I think him joking about it signals something even worse. Two possibilities 1: He's drinking his own koolaid and genuinely believes at this point Comcast's interests are the interests of the nation and the notion that he could be wrong about this is funny because it's so alien. This type of religious belief in the corporate masters is as dangerous as any other religion running government. Or 2: He is so sold out that he has no decency or shame about the crime he's committing. He's aware that the climate of the Trump administration is so brazenly corrupt that this is acceptable behavior now.
Doesn't change the current question of "is he biased" or "Is he working for the best interest of the consumer." That's obvious. The problem though is the forces that led him to this action, the GOPs religious belief in the gospel of deregulation, and/or blatant corruption, those forces are still at work across all government levels.
Men aren't always being painted as guilty. AC was whining about why this issue wasn't going away: I'm suggesting it's because it's not a lie he wishes it was. The comparison is fair.
I am threatened by SJW callout culture and people who claim I need a scientifically proven don't-rape seminar.
You're objecting to both sensitivity training seminars AND to calling out known harassers. I agree with you on the first one, you can't train someone to not be a sleazeball. But the second one?
What solutions DO you propose if not shaming predators who are caught? Prayer?
When it seems every self-declared male ally turns out to be a full out serial rapist it makes me think maybe these people are rent seeking liars.
How many self-declared male allies have turned out to be serial rapists? It seems like you're pretending the effect is the cause: you don't like "Social justice warriors" so you're constructing a narrative here.
Excuse me if the situation makes me suspicious and defensive.
You didn't mention anything that sounds like a reason to be defensive. Don't harass or assault women and don't be sexist if you're worried. It's that fucking simple.
No one thought Obama should be king. If anyone hated Obama as much as the GOP, it was all the liberals he let down by being centrist and tepid.
We approved of things like executive orders or FCC making rules because the action, not the actor, were right.
Additionally, we didn't invent them specifically for Obama. Yes, we may have been fans of the DACA executive order, but if we had screamed bloody murder about it, executive orders would still be there for Trump to abuse.
Finally, if you think net neutrality would be safe had Obama insisted that the republican controlled congress set the rules, I have high speed internet to sell you.
I didn't see anything in your post resembling evidence or logic as to why sexism in tech isn't an issue, just pure anger. That's actually not very convincing. So maybe it keeps coming up because it's true.
"Why do all these articles about 'Smoking is bad' keep popping up as if smoking does in fact give you cancer?! I'm sick of it" - tobacco executives in the 80's
and that men are collectively guilty?
JFC, way to make it about your fragile ego rather than anything productive.
Maybe this type of response is why it keeps coming up. Every time someone points out the problem, people like you take it as a personal attack. What is it you're afraid of here exactly? Some woman is going to point at you personally and say "YOU DID IT! SHAME!"?
If you want the topic to stop coming up, hire more women. If you just want to be outraged that progressives are talking, do that. If you're actually convinced it's not a problem, be convincing rather than foaming at the mouth. If you feel upset at the vague implication that men aren't collectively blameless here, grow a fucking ballsack and do something about it or shut the fuck up.
The summary to me read "Increases demand, increases demand, increases demand" and ended with either a stupid joke or disingenuous propaganda
I doubt many people take away that the important bit here is there will maybe somehow be more need for coffee artists. The interesting part is that demand goes up from robots.
A more interesting, accurate conclusion would be "Evidently, people DON'T get coffee at Starbucks or food at McDonald's to talk to employees! WE ACTUALLY ALL HATE INTERACTING WITH PEOPLE IN THAT CONTEXT! WHO KNEW BESIDES EVERY SANE HUMAN BEING!?!"
True, and well answered. Worth pointing out though that the big picture is still unambigiously scary. These are similar reasons people cite for not making healthier diet and lifestyle choices. "I ain't had a heart attack yet, and they keep changing what's good and bad for you, so I'm going to continue eating cheeseburgers!"
Excess sodium and calories are bad for your health even if you can't pinpoint any specific adverse events caused by them yet. Carbon and methane are wildly unbalanced in the atmosphere and increasing far more rapidly than anything natural that humans and our farms can adapt to. That carbon and methane in the atmosphere soak up more heat and will change the temperature is a stone cold fact. Piddling about whether it's already causing bad things to happen or not is like arguing whether the deck of the titanic would be wet even if we hadn't hit that iceberg.
So I hope everyone in this-far-too-reasonable-for-slashdot discussion doesn't conclude we're safe from climate change.
Wildfires happen regularly in nature. The article is nonsense about their rarity. Wildfires of this size occur only if there is an abundance of fuel. Naturally, that requires a drought after a couple decades of being too wet to burn. Thanks to California fire departments, all the small wildfires that would've cleaned out the accumulating fuel were extinguished before they could consume much dead wood.
"We knew that for at least 30 years, and California is so environmentally conscious, they MUST have stopped that policy years ago right?" NO THEY'RE STILL DOING THAT. I guess I shouldn't wonder if the Bay area is prepared for the inevitable "Big One"...
Earthquakes of significance are unchanged. Despite panic that small rock-settling after fracking would result in new faultlines exploding (or whatever nonsense those stories got to).
The jury is still out on that one. In places with no fault lines, sure, it seems unlikely fracking will cause earthquakes, but in Oklahoma, it's possible.
Again. Why should there be defective children born in a society where abortion on demand until the very last moment is a viciously defended thing?
Anti-abortion activists are the vicious ones killing real human beings. Pro-choice activists are the ones peacefully trying to maintain their medical autonomy.
Further, arguments about eugenics are a red-herring. Most reasonable people accept abortion as the only ethical choice if an embryo has a severe lung defect and can only possibly be born to suffocate seconds after the cord is cut. But the main argument is "it's my medical decision, not the state's, and certainly not the decision of a bunch of people who worship a virgin-born zombie who may have said something that if you take it out of context means 'yay unborn fetuses.'"
When you steam it, people in the home city may watch your stream rather than pay money to attend the game
That's like saying "We should stop pornography because then people will stop bothering to have sex and the human race will die out."
If you're into it and it's feasible and, you actually do the thing. If it's not feasible, you watch a video of it.
THERE IS VERY LITTLE COMPETITION BETWEEN THE TWO THINGS.
The people who make those arguments are idiots who have way too much political power, but I guess it's good they waste it on trivialities like fighting a losing battle to prevent people from seeing action on screens.
Rich corporations and people will simply move their wealth out of reach. We've already seen this phenomenon with Apple and MS and how they structure their international holdings and with individuals with what was revealed in the Panama Papers.
Apple and MS of course both having their headquarters in the socialist united states. Excellent example!/s
Rich people and corporations are greedy and will work to evade taxes and distort democracy period. This argument is akin to "Well murders will just go to great lengths to hide their crimes if we make murder illegal."
Focus on making tax evasion and avoidance impossible. Don't say "Well we can't afford to take care of our citizens cause we need to lick the boots of our rich overlords."
A US UBI would eventually result in the US following Greece down the toilet.
And if *that* happens, the entire world will dissolve into chaos and violence.
Greece's problems were complex, but they were definitely not due to high taxes from UBI. A large cause of it was government failing to collect ENOUGH taxes. If the right wing rich-worshipers were correct, Greece should have lead us out of the recession with trickle-down economics.
The other side of the coin was that greece spent too much. If you want to talk cutting spending down, by all means, cut spending. Start with the biggest expenditure
Also, if you're going to talk about socialist financial ruin, you should cite more than a single example. The country that initiated the last financial catastrophe? The United States (again, we're not socialist.) The country that recovered the best? Socialist Sweden.
I mean, maybe the gods of capitalism and supply side economics will finally accept the sacrifices of our country and bless us THIS time, but I'd prefer to be evil, socialist, and have a roof over my head in retirement. Lets try eating the rich for once instead of licking their boots?
making sure to insert Pro-progressive content into suggestions
You see a conspiracy. I see simple demographics. Most of youtube's user base is young and computer literate. That's a demographic that is naturally progressive compared to other groups.
If you're so right-wing that you're implying youtube has a nefarious progressive political bias to it, yeah, every video might seem "pro-progressive." That's your deal, not youtube.
The panopticon wasn't really the main problem in 1984 though. It was that the vast majority of that society unquestioningly accepted the government made truth over reality. Only 38% of our society does.
I'm not sure there is a technical/bureaucratic fix for it. I suspect that if the content confirms the biases that the audience has and likes, they will accept it as true no matter how many markings or red flags you put on it. Conversely, if it challenges what they want to believe, they'll ignore it.
I mean look at X media. How can anyone take X media seriously? Those talking heads on X media are just screaming out to be punched in the face for their hypocrisy. Meanwhile, idiots watch X media and trash on Y media, which is fair. It's despicable.
("X media" here = "lamestream" media and Y media = fox if you're a GOP voter, or if you understood all the words in this post, simply reverse the variables)
It's self-imposed. You work hard to keep up with everyone else and by the time you realize it's bullshit, you're unwilling to admit it because you've missed out on so much of your personal life. Admitting you didn't need to be at the office instead of your son's baseball games is painful and makes you feel like a fraud.
It doesn't do much good for a society having a generation of Paris Hiltons while most of the populace starves on the streets.
Poor example: Paris Hilton has been extremely shrewd in making money. Certainly it's a lot easier to make a million dollars when you already have several million as she did, and of course she's been shameless in the ways she's made it, but it's incorrect to imply she's inherited of her money.
Slashdot Mirror
I think him joking about it signals something even worse. Two possibilities 1: He's drinking his own koolaid and genuinely believes at this point Comcast's interests are the interests of the nation and the notion that he could be wrong about this is funny because it's so alien. This type of religious belief in the corporate masters is as dangerous as any other religion running government. Or 2: He is so sold out that he has no decency or shame about the crime he's committing. He's aware that the climate of the Trump administration is so brazenly corrupt that this is acceptable behavior now.
Doesn't change the current question of "is he biased" or "Is he working for the best interest of the consumer." That's obvious. The problem though is the forces that led him to this action, the GOPs religious belief in the gospel of deregulation, and/or blatant corruption, those forces are still at work across all government levels.
Republican too. "Data" is sinful and gets in the way of truthiness.
FUD travels the globe a million times faster than the truth.
Yes, for instance: innocent men are being slandered by evil femnazis. That's spreading like wildfire here.
Men aren't always being painted as guilty. AC was whining about why this issue wasn't going away: I'm suggesting it's because it's not a lie he wishes it was. The comparison is fair.
I am threatened by SJW callout culture and people who claim I need a scientifically proven don't-rape seminar.
You're objecting to both sensitivity training seminars AND to calling out known harassers. I agree with you on the first one, you can't train someone to not be a sleazeball. But the second one?
What solutions DO you propose if not shaming predators who are caught? Prayer?
When it seems every self-declared male ally turns out to be a full out serial rapist it makes me think maybe these people are rent seeking liars.
How many self-declared male allies have turned out to be serial rapists? It seems like you're pretending the effect is the cause: you don't like "Social justice warriors" so you're constructing a narrative here.
Excuse me if the situation makes me suspicious and defensive.
You didn't mention anything that sounds like a reason to be defensive. Don't harass or assault women and don't be sexist if you're worried. It's that fucking simple.
No one thought Obama should be king. If anyone hated Obama as much as the GOP, it was all the liberals he let down by being centrist and tepid.
We approved of things like executive orders or FCC making rules because the action, not the actor, were right.
Additionally, we didn't invent them specifically for Obama. Yes, we may have been fans of the DACA executive order, but if we had screamed bloody murder about it, executive orders would still be there for Trump to abuse.
Finally, if you think net neutrality would be safe had Obama insisted that the republican controlled congress set the rules, I have high speed internet to sell you.
"Why do all these articles about 'Smoking is bad' keep popping up as if smoking does in fact give you cancer?! I'm sick of it" - tobacco executives in the 80's
and that men are collectively guilty?
JFC, way to make it about your fragile ego rather than anything productive.
Maybe this type of response is why it keeps coming up. Every time someone points out the problem, people like you take it as a personal attack. What is it you're afraid of here exactly? Some woman is going to point at you personally and say "YOU DID IT! SHAME!"?
If you want the topic to stop coming up, hire more women. If you just want to be outraged that progressives are talking, do that. If you're actually convinced it's not a problem, be convincing rather than foaming at the mouth. If you feel upset at the vague implication that men aren't collectively blameless here, grow a fucking ballsack and do something about it or shut the fuck up.
Which explains why in Japan, there have been automated coffee shops on most street corners for decades.
They're called "vending machines."
The coffee in a can is equivalent to starbucks, except cheaper and in a lot more locations.
Why the fuck don't we have that here already?
The summary to me read "Increases demand, increases demand, increases demand" and ended with either a stupid joke or disingenuous propaganda
I doubt many people take away that the important bit here is there will maybe somehow be more need for coffee artists. The interesting part is that demand goes up from robots.
A more interesting, accurate conclusion would be "Evidently, people DON'T get coffee at Starbucks or food at McDonald's to talk to employees! WE ACTUALLY ALL HATE INTERACTING WITH PEOPLE IN THAT CONTEXT! WHO KNEW BESIDES EVERY SANE HUMAN BEING!?!"
It's comparable to the numbers lost per month during the recession. So I'd say it's reasonably significant. I personally started a new job in November so maybe I'm biased.
You just need to dig deep enough to find entertaining responses. Like John McAfee deep.
I'd bet a bitcoin that GE is doing R&D into renewables.
(Googles it)
1980 at least.
Excess sodium and calories are bad for your health even if you can't pinpoint any specific adverse events caused by them yet. Carbon and methane are wildly unbalanced in the atmosphere and increasing far more rapidly than anything natural that humans and our farms can adapt to. That carbon and methane in the atmosphere soak up more heat and will change the temperature is a stone cold fact. Piddling about whether it's already causing bad things to happen or not is like arguing whether the deck of the titanic would be wet even if we hadn't hit that iceberg.
So I hope everyone in this-far-too-reasonable-for-slashdot discussion doesn't conclude we're safe from climate change.
Wildfires happen regularly in nature. The article is nonsense about their rarity. Wildfires of this size occur only if there is an abundance of fuel. Naturally, that requires a drought after a couple decades of being too wet to burn. Thanks to California fire departments, all the small wildfires that would've cleaned out the accumulating fuel were extinguished before they could consume much dead wood.
"We knew that for at least 30 years, and California is so environmentally conscious, they MUST have stopped that policy years ago right?" NO THEY'RE STILL DOING THAT. I guess I shouldn't wonder if the Bay area is prepared for the inevitable "Big One"...
Earthquakes of significance are unchanged. Despite panic that small rock-settling after fracking would result in new faultlines exploding (or whatever nonsense those stories got to).
The jury is still out on that one. In places with no fault lines, sure, it seems unlikely fracking will cause earthquakes, but in Oklahoma, it's possible.
Again. Why should there be defective children born in a society where abortion on demand until the very last moment is a viciously defended thing?
Anti-abortion activists are the vicious ones killing real human beings. Pro-choice activists are the ones peacefully trying to maintain their medical autonomy.
Further, arguments about eugenics are a red-herring. Most reasonable people accept abortion as the only ethical choice if an embryo has a severe lung defect and can only possibly be born to suffocate seconds after the cord is cut. But the main argument is "it's my medical decision, not the state's, and certainly not the decision of a bunch of people who worship a virgin-born zombie who may have said something that if you take it out of context means 'yay unborn fetuses.'"
My own home environment was terribly polluted.
We can tell :-P
They would fall under "If it's not feasible."
When you steam it, people in the home city may watch your stream rather than pay money to attend the game
That's like saying "We should stop pornography because then people will stop bothering to have sex and the human race will die out."
If you're into it and it's feasible and, you actually do the thing. If it's not feasible, you watch a video of it.
THERE IS VERY LITTLE COMPETITION BETWEEN THE TWO THINGS.
The people who make those arguments are idiots who have way too much political power, but I guess it's good they waste it on trivialities like fighting a losing battle to prevent people from seeing action on screens.
Rich corporations and people will simply move their wealth out of reach. We've already seen this phenomenon with Apple and MS and how they structure their international holdings and with individuals with what was revealed in the Panama Papers.
Apple and MS of course both having their headquarters in the socialist united states. Excellent example! /s
Rich people and corporations are greedy and will work to evade taxes and distort democracy period. This argument is akin to "Well murders will just go to great lengths to hide their crimes if we make murder illegal."
Focus on making tax evasion and avoidance impossible. Don't say "Well we can't afford to take care of our citizens cause we need to lick the boots of our rich overlords."
A US UBI would eventually result in the US following Greece down the toilet. And if *that* happens, the entire world will dissolve into chaos and violence.
We've had three or four recessions/depressions that resulted from cutting taxes to placate the wealthy so they would let some wealth trickle down. Financial catastrophe and eventual violence followed.
Greece's problems were complex, but they were definitely not due to high taxes from UBI. A large cause of it was government failing to collect ENOUGH taxes. If the right wing rich-worshipers were correct, Greece should have lead us out of the recession with trickle-down economics.
The other side of the coin was that greece spent too much. If you want to talk cutting spending down, by all means, cut spending. Start with the biggest expenditure
Also, if you're going to talk about socialist financial ruin, you should cite more than a single example. The country that initiated the last financial catastrophe? The United States (again, we're not socialist.) The country that recovered the best? Socialist Sweden.
I mean, maybe the gods of capitalism and supply side economics will finally accept the sacrifices of our country and bless us THIS time, but I'd prefer to be evil, socialist, and have a roof over my head in retirement. Lets try eating the rich for once instead of licking their boots?
(Looks at comcast and loss of net neutrality)
You were saying?
Fact free post is easily disproved
Second term for one thing.
making sure to insert Pro-progressive content into suggestions
You see a conspiracy. I see simple demographics. Most of youtube's user base is young and computer literate. That's a demographic that is naturally progressive compared to other groups.
If you're so right-wing that you're implying youtube has a nefarious progressive political bias to it, yeah, every video might seem "pro-progressive." That's your deal, not youtube.
The panopticon wasn't really the main problem in 1984 though. It was that the vast majority of that society unquestioningly accepted the government made truth over reality. Only 38% of our society does.
I'm not sure there is a technical/bureaucratic fix for it. I suspect that if the content confirms the biases that the audience has and likes, they will accept it as true no matter how many markings or red flags you put on it. Conversely, if it challenges what they want to believe, they'll ignore it.
I mean look at X media. How can anyone take X media seriously? Those talking heads on X media are just screaming out to be punched in the face for their hypocrisy. Meanwhile, idiots watch X media and trash on Y media, which is fair. It's despicable.
("X media" here = "lamestream" media and Y media = fox if you're a GOP voter, or if you understood all the words in this post, simply reverse the variables)
It's self-imposed. You work hard to keep up with everyone else and by the time you realize it's bullshit, you're unwilling to admit it because you've missed out on so much of your personal life. Admitting you didn't need to be at the office instead of your son's baseball games is painful and makes you feel like a fraud.
It doesn't do much good for a society having a generation of Paris Hiltons while most of the populace starves on the streets.
Poor example: Paris Hilton has been extremely shrewd in making money. Certainly it's a lot easier to make a million dollars when you already have several million as she did, and of course she's been shameless in the ways she's made it, but it's incorrect to imply she's inherited of her money.