Working them at what? Unless they're racehorses, which is admittedly kind of a horrible industry, they're basically pets for stupidly rich people. Other things people do with horses are hobbies by comparison, and work them about as hard as dog agility training.
By my understanding, devices they aren't putting Nougat on, like the Nexus 5, are still supposed to get security updates. This seems to be a major security update. So, rather than just put Nougat on the Nexus 5, which they easily could with its hardware, they've committed to individually patching a category of bug that they just put a bunch of work into not having to individually patch. Or is my phone continuing to get security updates a lie?
If they had to put up with one of these things and they still go out and get knocked up, presumably at least part of the reason why is that they feel the task was rewarding and they feel confident in their ability to handle it. Sounds like a win, to me.
This basically equates to "lock up poor people constantly." They're the ones who are most likely to accidentally blunder into a fine, and least likely to be able to pay it in a timely fashion. They become exponentially less likely to be able to pay after getting locked up, making them even more of a crime risk. So, there goes your "don't have to be a hardass" idea.
The actual solution is to not have small crimes. If it's not important, don't waste fucking resources on it. About half of what cops arrest people for, they should be referring them to social workers instead.
Perhaps the police in Chicago are simply unsuited to protecting people from gun-toting criminals, and they should allow law-abiding citizens to do it themselves.
How much of a shit do you have to be to spin part-timer exploitation as a move to help the workers? All this shows is that you think of even your management as peons unworthy of benefits.
I suppose this is the difference between clinical depression and sadness. When I feel particularly bad, I am often incapable of enjoying things. I don't seek out activities I enjoy as much, because they seem like too much effort for too little gain. I wind up in a rest mode that persists until the melancholy passes or some idea or event jolts me into productivity somehow. This productivity then makes me feel better about things, and when I feel better, it's time to relax and celebrate. I can enjoy things, so I'd better do it while I still can!
Knowing that happiness is temporary, and not something you can sustain by doing the stuff you want, is not necessarily conducive to health.:/
Most people (as in way below even 90%) cannot afford an average new car these days.
These things won't be relevant until they hit the used market in large numbers, which may never be the case considering how reliable they supposedly are.
Here's the thing about Twitter assholes: you can block them. This absolutely solve the problem. If there's a mob of them, you might spend alot of time blocking. This is tedious, at worst. If it starts taking up too much of your time, you may start to consider not using Twitter anymore, which we all know damn well means that the assholes are doing you a huge favor. The whole goddamn thing is a social validation Skinner box. That's the kind of medicine you should only take if your disease is a malignant political tumor. (Won't work in the US. That shit metastasized years ago.)
Now, the other bad thing about a mob of them is that, even after they block you, they can attempt to ruin your reputation. By using precisely the same methods as people have always done. If there is a problem, it's that there are people who apparently consider Some Guy on Twitter to be more credible than a British tabloid cover. Hell, until recently, that was the same fucking guy sometimes. Who is listening to such silly-ass shitrats?
Meanwhile: you can be suspended for telling a spambot to kill itself. The actual problem with Twitter moderation is that it does exactly what all mass media moderation does: it aggressively hunts down whatever isn't polite, regardless of context or content. Hence, the title of this post. They haven't had any concern for free speech for quite some time. From what I've heard, you can be shadowbanned now, which is definitely something I expect from a platform devoted to free speech. The floor is wide open to crybullies who start shit with an unpopular group by telling polite lies about them, often in a hashtag they're using, and then act just shocked when a bunch of the rabble doesn't respond in a perfectly polite manner. Or, even if they do, because if lots of people are upset with you, that's considered to inherently be an attack, now.
They play this game because they get more power if everyone is convinced there's a huge abuse problem on Twitter. These people have managed to get Twitter's ear, and convince them that they'll lose all relevance and never get shareholders ever if they don't crack down on this whole "free speech" thing. Perhaps they're right about the latter; most people in charge of large piles of money are not particularly comfortable with the idea of a platform that makes it so easy for the commoners to attack the advertising base of companies and people they feel wronged by.
Of course, the real joke here is that for all this hand-wringing about Twitter being full of horrible, scary assholes, you basically have to see them on purpose. Even in a hashtag, much more often than not, the way The Algorithm decides which tweets to actually serve you means that you will generally only see people on your "side" of the "culture war." (I need to wash my fucking hands after typing that.) Most people these days don't keep heterodox friends, especially not if they habitually retweet stuff their besties are going to take issue with. So, the only way you're going to get in a fight is if you go out and pick one.
There are many games that still demand absolute perfection. Which Mario Bros. didn't, incidentally. You had multiple lives and many ways to get more. The main difference was that you couldn't stop to eat or sleep until passwords and battery backups were thought of, which nobody in their right mind considers a feature.
The other difference is that most modern games make that an optional mode which confers an achievement so you can go brag about it to everyone who will quietly pity you for it. This is because most people, including those of us who vividly remember the 8-bit era, don't consider that fun. It only ever existed in the first place because games had just got out of arcades, where they were meant to you off after a certain amount of time, and you had to pay if you wanted more.
Any other profoundly misguided complaints about modern games?
It is vitally important that the illusion of our participation in ideological beauty pageants is safely maintained. Definitely critical infrastructure.
Fuck off with this. There is a point beyond which nonconsent needs to be explicit; sharing a bed is exactly that point. "Sleeping with" somebody is used almost solely as euphemism for screwing in our language for a reason. Allowing that kind of intimacy is already saying "let's do this." If that isn't what you mean, you have to actually say so.
As formulated, this only looks at companies that lasted ten years. That means they're already pretty far ahead of the game compared to the vast majority of businesses. Furthermore, it raises another question: which of these is more likely still be paying out anything in another ten years? Rapid growth often means chasing quarterly gains too hard.
It is. Turns out that's a more important function than anyone wants to admit. Information that people care about gets passed around quickest and with the most engagement and understanding when they simultaneously have the opportunity to include their input and have no pressure to produce quality input.
Circlejerking is, like it or not, the power core at the center of political discourse.
You're thinking of tumblr. Twitter makes it much easier to encounter people with different viewpoints. It's basically an arena where SJW garbage and Nazis with shitty anime avatars eternally bite each others' filthy dicks for everyone else's amusement.
Slashdot Mirror
Not giving a fuck has crept into my attitude. That's not the same thing.
Working them at what? Unless they're racehorses, which is admittedly kind of a horrible industry, they're basically pets for stupidly rich people. Other things people do with horses are hobbies by comparison, and work them about as hard as dog agility training.
A remote control doesn't need fucking logs, and it certainly doesn't need to phone home with them.
It's a fucking election year, and somehow 2016's least convincing lie has nothing to do with it.
By my understanding, devices they aren't putting Nougat on, like the Nexus 5, are still supposed to get security updates. This seems to be a major security update. So, rather than just put Nougat on the Nexus 5, which they easily could with its hardware, they've committed to individually patching a category of bug that they just put a bunch of work into not having to individually patch. Or is my phone continuing to get security updates a lie?
Google, 1998: Don't Be Evil
Alphabet, 2016: Get in the Oven
If they had to put up with one of these things and they still go out and get knocked up, presumably at least part of the reason why is that they feel the task was rewarding and they feel confident in their ability to handle it. Sounds like a win, to me.
This basically equates to "lock up poor people constantly." They're the ones who are most likely to accidentally blunder into a fine, and least likely to be able to pay it in a timely fashion. They become exponentially less likely to be able to pay after getting locked up, making them even more of a crime risk. So, there goes your "don't have to be a hardass" idea.
The actual solution is to not have small crimes. If it's not important, don't waste fucking resources on it. About half of what cops arrest people for, they should be referring them to social workers instead.
Perhaps the police in Chicago are simply unsuited to protecting people from gun-toting criminals, and they should allow law-abiding citizens to do it themselves.
Wait, fuck, disregard. I can't read.
How much of a shit do you have to be to spin part-timer exploitation as a move to help the workers? All this shows is that you think of even your management as peons unworthy of benefits.
I suppose this is the difference between clinical depression and sadness. When I feel particularly bad, I am often incapable of enjoying things. I don't seek out activities I enjoy as much, because they seem like too much effort for too little gain. I wind up in a rest mode that persists until the melancholy passes or some idea or event jolts me into productivity somehow. This productivity then makes me feel better about things, and when I feel better, it's time to relax and celebrate. I can enjoy things, so I'd better do it while I still can!
:/
Knowing that happiness is temporary, and not something you can sustain by doing the stuff you want, is not necessarily conducive to health.
Most people (as in way below even 90%) cannot afford an average new car these days.
These things won't be relevant until they hit the used market in large numbers, which may never be the case considering how reliable they supposedly are.
Wake me when they can fit in 90% of drivers' wallets.
Here's the thing about Twitter assholes: you can block them. This absolutely solve the problem. If there's a mob of them, you might spend alot of time blocking. This is tedious, at worst. If it starts taking up too much of your time, you may start to consider not using Twitter anymore, which we all know damn well means that the assholes are doing you a huge favor. The whole goddamn thing is a social validation Skinner box. That's the kind of medicine you should only take if your disease is a malignant political tumor. (Won't work in the US. That shit metastasized years ago.)
Now, the other bad thing about a mob of them is that, even after they block you, they can attempt to ruin your reputation. By using precisely the same methods as people have always done. If there is a problem, it's that there are people who apparently consider Some Guy on Twitter to be more credible than a British tabloid cover. Hell, until recently, that was the same fucking guy sometimes. Who is listening to such silly-ass shitrats?
Meanwhile: you can be suspended for telling a spambot to kill itself. The actual problem with Twitter moderation is that it does exactly what all mass media moderation does: it aggressively hunts down whatever isn't polite, regardless of context or content. Hence, the title of this post. They haven't had any concern for free speech for quite some time. From what I've heard, you can be shadowbanned now, which is definitely something I expect from a platform devoted to free speech. The floor is wide open to crybullies who start shit with an unpopular group by telling polite lies about them, often in a hashtag they're using, and then act just shocked when a bunch of the rabble doesn't respond in a perfectly polite manner. Or, even if they do, because if lots of people are upset with you, that's considered to inherently be an attack, now.
They play this game because they get more power if everyone is convinced there's a huge abuse problem on Twitter. These people have managed to get Twitter's ear, and convince them that they'll lose all relevance and never get shareholders ever if they don't crack down on this whole "free speech" thing. Perhaps they're right about the latter; most people in charge of large piles of money are not particularly comfortable with the idea of a platform that makes it so easy for the commoners to attack the advertising base of companies and people they feel wronged by.
Of course, the real joke here is that for all this hand-wringing about Twitter being full of horrible, scary assholes, you basically have to see them on purpose. Even in a hashtag, much more often than not, the way The Algorithm decides which tweets to actually serve you means that you will generally only see people on your "side" of the "culture war." (I need to wash my fucking hands after typing that.) Most people these days don't keep heterodox friends, especially not if they habitually retweet stuff their besties are going to take issue with. So, the only way you're going to get in a fight is if you go out and pick one.
That was supposed to say "without knowing anything about them."
:/
The title box usually stops you when you're out of room, why isn't this behavior consistent?
There are many games that still demand absolute perfection. Which Mario Bros. didn't, incidentally. You had multiple lives and many ways to get more. The main difference was that you couldn't stop to eat or sleep until passwords and battery backups were thought of, which nobody in their right mind considers a feature.
The other difference is that most modern games make that an optional mode which confers an achievement so you can go brag about it to everyone who will quietly pity you for it. This is because most people, including those of us who vividly remember the 8-bit era, don't consider that fun. It only ever existed in the first place because games had just got out of arcades, where they were meant to you off after a certain amount of time, and you had to pay if you wanted more.
Any other profoundly misguided complaints about modern games?
Several of my favorites from the past few years were made by one guy.
The game voted best of all time on GameFAQs last time was released last year by one guy.
Just stop.
It is vitally important that the illusion of our participation in ideological beauty pageants is safely maintained. Definitely critical infrastructure.
Fuck off with this. There is a point beyond which nonconsent needs to be explicit; sharing a bed is exactly that point. "Sleeping with" somebody is used almost solely as euphemism for screwing in our language for a reason. Allowing that kind of intimacy is already saying "let's do this." If that isn't what you mean, you have to actually say so.
As formulated, this only looks at companies that lasted ten years. That means they're already pretty far ahead of the game compared to the vast majority of businesses. Furthermore, it raises another question: which of these is more likely still be paying out anything in another ten years? Rapid growth often means chasing quarterly gains too hard.
It is. Turns out that's a more important function than anyone wants to admit. Information that people care about gets passed around quickest and with the most engagement and understanding when they simultaneously have the opportunity to include their input and have no pressure to produce quality input.
Circlejerking is, like it or not, the power core at the center of political discourse.
You're thinking of tumblr. Twitter makes it much easier to encounter people with different viewpoints. It's basically an arena where SJW garbage and Nazis with shitty anime avatars eternally bite each others' filthy dicks for everyone else's amusement.
Twitter buried #DNCLeaks the same way Facebook did. They're neoliberal scum.
"...probably every human ever has been a sort of actor-waiter at some point."
Could the people who write about millenials' employment habits please go to a state other than California for just one fucking day?