Any female at the top of the corporate ladder is given such outsized attention that their flaws become outsized too. Examples off the top of my head:
Elizabeth Holmes...fraudster
Marissa Mayer...OK at Google, failure at Yahoo resulting in ugly buy-out. Bit of an limousine-SJW streak about her, but not possible to tell how good she actually is, just that she's cocky and the dice rolled her way at Google but bit her in the rear at Yahoo.
Carly Fiorina...enough said.
Ursula Burns...seems like a solid person, and but it's not clear whether Xerox did well or poorly under her.
Whitney Wolfe...bumbling gun-grabber who wants to censor the rest of the internet too, not just her own app, which I had never heard of until she made it clear that guns are verboten on her app. OK...who cares?
Cheryl Sandberg...thinks every woman wants to be a superwoman who gives a 110% of her attention to both work and home life. And she does something at Facebook...right?
Ginni Rometty...maybe she's the exception here, because as far as I can tell she's just another run-of-the-mill PHB without anything glaringly wrong with her that isn't wrong with any other CxO at a big tech company.
Mary Barra...they sent (yet another) accountant to do the job of a car guy.
Gwynne Shotwell...OK SpaceX is successful. And you'll notice that she's more likely to be a rocket geek than a hard-core feminist in her NPR appearances. At least the ones I've heard. An Elon Musk hogs most of the camera time anyway.
Male CEOs certainly have their scandals, but their maleness isn't so front-and-center in their public personae that when they fail, they fail, when they succeed they succeed. But if it's a woman CEO...good Lord, the press falls over themselves talking about her clothes and her diet and her everything that doesn't matter about running a company that then they go splat, they leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth.
Doesn't matter. Trump is in there somewhere. Be it as a potential client that fizzled or someone was wearing a Trump tie, or somebody's mother used to watch The Apprentice back in the 2000s, it's got Trump all over it and must be burned in sacrifice to the new gods.
Half their ads don't work right at all, either not loading or requiring a Windows box to display properly. The skip button on skippable ads is hit-or-miss if you're not running a bleeding-edge browser or have Noscript installed. Amateurish shit like that is the opposite of what would make me want to give them money.
Which debacle? The one where it was revealed that the Trump campaign used Facebook's API, which is bad because Trump is a Republican, or the one where it was revealed that the Obama campaign did the exact same thing five years ago, which is bad because the peasants weren't supposed to find out?
No...to be a woman you have to be accepted by society at large as a woman. Just like to be a Jew you have to be accepted by society at large as a Jew. If a large number of Jews say you aren't Jewish because you have neither the bloodline nor the observance...you aren't a Jew. If a large number of men or women refuse to accept that you're a woman because you were born a man and lived your life as a man and are biologically a man...then you aren't a woman. Your say-so alone is not sufficient.
Perhaps a better example is plumbing. You can identify as a plumber. You can do plumbing. But if you aren't licensed to be a plumber, you aren't a plumber. Ditto for civil engineering. Commercial truck driver (I can hop in the cab of a big rig right now and make it go...that don't make it legal).
I am shocked that someone who wears a black turtleneck and outputs not-quite-sensible technobabble could be guilty of defrauding people of money. It just can't happen, I tells ya!
Both questions are equally irrelevant. Wikipedia is no more authoritative than anything else. It's pretty good for nonpartisan stuff like science and geography (although you could see how the latter could have issues), but for political hot-button stuff that's a matter of opinion it has gatekeepers and they exercise their own editorial judgement. I'll give you an example:
Wikipedia will tell you unambiguously that having a gun in the house increases the chance that someone who lives there will suffer a gunshot injury. That's a verifiable fact. It's got all sorts of references from respected sources like the CDC attached to it. What it doesn't tell you is how the correlation and causation are distinguished, but it's a fact that's bandied about by gun grabbers to prove "scientifically" that guns are unsafe. The tacit assumption being that having the gun is what causes the suicides or the murders that it is used for. An equally valid and numerically verifiable fact is that in many US states, something like half the population owns a gun but the rate of misuse is something like 5 per million. And gun nuts can use that equally verifiable fact to say (again, correctly) that nearly everyone who has guns doesn't cause any trouble with them.
None of that discussion tells you anything about the value judgementwe should make as a society about whether we believe people should be allowed to carry/own/have access to firearms. It can certainly inform a quantitative trade of the form "freedom to own guns can cause X amount of marginal mortality" in the same way highway fatality statistics can inform a quantitative trade of the form "freedom to drive cars can cause Y amount of marginal mortality" (and btw Y is about 30pct bigger than X in the US including gun suicides and 300pct bigger excluding gun suicides), but it tells you absolutely nothing about how much you should value freedom of movement or freedom to defend yourself with deadly force over overall "safety." That last bit is a value judgement that can't be informed by statistics alone.
"Fact checking" frequently stops at the statistics and doesn't state that caveat. Usually that omission is made to score political points. It actually gives "fact checking" a bad name since most of the widely known fact-checking is done by left-wing news outlets against right-wing politicians and activists. This YouTube nonsense is just another example of it.
This is a garbage definition. It presupposes the existence of sex-based social structures as distinct from "gender identity." This is a nonexistent distinction. One's "identity" does not exist in a vacuum. You aren't Jewish if you say you are, you're Jewish if you say you are and observe religious practices that most Jews would recognize as Judaism. You aren't a woman if you say you're a woman, you actually have to be a woman as recognized by other women. If there's contention among a sizeable number of them...you aren't a woman.
You know what...no. Every single thing you hold dear is a contentious issue if the audience is wide enough.
Freedom of religion is a contentious issue. In America we have it. In Iran they don't.
Free and fair elections are a contentious issue. In much of the west we have them, in much of the rest of the world they don't and they make a point of touting it as a superior alternative to ours...and some people here quietly agree.
Same thing for blind justice, property rights, the right to operate an automobile, plastic bags in grocery stores. All of is a contentious issue.
So unless you plan fact-check every video for any expression of an opinion or advocacy of a contentious issue, you shouldn't do it at all.
If a Christian theologian were to put a video of his sermon, would you want little atheist factboxes popping up around it? Maybe you would, but you can't expect him to stay on the platform if it's going to go at his content with a thousand little pinpricks.
If an atheist like Richard Dawkins puts up a lecture of his, is it sensible for little factboxes of REPENT SINNERS to pop up there?
Be serious dude. You're either responsible for policing all of the content on your platform or you're responsible for none of it. There's very little ground in the middle.
I didn't say it was perfect, but I am pretty sure that someone who gets a 25th percentile SAT score ain't gonna last too long at a top-25 university, no matter what rocks-for-jocks major he tries to slink through with. It won't catch the 1600 SAT nerd who drops out after two years to start a billion-dollar business, and it won't catch the type-A overachiever who has a mental breakdown after three semesters of 72 credit-hours and zero sleep hours a pop, but standardized tests have their place, along with grades, and other stuff that makes its way onto a college application in gauging who's more likely to succeed and who isn't.
They're wearing clothing that is obviously made in a factory, so it might imply many of us are agrarian, which stopped being the majority about a decade ago if memory serves, but it does indicate we have mechanized industry as well. A guy driving a tractor might be more to the point but it's immaterial to the question at hand.
One possible explanation is that it wasn't on Comcast's end. The affected site's service provider may have blocked all of Comcast's IP addresses if one of them was sending out a DOS attack for example. Or it could have been the affected site's own firewall if it detected a DOS or a DDOS coming from a range of Comcast IPs. Dumb stuff like that would happen all the time when I was in college. Some idiot would be bitorrenting movies or just had an unsecured machine spewing ddos packets plugged into the wall and the whole university would find itself cut off from (for example) JStor or Elsevier for a few hours until our IT contacted their IT and assured them that the problem was dealt with on our end.
The SAT and ACT are good predictors. I suppose you could ace them even if you hate school with a burning passion, and many people do. But few people who hate it enough to drop out would bother to.
Physical security. When I go to work, I badge in when I enter and badge in when I leave. Some lab spaces with sensitive equipment are access-controlled and you badge in to enter those too.
Do you have to type in your password to get at your netflix or amazon? Same idea...except in real life.
The former is still worse. Learning "you didn't build that" leaves you hopeless. Hearing the latter...well you shouldn't grab at women, but you should aspire to personal success and at least that's some model of it.
Almost there. The Dems don't just want to dismantle the economics means of the white working class, they want to dismantle the economic means of anyone and everyone who works with their hands and wouldn't need a high-priced education (taxpayer subsidized, of course) to do so.
It's a nice neat package: guaranteed demand for university education, and built-in dependency on government as the gate-keeper for new prosperity.
A good portion of the Democratic Party does, in fact, buy in to the "you didn't build it" mentality espoused by our previous president. Preventing actual people from having gainful employment where they do indeed "build it" with their own two hands and where everyone can see with their own two eyes that people like them are building it is a nice way to attempt to put the truth to that. I'm not even sure it's entirely deliberate...for what I'm guessing is a good portion of people playing along with these policies and parroting the talking points, there might not be any malice (or intent) at all. All the more reason to tout conspicuous success when and where it happens. The MSM won't do it, they're happy parroting what they're told by "experts" who are either in on the game or who (like many people with a platform handed to them) don't exhibit any independent thought on complex issues.
that leaving expensive equipment unattended on city streets would invite vandalism. Next you're going to tell me that cash registers need attendants and copper wire should be stored in fenced lots or locked warehouses.
It isn't necessarily stupidity. The common opinion among economists and right-wingers that it's stupidity has historical baggage attached to it.
Back in Adam Smith's day, just about everyone was a subsistence farmer and free trade would make everyone wealthier in absolute terms. Even a century ago, there wasn't much difference in the standard of living among nations that would trade with each other. Sixty years ago, Europe and Japan were decimated by war and "free trade" could only mean that the French sold us cheese, the Germans sold us beer, and both bought our computers and jet engines. And it's still true that rich nations ought not throw up trade barriers against other similarly rich nations.
But...that's not what we've got right now and the free traders sound silly when they apply lessons learned under those circumstances to the situation of "free trade" with places where the prevailing wages are a tenth of what ours are here but the information and know-how flows freely. Maybe it's good for them, but it hollows us out.
It's not stupid, it's just different from what you're used to. Tariffs alone would be stupid. Quashing H1B's alone would be stupid. Extra scrutiny to foreign investment alone would be stupid*. All of the above plus a hefty corporate tax cut might actually lead to an improvement.
Or maybe not so stupid if we realize the existence of a whole wide universe not captured by the single number on the bottom line. Milton Friedman never understood this but you can't just stockpile steel or microchips; you have to be able to make your own or you risk inviting potshots from people who can.
The requirements on teachers and physicians are usually state laws. You are probably correct that people who have no relationship with the federal government have no obligation to report crimes they witness to the FBI.
Who knows. Jerry Sandusky brought down a whole lot of people at Penn State and the university president lost his job and got a misdemeanor conviction. Took a while for it all to percolate up to the top.
Slashdot Mirror
Any female at the top of the corporate ladder is given such outsized attention that their flaws become outsized too. Examples off the top of my head:
Elizabeth Holmes...fraudster
Marissa Mayer...OK at Google, failure at Yahoo resulting in ugly buy-out. Bit of an limousine-SJW streak about her, but not possible to tell how good she actually is, just that she's cocky and the dice rolled her way at Google but bit her in the rear at Yahoo.
Carly Fiorina...enough said.
Ursula Burns...seems like a solid person, and but it's not clear whether Xerox did well or poorly under her.
Whitney Wolfe...bumbling gun-grabber who wants to censor the rest of the internet too, not just her own app, which I had never heard of until she made it clear that guns are verboten on her app. OK...who cares?
Cheryl Sandberg...thinks every woman wants to be a superwoman who gives a 110% of her attention to both work and home life. And she does something at Facebook...right?
Ginni Rometty...maybe she's the exception here, because as far as I can tell she's just another run-of-the-mill PHB without anything glaringly wrong with her that isn't wrong with any other CxO at a big tech company.
Mary Barra...they sent (yet another) accountant to do the job of a car guy.
Gwynne Shotwell...OK SpaceX is successful. And you'll notice that she's more likely to be a rocket geek than a hard-core feminist in her NPR appearances. At least the ones I've heard. An Elon Musk hogs most of the camera time anyway.
Male CEOs certainly have their scandals, but their maleness isn't so front-and-center in their public personae that when they fail, they fail, when they succeed they succeed. But if it's a woman CEO...good Lord, the press falls over themselves talking about her clothes and her diet and her everything that doesn't matter about running a company that then they go splat, they leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth.
Doesn't matter. Trump is in there somewhere. Be it as a potential client that fizzled or someone was wearing a Trump tie, or somebody's mother used to watch The Apprentice back in the 2000s, it's got Trump all over it and must be burned in sacrifice to the new gods.
Half their ads don't work right at all, either not loading or requiring a Windows box to display properly. The skip button on skippable ads is hit-or-miss if you're not running a bleeding-edge browser or have Noscript installed. Amateurish shit like that is the opposite of what would make me want to give them money.
Which debacle? The one where it was revealed that the Trump campaign used Facebook's API, which is bad because Trump is a Republican, or the one where it was revealed that the Obama campaign did the exact same thing five years ago, which is bad because the peasants weren't supposed to find out?
No...to be a woman you have to be accepted by society at large as a woman. Just like to be a Jew you have to be accepted by society at large as a Jew. If a large number of Jews say you aren't Jewish because you have neither the bloodline nor the observance...you aren't a Jew. If a large number of men or women refuse to accept that you're a woman because you were born a man and lived your life as a man and are biologically a man...then you aren't a woman. Your say-so alone is not sufficient.
Perhaps a better example is plumbing. You can identify as a plumber. You can do plumbing. But if you aren't licensed to be a plumber, you aren't a plumber. Ditto for civil engineering. Commercial truck driver (I can hop in the cab of a big rig right now and make it go...that don't make it legal).
and the performing a chemistry...
I am shocked that someone who wears a black turtleneck and outputs not-quite-sensible technobabble could be guilty of defrauding people of money. It just can't happen, I tells ya!
Both questions are equally irrelevant. Wikipedia is no more authoritative than anything else. It's pretty good for nonpartisan stuff like science and geography (although you could see how the latter could have issues), but for political hot-button stuff that's a matter of opinion it has gatekeepers and they exercise their own editorial judgement. I'll give you an example:
Wikipedia will tell you unambiguously that having a gun in the house increases the chance that someone who lives there will suffer a gunshot injury. That's a verifiable fact. It's got all sorts of references from respected sources like the CDC attached to it. What it doesn't tell you is how the correlation and causation are distinguished, but it's a fact that's bandied about by gun grabbers to prove "scientifically" that guns are unsafe. The tacit assumption being that having the gun is what causes the suicides or the murders that it is used for. An equally valid and numerically verifiable fact is that in many US states, something like half the population owns a gun but the rate of misuse is something like 5 per million. And gun nuts can use that equally verifiable fact to say (again, correctly) that nearly everyone who has guns doesn't cause any trouble with them.
None of that discussion tells you anything about the value judgementwe should make as a society about whether we believe people should be allowed to carry/own/have access to firearms. It can certainly inform a quantitative trade of the form "freedom to own guns can cause X amount of marginal mortality" in the same way highway fatality statistics can inform a quantitative trade of the form "freedom to drive cars can cause Y amount of marginal mortality" (and btw Y is about 30pct bigger than X in the US including gun suicides and 300pct bigger excluding gun suicides), but it tells you absolutely nothing about how much you should value freedom of movement or freedom to defend yourself with deadly force over overall "safety." That last bit is a value judgement that can't be informed by statistics alone.
"Fact checking" frequently stops at the statistics and doesn't state that caveat. Usually that omission is made to score political points. It actually gives "fact checking" a bad name since most of the widely known fact-checking is done by left-wing news outlets against right-wing politicians and activists. This YouTube nonsense is just another example of it.
This is a garbage definition. It presupposes the existence of sex-based social structures as distinct from "gender identity." This is a nonexistent distinction. One's "identity" does not exist in a vacuum. You aren't Jewish if you say you are, you're Jewish if you say you are and observe religious practices that most Jews would recognize as Judaism. You aren't a woman if you say you're a woman, you actually have to be a woman as recognized by other women. If there's contention among a sizeable number of them...you aren't a woman.
You know what...no. Every single thing you hold dear is a contentious issue if the audience is wide enough.
Freedom of religion is a contentious issue. In America we have it. In Iran they don't.
Free and fair elections are a contentious issue. In much of the west we have them, in much of the rest of the world they don't and they make a point of touting it as a superior alternative to ours...and some people here quietly agree.
Same thing for blind justice, property rights, the right to operate an automobile, plastic bags in grocery stores. All of is a contentious issue.
So unless you plan fact-check every video for any expression of an opinion or advocacy of a contentious issue, you shouldn't do it at all.
If a Christian theologian were to put a video of his sermon, would you want little atheist factboxes popping up around it? Maybe you would, but you can't expect him to stay on the platform if it's going to go at his content with a thousand little pinpricks.
If an atheist like Richard Dawkins puts up a lecture of his, is it sensible for little factboxes of REPENT SINNERS to pop up there?
Be serious dude. You're either responsible for policing all of the content on your platform or you're responsible for none of it. There's very little ground in the middle.
I didn't say it was perfect, but I am pretty sure that someone who gets a 25th percentile SAT score ain't gonna last too long at a top-25 university, no matter what rocks-for-jocks major he tries to slink through with. It won't catch the 1600 SAT nerd who drops out after two years to start a billion-dollar business, and it won't catch the type-A overachiever who has a mental breakdown after three semesters of 72 credit-hours and zero sleep hours a pop, but standardized tests have their place, along with grades, and other stuff that makes its way onto a college application in gauging who's more likely to succeed and who isn't.
They're wearing clothing that is obviously made in a factory, so it might imply many of us are agrarian, which stopped being the majority about a decade ago if memory serves, but it does indicate we have mechanized industry as well. A guy driving a tractor might be more to the point but it's immaterial to the question at hand.
What about the underwater mines, you insensitive clod?!
One possible explanation is that it wasn't on Comcast's end. The affected site's service provider may have blocked all of Comcast's IP addresses if one of them was sending out a DOS attack for example. Or it could have been the affected site's own firewall if it detected a DOS or a DDOS coming from a range of Comcast IPs. Dumb stuff like that would happen all the time when I was in college. Some idiot would be bitorrenting movies or just had an unsecured machine spewing ddos packets plugged into the wall and the whole university would find itself cut off from (for example) JStor or Elsevier for a few hours until our IT contacted their IT and assured them that the problem was dealt with on our end.
The SAT and ACT are good predictors. I suppose you could ace them even if you hate school with a burning passion, and many people do. But few people who hate it enough to drop out would bother to.
It isn't, especially when the grade inflation is so bad the most commonly awarded grade is an A.
Physical security. When I go to work, I badge in when I enter and badge in when I leave. Some lab spaces with sensitive equipment are access-controlled and you badge in to enter those too.
Do you have to type in your password to get at your netflix or amazon? Same idea...except in real life.
The former is still worse. Learning "you didn't build that" leaves you hopeless. Hearing the latter...well you shouldn't grab at women, but you should aspire to personal success and at least that's some model of it.
Almost there. The Dems don't just want to dismantle the economics means of the white working class, they want to dismantle the economic means of anyone and everyone who works with their hands and wouldn't need a high-priced education (taxpayer subsidized, of course) to do so.
It's a nice neat package: guaranteed demand for university education, and built-in dependency on government as the gate-keeper for new prosperity.
A good portion of the Democratic Party does, in fact, buy in to the "you didn't build it" mentality espoused by our previous president. Preventing actual people from having gainful employment where they do indeed "build it" with their own two hands and where everyone can see with their own two eyes that people like them are building it is a nice way to attempt to put the truth to that. I'm not even sure it's entirely deliberate...for what I'm guessing is a good portion of people playing along with these policies and parroting the talking points, there might not be any malice (or intent) at all. All the more reason to tout conspicuous success when and where it happens. The MSM won't do it, they're happy parroting what they're told by "experts" who are either in on the game or who (like many people with a platform handed to them) don't exhibit any independent thought on complex issues.
that leaving expensive equipment unattended on city streets would invite vandalism. Next you're going to tell me that cash registers need attendants and copper wire should be stored in fenced lots or locked warehouses.
They are if you've grown up with "you didn't build that" and "let's spread the wealth around."
And...you seem to be under the impression that I'm disagreeing with you over that.
It isn't necessarily stupidity. The common opinion among economists and right-wingers that it's stupidity has historical baggage attached to it.
Back in Adam Smith's day, just about everyone was a subsistence farmer and free trade would make everyone wealthier in absolute terms. Even a century ago, there wasn't much difference in the standard of living among nations that would trade with each other. Sixty years ago, Europe and Japan were decimated by war and "free trade" could only mean that the French sold us cheese, the Germans sold us beer, and both bought our computers and jet engines. And it's still true that rich nations ought not throw up trade barriers against other similarly rich nations.
But...that's not what we've got right now and the free traders sound silly when they apply lessons learned under those circumstances to the situation of "free trade" with places where the prevailing wages are a tenth of what ours are here but the information and know-how flows freely. Maybe it's good for them, but it hollows us out.
It's not stupid, it's just different from what you're used to. Tariffs alone would be stupid. Quashing H1B's alone would be stupid. Extra scrutiny to foreign investment alone would be stupid*. All of the above plus a hefty corporate tax cut might actually lead to an improvement.
Or maybe not so stupid if we realize the existence of a whole wide universe not captured by the single number on the bottom line. Milton Friedman never understood this but you can't just stockpile steel or microchips; you have to be able to make your own or you risk inviting potshots from people who can.
The requirements on teachers and physicians are usually state laws. You are probably correct that people who have no relationship with the federal government have no obligation to report crimes they witness to the FBI.
Who knows. Jerry Sandusky brought down a whole lot of people at Penn State and the university president lost his job and got a misdemeanor conviction. Took a while for it all to percolate up to the top.