Because if no one reviews the articles then anyone could publish junk. In highly technical fields the only people qualified to tell if something is BS science are the experts in the field, so they review and make sure the article has some merit.
That's not to say the reviewing process is perfect, but it does at least help to filter some amount of bs.
I convinced my partner to play it recently and the way I knew she'd finished it was that I could hear sniffling from the desk behind me.
Yeah but how are the cops supposed to access our data without a warrant or any form of notice?
The rate of false accusations of rape is really hard to determine but is generally regarded as being pretty low (Vicpol puts it at ~5% based on studies). It's also extremely hard to get a good number though, since false does not mean unfounded.
I don't think it's justified drawing an equivalence between rape and rape accusations given the evidence we have on the rates, it makes it seem like false accusations are happening way more than they actually are.
Also given who this probably is, this is likely not the only accusation of rape also, which decreases the likelihood the accusations are false I would suggest.
$387 billion cost
You could get a whole new fleet of nuclear subs for that!
I think of it less as a question and more of an admission
This may answer that question:
https://www.rmit.edu.au/news/factlab-meta/secret-list-of-voice-plans-a-concoction
Literally every one of my indigenous friends and colleagues that I've spoken to are voting no,
Did you forget what you wrote?
2 points:
Ah, a contained disaster. Fair point.
I can understand the need for some secrecy, since we still have to deal with other countries etc... But otherwise I agree, you should have to have a pretty good reason for censoring government reports entirely.
Tbh dude this thread is going to be a shitshow.
Borderline corrupt behavior by the corruption commissioner okay because he didn't mean it. Ok.