This is just historical revisionism to an unbelievable degree... The supposed revealing of Thiel's "shady business dealings" was the article that outed him as gay even thou he had previously asked Gawker not to be outed due to working with investors from countries with a rather dim view of gay people.
The article doesn't talk about any kind of unnecessary bureaucracy at organisation and describes most of the work being occasional imaging and basic problem solving (i.e something you can have have interns do for you). Because of that I doubt there's that much bureaucratic busywork they can be allowed to take care of and even at that, bureaucratic busywork tends to be pretty tedious and boring work so making them do that may cause them to get sick of it and quit.
As for the goodwill, that's with other departments of the same company, not with actual customers so any go-between positions are going to be internal to the organisation and thus using them as a contact person is just going to slow down internal communication. Also seeing how they're not familiar with the majority of the company's systems any communication trough them runs the risk of turning into a game of Chinese whispers.
I'm probably going to get downvoted for this, but why the need to retain these people? If what you're saying is accurate these people are almost useless in the current IT environment for the simple reason that they've refused to update their skills. What value does people like this provide the organization?
If they're also required to maintain some legacy system or have knowledge about company IT systems that hasn't been properly documented I could understand the compulsive need to retain them. However as this does not seem to be the case, all of the options I can think of are likely to have the same effect as rubber room-type solutions. First of all there's just getting them to quit them using something like a rubber room, then there's just creating busywork for them which is likely to cause similar results, and finally there's re-training, which is in essence busywork considering the limited time they have to take advantage of those new skills and will probably have a similar effect to just plain busywork.
The main issue with solar and wind, the main replacements for fossil fuels, is that their output is affected by weather conditions. What this means is that you either need to produce a surplus when weather conditions are good and store that energy in batteries or you need to have energy generation capacity that can be turned on and off as needed. While Musk has been touting his batteries for storing surplus energy, the main way to counter fluctuations in output has still been to have power stations with diesel generators or gas turbines like those produced by GE that can be turned on and off as needed.
What makes GE's reasoning suspicious is the fact that there's actually been an upswing in the demand for reserve power stations like those GE provides equipment because of more and more wind and solar capacity being built up. This build-up of capacity isn't going to stop anytime soon so it's not like we're talking about a small yearly change in the market either as the build-up of solar and wind will continue for quite a while.
I've seen people post that article as proof that Damore was wrong, but all it really does is try to belittle the effect of all the scientifically proven gender differences Damore brought up in his memo. It doesn't disprove anything Damore actually brought up in the the memo, the author merely belittles every single fact Damore uses to explain why the status quo is what it is and why trying to change it will come with numerous ill effects for the organisation and the people working for it.
Seriously, when all you can do is try belittle someone else's points rather than actually disprove any of them it goes to show that you don't actually have a leg to stand on. You're merely reflexively disagreeing with someone, refusing to admit you're wrong when you know you are.
Ireland joined the EEC, which eventually evolved into the EU, in the 1970s with the intent of getting companies to move their European operations there by offering a lower tax rate than other countries. The rest of the EU/EEC was fine with this as long as they applied the tax rate evenly in accordance with the founding treaties of the EEC/EU, which Ireland had ratified and thus bound themselves to following.
However the problems began when it was discovered that Ireland had moved on from being a low tax area to being a literal tax haven, thus breaking the treaties they had signed and bound themselves to following. Ireland knew this broke the treaties they had signed and bound themselves to following so they made these treaties secret. However when these treaties were then leaked, all hell broke lose and the EU really had no choice but to take action as allowing Ireland to break the treaties relating to state aid would inevitably lead to other countries following suit and massive race to the bottom would ensue.
If Ireland doesn't like these treaties anymore, they're completely free to de-ratify them, thus joining Britain in leaving the EU. However until they do, they're still bound by them and have to follow them or face sanctions from the EU. Same thing applies to Apple who can just as well go sell their stuff elsewhere if they think a 12.5% corporate tax rate is unreasonably high.
Except the EU agreement EXCLUDES taxation. So EC's attempt to bring taxation under its authority has no legal basis.
The Treaty of Lisbon, one of the founding documents of the EEC, which Ireland ratified when they joined it in the 1970s and would eventually evolve into the EU, is pretty clear on this subject and the EU most definitely has the authority to levy sanctions, even kick a country out of the EU, for violating the treaties the EU is based upon.
Not sure how you somehow got it into your head that the EU somehow has no authority on taxation, but the EU is built on a number of treaties, some of them containing parts relating to taxation. Sure, the EU may not be able to set actual tax rates in countries, but the Treaty of Lisbon most definitely does ban special company-specific tax deals like those that Ireland and Luxenburg have over the last few years been caught making.
If Apple doesn't like paying taxes on it's profits it can sell it's stuff elsewhere and if Ireland wants to make these deals they can join Britain in leaving the EU, but until they do, this is the reality.
Just no... Ireland isn't in any kind of special position and kicking them out at the same time as Britain leaves would actually make the whole brexit process a lot less complicated.
Ireland really does get more out of the EU than the EU gets out of Ireland. Ever since joining the EU Ireland has attracted companies wanting to do business in the EU with it's considerably lower corporate tax rate (12.5% right now when the rest of the EU ranges from about 20 to 30%) and if they get kicked out companies really don't have any real reasons to stay in Ireland when they're going to have to pay these rates on their profits in these countries along with tariffs.
I live in Finland and we've never had a service like Netflix DVD over here... Closest thing we've had are old fashion video rental stores and those have gone practically extinct over the last decade.
Actually, come to think of it there was a pilot program for one of those DVD rental vending machines, but that never went anywhere. The closest one to where I live, located in conjunction to a gas station, was only available for a couple of weeks before it was badly vandalized and then removed. Beyond politically motivated vandalism, mostly done by anarchists, vandalism beyond spray painting is pretty rare over here so so it was probably someone who thought they were going to kill loads of jobs if they took off.
The thing about Netflix and most other services like it is that they're only available some of the most developed parts of the world (north america, central and northern europe) where just about everyone can relatively easily afford to pay for all of the content they're going to be pirating. For these people it wasn't about the content being prohibitively expensive, it was about the convenience offered by piracy. Places where the cost of the content is more prohibitive and where services like Netflix could actually have a big impact, simply aren't served by these companies and services.
This is definitely huge blunder, but a SNAFU? Because it stands for "Situation Normal - All Fucked Up" and implies something happens all the time, which is not the case here. Sure, the FaceID debacle happened relatively recently, but these kinds of security fuck-ups are a regular thing even for Apple.
Oh and before someone starts compiling a list of security screw-ups going back to the 80s, one or two legitimate screw-ups every few years are hardly "situation normal" type scenario.
Villain? Maybe not, but you certainly would be a common nuisance, sort of like young adults who hang out, smoking and drinking in public playgrounds, people who let their free roaming cats who pee in kids' sand pits and people who are drunk on public transport during the day when kids are going to or coming from school.
In other words this is nothing that you can easily come out and say "There should be a law against this", but one where you can still understand why people would still want there to be laws against it.
I'm personally for this because of different, mostly business oriented, reasons. The way I see it, the main issue here is not people not getting things they want, but instead businesses suffering for a number of reasons. First of all, it's that this worsens the buying experience at the store and actual customers who can't get the products are less likely to return and, according to studies, will let 10 times more people know about their negative experiences than if they had a positive. Second of all, much of what bots end up sniping are products that are sold at cost or less than cost to the store and are supposed to attract customers to buy other things with much higher markups. Third of all, this type of thing gives retailers an excuse to increase prices on supply-constrained items as actual customers are more price-sensitive when you can actually find products on shelves than when you can't because they got snapped up by bots.
They're still going to have access to the regular internet so no change in hacking or spam. Just regular russians being put on an internet that is easier to sensor when the censors control the DNS system and can not only pull opposition friendly websites' DNS certifications, they can also deny them certifications in the first place.
In case you're not familiar with the Russian media landscape, pretty much all newspapers and all TV channels are loyal to the Kremlin. This is because Putin put the fear of god into the oligarchs who own them when he jailed Mikhail Khodorkovsky on a made up fraud charge and then nationalized his company because he owned media that was pro opposition. The internet is really the only outlet the political opposition has that isn't actively trying to sabotage them and promote the people in power and their policies.
What all this really boils down to is another crackdown on the opposition following years of large anti-government protests organized via the internet and which the government has been unable to quash.
Considering how the media is consolidating the same way all other businesses are the idea that this is going to become a reality in 10 years or less. At that point it's probably just going to take is for two or three companies to agree on sharing a paywall and $10 or $20 a month (plus inflation adjustments) is going to be way more than the total per-click revenue you're going to be able to generate them no matter how much clickbait they produce.
All in all it's now pretty clear that the ad funded model people have thought would be able to sustain media since the dot.com boom is not going to be able to sustain media and the media is going to have to go back to relying on being getting their revenue from their readers/viewers and advertisers rather than just the advertisers.
I wouldn't call him a hero or a villain either, but I would still call him an asshole and a moron. Not for slacking off during working hours and trying to hide it, but because he still tried to claim the firing was unjustified after he was caught and fired.
If you're going to try to cheat something, at least admit to it when you're caught. You're not stupid so you knew full well what you were doing and what the consequences would be if you were caught. You're not a minor or otherwise mentally incompetent enough not to be responsible for your own actions so don't expect to get the same kind of treatment as those who are.
Ever heard of something called a "return trip" by any chance? If you're going somewhere rural or otherwise remote you're probably not be able to recharge once you're there so you have to recharge somewhere along the return route or, worse yet, when you're back home. Specially if you can't charge at home you're probably not going to have a fully charged battery to start with. What this means is that your actual maximum no-recharge distance from home is going to be considerably less than 310 miles. Also don't forget that's the extra range model that you have to pay extra for and not the stock one.
The unfortunate reality with electric cars is that they're simply not going to have the convenience of an internal combustion engine until the supercharger network is built up to the same point that the regular gas station infrastructure has been built up to.
The talk about people needing to do trips that long regularly is mostly just straw men from EV fanboys...
No, the real issue people have with EVs is that people don't want to have to have a separate car for trips they only do a few times a year or because something they didn't expect happened. Like a relative or close friend falling ill or otherwise needing your immediate help someplace that isn't far enough for a plane ride to make sense, but is also too far away and/or too remote for an EV. Renting a car is obviously an option, but it's expensive and can be pretty inconvenient if it is has to be done at short notice.
No, the issue is not everyday inconvenience, it's being inconvenient when that inconvenience strikes at the most... Well... inconvenient times.
I'm astounded by how myopic so many people are on this issue.
So expecting ISP's to actually be able to deliver what they've already sold to people is somehow being myopic?
If they can't deliver what they've sold people they either need to be honest with people about not being able to actually deliver what they promised or make the investments necessary so that they can deliver what they've already sold to their customers. It's that simple. The deal between Netflix's ISP and Comcast isn't any different. If what's actually going on isn't what they agreed upon then they obviously need to re-negotiate and in that case Comcast most certainly doesn't need any regulations to be dropped. Hell, I also fail to see any reason why Comcast should be allowed to double dip this way when their customers are already paying for access to services Netflix, not the other way around.
To me public discussion on the subject ranges from repeating the same well known truths over and over again so much it becomes tedious to people dogmatically railing against something that is well established knowledge out of pure tribalism. Same goes for a number of other subjects like climate change.
We've had machines with at least the computing oomph of doing most jobs for at least a decade already, but what's lacked so far is the software that can do this well enough to even be considered as a human replacement and that's something people have had the time and ability to work on for decades already without all that much success. As for antropomorphic bodies, that's something that's been worked on for literally decades without much success in creating something that isn't completely clumsy. Apart from the Boston Dynamics bots, bipedal robots still fall over way too easily, can't move very fast and can barely walk up a set of stairs without falling over.
I know it's easy to fall victim to hysteria, specially when the media, desperate to grow their audience as per-view/click ad revenue continues dwindling, and attention hungry celebrities like Elon Musk like raising it for attention, but things really aren't anywhere near as apocalyptic as you're making them out to be. We're really not all that much closer to your machine apocalypse as we were a decade ago.
I've discussed such things right here on Slashdot many times. I'm a feminist, and I prove you wrong.
I sure as hell haven't seen you ever do anything of the sort. In case you're not familiar with your own reputation, you're basically infamous for the kind of dishonesty you showed in your last reply. That dishonesty is why you got downvoted (not by me if you must know, I'm out of mod points).
Look, here I am, ready to talk about it, no interesting in shutting you down
Well I sure has hell didn't get that impression from the way you started going on about how I supposedly don't see any issues in mail order brides when what I actually said was that I'm beginning to understand why people would people are actually interested in something as awful as that.
As a male feminist I can tell you that is complete crap.
So because you're an ideologue you somehow know better than everyone who isn't an ideologue? Right...
Feminists "understanding masculinity" is about as much of a lie as South Africa's Aparheid policy was about blacks and whites being being "Good Neighbors" to each other. I've never seen self-titled feminists react to male issues being discussed with anything except an attempt to shut down the discussion, either by disingenuously claiming that feminists somehow totally care about these issues they never actually talk about except to say they talk about them or by just screaming and calling everyone trying to talk about the issues misogynists or worse. As for masculinity, it's been years since I last saw a feminist talk about it in any other terms than just flat out labeling all of it as "toxic".
In other words feminists' "understanding" of masculinity is about the same as the KKK's "understanding" of the civil rights movement.
You mean someone who is totally dependent on you for their visa and often their livelihood? Who you can control and dominate because they can't say "no" for fear of being deported or made destitute? And you say feminists are the ones who want to dominate.
This type of disingenuous crap is why feminists are seen as a nuisance group on par with bible thumpers and scientologists. I never said that his was somehow acceptable, I specifically called it "totally disgusting idea", just that I understand why some people go for them. The fact that you understand why people chose to do or think awful things doesn't mean that you must agree somehow with them. Understanding does not equal agreement even if the current day left seems to think that it does with the way it reacts to everything that isn't complete demonization of the people they disagree with.
I have a hard time understanding what's so balanced about the feminist idea of a relationship. What the woman says about the relationship is always treated as gospel and men are punished in some form regardless if the accusations are true or not while men may as well plead the 5th and stay silent considering how a differing view is always treated as being made up with malicious purposes. We've seen this happen time and time again over the year so as far as fears go it's like the fear of being run over when you walk into traffic without looking.
All in all it feels like dating in the tech sector has become a serious liability for men when misconduct allegations are essentially a no-win scenario regardless if they're real or made up. When you consider all of this, mail order brides, while still a completely disgusting idea, begin to make some amount of sense.
You've got the wrong identity for the population. It's not that it's mostly populated by white people. It's the particular mindset of the people who inhabit it. Different thing, and it's important to realize that.
I mentioned the politics before race because it's the politics that makes it what it is. If you select a non-white population on politics like that it's going to be the same.
Nope. It's more like pointing out the mendacity of the Lost Cause as they vehemently sought any excuse or rationalization for their continued racism and bigotry, and even went out of their way to deny their military defeat, combined with an attempt at false ennoblement.
If they're proving anything with those examples of what twitter is allowing their ideological opponents to say is it's that they're no more racist than their opponents. Only way you can say that they're somehow particularly racist compared to twitter is if you're in the dark about the staggering level of hypocrisy twitter has been displaying for the last few years or you're viewing the whole thing trough your own equally racist lens.
As I said, I consider the gab.ai community toxic beyond redemption, but twitter is just as bad as they are and unlike twitter itself they are pretty good at pointing that out. It's less "ennoblement" and more just pointing out the hypocrisy of twitter and it's userbase.
FTFY, HTH.
There's toxic places and then there's particularly toxic places like twitter, gab.ai, a number of far left and right subreddits, tumblr and/pol/... Regular toxicity is something any sane person learns to live with, but particularly toxic places like those that I just mentioned are something that takes a certain level of insanity and/or masochism to put up with.
Netflix in particular has driven the need to massively increase bandwidth across the whole internet. The rest of the internet is subsidizing their business, in effect. That's not exactly fair, either.
Considering the fact that people pay for the bandwidth they use to view Netflix content and Netflix pays for their bandwidth to the internet backbone it's hardly what you'd call "unfair". All we're really talking about here is the same problem that caused ISPs to throttle torrents back in the day, them overselling their bandwidth and then having people actually use way more of that bandwith than they had anticipated.
Thus all it really boils down to is business miscalculations made by managers at ISPs...
Considering the fact that it's basically something created in response to Twitter treating centrists, right wingers and white people with a different, more stringent, set of rules than left wingers and non-whites it's more or less to be expected that it's going to be something of a right-to-center echo chamber mostly populated by white people. Complaining about it being something of an echo chamber is a bit like complaining about settlements of freed slaves after slavery was abolished having too many black people.
Don't get me wrong, the place is still a toxic hellhole nobody in their right mind should visit frequently, but that description also applies to twitter.
Slashdot Mirror
This is just historical revisionism to an unbelievable degree... The supposed revealing of Thiel's "shady business dealings" was the article that outed him as gay even thou he had previously asked Gawker not to be outed due to working with investors from countries with a rather dim view of gay people.
The article doesn't talk about any kind of unnecessary bureaucracy at organisation and describes most of the work being occasional imaging and basic problem solving (i.e something you can have have interns do for you). Because of that I doubt there's that much bureaucratic busywork they can be allowed to take care of and even at that, bureaucratic busywork tends to be pretty tedious and boring work so making them do that may cause them to get sick of it and quit.
As for the goodwill, that's with other departments of the same company, not with actual customers so any go-between positions are going to be internal to the organisation and thus using them as a contact person is just going to slow down internal communication. Also seeing how they're not familiar with the majority of the company's systems any communication trough them runs the risk of turning into a game of Chinese whispers.
I'm probably going to get downvoted for this, but why the need to retain these people? If what you're saying is accurate these people are almost useless in the current IT environment for the simple reason that they've refused to update their skills. What value does people like this provide the organization?
If they're also required to maintain some legacy system or have knowledge about company IT systems that hasn't been properly documented I could understand the compulsive need to retain them. However as this does not seem to be the case, all of the options I can think of are likely to have the same effect as rubber room-type solutions. First of all there's just getting them to quit them using something like a rubber room, then there's just creating busywork for them which is likely to cause similar results, and finally there's re-training, which is in essence busywork considering the limited time they have to take advantage of those new skills and will probably have a similar effect to just plain busywork.
The main issue with solar and wind, the main replacements for fossil fuels, is that their output is affected by weather conditions. What this means is that you either need to produce a surplus when weather conditions are good and store that energy in batteries or you need to have energy generation capacity that can be turned on and off as needed. While Musk has been touting his batteries for storing surplus energy, the main way to counter fluctuations in output has still been to have power stations with diesel generators or gas turbines like those produced by GE that can be turned on and off as needed.
What makes GE's reasoning suspicious is the fact that there's actually been an upswing in the demand for reserve power stations like those GE provides equipment because of more and more wind and solar capacity being built up. This build-up of capacity isn't going to stop anytime soon so it's not like we're talking about a small yearly change in the market either as the build-up of solar and wind will continue for quite a while.
I've seen people post that article as proof that Damore was wrong, but all it really does is try to belittle the effect of all the scientifically proven gender differences Damore brought up in his memo. It doesn't disprove anything Damore actually brought up in the the memo, the author merely belittles every single fact Damore uses to explain why the status quo is what it is and why trying to change it will come with numerous ill effects for the organisation and the people working for it.
Seriously, when all you can do is try belittle someone else's points rather than actually disprove any of them it goes to show that you don't actually have a leg to stand on. You're merely reflexively disagreeing with someone, refusing to admit you're wrong when you know you are.
Ireland joined the EEC, which eventually evolved into the EU, in the 1970s with the intent of getting companies to move their European operations there by offering a lower tax rate than other countries. The rest of the EU/EEC was fine with this as long as they applied the tax rate evenly in accordance with the founding treaties of the EEC/EU, which Ireland had ratified and thus bound themselves to following.
However the problems began when it was discovered that Ireland had moved on from being a low tax area to being a literal tax haven, thus breaking the treaties they had signed and bound themselves to following. Ireland knew this broke the treaties they had signed and bound themselves to following so they made these treaties secret. However when these treaties were then leaked, all hell broke lose and the EU really had no choice but to take action as allowing Ireland to break the treaties relating to state aid would inevitably lead to other countries following suit and massive race to the bottom would ensue.
If Ireland doesn't like these treaties anymore, they're completely free to de-ratify them, thus joining Britain in leaving the EU. However until they do, they're still bound by them and have to follow them or face sanctions from the EU. Same thing applies to Apple who can just as well go sell their stuff elsewhere if they think a 12.5% corporate tax rate is unreasonably high.
Except the EU agreement EXCLUDES taxation. So EC's attempt to bring taxation under its authority has no legal basis.
The Treaty of Lisbon, one of the founding documents of the EEC, which Ireland ratified when they joined it in the 1970s and would eventually evolve into the EU, is pretty clear on this subject and the EU most definitely has the authority to levy sanctions, even kick a country out of the EU, for violating the treaties the EU is based upon.
Not sure how you somehow got it into your head that the EU somehow has no authority on taxation, but the EU is built on a number of treaties, some of them containing parts relating to taxation. Sure, the EU may not be able to set actual tax rates in countries, but the Treaty of Lisbon most definitely does ban special company-specific tax deals like those that Ireland and Luxenburg have over the last few years been caught making.
If Apple doesn't like paying taxes on it's profits it can sell it's stuff elsewhere and if Ireland wants to make these deals they can join Britain in leaving the EU, but until they do, this is the reality.
Just no... Ireland isn't in any kind of special position and kicking them out at the same time as Britain leaves would actually make the whole brexit process a lot less complicated.
Ireland really does get more out of the EU than the EU gets out of Ireland. Ever since joining the EU Ireland has attracted companies wanting to do business in the EU with it's considerably lower corporate tax rate (12.5% right now when the rest of the EU ranges from about 20 to 30%) and if they get kicked out companies really don't have any real reasons to stay in Ireland when they're going to have to pay these rates on their profits in these countries along with tariffs.
I live in Finland and we've never had a service like Netflix DVD over here... Closest thing we've had are old fashion video rental stores and those have gone practically extinct over the last decade.
Actually, come to think of it there was a pilot program for one of those DVD rental vending machines, but that never went anywhere. The closest one to where I live, located in conjunction to a gas station, was only available for a couple of weeks before it was badly vandalized and then removed. Beyond politically motivated vandalism, mostly done by anarchists, vandalism beyond spray painting is pretty rare over here so so it was probably someone who thought they were going to kill loads of jobs if they took off.
The thing about Netflix and most other services like it is that they're only available some of the most developed parts of the world (north america, central and northern europe) where just about everyone can relatively easily afford to pay for all of the content they're going to be pirating. For these people it wasn't about the content being prohibitively expensive, it was about the convenience offered by piracy. Places where the cost of the content is more prohibitive and where services like Netflix could actually have a big impact, simply aren't served by these companies and services.
This is definitely huge blunder, but a SNAFU? Because it stands for "Situation Normal - All Fucked Up" and implies something happens all the time, which is not the case here. Sure, the FaceID debacle happened relatively recently, but these kinds of security fuck-ups are a regular thing even for Apple.
Oh and before someone starts compiling a list of security screw-ups going back to the 80s, one or two legitimate screw-ups every few years are hardly "situation normal" type scenario.
Villain? Maybe not, but you certainly would be a common nuisance, sort of like young adults who hang out, smoking and drinking in public playgrounds, people who let their free roaming cats who pee in kids' sand pits and people who are drunk on public transport during the day when kids are going to or coming from school.
In other words this is nothing that you can easily come out and say "There should be a law against this", but one where you can still understand why people would still want there to be laws against it.
I'm personally for this because of different, mostly business oriented, reasons. The way I see it, the main issue here is not people not getting things they want, but instead businesses suffering for a number of reasons. First of all, it's that this worsens the buying experience at the store and actual customers who can't get the products are less likely to return and, according to studies, will let 10 times more people know about their negative experiences than if they had a positive. Second of all, much of what bots end up sniping are products that are sold at cost or less than cost to the store and are supposed to attract customers to buy other things with much higher markups. Third of all, this type of thing gives retailers an excuse to increase prices on supply-constrained items as actual customers are more price-sensitive when you can actually find products on shelves than when you can't because they got snapped up by bots.
They're still going to have access to the regular internet so no change in hacking or spam. Just regular russians being put on an internet that is easier to sensor when the censors control the DNS system and can not only pull opposition friendly websites' DNS certifications, they can also deny them certifications in the first place.
In case you're not familiar with the Russian media landscape, pretty much all newspapers and all TV channels are loyal to the Kremlin. This is because Putin put the fear of god into the oligarchs who own them when he jailed Mikhail Khodorkovsky on a made up fraud charge and then nationalized his company because he owned media that was pro opposition. The internet is really the only outlet the political opposition has that isn't actively trying to sabotage them and promote the people in power and their policies.
What all this really boils down to is another crackdown on the opposition following years of large anti-government protests organized via the internet and which the government has been unable to quash.
Considering how the media is consolidating the same way all other businesses are the idea that this is going to become a reality in 10 years or less. At that point it's probably just going to take is for two or three companies to agree on sharing a paywall and $10 or $20 a month (plus inflation adjustments) is going to be way more than the total per-click revenue you're going to be able to generate them no matter how much clickbait they produce.
All in all it's now pretty clear that the ad funded model people have thought would be able to sustain media since the dot.com boom is not going to be able to sustain media and the media is going to have to go back to relying on being getting their revenue from their readers/viewers and advertisers rather than just the advertisers.
I wouldn't call him a hero or a villain either, but I would still call him an asshole and a moron. Not for slacking off during working hours and trying to hide it, but because he still tried to claim the firing was unjustified after he was caught and fired.
If you're going to try to cheat something, at least admit to it when you're caught. You're not stupid so you knew full well what you were doing and what the consequences would be if you were caught. You're not a minor or otherwise mentally incompetent enough not to be responsible for your own actions so don't expect to get the same kind of treatment as those who are.
Ever heard of something called a "return trip" by any chance? If you're going somewhere rural or otherwise remote you're probably not be able to recharge once you're there so you have to recharge somewhere along the return route or, worse yet, when you're back home. Specially if you can't charge at home you're probably not going to have a fully charged battery to start with. What this means is that your actual maximum no-recharge distance from home is going to be considerably less than 310 miles. Also don't forget that's the extra range model that you have to pay extra for and not the stock one.
The unfortunate reality with electric cars is that they're simply not going to have the convenience of an internal combustion engine until the supercharger network is built up to the same point that the regular gas station infrastructure has been built up to.
The talk about people needing to do trips that long regularly is mostly just straw men from EV fanboys...
No, the real issue people have with EVs is that people don't want to have to have a separate car for trips they only do a few times a year or because something they didn't expect happened. Like a relative or close friend falling ill or otherwise needing your immediate help someplace that isn't far enough for a plane ride to make sense, but is also too far away and/or too remote for an EV. Renting a car is obviously an option, but it's expensive and can be pretty inconvenient if it is has to be done at short notice.
No, the issue is not everyday inconvenience, it's being inconvenient when that inconvenience strikes at the most... Well... inconvenient times.
I'm astounded by how myopic so many people are on this issue.
So expecting ISP's to actually be able to deliver what they've already sold to people is somehow being myopic?
If they can't deliver what they've sold people they either need to be honest with people about not being able to actually deliver what they promised or make the investments necessary so that they can deliver what they've already sold to their customers. It's that simple. The deal between Netflix's ISP and Comcast isn't any different. If what's actually going on isn't what they agreed upon then they obviously need to re-negotiate and in that case Comcast most certainly doesn't need any regulations to be dropped. Hell, I also fail to see any reason why Comcast should be allowed to double dip this way when their customers are already paying for access to services Netflix, not the other way around.
To me public discussion on the subject ranges from repeating the same well known truths over and over again so much it becomes tedious to people dogmatically railing against something that is well established knowledge out of pure tribalism. Same goes for a number of other subjects like climate change.
We've had machines with at least the computing oomph of doing most jobs for at least a decade already, but what's lacked so far is the software that can do this well enough to even be considered as a human replacement and that's something people have had the time and ability to work on for decades already without all that much success. As for antropomorphic bodies, that's something that's been worked on for literally decades without much success in creating something that isn't completely clumsy. Apart from the Boston Dynamics bots, bipedal robots still fall over way too easily, can't move very fast and can barely walk up a set of stairs without falling over.
I know it's easy to fall victim to hysteria, specially when the media, desperate to grow their audience as per-view/click ad revenue continues dwindling, and attention hungry celebrities like Elon Musk like raising it for attention, but things really aren't anywhere near as apocalyptic as you're making them out to be. We're really not all that much closer to your machine apocalypse as we were a decade ago.
I've discussed such things right here on Slashdot many times. I'm a feminist, and I prove you wrong.
I sure as hell haven't seen you ever do anything of the sort. In case you're not familiar with your own reputation, you're basically infamous for the kind of dishonesty you showed in your last reply. That dishonesty is why you got downvoted (not by me if you must know, I'm out of mod points).
Look, here I am, ready to talk about it, no interesting in shutting you down
Well I sure has hell didn't get that impression from the way you started going on about how I supposedly don't see any issues in mail order brides when what I actually said was that I'm beginning to understand why people would people are actually interested in something as awful as that.
As a male feminist I can tell you that is complete crap.
So because you're an ideologue you somehow know better than everyone who isn't an ideologue? Right...
Feminists "understanding masculinity" is about as much of a lie as South Africa's Aparheid policy was about blacks and whites being being "Good Neighbors" to each other. I've never seen self-titled feminists react to male issues being discussed with anything except an attempt to shut down the discussion, either by disingenuously claiming that feminists somehow totally care about these issues they never actually talk about except to say they talk about them or by just screaming and calling everyone trying to talk about the issues misogynists or worse. As for masculinity, it's been years since I last saw a feminist talk about it in any other terms than just flat out labeling all of it as "toxic".
In other words feminists' "understanding" of masculinity is about the same as the KKK's "understanding" of the civil rights movement.
You mean someone who is totally dependent on you for their visa and often their livelihood? Who you can control and dominate because they can't say "no" for fear of being deported or made destitute? And you say feminists are the ones who want to dominate.
This type of disingenuous crap is why feminists are seen as a nuisance group on par with bible thumpers and scientologists. I never said that his was somehow acceptable, I specifically called it "totally disgusting idea", just that I understand why some people go for them. The fact that you understand why people chose to do or think awful things doesn't mean that you must agree somehow with them. Understanding does not equal agreement even if the current day left seems to think that it does with the way it reacts to everything that isn't complete demonization of the people they disagree with.
I have a hard time understanding what's so balanced about the feminist idea of a relationship. What the woman says about the relationship is always treated as gospel and men are punished in some form regardless if the accusations are true or not while men may as well plead the 5th and stay silent considering how a differing view is always treated as being made up with malicious purposes. We've seen this happen time and time again over the year so as far as fears go it's like the fear of being run over when you walk into traffic without looking.
All in all it feels like dating in the tech sector has become a serious liability for men when misconduct allegations are essentially a no-win scenario regardless if they're real or made up. When you consider all of this, mail order brides, while still a completely disgusting idea, begin to make some amount of sense.
You've got the wrong identity for the population. It's not that it's mostly populated by white people. It's the particular mindset of the people who inhabit it. Different thing, and it's important to realize that.
I mentioned the politics before race because it's the politics that makes it what it is. If you select a non-white population on politics like that it's going to be the same.
Nope. It's more like pointing out the mendacity of the Lost Cause as they vehemently sought any excuse or rationalization for their continued racism and bigotry, and even went out of their way to deny their military defeat, combined with an attempt at false ennoblement.
If they're proving anything with those examples of what twitter is allowing their ideological opponents to say is it's that they're no more racist than their opponents. Only way you can say that they're somehow particularly racist compared to twitter is if you're in the dark about the staggering level of hypocrisy twitter has been displaying for the last few years or you're viewing the whole thing trough your own equally racist lens.
As I said, I consider the gab.ai community toxic beyond redemption, but twitter is just as bad as they are and unlike twitter itself they are pretty good at pointing that out. It's less "ennoblement" and more just pointing out the hypocrisy of twitter and it's userbase.
FTFY, HTH.
There's toxic places and then there's particularly toxic places like twitter, gab.ai, a number of far left and right subreddits, tumblr and /pol/... Regular toxicity is something any sane person learns to live with, but particularly toxic places like those that I just mentioned are something that takes a certain level of insanity and/or masochism to put up with.
Netflix in particular has driven the need to massively increase bandwidth across the whole internet. The rest of the internet is subsidizing their business, in effect. That's not exactly fair, either.
Considering the fact that people pay for the bandwidth they use to view Netflix content and Netflix pays for their bandwidth to the internet backbone it's hardly what you'd call "unfair". All we're really talking about here is the same problem that caused ISPs to throttle torrents back in the day, them overselling their bandwidth and then having people actually use way more of that bandwith than they had anticipated.
Thus all it really boils down to is business miscalculations made by managers at ISPs...
Considering the fact that it's basically something created in response to Twitter treating centrists, right wingers and white people with a different, more stringent, set of rules than left wingers and non-whites it's more or less to be expected that it's going to be something of a right-to-center echo chamber mostly populated by white people. Complaining about it being something of an echo chamber is a bit like complaining about settlements of freed slaves after slavery was abolished having too many black people.
Don't get me wrong, the place is still a toxic hellhole nobody in their right mind should visit frequently, but that description also applies to twitter.