Slashdot Mirror

It is indeed working for Gillette, what are you talking about?

https://morningconsult.com/for...
http://www.acemetrix.com/insig...

The good news is that the average viewer has more smarts than the average Slashdotter when it comes to this video. Most actually interpreted it the way it was meant to be, rather than the bizarre "OMG THEY'RE CRITIFICATING THE MANS!" thing going on on Slashdot right now.

Morning Consult
Ace Metrix

Most viewers do not appear to be taking it as a general attack on men. None of the comments in the Ace Metrix survey suggest that, and the fact most men saw it as positive, shares their values, and that it's likely to take business away from Harrys and Dollar Shave definitely suggests men weren't patronized or felt under attack by it.

Only you and presumably some /r/the_donald, KIA, and 8chan regulars felt like that. So, take from that what you will.

No it wasn't [a good commercial]...

Here's some interesting reporting. (it's biased of course, coming from Gillette/P&G, but it's the only data I could find).

https://www.independent.co.uk/...
sales following the ad’s release remain largely unchanged, revealed Jon Moeller, chief financial officer at Procter and Gamble (P&G), which owns Gillette...
a survey of 2,000 American adults conducted by brand intelligence firm Morning Consult found that 61 per cent of viewers reacted positively to Gillette’s ad...
71 per cent said they shared the brand’s values after watching it.

https://morningconsult.com/for...
Before watching the commercial, 42 percent of consumers said they agreed Gillette “shared their values.” After watching, that figure jumped to 71 percent...
Asked to rate how positively they felt about the ad... 61 percent gave it high marks, 23 percent were more neutral and 17 percent gave the commercial low marks. Gillette customers were slightly more likely than the average consumer to have a positive reaction...
Harry’s and Dollar Shave Club customers are more likely to buy Gillette after watching.

Given the background -- that in the previous years Gillette had been badly losing market share to Harry's and Dollar Shave Club, and had been forced to cut prices to stay in the game -- then it seems like this commercial squarely hit the mark for what Gillette wanted to achieve, and without downsides.

It's also very clear that the 10-1 ratio of dislikes to likes on youtube isn't representative of (1) the general population, (2) Gillettte's customers, (3) Gillette's target market. This ratio reflects badly on youtube, making youtube seem dangerously out of touch. I'm not surprised youtube want to do something to safeguard their image.

We already knew the public wanted to keep net neutrality

Actually, no, we didn't. There never was a referendum. There were informal polls, but that's it.

The FCC comments aren't binding — and for a good reason: they are open exactly to the kind of abuse you are complaining about. Non-citizen participation (and foreigners openly campaigning), multiple participation, simple ballot-stuffing...

According to TFA, only 3.6% of the comments were "genuine", in the cited researcher's opinion... This would confirm both the insanity of treating the comments as binding in any way, and the truth of the statements made by the FCC, headed Ajit Pai, who is of Indian descent, regarding being under attack. The claim, you — a privileged American White — are calling "a lie" despite evidence and without any evidence of your own, making unprecedented allegations, that can only be motivated by racism.

Of course, having been exposed as a racist liar yourself, you'll simply shrug your narrow shoulders and yell: "BUT TRUMP!!!" — because lying is all you have.

I challenge you to back that "50 nuclear startups" with anything.

Third way mapped out 48 different startups. https://public.tableau.com/profile/third.way#!/vizhome/AdvancedNuclearIndustry_TheNextGeneration/Dashboard1 That took less than 30 second on google. I take it you cannot use google. 47 startups now that transatomic has shuttered.

You are wrong about several other statements in your crazy person rant.

NuScale just picked a manufacture. 83 companies expressed interest. That would not happen if it was not really going to be built. Also congress just passed a bipartisan law designed to help these startups. There are few more bills in the pipeline designed to help this initiative.

Face it NuScale is going to build those 12 reactors.

I did *one* google search and found multiple sources.

Your google fu apparently sucks or you are in a terrible info bubble.

Here is my search term: "republicans regulations 1.2 million dollars value of human life"

https://morningconsult.com/opi...

"By simply dividing the savings in dollars by the number of deaths, we derive a current value for an American life at about $1.2 million. That is far less than previous estimates, but now we know at least what McConnell and Senate Republicans believe a life is worth. And we can use this information for other important budgetary issues. "

Here's an overview of the value of human life for australia, russia, the united states, and new zealand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Russia is low at $40,000 to $2 million.

I expect China will be similar to russia only lower on the low end and higher for party members.

This is a ploy to extract donations from his base for his next reelection run. And that's all it is.

What would be the point? Sanders is the most popular senator in the country. There's pretty much zero chance that he will lose a reelection, no matter how much or little money he raises.

I get plenty of articles for the Daily Mail & the Express, neither of which are exactly left wing. It's certainly not because of my browsing habits because if I ever darken either site I do it in Private Browsing.

It's interesting that you prefer Breitbart - Americans find it only slightly more credible than The Onion.

Okie dokie, here ya go. Table POL17 starting page 164, I included select "conservative" breakdowns to give a better idea of potential bias.
Do you think President Donald Trump uses Twitter
Demographic | Too much | Not enough | About the right amount | Don’t Know / No Opinion | Total N
Registered Voters | 69%(1372) | 4%(79) | 15%(308) | 12%(241) |1999
PID: Rep (no lean) | 53%(361) | 6%(38) | 30%(205) | 11%(77) | 681
Ideo: Conservative (5-7) | 57%(394) | 4%(25) | 28%(194) | 11%(75) | 689
2016 Vote: Republican Donald Trump | 51%(400) | 6%(50) | 30%(240) | 13%(101) | 791
Strongly Approve | 39%(161) | 8%(35) | 42%(176) | 10%(43) | 415
Somewhat Approve | 58%(267) | 4%(18) | 20%(94) | 18%(84) | 462

BONUS! Table POL18, starting page 167.
And, do you think President Donald Trump’s use of Twitter is (POL18)
Demographic | A good thing | A bad thing | Don’t Know / No Opinion | Total N
Registered Voters | 23%(456) | 59%(1172) | 19%(372) | 1999

I leave the breakdowns as an exercise for the reader. (This formatting brought to you by the characters /.)

Liberals legislate everything to the point where it hurts, and conservatives eliminate legislation to the point where it hurts.

The optimism and making plans for the future is refreshing, thanks for adding that. But to counter this one point, I'm a liberal and I strongly believe in the free market. But I also understand that in no point in human history has there ever been a real completely free market. Businesses inherently want to abuse people and the shared environment because that gets the most profit. So some rules will obviously always be necessary, and the rules should focus on protecting the little guy and the shared environment to allow for the most competition possible. Things like "health care for all" sounds like it hurts individuals by increasing our premiums, when the truth is that employees are more competitive when healthy. Businesses that employ healthy people are more competitive. Countries that supply health care are more competitive because of it (note that there are countries that spend 1/6 of the % of GDP as we do on health care, except theirs is universal). So it's not actually legislation to the point of pain, it just seems like that to those that haven't studied the issue enough (and I'm talking about /most/ issues not all - like I'm against minimum wage). Of course we've fought hard for net neutrality, this one should be more obvious to everyone.

I agree with this, except the part about 'party lines'. The Dems fought for net neutrality. In this case, and many others like it, one party is obviously worth voting for.

Another article has more of the exchange:

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), another committee member and staunch privacy advocate, has pilloried proposals to give law enforcement access to encrypted data, saying bad actors would simpy use foreign-based encrypted messaging apps. Brennan argued at the hearing that such a concern was theoretical because “U.S. companies dominate the international market as far as encryption technologies that are available through these various apps.”

Warner [Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.)] questioned Brennan’s assertion. “Two thousand apps a day are added to the phone store. Over half of those are foreign-based entities,” he said.

In a statement following the hearing, Wyden countered that allowing government access to encrypted platforms “would not stop terrorists from using strong encryption and it would undermine American competitiveness and Americans’ digital security at a time when the threat from foreign hackers and cyberattacks has never been greater.”

Let's allow the assumption that American companies currently dominate the encryption field. We'll say that's true. How long would that dominance that last if foreign companies used strong encryption and American companies used hobbled encryption left vulnerable to the American government and hackers? Thank goodness for Warner and Wyden for pointing out how idiotic Brennan 's assertion was.

Just over half (51 percent) of registered voters say Apple should unlock the phone, while 33 percent say the company shouldn’t. Sixteen percent don’t know or care.

News about a federal court ordering Apple to unlock the suspect’s iPhone has registered widely with the public: 75% say they have heard either a lot (39%) or a little (36%) about the situation.

Honestly, I never expected him to bring the country together like this. Both left wing and right wing media alike really have it in for him. It's every story, everywhere. I never saw them so together on something, not even in the days after 9/11; not like this.

Interesting times...

It's even worse.

Most of the post-debate polls have Trump increasing his lead over the other candidates.

Looking at some of the article post responses over the net (my own anecdotal evidence), it seems that people really don't mind all the things people complain about Trump. The general tone of response is "I agree he's $X, but at least he's not like those corrupt politicians".

And at least one super PAC has declared war on Trump.

All he has to do is choose a handful of issues that piss people off, and he'll be unstoppable.

Probably just saying that he'd fix the economy and give people jobs would do it.