It's probably due to women on the whole being aggressive about monetizing their streams.
No, it's due to the fact that women are now cheaper than ever for every man; if all they have to offer over streaming is their looks then they are competing with "free", because there's enough free videos, streams and images of naked and attractive women on the internet.
If they want to get the same donations (not viewership, but donations) as males then they are going to have to provide the same level of commentary and display of skill as males.
(And no, commentary is not "Look At The Sexism In This Game", which is what the pioneering female streaming-gamers provided... like Anita whatshername)
provided that they are reasonably attractive. So, where is the catch?
I just commented on this very thing above to another poster: from what I've seen, for men there is the middle-ground where even the ugliest man can still become quite successful, let alone the average-looking guy, but for women there doesn't seem to be such; either be attractive and have large tiddies, or fall to the rock bottom.
That's because it takes skill/talent and/or power/influence for a man to convince many women to sleep with him. Women just have to say "yes".
Men, as a group, have long since figured out that they better be able to provide society with something other than sex if they want society to value them. OTOH, women as a group, for all of recorded history, were considered valuable just for the sex they can provide.
So what arbiter1 actually meant was that women we are attractive and willing to trade off that, perhaps with revealing clothes or flirty chat, find it easier. Women who can't or won't do that don't get that advantage.
Let me fix that for you:
So what arbiter1 actually meant was that women we are attractive and willing to trade off that, perhaps with revealing clothes or flirty chat, find it easier. Women who can't or won't do that, and all men, don't get that advantage.
IOW, you're talking about an advantage that many women have that no man has - in what way is that an advantage to men?
Actually they are - plenty of studies support the assertion that women won't date down.
There also are plenty of studies which show that is not true. Women date down in socio-economic status routinely. Cripes I could make a good argument that MY wife dated down. She makes more money than I do, comes from a family that is better off, certainly doesn't need me financially and doesn't gain any meaningful status from me. We're together because we want to be and we're hardly an outlier in that regard.
Outliers don't prove the rule.
Firstly, you disparage 99.9% of women with that remark (By your standards any woman who desires wealth and power in a partner is shallow)
No YOU disparage women with you insultingly false claim that they are all ("99.9%" in your words) status seeking and only care about wealth and power above all other considerations.
I didn't make that claim, that's simply what you read.
And yes anyone who leaves an otherwise happy relationship in pursuit of wealth and/or power IS manifestly shallow. Pretty hard to argue otherwise.
Secondly, I didn't claim that a wife will leave.
Bullshit. You said "If you think your wife loves you, just wait till she is propositioned by a wealthy and powerful man". The implication of your statement is obvious.
To you, maybe. I didn't say she'd leave, I *DID* imply that she'd cheat. Since close on to 30% of paternity tests (CDC data) in divorce court show another male as the father, I don' t think that this point should be in contention.
FTFY. And shallow men chase women with implants so let's not pretend that men have any moral high ground here.
I didn't. I said we're all human.
The ones that don't are outliers.
Actually they aren't.
Actually they are - plenty of studies support the assertion that women won't date down.
Most people chase wealth, men and women. The only difference is in the tactics employed.
If you think your wife loves you, just wait till she is propositioned by a wealthy and powerful man. We're all only human.
If you marry such a shallow cunt you deserve to have her leave you.
Firstly, you disparage 99.9% of women with that remark (By your standards any woman who desires wealth and power in a partner is shallow). Secondly, I didn't claim that a wife will leave.
And thus, such things can be used as a test of whether one really wants to spend their life with someone else...
Women chase men with wealth. The ones that don't are outliers. It's the way of the world. If it wasn't diamonds as a show of wealth it would be something else.
If you think your wife loves you, just wait till she is propositioned by a wealthy and powerful man. We're all only human.
No, that' is the default implementation in languages that support it.
So either change the default or wrap the default serialization in a checksum; either way it's trivial and leaps+bounds ahead of notserialising whole objects at a time.
A developer who won't be bothered to checksum persisted data when it's serialised in an object isn't going to suddenly think it's a good idea when they have to do it field-by-field:-/
I find it depressing that there are so many condescending know-it-alls in tech. Please reconsider your approach to discussions or at the very least you should be correct.
If you don't want to be depressed you should avoid being condescending to someone who obviously knows what they are talking about. IOW "you started it"... with "excuse yourself from the conversation".
Serialization, whether via a language primitive, standard library or once-off programmer-implemented field-by-field method is still serialisation and vulnerable to tampering. The only way around it is via checksumming/signing. Pithy soundbites such as "This is dangerous" sound profound to the clueless but isn't actually meaningful. It's gonna be dangerous no matter if you do object serialization or data serialization, regardless of the artifical distinction you draw between them.
Regarding that distinction - your assertion of methods doing the input validation is just as wrong - it's possible to tamper with fields so that they pass input validation anyway, so there's no real distinction between the two in terms of danger/safety. They're both equally dangerous, hence any distinction you draw between them is pointless.
When data fields are filled in an object, they are validated by the methods that set them. However, object serialization by it's very nature bypasses these methods of setting data which results in the possibility of restoring object data that would have otherwise been caught by method setting it.
That's an artifical distinction you just made up right now. There's nothing stopping you from checksumming your binary data before reading them in, just like there's nothing forcing data field-by-field serialisation from not doing any validation.
Like AuMatar wrote, you don't belong in this conversation.
I'm always amused when people who clearly have very little experience in something chime in. Thank you for that.
If you have to ask that, you don't belong in this conversation. Its a well defined term.
OP clearly stated that the problem with object serialisation was reading in fields that could be tampered with. I'm genuinely curious about what alternatives to persistence there is that overcomes this "problem".
I think the problem is that you and the OP are clearly newbies. That "problem" you think exists with object serialisation exists with all data serialisation. If you weren't newbies you'd know that.
So each time a program starts up it must prompt the user to manually enter all those values it had when it shut down? Frankly that sounds like a stupid solution.
I was speaking specifically about object serialization. There's nothing wrong with data serialization but using it for object serialization is asking for trouble.
How do you propose to persist an object, and how does that differ from serialising that object?
Regardless of language, object serialization is a dangerous idea. While it may seem like a nice idea at first, loading objects from unverified mutable data is an invitation for someone to tinker with that data.
Okay then, smartypants, what do you propose for persisting fields of an object? Anything you propose is, by definition, "serialisation". The only alternative to serialisation is non-persistent objects.
(TBH, I kinda like the thought of signed serialiased blobs)
On the other hand, we don't want people peddling snake oil taking advantage of desperate people.
This loophole is easily closed by a "You're not allowed to charge for this" clause.
Companies that are legitimately trying to find cures and want to test on humans get to test on humans. Humans that have no other option and will die anyway get to play the cure-lottery. Win-win all round.
A neighbour had called the police after hearing the [13 year old] girl scream. The girl was arrested for being drunk and disorderly, but the [muslim] men were not questioned
ecause most of the perpetrators were of Pakistani heritage, several council staff described themselves as being nervous about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist; others, the report noted, "remembered clear direction from their managers" not to make such identification.
There's more, you can read all about it.
Like you said, "Nice try"... but your assertion that this could not be happening because there were laws against it is clearly stupid, and you should feel stupid for making that assertion.
Pay $5000 for it and get back $20 when it isn't delivered. We called it correctly when we called it vaporware. I can't wait to see what Rei has to say about this.
Humans may be poor drivers, but at least they can go for 250k miles without an accident. SDCs need active human participation every 5k miles or so.
The average human driver (including unlicensed, drunk, tired and old) *averages* 250k miles without an accident.
So, using your numbers, and assuming that human intervention would require 10 minutes of attention per instance (call it five miles worth of attention), then a human using an SDC would have an accident about once every 250,000,000 miles traveled. Sounds like a good deal to me....
How is it a SDC if a human has to actively prevent it from crashing? Current so-called "SDCs" will reliably crash every 5k miles or so, unless a human is there to prevent it.
That makes the cuirrent "SDC" performance worse than even the worst drunk tired and old driver.
The Creator (God) has to be out of time in order to fill the niche required. He is not part of Nature, and thus, uncreated, eternal, unchanging in nature.
Yeah, but you argued that the existence of something "designed" implies a designer, hence the existence of your god implies a god-creator.
If you think that your god didn't need a creator, why then does a tree, or planet, or star need a creator?
Show me the statistics, not the emotion-laden stories. I'll bet money that self-driving cars are safer now and will be even safer in the future. Id love to have one, just can't afford it.
You'll lose that money, because we don't actually have self-driving cars now. We have cars that require human intervention every few thousand miles at best, every ten miles at worst.
How many crashes happen every day because of humans? Yes I know it is sad, no one wants bad things to happen. But in the long run this is going to save far more lives than take.
Stupid question. How about "How often do SDC's need intervention?" Humans may be poor drivers, but at least they can go for 250k miles without an accident. SDCs need active human participation every 5k miles or so.
The average human driver (including unlicensed, drunk, tired and old) *averages* 250k miles without an accident. Call me when SDCs can go that far without having a human take over.
But that leaves us with externally enforced Laws. Which implies a law giver.
Okay, smartypants, lets say that, because there is an order and a design to all these things we see, that that implies the existence of a being who produced this order and design... now tell me - who produced the being you refer to?
After all, if the existence of something ordered and non-random implies a creator (which I have conceded), then you have some explaining to do about who created this creator, because you just claimed that the existence of an ordered and non-random thing implies a creator. Your creator is now an unordered and non-random thing - who created him/her/it?
Imagine ~10 million married couples finding out about infidelity in the relationship near simultaneously.
That means 10 million ladies willing to get payback by sleeping with slashdotters! Let the good times roll!
Five million ladies. The infidelity rate is basically the same for both men and women, hence if 10m marriages have infidelity then around half of them would be cheating wives.
Slashdot Mirror
It's probably due to women on the whole being aggressive about monetizing their streams.
No, it's due to the fact that women are now cheaper than ever for every man; if all they have to offer over streaming is their looks then they are competing with "free", because there's enough free videos, streams and images of naked and attractive women on the internet.
If they want to get the same donations (not viewership, but donations) as males then they are going to have to provide the same level of commentary and display of skill as males.
(And no, commentary is not "Look At The Sexism In This Game", which is what the pioneering female streaming-gamers provided... like Anita whatshername)
provided that they are reasonably attractive. So, where is the catch?
I just commented on this very thing above to another poster: from what I've seen, for men there is the middle-ground where even the ugliest man can still become quite successful, let alone the average-looking guy, but for women there doesn't seem to be such; either be attractive and have large tiddies, or fall to the rock bottom.
That's because it takes skill/talent and/or power/influence for a man to convince many women to sleep with him. Women just have to say "yes".
Men, as a group, have long since figured out that they better be able to provide society with something other than sex if they want society to value them. OTOH, women as a group, for all of recorded history, were considered valuable just for the sex they can provide.
Stripping is primarily based around looks. Streaming video games is based around playing the game, community, chat, skill etc.
And both types of streams are totally voluntary purchases. If female gamers' commentary and skill doesn't bring in donations whose fault is that?
So what arbiter1 actually meant was that women we are attractive and willing to trade off that, perhaps with revealing clothes or flirty chat, find it easier. Women who can't or won't do that don't get that advantage.
Let me fix that for you:
So what arbiter1 actually meant was that women we are attractive and willing to trade off that, perhaps with revealing clothes or flirty chat, find it easier. Women who can't or won't do that, and all men, don't get that advantage.
IOW, you're talking about an advantage that many women have that no man has - in what way is that an advantage to men?
Actually they are - plenty of studies support the assertion that women won't date down.
There also are plenty of studies which show that is not true. Women date down in socio-economic status routinely. Cripes I could make a good argument that MY wife dated down. She makes more money than I do, comes from a family that is better off, certainly doesn't need me financially and doesn't gain any meaningful status from me. We're together because we want to be and we're hardly an outlier in that regard.
Outliers don't prove the rule.
Firstly, you disparage 99.9% of women with that remark (By your standards any woman who desires wealth and power in a partner is shallow)
No YOU disparage women with you insultingly false claim that they are all ("99.9%" in your words) status seeking and only care about wealth and power above all other considerations.
I didn't make that claim, that's simply what you read.
And yes anyone who leaves an otherwise happy relationship in pursuit of wealth and/or power IS manifestly shallow. Pretty hard to argue otherwise.
Secondly, I didn't claim that a wife will leave.
Bullshit. You said "If you think your wife loves you, just wait till she is propositioned by a wealthy and powerful man". The implication of your statement is obvious.
To you, maybe. I didn't say she'd leave, I *DID* imply that she'd cheat. Since close on to 30% of paternity tests (CDC data) in divorce court show another male as the father, I don' t think that this point should be in contention.
Shallow women chase men with wealth.
FTFY. And shallow men chase women with implants so let's not pretend that men have any moral high ground here.
I didn't. I said we're all human.
The ones that don't are outliers.
Actually they aren't.
Actually they are - plenty of studies support the assertion that women won't date down.
Most people chase wealth, men and women. The only difference is in the tactics employed.
If you think your wife loves you, just wait till she is propositioned by a wealthy and powerful man. We're all only human.
If you marry such a shallow cunt you deserve to have her leave you.
Firstly, you disparage 99.9% of women with that remark (By your standards any woman who desires wealth and power in a partner is shallow). Secondly, I didn't claim that a wife will leave.
And thus, such things can be used as a test of whether one really wants to spend their life with someone else...
Women chase men with wealth. The ones that don't are outliers. It's the way of the world. If it wasn't diamonds as a show of wealth it would be something else.
If you think your wife loves you, just wait till she is propositioned by a wealthy and powerful man. We're all only human.
No, that' is the default implementation in languages that support it.
So either change the default or wrap the default serialization in a checksum; either way it's trivial and leaps+bounds ahead of notserialising whole objects at a time.
A developer who won't be bothered to checksum persisted data when it's serialised in an object isn't going to suddenly think it's a good idea when they have to do it field-by-field :-/
I find it depressing that there are so many condescending know-it-alls in tech. Please reconsider your approach to discussions or at the very least you should be correct.
If you don't want to be depressed you should avoid being condescending to someone who obviously knows what they are talking about. IOW "you started it" ... with "excuse yourself from the conversation".
Serialization, whether via a language primitive, standard library or once-off programmer-implemented field-by-field method is still serialisation and vulnerable to tampering. The only way around it is via checksumming/signing. Pithy soundbites such as "This is dangerous" sound profound to the clueless but isn't actually meaningful. It's gonna be dangerous no matter if you do object serialization or data serialization, regardless of the artifical distinction you draw between them.
Regarding that distinction - your assertion of methods doing the input validation is just as wrong - it's possible to tamper with fields so that they pass input validation anyway, so there's no real distinction between the two in terms of danger/safety. They're both equally dangerous, hence any distinction you draw between them is pointless.
When data fields are filled in an object, they are validated by the methods that set them. However, object serialization by it's very nature bypasses these methods of setting data which results in the possibility of restoring object data that would have otherwise been caught by method setting it.
That's an artifical distinction you just made up right now. There's nothing stopping you from checksumming your binary data before reading them in, just like there's nothing forcing data field-by-field serialisation from not doing any validation.
Like AuMatar wrote, you don't belong in this conversation.
I'm always amused when people who clearly have very little experience in something chime in. Thank you for that.
You store off program state as data not as a serialized binary object.
How does that avoid the problem OP has with object serialisation (data is tampered with when persisted).
If you have to ask that, you don't belong in this conversation. Its a well defined term.
OP clearly stated that the problem with object serialisation was reading in fields that could be tampered with. I'm genuinely curious about what alternatives to persistence there is that overcomes this "problem".
I think the problem is that you and the OP are clearly newbies. That "problem" you think exists with object serialisation exists with all data serialisation. If you weren't newbies you'd know that.
How do you propose to persist an object...?
You don't, which is the point.
So each time a program starts up it must prompt the user to manually enter all those values it had when it shut down? Frankly that sounds like a stupid solution.
I was speaking specifically about object serialization. There's nothing wrong with data serialization but using it for object serialization is asking for trouble.
How do you propose to persist an object, and how does that differ from serialising that object?
Regardless of language, object serialization is a dangerous idea. While it may seem like a nice idea at first, loading objects from unverified mutable data is an invitation for someone to tinker with that data.
Okay then, smartypants, what do you propose for persisting fields of an object? Anything you propose is, by definition, "serialisation". The only alternative to serialisation is non-persistent objects.
(TBH, I kinda like the thought of signed serialiased blobs)
On the other hand, we don't want people peddling snake oil taking advantage of desperate people.
This loophole is easily closed by a "You're not allowed to charge for this" clause.
Companies that are legitimately trying to find cures and want to test on humans get to test on humans. Humans that have no other option and will die anyway get to play the cure-lottery. Win-win all round.
Profitability is so ... common.
We need more companies like Theranos, Uber, Tesla ... the profitable companies you probably haven't heard off.
[snipped complaints about laws not being enforced against Muslims]
it's filled with laws that limit
Yeah, and laws that target rape didn't get enforced when it was muslims breaking them:
A neighbour had called the police after hearing the [13 year old] girl scream. The girl was arrested for being drunk and disorderly, but the [muslim] men were not questioned
ecause most of the perpetrators were of Pakistani heritage, several council staff described themselves as being nervous about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist; others, the report noted, "remembered clear direction from their managers" not to make such identification.
There's more, you can read all about it.
Like you said, "Nice try" ... but your assertion that this could not be happening because there were laws against it is clearly stupid, and you should feel stupid for making that assertion.
Pay $5000 for it and get back $20 when it isn't delivered. We called it correctly when we called it vaporware. I can't wait to see what Rei has to say about this.
So, using your numbers, and assuming that human intervention would require 10 minutes of attention per instance (call it five miles worth of attention), then a human using an SDC would have an accident about once every 250,000,000 miles traveled. Sounds like a good deal to me....
How is it a SDC if a human has to actively prevent it from crashing? Current so-called "SDCs" will reliably crash every 5k miles or so, unless a human is there to prevent it.
That makes the cuirrent "SDC" performance worse than even the worst drunk tired and old driver.
That's rather the point, though.
The Creator (God) has to be out of time in order to fill the niche required. He is not part of Nature, and thus, uncreated, eternal, unchanging in nature.
Yeah, but you argued that the existence of something "designed" implies a designer, hence the existence of your god implies a god-creator.
If you think that your god didn't need a creator, why then does a tree, or planet, or star need a creator?
Show me the statistics, not the emotion-laden stories. I'll bet money that self-driving cars are safer now and will be even safer in the future. Id love to have one, just can't afford it.
You'll lose that money, because we don't actually have self-driving cars now. We have cars that require human intervention every few thousand miles at best, every ten miles at worst.
How many crashes happen every day because of humans? Yes I know it is sad, no one wants bad things to happen. But in the long run this is going to save far more lives than take.
Stupid question. How about "How often do SDC's need intervention?" Humans may be poor drivers, but at least they can go for 250k miles without an accident. SDCs need active human participation every 5k miles or so.
The average human driver (including unlicensed, drunk, tired and old) *averages* 250k miles without an accident. Call me when SDCs can go that far without having a human take over.
I'm curious about how you keep getting +5s on your comments for every Tesla story for obvious incorrect information.
Tell me how I can also get +5s on made-up bullshit - inquiring minds want to know
But that leaves us with externally enforced Laws. Which implies a law giver.
Okay, smartypants, lets say that, because there is an order and a design to all these things we see, that that implies the existence of a being who produced this order and design... now tell me - who produced the being you refer to?
After all, if the existence of something ordered and non-random implies a creator (which I have conceded), then you have some explaining to do about who created this creator, because you just claimed that the existence of an ordered and non-random thing implies a creator. Your creator is now an unordered and non-random thing - who created him/her/it?
That means 10 million ladies willing to get payback by sleeping with slashdotters! Let the good times roll!
Five million ladies. The infidelity rate is basically the same for both men and women, hence if 10m marriages have infidelity then around half of them would be cheating wives.