If fiverr, or the others, don't work for you then go somewhere else.
I'm not aware of people saying "gee, I really don't want that nine-to-five job, I want to be an uberer/fiverr/lyfter". They* are taking those jobs because they don't have anywhere else to go
*I fully expect a few "disproving anecdotes", the best kind of science. But its overwhelmingly true.
Further, things like fiverr, lyft, and Uber aren't meant to be a primary source of income.
Ah, the great "meaning" argument. Whether they were intended as full-time work originally or not, they most certainly have morphed into that. And I don't really care about motivation as much as impact. And Uber/Lyft with their car leases, definitely are trying to make you think of it as a full-time job.
If you want to be an independent full time then you need to setup your own legal entity and charge your own rates and build your own brand.
Which isn't at all the message Fixerr/Uber/Lyft are putting out there.
. But there's no reason why purely diagnostic technology shouldn't be on the shelves as soon as it can be manufactured and shipped.
Can I introduce you to Theranos. They are a major reason that in 2012, the regulations were changed and diagnostic devices were required to get FDA approval. That is, one giant scam caused a regulation to come down and need to be imposed over everyone. I don't know how you missed it as it gotalotofcoverageonSlashdot.
Just because the government helps fund them, doesn't mean they aren't a profit-oriented organization.
First, even most non-government colleges are non-profit. Second, Berkeley ceased being private owned in 1869 and the state owns the college. The vast majority of the board is appointed by the governor (the rest seem to come from students/faculty/alumni).
The paywall is yet to be implemented, but the dean did talk about protecting the lectures from "pirates". If that doesn't imply "this will be monetized", I have no idea what would.
they are a business and it would be irresponsible for them to throw away money like that.
They are not a business -- they are a governmental entity.
FWIW, a business would probably have not been held to such standards when giving content away. Governments obviously have a stronger requirement of fairness
I don't see why it's so unviable to annotate the videos. Universities still have slave labor (read: grad students), so it seems perfectly doable. Oh, but the dean did say that this was a good excuse to put them behind a paywall to generate revenue. Maybe that lack of revenue is what you meant?
It would still be an ad, it would just be a solicited one rather than unsolicited.
If Google or Disney were saying "tell people who would like Disney Princess movies about this movie", I would totally agree with you. But what if* Google's algorithms think this is just news you would like, that X is happening (even if it costs money). I mean, how is that different from being told "those build the wall/impeach trump stickers you put a watch on are back in stock" or "they just released studies that eating a pound of bacon a day leads to immortality."
*Obviously, in this case, it was a push ad. You can tell by the phrasing and other cues. I'm just picking at what the definition of an ad is.
I would contend that Google being paid for it is sufficient to make it an ad. Whether that's necessary, I don't know. If Google wasn't paid, it just noticed you buy midnight showing tickets to every Disney Princess movie, does that make this an ad or an assistant?
There is a reason most political polls have population sample sizes of 1000 or more. You need a sample size that large to have a useful confidence interval.
It depends on what you're measuring, and the expected size of the effect. A political poll that wanted to answer the question "Did Democrats vote more often for Hillary than did Republicans" would probably find that a sample of 60 (30 Dems, 30 Republicans) is more than enough to answer the question. Most political polls have more than one question and are measuring far more subtle changes. Further, they want enough data to slice up by race/class/gender/party lines. So of course they need more.
It is a fairly safe assumption that anyone who fails to reveal their testing methodology probably isn't taking great pains to model the population at large
Now that part is probably true. I'd also question the way their survey question was phrased. And, it's most likely lazy click bait.
All that said, their sample size was completely sufficient. We should take care to appropriately criticize studies. Otherwise, we'll have kids growing up not knowing what a power analysis is in addition to a not knowing what a commercial is.
The premium TV channels are still commercial free (except for some between-program ads for other shows/movies on the same channel; which are primarily used to fluff out movie times so they start/end at roundish numbers.)
In the 19th century, 80 hour work weeks in the factories were not uncommon.
If by that you mean the average workweek was over 100 hours, than yes they were not uncommon. And lazy!
Employers were not convinced to reduce to a 40 hour week...
Employers were convinced to reduce to 40 hour work week by laws (state, then federal). Those laws came about via a lot of union protesting. Even then, many employers violated the law and try to break the strikes. It wasn't until WWII that things moved forward.
Even if you were right about the cause, there's something sick about the concept that work/life balance should only be achievable if you can justify "not having a miserable life" as a value to your employer in terms of productivity.
It's all but certain that a defense contractor is contractually obligated to perform all security-related work on site in appropriately-secured offices, which would imply that no work can be performed from home
Well, except most night/weekend work would probably be unclassified things like conference calls and status reports.
f you will change the constitution and will include the healthcare as a right
You don't need a constitutional amendment. That's a crazy burden. We can just fucking do it (see: Medicaid)
Also, frankly, the ninth and fourteenth amendments ought cover health care by this point. Substandard education is already covered by the ninth and fourteenth, and that's without a new amendment.
Slashdot Mirror
This wasn't a phishing scam. It was fraud. You know, with fake documentation and everything. The "phishing" verb is just scammy clickbait.
I'm not aware of people saying "gee, I really don't want that nine-to-five job, I want to be an uberer/fiverr/lyfter". They* are taking those jobs because they don't have anywhere else to go
*I fully expect a few "disproving anecdotes", the best kind of science. But its overwhelmingly true.
Ah, the great "meaning" argument. Whether they were intended as full-time work originally or not, they most certainly have morphed into that. And I don't really care about motivation as much as impact. And Uber/Lyft with their car leases, definitely are trying to make you think of it as a full-time job.
Which isn't at all the message Fixerr/Uber/Lyft are putting out there.
Can I introduce you to Theranos. They are a major reason that in 2012, the regulations were changed and diagnostic devices were required to get FDA approval. That is, one giant scam caused a regulation to come down and need to be imposed over everyone. I don't know how you missed it as it got a lot of coverage on Slashdot.
Or, as noted, the rules prevented some hacks from being used. Maybe all the Chrome hacks fell into that category.
No, you';re getting paid exactly what was agreed to. If you negotiate dollars, you get dollars. I suppose you could get paid in M&M's if you want.
First, even most non-government colleges are non-profit. Second, Berkeley ceased being private owned in 1869 and the state owns the college. The vast majority of the board is appointed by the governor (the rest seem to come from students/faculty/alumni).
The paywall is yet to be implemented, but the dean did talk about protecting the lectures from "pirates". If that doesn't imply "this will be monetized", I have no idea what would.
They are not a business -- they are a governmental entity.
FWIW, a business would probably have not been held to such standards when giving content away. Governments obviously have a stronger requirement of fairness
I don't see why it's so unviable to annotate the videos. Universities still have slave labor (read: grad students), so it seems perfectly doable. Oh, but the dean did say that this was a good excuse to put them behind a paywall to generate revenue. Maybe that lack of revenue is what you meant?
That is a fine question, and reasonable people can disagree. But it's not a point you're making.
And they already do the transcription/etc. measures. But they only do it on-demand, and only for some people.
If Google or Disney were saying "tell people who would like Disney Princess movies about this movie", I would totally agree with you. But what if* Google's algorithms think this is just news you would like, that X is happening (even if it costs money). I mean, how is that different from being told "those build the wall/impeach trump stickers you put a watch on are back in stock" or "they just released studies that eating a pound of bacon a day leads to immortality."
*Obviously, in this case, it was a push ad. You can tell by the phrasing and other cues. I'm just picking at what the definition of an ad is.
Ah, but they are still available to students. If you have a Berkeley ID, you can still watch all the videos.
Public universities spending money on resources need to make those resources available to all citizens, unless good reasons prevent it.
I would contend that Google being paid for it is sufficient to make it an ad. Whether that's necessary, I don't know. If Google wasn't paid, it just noticed you buy midnight showing tickets to every Disney Princess movie, does that make this an ad or an assistant?
I call bullshit. I had HBO in that period and I never saw a commercial on it.
It depends on what you're measuring, and the expected size of the effect. A political poll that wanted to answer the question "Did Democrats vote more often for Hillary than did Republicans" would probably find that a sample of 60 (30 Dems, 30 Republicans) is more than enough to answer the question. Most political polls have more than one question and are measuring far more subtle changes. Further, they want enough data to slice up by race/class/gender/party lines. So of course they need more.
Now that part is probably true. I'd also question the way their survey question was phrased. And, it's most likely lazy click bait.
All that said, their sample size was completely sufficient. We should take care to appropriately criticize studies. Otherwise, we'll have kids growing up not knowing what a power analysis is in addition to a not knowing what a commercial is.
No. There was a recent ruling, but it was very much the opposite of what you just said.
Google owns 23andme.com People aren't giving away their DNA, they are paying for the privilege of it being stored.
A sample size of 100 is more than adequate. Why wouldn't it be?
The sample size is not a problem. The p-value for there being a delta between the homes is <0.001
Now, the sampling may have not been scientific or random, but you haven't shown that at all.
38% of kids not knowing what a commercial is called is different from not knowing what one is.
The premium TV channels are still commercial free (except for some between-program ads for other shows/movies on the same channel; which are primarily used to fluff out movie times so they start/end at roundish numbers.)
If by that you mean the average workweek was over 100 hours, than yes they were not uncommon. And lazy!
Employers were convinced to reduce to 40 hour work week by laws (state, then federal). Those laws came about via a lot of union protesting. Even then, many employers violated the law and try to break the strikes. It wasn't until WWII that things moved forward.
Even if you were right about the cause, there's something sick about the concept that work/life balance should only be achievable if you can justify "not having a miserable life" as a value to your employer in terms of productivity.
Funny, I usually assume a work-from-home policy is a prelude to attempting to convince me to bring work home with me.
Well, except most night/weekend work would probably be unclassified things like conference calls and status reports.
Apparently, job security based on not having a dying wife.
Also, of the various complaints I've heard about unions over the years, I've never before heard of unions not sufficiently promoting credentials.
You don't need a constitutional amendment. That's a crazy burden. We can just fucking do it (see: Medicaid)
Also, frankly, the ninth and fourteenth amendments ought cover health care by this point. Substandard education is already covered by the ninth and fourteenth, and that's without a new amendment.