically, and try to analize and understand what in the human world are the concepts of liberty, good life. And also, analizing whether your emotions are dumbly guiding you in stupid directions.
You cannot solve any societal problems with emotional feeling of what is good. That is what republicans do. Empirical bullshit loosely based on their inherent emotional desires of racism, chauvinism and the rest of the assorted bag of megalomaniac insanity pills.
If by ignore, you mean stop paying taxes and working in any capacity for government in one go, yes would work. The only fear is being singled out, if more than 0.5% of the people do it, army wont even have the guts to get tanks out, they will join.
Every single one I saw has been either slow, have terrible maps, missing maps, outdated maps, or most likely, all of the above. Doesn't hold a candle to open maps, waze, or gmaps on a phone
I guess it's possible. But to me it sounds too much like an extra conspiracy. The banks could just sell off the stock (give zero fucks about other banks), and then force Musk to liquidate.
If not only Musk but also the banks are stuck in this problem, it's their own fault and incovenience. Not sure why you ignored his completely verbose explanation of how this problem is only Musk's (and maybe the banks he made the deal with).
Talking about individuals/market makers and their bots panic selling the stock is ridiculous, and subverts the idea of a free market. And as you say, the company's value barely reflects it's output, so it should happen, and it is odd that it didn't.
How could step one be anything besides the store taking a 2€ minus on their spreadsheet, instead of stopping flights. So many ways to hide a ceramic knife instead of a stupid pair of scissors uselessly incapable of doing anything on a plane.
All of these "security theatre" measures are just pure incompetence institutionalized due to 911, that managed to do nothing, just some security equipment manufacturers rich, and plane clients quite annoyed.
Hell, derailing a train would cause more human life / infrastructure damage, than a potential "guy has sharp object and cant do shit to the plane piloting" shit boomers are somehow still, in their old age, surprisingly afraid of.
Cars, trains, trucks all move freely, but somehow planes are terrified of extremely remote chance of bad actors trying to make a 911-esque political statement? (Because it's about the fanfare not actual damage, mooost buildings are much less secure than people would think)
I think it is worth reading the actual discussion on github. Having votes public and having them visibly public on the web interface has compelling reasons. Namely enshittification hardening.
It's also quite natural to stand by your words (or vote). I personally don't think people should feel like the internet is their anonimized alt character of life. And if they need/want that, just do a throwaway account and hard vpn. Otherwise NSA (or equivalents) track us anyway.
If you have any understanding of its internals, and some examples of its answers, it is very clear it has no notion of what is "correct" or "right" or even what an "opinion" is. It is just a turbo charged autocorrect that maybe maybe maybe has some nice details extracted from language about human concepts into a coherent-ish connected mesh of "concepts".
You'll have to actually reference a published paper for that claim.