1. First of all Americans (US) are idiots : having unilaterally changed the meanings of meaningful words (or their direct derivatives) like "Democrat" , "Republican" "Libertarian" etc. Anyone half-way educated, even US citizen, has no justification blindly accepting and following such definitions.
Beginning a word with capital letter could give it a distinct meaning - closer to famous proper nouns than the adjectives they otherwise are. But then most people being careless, even omit that distinction. As you did.
This is not to say definitions don't change by usage - but this is a well known way of lying / misrepresenting / misleading by definition hijack.
2. More importantly, libertarian can be any one advocating for overall improvement in liberty of the people. Now liberty, being a complicated subject, is at times overall improved by restricting it in certain manners in the immediate short term.
An important example is GPL or similar licenses. Even while being more restrictive in the immediate short term than other well-known FOSS licenses, they do improve the overall liberty of people in certain contexts.
Support for net neutrality can be completely libertarian in this sense.
It's about people, not banks ? So banks ate not run by people ? And banks are not used by people, both within their country of origin and outside ?
Even this EU regulation is about internet companies, not people.
US laws are not an issue here ? It is called an example, an analogy. US lawmakers imposed their choice on all US citizens : the choice of not doing business with people running any bank that does not share information about US citizens doing business with their bank. This doesn't help the US citizen at all, except securing the revenue of the US government.
EU lawmakers also imposed their choice on all citizens of EU : to not do business with companies invading users' privacy. This actually helps citizens keep done privacy.
1. You are getting obsessed by the word awesome, and failing to reply to the point. Then you completely repeated your earlier argument : a statement that it is harder for women directors without any proof or even evidence.
I even broke down this "difficulty " into risk and perceived risk, to help you present any evidence for any of these. You didn't even address that , did not clarify if in your opinion it is a risk or a perceived risk.
You prefer hand waving to real evidence ?
Therefore, doing what everyone else does in fairly safe, and deviating is risky
Not only no evidence, but against evidence. Spielberg : a fucking Jew. Shyamalan : a bloody Indian. Dismissed with contempt.
(Swear words included to match prejudices)
2A.
How much of an edge is it for a movie company to draw its directors from a larger talent pool?
Hollywood is not about doing the same a bit cheaper. There is no cheaper Shyamalan : in his genre he is the one and only. There is no cheaper Nolan : he is all there can be in his genre. Where are the women ?
Here, talent means that you cannot be ignored. Forget edge. Blow my mind.
2B. So evidence that could have existed and you could have gathered : you don't present it so I presume it doesn't exist. YouTube movies are not only not being dominated by women makers, but women don't even have a significant presence there.
Again, you present more hand waving. It is time for real evidence now.
3 . So again, more hand waving.
Secondly, you are using the word "useless" which I didn't use, and it gives you an appearance of having an argument. You didn't say that middle management was useless, and I didn't say that you said so. Complete straw man.
My argument was nowhere based on you saying middle management was useless. I even pointed out that the whole strategy of the company could have depended on having middle management. That is not a lack of uselessness, but being indispensable.
If women are really as awesome as you say, or as awesome as men, there IS no risk. So risk-averse-ness does not explain anything.
If women are perceived to be risky in spite of not being so, they are bad at marketing themselves. People bad at marketing their skills do not get good job opportunities in spite of being awesome. It is old news. Calling it a women specific problem mischaracterises the problem, and hurts women's rights advocates in fields where they are actually provably facing discrimination.
So could you reconsider your misogyny in all the sentences where you used the word risk? I'll ignore those for the moment.
2.
A claim that a business will pass up increased profits if it would require change is a quite ordinary claim
2a. Then the solution is not to rant - but kick the asses of those businesses. Kick them bloody. In competing for viewers in theatres, and also in competing for investors in the first place.
Steve Jobs noticed the time is right for technologies of processing power, battery, LCD, touchscreen to launch a mobile phone much better than the current ones selling in the market. Did he rant on the internet about it ? Or did he kick everyone's ass bloody ?
Kodak's future digital camera competitors : did they rant about Kodak owning so much technology, patents and capability and not making digital cameras ? Or did they kick Kodak's ass once some patents expired, some ignored, and competitors, without ranting online, developed the capabilities that they were missing ?
People having to make this claim , by itself, is a strong evidence of the claim being false. These business opportunities are guarded secrets, not ranted about.
On the other hand, stock market pump and dump strategies need hype. The scamster buys worthless stocks, spread hype about the stocks being awesome and sell when idiots raise the prices of the stocks. Are women directors like worthless stocks ?
2b. Most importantly, the people making this claim are best placed to outcompete the inefficient businesses. Assume that out of the 1 billion most educated people on the earth - your claim is true and obviously true so you don't even need to give any scientific evidence. Hence, say 30 million people know this for a fact. Add to this the "feminist" and "MeToo" actresses from Hollywood who have some money. You are saying all of them are too lazy, too busy, too poor, too uninterested in pooling the money to make a low budget movie of a million dollars budget ? How is this an ordinary claim in the world of P2P finance ?
Do you even have data about free Youtube movies being dominated by women makers ? I have seen them being made with hundreds of dollars budget - other than the time of makers and main actors, of course. The character actors are volunteers. The few I know in my country are made by male movie makers.
Even if Youtube monetization did not exist, if women don't have disproportionate passion to showcase their talent for free what passion can they claim to have for it ? Especially because, as you claim, they are shut off from "Hollywood" ?
3.
When I was young, big businesses had lots and lots of middle management as a way of establishing a career path to keep white-collar employees encouraged
3a. You yourself said that it broke down. So you agree that inefficiencies, in general break down ?
3b. Keeping employees encouraged cannot be a waste of money. In the 80s they might have found a new way to do so, or figured out that encouragement is not required, or the rising unemployment outside made the employees toe the line without any "encouragement".
3c. I am not sure i that middle-management didn't have other uses. Companies sometimes need to do illegal / semi-legal things to attain / maintain profitability. Having a complex decision making process could keep all humans innocent yet the company committing illegal activities. You can't put a company in jail / electric chair.
Only worldview ? Nice projection. It is I here who am supporting the views of Hollywood about employing whichever demographic movie directors they want, remember ?
It seems very uplifting for you to tell what is a good use of other people's money while doing not only nothing , but "nothing!" yourself. You'll have to get used to the fact that every one, including yourself , is free to use their money the way they want. All these movies were made only because somebody actually did something rather than doing "nothing!".
Has it occurred to you that a "good old boy's network" might control a lot of resources
A lot of resources, yes. All the resources ? No.
Why do I say that ? Because someone , somewhere would have figured out it is more profitable to hire women directors (and other staff). That is the preferable hypothesis - data is available for everyone to see, it is an extraordinary claim that no one noticed that women directors are more profitable. Since there is no extraordinary evidence to support the claim, it is a reasonable assumption to assume it is false to say no one with the capital to make a movie noticed something in plain sight. And / or everyone with the said capital hated profit to the extent of not using this opportunity.
Of course, it doesn't hurt to keep an eye open for hard evidence to pop up for this extraordinary event of no one with capital noticing a plain fact. But the network might control a lot of resources isn't really a "reasonable doubt" after over a century of film - making. Already newer production industries somewhat divorced from traditional studios have popped up - Amazon , Netflix, Indie movies etc. If still the extraordinary evidence is not surfacing, when do we make a reasonable assumption that maybe it doesn't exist and the obvious is right ?
The entry barrier isn't zero as Adam Smith would have it, but it isn't so huge that good old opportunistic profit seeking doesn't have a chance. Low budget movies do sometimes turn out to be a success and could even be critically acclaimed, opening the doors for the women film directors. So the flood gates could have started with low budget movies. They didn't.
The ultimate decision makers for profitability of a movie are the people who watch the movie. For most movies, these decision makers are not even aware who is the director. So the prejudice of audience cannot be a major cause of women directed movies earning lower or not higher profits.
1. No where have I told anyone how to spend their own money
2. I've simply voiced an opinion (agreeing with Cameron) that Hollywood could...
More so because (2) is a lie - you did more than voice an opinion about what Hollywood "could" do. You said it would be "good" if they did something - with their own money. Guess what ? They decide what is "good" when it is their money.
It sure is and I do. Not sure if you're trying to get at something here.
I am getting at the action plan. If you do, then you are doing your bit so you can stop there. Some others care more about entertainment so they don't check the demographic profile of the movie making / financing team - they can keep doing that.
Otherwise - demographic profile of team would matter more than entertainment. Movies will stop being about entertainment, and people seeking entertainment will go elsewhere. This "elsewhere" will be attacked by people like you to say that demographic profile of those "elsewhere"s is not satisfactory.
I'm not a movie financier and lack both the funds and the desire to enter such a profession.
Those who have money are spending / investing the way they want. Lacking the money, you have no right to tell them how to use theirs. I don't see a problem.
Whatever money you have can most likely create things that will be called movies - one was created on phone Nokia N73. If your demographic are such geniuses at entertaining people, they should do well with it. If not - you don't care about entertainment as much as demographic anyway so it is great for you. I don't see a problem.
I'm not trying to be insulting but I can't believe you are asking that. More variety than conditions as they are now obviously.
Next question clarifies that. Without success criteria, yours is not a goal but a rant. When does variety increase stop ? How to determine that success has been achieved ? If we have 50% men, 50% women movie makers, there still can be identified 100 races (including subraces , varieties and streaks) of humans. If only 99 movies release in a particular year, the racial mixture of movie makers would have to be very carefully selected - might even be impossible.
Don't know. That's not a reason to have a goal towards more variety though
Not a goal, but a rant. Goals have well defined, falsifiable, stable success criteria.
Once again, my apologies but I can't believe you're asking about that. Obviously more variety in regards to race and gender. That's literally what the whole thread has been about.
So SJWs have created around 7 genders at my last count. A million genders would satisfy you ?
How many races ? Of course the race 17/64th Mongolian , 3/16th Caucasian, 7/32nd African American and 21/64th African is hugely underrepresented in the movie industry. Within this race, I find it hugely unfair that the mitochondrial DNA is hugely skewed towards Caucasian and African to an almost total exclusion of Mongolian. NOT FAIR waaaah.
Imagine a world where minorities and women never gained wide acceptance in American music. No rap, no rock, no R&B (just to mention a small bit), just the blandness that comes from a single perspective. Plus, we wouldn't even have a clue as to what we were missing.
I was unaware that they gained wide acceptance without giving people what they want - entertainment, satisfaction, some art even contributes in giving audience a sense of fulfillment . Do you have any evidence that audience chose these art forms due to the demographic profile ? If not, the entertaining people would entertain regardless of demographic profile. The boring people would rot in a corner. I don't see a problem.
So go and watch movies directed by a true representative of your demographic. It is legal, I assure you.
You could fund members of this more varied talented people to make movies. That is also legal.
You say other poster's statement does not "refute" yours. But are you sure yours is falsifiable in most of its interpretations ? And is it of sufficiently less vagueness to qualify ? Specifically : "More variety" than what ? When do we stop increasing "variety" to make it better ? What exactly does variety mean ?
You should celebrate this shouldn't you ? You just discovered a business opportunity. Every one in the world is ignorant about it, so you could quietly fund a woman director and you become very rich due to the awesomeness of affordable women directors.
Add in a demand that such companies not be allowed to exist and you've completely lost them
If you don't read Stallman's statement before commenting on it, by your logic : 1. You've completely lost your audience 2. "People" will run from you 3. People will tune you out
And you agree that you were greatly exaggerating the implausibility of it all, as you have not replied to the problems I raised with all but one of your arguments about implausibility.
Likelihood computed how ? Gives them good chances of escaping attention ? Gives better quality audio ? Simpler to code ? You have seen the code and suspect this happens there ?
It could record opportunistically when there already a power usage spike.
That is the most likely mode of operation. Record when the Facebook app is open.
When the Facebook app is "opened" - there could be a power usage spike from the I/O, CPU usage etc. to open it. But when it is "open" - one doesn't expect a power usage spike all the time it stays open. Intermittent power usage spikes are easy to envisage - from checking updates, processing user input etc.
Also, do you have any evidence that "listening" more than they are allowed by the user will harm their bottomline in any significant way ?
Well, senior staff going to jail might negatively affect their stock price. Any brands caught up in it might not look too good either, and would likely pull their advertising.
Yeah, "might" vs "evidence". Gives a whole new meaning to "might is right".
You know the "solution" to the Target teen pregnancy detection scandal, right ? Target started sandwiching their suspiciously accurate recommendations / advertisements between unrelated ones. If you think your teen daughter is not pregnant and she gets advertisements for a goat cheese, baby diapers and sports shoes you might not worry a lot. But Target knows which of these advertisement will stick.
While the raven seems to be discouraging you, I am just encouraging you to fight harder:). He is also wrong about some things - Facebook likely knows you as 15 different people.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not libertarian because I like net neutrality
1. First of all Americans (US) are idiots : having unilaterally changed the meanings of meaningful words (or their direct derivatives) like "Democrat" , "Republican" "Libertarian" etc. Anyone half-way educated, even US citizen, has no justification blindly accepting and following such definitions.
Beginning a word with capital letter could give it a distinct meaning - closer to famous proper nouns than the adjectives they otherwise are. But then most people being careless, even omit that distinction. As you did.
This is not to say definitions don't change by usage - but this is a well known way of lying / misrepresenting / misleading by definition hijack.
2. More importantly, libertarian can be any one advocating for overall improvement in liberty of the people. Now liberty, being a complicated subject, is at times overall improved by restricting it in certain manners in the immediate short term.
An important example is GPL or similar licenses. Even while being more restrictive in the immediate short term than other well-known FOSS licenses, they do improve the overall liberty of people in certain contexts.
Support for net neutrality can be completely libertarian in this sense.
You completely misunderstood reality.
It's about people, not banks ? So banks ate not run by people ? And banks are not used by people, both within their country of origin and outside ?
Even this EU regulation is about internet companies, not people.
US laws are not an issue here ? It is called an example, an analogy. US lawmakers imposed their choice on all US citizens : the choice of not doing business with people running any bank that does not share information about US citizens doing business with their bank. This doesn't help the US citizen at all, except securing the revenue of the US government.
EU lawmakers also imposed their choice on all citizens of EU : to not do business with companies invading users' privacy. This actually helps citizens keep done privacy.
You think this is new ? Ever heard of FATCA (https://www.irs.gov/businesses/corporations/foreign-account-tax-compliance-act-fatca) ?
Learn what non-US banks do to comply with US laws.
Um - it's not YOUR DATA! That's the point! You GAVE that data to the company, and they are using it
Yes, that is the point. The problem is your ethics - so any attempt to make it seem logical will work only on uneducated people.
The difference is that "Angel Investors" will not be legally defending the Beaverton woman in case of a lawsuit.
Yup, and "you should be nice to people" is the only thing the Code of Conduct says.
Nothing, but that is one step closer to tax fraud. I hear that police in America (US) , FBI, CIA are no match for IRS.
1. You are getting obsessed by the word awesome, and failing to reply to the point. Then you completely repeated your earlier argument : a statement that it is harder for women directors without any proof or even evidence.
I even broke down this "difficulty " into risk and perceived risk, to help you present any evidence for any of these. You didn't even address that , did not clarify if in your opinion it is a risk or a perceived risk.
You prefer hand waving to real evidence ?
Therefore, doing what everyone else does in fairly safe, and deviating is risky
Not only no evidence, but against evidence. Spielberg : a fucking Jew. Shyamalan : a bloody Indian. Dismissed with contempt.
(Swear words included to match prejudices)
2A.
How much of an edge is it for a movie company to draw its directors from a larger talent pool?
Hollywood is not about doing the same a bit cheaper. There is no cheaper Shyamalan : in his genre he is the one and only. There is no cheaper Nolan : he is all there can be in his genre. Where are the women ?
Here, talent means that you cannot be ignored. Forget edge. Blow my mind.
2B. So evidence that could have existed and you could have gathered : you don't present it so I presume it doesn't exist. YouTube movies are not only not being dominated by women makers, but women don't even have a significant presence there.
Again, you present more hand waving. It is time for real evidence now.
3 . So again, more hand waving.
Secondly, you are using the word "useless" which I didn't use, and it gives you an appearance of having an argument. You didn't say that middle management was useless, and I didn't say that you said so. Complete straw man.
My argument was nowhere based on you saying middle management was useless. I even pointed out that the whole strategy of the company could have depended on having middle management. That is not a lack of uselessness, but being indispensable.
1.
...risk...risk...risk...
If women are really as awesome as you say, or as awesome as men, there IS no risk. So risk-averse-ness does not explain anything.
If women are perceived to be risky in spite of not being so, they are bad at marketing themselves. People bad at marketing their skills do not get good job opportunities in spite of being awesome. It is old news. Calling it a women specific problem mischaracterises the problem, and hurts women's rights advocates in fields where they are actually provably facing discrimination.
So could you reconsider your misogyny in all the sentences where you used the word risk? I'll ignore those for the moment.
2.
A claim that a business will pass up increased profits if it would require change is a quite ordinary claim
2a. Then the solution is not to rant - but kick the asses of those businesses. Kick them bloody. In competing for viewers in theatres, and also in competing for investors in the first place.
Steve Jobs noticed the time is right for technologies of processing power, battery, LCD, touchscreen to launch a mobile phone much better than the current ones selling in the market. Did he rant on the internet about it ? Or did he kick everyone's ass bloody ?
Kodak's future digital camera competitors : did they rant about Kodak owning so much technology, patents and capability and not making digital cameras ? Or did they kick Kodak's ass once some patents expired, some ignored, and competitors, without ranting online, developed the capabilities that they were missing ?
People having to make this claim , by itself, is a strong evidence of the claim being false. These business opportunities are guarded secrets, not ranted about.
On the other hand, stock market pump and dump strategies need hype. The scamster buys worthless stocks, spread hype about the stocks being awesome and sell when idiots raise the prices of the stocks. Are women directors like worthless stocks ?
2b. Most importantly, the people making this claim are best placed to outcompete the inefficient businesses. Assume that out of the 1 billion most educated people on the earth - your claim is true and obviously true so you don't even need to give any scientific evidence. Hence, say 30 million people know this for a fact. Add to this the "feminist" and "MeToo" actresses from Hollywood who have some money. You are saying all of them are too lazy, too busy, too poor, too uninterested in pooling the money to make a low budget movie of a million dollars budget ? How is this an ordinary claim in the world of P2P finance ?
Do you even have data about free Youtube movies being dominated by women makers ? I have seen them being made with hundreds of dollars budget - other than the time of makers and main actors, of course. The character actors are volunteers. The few I know in my country are made by male movie makers.
Even if Youtube monetization did not exist, if women don't have disproportionate passion to showcase their talent for free what passion can they claim to have for it ? Especially because, as you claim, they are shut off from "Hollywood" ?
3.
When I was young, big businesses had lots and lots of middle management as a way of establishing a career path to keep white-collar employees encouraged
3a. You yourself said that it broke down. So you agree that inefficiencies, in general break down ?
3b. Keeping employees encouraged cannot be a waste of money. In the 80s they might have found a new way to do so, or figured out that encouragement is not required, or the rising unemployment outside made the employees toe the line without any "encouragement".
3c. I am not sure i that middle-management didn't have other uses. Companies sometimes need to do illegal / semi-legal things to attain / maintain profitability. Having a complex decision making process could keep all humans innocent yet the company committing illegal activities. You can't put a company in jail / electric chair.
Only worldview ? Nice projection. It is I here who am supporting the views of Hollywood about employing whichever demographic movie directors they want, remember ?
It seems very uplifting for you to tell what is a good use of other people's money while doing not only nothing , but "nothing!" yourself. You'll have to get used to the fact that every one, including yourself , is free to use their money the way they want. All these movies were made only because somebody actually did something rather than doing "nothing!".
Has it occurred to you that a "good old boy's network" might control a lot of resources
A lot of resources, yes. All the resources ? No.
Why do I say that ? Because someone , somewhere would have figured out it is more profitable to hire women directors (and other staff). That is the preferable hypothesis - data is available for everyone to see, it is an extraordinary claim that no one noticed that women directors are more profitable. Since there is no extraordinary evidence to support the claim, it is a reasonable assumption to assume it is false to say no one with the capital to make a movie noticed something in plain sight. And / or everyone with the said capital hated profit to the extent of not using this opportunity.
Of course, it doesn't hurt to keep an eye open for hard evidence to pop up for this extraordinary event of no one with capital noticing a plain fact. But the network might control a lot of resources isn't really a "reasonable doubt" after over a century of film - making. Already newer production industries somewhat divorced from traditional studios have popped up - Amazon , Netflix, Indie movies etc. If still the extraordinary evidence is not surfacing, when do we make a reasonable assumption that maybe it doesn't exist and the obvious is right ?
The entry barrier isn't zero as Adam Smith would have it, but it isn't so huge that good old opportunistic profit seeking doesn't have a chance. Low budget movies do sometimes turn out to be a success and could even be critically acclaimed, opening the doors for the women film directors. So the flood gates could have started with low budget movies. They didn't.
The ultimate decision makers for profitability of a movie are the people who watch the movie. For most movies, these decision makers are not even aware who is the director. So the prejudice of audience cannot be a major cause of women directed movies earning lower or not higher profits.
When my past posts already answer your later posts, is it time for you to think more before posting ?
Guess what ? They decide what is "good" when it is their money.
The statements contradict each other :
1. No where have I told anyone how to spend their own money
2. I've simply voiced an opinion (agreeing with Cameron) that Hollywood could ...
More so because (2) is a lie - you did more than voice an opinion about what Hollywood "could" do. You said it would be "good" if they did something - with their own money. Guess what ? They decide what is "good" when it is their money.
Hope you are not lying about your own stance about North Korea though :
"No where have I told anyone how to spend their own money, I've simply voiced an opinion (agreeing with Cameron) that Hollywood could ..."
You have no say on what Hollywood "could" do or not do with their money.
Are you really dumb enough to believe he is the only fellow to have "noticed" this ?
What are you doing about "the problem" ? Ranting ?
It sure is and I do. Not sure if you're trying to get at something here.
I am getting at the action plan. If you do, then you are doing your bit so you can stop there. Some others care more about entertainment so they don't check the demographic profile of the movie making / financing team - they can keep doing that.
Otherwise - demographic profile of team would matter more than entertainment. Movies will stop being about entertainment, and people seeking entertainment will go elsewhere. This "elsewhere" will be attacked by people like you to say that demographic profile of those "elsewhere"s is not satisfactory.
I'm not a movie financier and lack both the funds and the desire to enter such a profession.
Those who have money are spending / investing the way they want. Lacking the money, you have no right to tell them how to use theirs. I don't see a problem.
Whatever money you have can most likely create things that will be called movies - one was created on phone Nokia N73. If your demographic are such geniuses at entertaining people, they should do well with it. If not - you don't care about entertainment as much as demographic anyway so it is great for you. I don't see a problem.
I'm not trying to be insulting but I can't believe you are asking that. More variety than conditions as they are now obviously.
Next question clarifies that. Without success criteria, yours is not a goal but a rant. When does variety increase stop ? How to determine that success has been achieved ? If we have 50% men, 50% women movie makers, there still can be identified 100 races (including subraces , varieties and streaks) of humans. If only 99 movies release in a particular year, the racial mixture of movie makers would have to be very carefully selected - might even be impossible.
Don't know. That's not a reason to have a goal towards more variety though
Not a goal, but a rant. Goals have well defined, falsifiable, stable success criteria.
Once again, my apologies but I can't believe you're asking about that. Obviously more variety in regards to race and gender. That's literally what the whole thread has been about.
So SJWs have created around 7 genders at my last count. A million genders would satisfy you ?
How many races ? Of course the race 17/64th Mongolian , 3/16th Caucasian, 7/32nd African American and 21/64th African is hugely underrepresented in the movie industry. Within this race, I find it hugely unfair that the mitochondrial DNA is hugely skewed towards Caucasian and African to an almost total exclusion of Mongolian. NOT FAIR waaaah.
Imagine a world where minorities and women never gained wide acceptance in American music. No rap, no rock, no R&B (just to mention a small bit), just the blandness that comes from a single perspective. Plus, we wouldn't even have a clue as to what we were missing.
I was unaware that they gained wide acceptance without giving people what they want - entertainment, satisfaction, some art even contributes in giving audience a sense of fulfillment . Do you have any evidence that audience chose these art forms due to the demographic profile ? If not, the entertaining people would entertain regardless of demographic profile. The boring people would rot in a corner. I don't see a problem.
So go and watch movies directed by a true representative of your demographic. It is legal, I assure you.
You could fund members of this more varied talented people to make movies. That is also legal.
You say other poster's statement does not "refute" yours. But are you sure yours is falsifiable in most of its interpretations ? And is it of sufficiently less vagueness to qualify ? Specifically : "More variety" than what ? When do we stop increasing "variety" to make it better ? What exactly does variety mean ?
You should celebrate this shouldn't you ? You just discovered a business opportunity. Every one in the world is ignorant about it, so you could quietly fund a woman director and you become very rich due to the awesomeness of affordable women directors.
Why are you spilling your beans ?
Are you better than Stallman ?
Add in a demand that such companies not be allowed to exist and you've completely lost them
If you don't read Stallman's statement before commenting on it, by your logic :
1. You've completely lost your audience
2. "People" will run from you
3. People will tune you out
Ok, you are busy enough to not read what you are replying to.
So, no evidence, more conjecture.
And you agree that you were greatly exaggerating the implausibility of it all, as you have not replied to the problems I raised with all but one of your arguments about implausibility.
That is the most likely mode of operation.
Likelihood computed how ? Gives them good chances of escaping attention ? Gives better quality audio ? Simpler to code ? You have seen the code and suspect this happens there ?
It could record opportunistically when there already a power usage spike.
That is the most likely mode of operation. Record when the Facebook app is open.
When the Facebook app is "opened" - there could be a power usage spike from the I/O, CPU usage etc. to open it. But when it is "open" - one doesn't expect a power usage spike all the time it stays open. Intermittent power usage spikes are easy to envisage - from checking updates, processing user input etc.
Also, do you have any evidence that "listening" more than they are allowed by the user will harm their bottomline in any significant way ?
Well, senior staff going to jail might negatively affect their stock price. Any brands caught up in it might not look too good either, and would likely pull their advertising.
Yeah, "might" vs "evidence". Gives a whole new meaning to "might is right".
You know the "solution" to the Target teen pregnancy detection scandal, right ? Target started sandwiching their suspiciously accurate recommendations / advertisements between unrelated ones. If you think your teen daughter is not pregnant and she gets advertisements for a goat cheese, baby diapers and sports shoes you might not worry a lot. But Target knows which of these advertisement will stick.
While the raven seems to be discouraging you, I am just encouraging you to fight harder :). He is also wrong about some things - Facebook likely knows you as 15 different people.