You've really missed the point. You are after complexity of the OS so that you can do complicated things with the OS. But most device users are after simple yet powerful solutions for the complex problems they face. Like airline pilots who use IBM's Plan Flight app to calculate fuel loads. I'm pretty sure pilots could cope with a sub-folder, but they really don't *want* to, nor do they *need* to -- they'd rather have big-data-driven decision support for optimising fuel loads presented in an intuitive, fast-to-use format.
You think you're arguing for sophistication and intellect, but really you're arguing about the line between "as simple as possible" and "no simpler". Your use cases differ wildly from most of the billions of the users of iOS devices in where you feel the need for complexity.
What are the realistic chances that this particular advance would have been wanted, given the circumstances described. How shitty a student of life do you have to be to realise that asking a subordinate for a fuck on the first day you meet them while telling them you have a partner is not going to result in you getting said fuck?
What *some* voters want. Others aren't quite so keen on bigotry, economic illiteracy, climate change denialism, fuck-the-poor public service cuts, and all the rest of it.
If you haven't yet understood history, Hitler told it how it was
No no no. Completely wrong. You have to distinguish between: 1. Telling the truth about the political program you intend to implement and 2. Telling the truth about how the world is, and why it is as it is
Hitler, in common with the other arseholes on that list, told the truth about #1. Essentially: we're going to really hurt a bunch of people who you should not like (Jews, immigrants etc etc). And in common with the other arseholes on the list, Hitler had fuck all interest in telling the truth about #2. For that, he had interest in *truthiness*: something that sounds plausible and is affirming to its audience, generally because it blames the "other". It may have some elements that derive from truth ("Versailles is costing us dearly") but that's simply air-cover for the vile lies ("it's the fault of the Jews and commies"). Trump is bigly into truthiness too, with the interesting twist that the person he seems most desperate to convince and placate is himself.
You're obviously a fairly bright chap. You surely can see what's wrong with that syllogism. Yet you think it's a "reasonable starting assumption". You then posit a truly risible strawman counter-syllogism: 1. Most PewDiePie fans play video games and enjoy laid-back humor. 2. Many rightists (bleurch) play video games and enjoy laid-back humour, 3. Therefore rightists are overrepresented. If it satisfies you to burn down this kind of absurd strawman, so be it, but it would be a lot more convincing if you engaged with what's actually happened: 1. PDP has moved to the right over time. 2. PDP's move to the right has attracted right-wing fans.
On the question of why PDP can't be insensitive. Do you mean, why can't he be insensitive without it having commercial consequences? That makes no sense to me at all. *Everything* PDP does has commercial consequences -- how funny or not he is seen to be, the lighting choices he makes, the topics he talks about, what he says about each topic, his facial expressions, etc etc. It's inevitable. He draws in or pushes away consumers and commercial organisations with his every move. Why should anyone's freedom of action to be drawn in or pushed away be different for this particular topic cf anything else? Had Disney dropped him because he focused too much on fart jokes, would that be OK, or would that be censorship too?
Finally, re your last point: here's the answer: if you're the kind of person who is willing to call my female friends whiny cunts to make a point, then you're someone who is comfortable with using abusive terms towards women that are specifically sexist in nature. So you're sexist. I don't see how this is difficult for you to understand. But then, I don't see how you can think it's ok to call a group of women whiny cunts under any circumstances. And that is what you did. You didn't use the term "whiny cunts" in abstract. You directed it towards a group of women in service of your argument.
What the fuck does any of that even mean? A publicly held corporation is not a public corporation. The BBC is a public corporation -- its assets are owned by the British people. Sky is a publicly held corporation -- its assets are owned by private shareholders.
Neither Sky nor the Beeb can legislate. Media companies are really really not a form of government in any meaningful sense.
I wouldn't consider them upstanding but they are at least honest about their views.
Jesus fucking wept. *Hitler* was honest about his views. It's the views themselves that count. And to pick one example from that list, Farage's views are somewhere between contemptible and utterly vile.
Time was, racist grandparents kept their mouths shut because they realised their honestly stated views were going to cause trouble -- including harming their relationship with the grandkids. Now, not so much. This is not a better thing for the world.
I don't know why you insist on seeing the piling on effect as being left-wing in nature. Are you really not aware of what's happened to multiple Jewish writers who criticised Trump? It wasn't left-wingers who displayed a "rabidly over the top... mentality". It was right-winger who sent them thousands of abusive messages.
Oh, I'm quite clear you're under no obligation to explain yourself further. But because this discussion is somewhat public, I can content myself with knowing that I have shown where you would need actual evidence to demonstrate your assertions and you have not provided it, which should have the effect of making your arguments weaker in the eyes of other people reading this. Not exactly an embarrassment of riches, but it'll do.
At the risk of seeming unbearably smug, at the end of the day my 'opinion' happens to be the correct one here, and since the most energetic members of the left happen to share your opinion we'll probably get to see this confirmed in excruciating detail over the coming years.
I'm very excited by the idea that you have a method to demonstrate that the cause of growing racism is the backlash against racism rather than the racism itself. I understand that it would just be too dull for words to actually lay out that methodology, but I for one am reassured that it exists.
2. A significant reason for that low turnout was that would-be voters stayed home because they didn't like a PC witch-hunt
That's only a small piece of the picture. The issue wasn't so much boycotting the PC witch-hunt, it was the PC witch-hunt failing to resonate with or energize people who needed energizing.
As I said earlier, I would be super-excited to see any actual evidence that demonstrates your contentions here. Whether on point 2, or indeed points 1 or 3.
And I'm just in awe of the logic here: 1. Most PewDiePie fans are young 2. Most young people are "leftist" (bleurch, ridiculous term. Wtf was wrong with left-wing?) 3. Therefore most PewDiePie fans are leftist. The ineluctability of it! I *will* grant you that it is likely that at least some of PewDiePie's fans are sufficiently dumb to think that they're left-wing despite holding bigoted views, and will be so outraged to have seen their idol suffer indignities for his videos showcasing bigotry because *irony* or whatevs, that they will skip straight into open identification as alt-right assholes.
Finally: I'm pretty sure that insensitivity never went away as a thing. My female friends tell me about quite extraordinary amounts of insensitivity they experience on a regular basis, right alongside the explicit bigotry. Funnily enough, my white male friends don't tell me about anything similar.
And this is hysterical McCarthyist nonsense. (Granted, I haven't watched a large body of his work yet so conceivably there could be a "pattern" I've missed)
Wait, what? Why would someone concluding that he is a bigot be a hysterical McCarthyist? That makes no sense whatsoever. It's a perfectly reasonable conclusion to draw based on his videos, just a different conclusion from the one you draw from your self-admitted limited sample.
blah blah blah Mel Brooks blah blah blah
First off, I've now got Springtime for Hitler going round my head. Thanks a bunch. Second, as you yourself have been at pains to point out, context matters. A revered Jewish comic genius is going to be cut a shit-ton more slack on their intentions than a bigoted muppet spewing out videos on YouTube in the era of alt-Right and bomb threats against 44 Jewish kids' kindergartens since Trump's election. Whodathunkit?
This trend will continue so long as the witch hunt continues. Pegging non-racism and non-sexism as actual racism and sexism is operating in the opposite effect as intended; it is causing the taboos against those things to weaken.
You're claiming it's false positives that drive the weakening of taboos against racism and sexism. I think you're 180 degrees wrong. It's false negatives: it's people publishing racist and sexist views, then claiming they're not and their opponents are crying wolf. Perhaps this is another example of my being McCarthyist, by holding a different opinion from you.
Look at the numbers--it was a lack of turnout among Democrats that sunk Hillary, not a spike in Republicans. So far as you support witch hunt stuff like this, you are further sowing the seeds of the left's ongoing destruction.
For you to be right, you'd need to demonstrate three things: 1. The driving force behind Trump's election was a low turnout among Democrats 2. A significant reason for that low turnout was that would-be voters stayed home because they didn't like a PC witch-hunt 3. The PC witch-hunt was a real thing, and not confected If you'd like to supply evidence for any of those assertions, I'd be fascinated to see it.
Well, so you say. But others watch the video, and his other videos, and conclude that he is a bigot and that this video is an attempt to push out bigotry under the cover of humour. You think they're wrong. They think you're wrong. And I'm not sure that I'm going to go the extra mile to get *yet more* exposure for bigoted views whether covered by faux-shock-horror faces or not. Not in a world that has seen such an uptick in racial hatred and misogyny expressed online in the past few years.
Hm. Well, it's not prima facie wrong, but anything more than 10 seconds of thought would lead you to the conclusion that you'd better implement that very, very carefully or a huge shitstorm is going to descend on you -- and that even with the most careful presentation, you're taking a risk.
You're mighty confident about the numbers of immigrants who'll be on the move due to climate change, aren'tcha? Tell you what, if you're so confident your bedroom won't be needed, it wouldn't worry you to pledge that if it turns out to be needed, you'll give it up. Cos it won't be needed, right? Right? And you've got the cojones to stand behind your assertions, right? Right?
I agree that the arguments for preventing smoking ought not to be primarily economic; it's about adding "years to life, and life to years", to use a phrase that any British health policy folks will find nostalgic. I also agree that looking only at the costs of managing ill-health due to smoking is an incomplete analysis. But any comprehensive analysis needs to go beyond looking at the direct care costs of a smoking vs non-smoking cohort. It's also important to do contextual analysis (e.g. "What would be happening to smoking rates if we didn't intervene, and what would that mean for overall costs of care?" and it's also important to account for non-care costs, indirect costs, intangible costs, and opportunity costs and upsides of both intervention and non-intervention (e.g. "What will people do with the extra years of life, and what economic value will that generate?")
Slashdot Mirror
If you think this is a showstopper, you are not familiar with the economic history of semiconductor fabrication, are you?
That's good, that is!
You've really missed the point. You are after complexity of the OS so that you can do complicated things with the OS. But most device users are after simple yet powerful solutions for the complex problems they face. Like airline pilots who use IBM's Plan Flight app to calculate fuel loads. I'm pretty sure pilots could cope with a sub-folder, but they really don't *want* to, nor do they *need* to -- they'd rather have big-data-driven decision support for optimising fuel loads presented in an intuitive, fast-to-use format.
http://www.ibm.com/mobilefirst...
You think you're arguing for sophistication and intellect, but really you're arguing about the line between "as simple as possible" and "no simpler". Your use cases differ wildly from most of the billions of the users of iOS devices in where you feel the need for complexity.
Or he could have a gigantic ego and interpret any sign of warmth on the part of a woman as a come-on. Frankly, I think that's more realistic
What are the realistic chances that this particular advance would have been wanted, given the circumstances described. How shitty a student of life do you have to be to realise that asking a subordinate for a fuck on the first day you meet them while telling them you have a partner is not going to result in you getting said fuck?
Because she wasn't suing anyone. She went and got a job elsewhere.
What *some* voters want. Others aren't quite so keen on bigotry, economic illiteracy, climate change denialism, fuck-the-poor public service cuts, and all the rest of it.
If you haven't yet understood history, Hitler told it how it was
No no no. Completely wrong. You have to distinguish between:
1. Telling the truth about the political program you intend to implement
and
2. Telling the truth about how the world is, and why it is as it is
Hitler, in common with the other arseholes on that list, told the truth about #1. Essentially: we're going to really hurt a bunch of people who you should not like (Jews, immigrants etc etc). And in common with the other arseholes on the list, Hitler had fuck all interest in telling the truth about #2. For that, he had interest in *truthiness*: something that sounds plausible and is affirming to its audience, generally because it blames the "other". It may have some elements that derive from truth ("Versailles is costing us dearly") but that's simply air-cover for the vile lies ("it's the fault of the Jews and commies"). Trump is bigly into truthiness too, with the interesting twist that the person he seems most desperate to convince and placate is himself.
You're obviously a fairly bright chap. You surely can see what's wrong with that syllogism. Yet you think it's a "reasonable starting assumption". You then posit a truly risible strawman counter-syllogism: 1. Most PewDiePie fans play video games and enjoy laid-back humor. 2. Many rightists (bleurch) play video games and enjoy laid-back humour, 3. Therefore rightists are overrepresented. If it satisfies you to burn down this kind of absurd strawman, so be it, but it would be a lot more convincing if you engaged with what's actually happened: 1. PDP has moved to the right over time. 2. PDP's move to the right has attracted right-wing fans.
On the question of why PDP can't be insensitive. Do you mean, why can't he be insensitive without it having commercial consequences? That makes no sense to me at all. *Everything* PDP does has commercial consequences -- how funny or not he is seen to be, the lighting choices he makes, the topics he talks about, what he says about each topic, his facial expressions, etc etc. It's inevitable. He draws in or pushes away consumers and commercial organisations with his every move. Why should anyone's freedom of action to be drawn in or pushed away be different for this particular topic cf anything else? Had Disney dropped him because he focused too much on fart jokes, would that be OK, or would that be censorship too?
Finally, re your last point: here's the answer: if you're the kind of person who is willing to call my female friends whiny cunts to make a point, then you're someone who is comfortable with using abusive terms towards women that are specifically sexist in nature. So you're sexist. I don't see how this is difficult for you to understand. But then, I don't see how you can think it's ok to call a group of women whiny cunts under any circumstances. And that is what you did. You didn't use the term "whiny cunts" in abstract. You directed it towards a group of women in service of your argument.
What the fuck does any of that even mean? A publicly held corporation is not a public corporation. The BBC is a public corporation -- its assets are owned by the British people. Sky is a publicly held corporation -- its assets are owned by private shareholders.
Neither Sky nor the Beeb can legislate. Media companies are really really not a form of government in any meaningful sense.
I wouldn't consider them upstanding but they are at least honest about their views.
Jesus fucking wept. *Hitler* was honest about his views. It's the views themselves that count. And to pick one example from that list, Farage's views are somewhere between contemptible and utterly vile.
Time was, racist grandparents kept their mouths shut because they realised their honestly stated views were going to cause trouble -- including harming their relationship with the grandkids. Now, not so much. This is not a better thing for the world.
I don't know why you insist on seeing the piling on effect as being left-wing in nature. Are you really not aware of what's happened to multiple Jewish writers who criticised Trump? It wasn't left-wingers who displayed a "rabidly over the top ... mentality". It was right-winger who sent them thousands of abusive messages.
I'm sure if you squint reeeeeaaally hard, you can convince yourself that Charles Lindbergh wasn't an antisemite. But you won't convince me.
Spectacularly well put. Thanks.
Oh, I'm quite clear you're under no obligation to explain yourself further. But because this discussion is somewhat public, I can content myself with knowing that I have shown where you would need actual evidence to demonstrate your assertions and you have not provided it, which should have the effect of making your arguments weaker in the eyes of other people reading this. Not exactly an embarrassment of riches, but it'll do.
Crap use of quotes by me, apologies.
At the risk of seeming unbearably smug, at the end of the day my 'opinion' happens to be the correct one here, and since the most energetic members of the left happen to share your opinion we'll probably get to see this confirmed in excruciating detail over the coming years.
I'm very excited by the idea that you have a method to demonstrate that the cause of growing racism is the backlash against racism rather than the racism itself. I understand that it would just be too dull for words to actually lay out that methodology, but I for one am reassured that it exists.
2. A significant reason for that low turnout was that would-be voters stayed home because they didn't like a PC witch-hunt
That's only a small piece of the picture. The issue wasn't so much boycotting the PC witch-hunt, it was the PC witch-hunt failing to resonate with or energize people who needed energizing.
As I said earlier, I would be super-excited to see any actual evidence that demonstrates your contentions here. Whether on point 2, or indeed points 1 or 3.
And I'm just in awe of the logic here:
1. Most PewDiePie fans are young
2. Most young people are "leftist" (bleurch, ridiculous term. Wtf was wrong with left-wing?)
3. Therefore most PewDiePie fans are leftist.
The ineluctability of it! I *will* grant you that it is likely that at least some of PewDiePie's fans are sufficiently dumb to think that they're left-wing despite holding bigoted views, and will be so outraged to have seen their idol suffer indignities for his videos showcasing bigotry because *irony* or whatevs, that they will skip straight into open identification as alt-right assholes.
Finally: I'm pretty sure that insensitivity never went away as a thing. My female friends tell me about quite extraordinary amounts of insensitivity they experience on a regular basis, right alongside the explicit bigotry. Funnily enough, my white male friends don't tell me about anything similar.
And this is hysterical McCarthyist nonsense. (Granted, I haven't watched a large body of his work yet so conceivably there could be a "pattern" I've missed)
Wait, what? Why would someone concluding that he is a bigot be a hysterical McCarthyist? That makes no sense whatsoever. It's a perfectly reasonable conclusion to draw based on his videos, just a different conclusion from the one you draw from your self-admitted limited sample.
blah blah blah Mel Brooks blah blah blah
First off, I've now got Springtime for Hitler going round my head. Thanks a bunch. Second, as you yourself have been at pains to point out, context matters. A revered Jewish comic genius is going to be cut a shit-ton more slack on their intentions than a bigoted muppet spewing out videos on YouTube in the era of alt-Right and bomb threats against 44 Jewish kids' kindergartens since Trump's election. Whodathunkit?
This trend will continue so long as the witch hunt continues. Pegging non-racism and non-sexism as actual racism and sexism is operating in the opposite effect as intended; it is causing the taboos against those things to weaken.
You're claiming it's false positives that drive the weakening of taboos against racism and sexism. I think you're 180 degrees wrong. It's false negatives: it's people publishing racist and sexist views, then claiming they're not and their opponents are crying wolf. Perhaps this is another example of my being McCarthyist, by holding a different opinion from you.
Look at the numbers--it was a lack of turnout among Democrats that sunk Hillary, not a spike in Republicans. So far as you support witch hunt stuff like this, you are further sowing the seeds of the left's ongoing destruction.
For you to be right, you'd need to demonstrate three things:
1. The driving force behind Trump's election was a low turnout among Democrats
2. A significant reason for that low turnout was that would-be voters stayed home because they didn't like a PC witch-hunt
3. The PC witch-hunt was a real thing, and not confected
If you'd like to supply evidence for any of those assertions, I'd be fascinated to see it.
That, I concede, is the bigger problem
Well, so you say. But others watch the video, and his other videos, and conclude that he is a bigot and that this video is an attempt to push out bigotry under the cover of humour. You think they're wrong. They think you're wrong. And I'm not sure that I'm going to go the extra mile to get *yet more* exposure for bigoted views whether covered by faux-shock-horror faces or not. Not in a world that has seen such an uptick in racial hatred and misogyny expressed online in the past few years.
Hm. Well, it's not prima facie wrong, but anything more than 10 seconds of thought would lead you to the conclusion that you'd better implement that very, very carefully or a huge shitstorm is going to descend on you -- and that even with the most careful presentation, you're taking a risk.
You're mighty confident about the numbers of immigrants who'll be on the move due to climate change, aren'tcha? Tell you what, if you're so confident your bedroom won't be needed, it wouldn't worry you to pledge that if it turns out to be needed, you'll give it up. Cos it won't be needed, right? Right? And you've got the cojones to stand behind your assertions, right? Right?
I'm sure we can rely on you to offer up your bedroom to an immigrant family when the time comes.
That deserves to be modded up
I agree that the arguments for preventing smoking ought not to be primarily economic; it's about adding "years to life, and life to years", to use a phrase that any British health policy folks will find nostalgic. I also agree that looking only at the costs of managing ill-health due to smoking is an incomplete analysis. But any comprehensive analysis needs to go beyond looking at the direct care costs of a smoking vs non-smoking cohort. It's also important to do contextual analysis (e.g. "What would be happening to smoking rates if we didn't intervene, and what would that mean for overall costs of care?" and it's also important to account for non-care costs, indirect costs, intangible costs, and opportunity costs and upsides of both intervention and non-intervention (e.g. "What will people do with the extra years of life, and what economic value will that generate?")