Reads a little too much like "BACK IN MY DAY, ye got a plank of wood for yer birthday!"
Balance is important. Kids need some unstructured play and some structured play. Refusing to conform to societal expectations isn't a good thing across the board. And I see zero evidence TOYS indoctrinate kids in anything aside from maybe gender roles.
That's disingenuous. You provide two separate right-wing news stories about the same incident.
Furthermore, yes, if your ENTIRE JOB was to provide PR cover for a company, to shield them from accusations that they're only hiring white dudes, as her job was, then yeah, that's a dumb thing to say.
"THIS JUST IN: CRITICIZING THE PRESIDENT WILL GET YOU FIRED! (example: Rex Tillerson saying his boss Trump was a fucking moron)"
I don't work in software at all, so naive question: is it actually age discrimination or is it a "Kids fresh out of college are willing to work for lower wages and we can't understand the concept of you get what you pay for"?
In my field (biology) it's entirely the latter. People would be willing to hire a 50 year old for a ton of jobs. The 50 year old would need to be willing to get paid like an intern would though, and a 50 year old willing to work for that little might raise some red flags...
Democrats like Chuck Schumer are the reason that Trump will be reelected.
I suspect you overestimate voters. They don't like all big important but abstract talk like deficit, climate change, or net neutrality. Most have only the dimmest of understanding what that is and prefer politicians tackle "real problems" like the pothole out front.
"Those damn hackers are ruining christmas!" is totally something that will appeal to useful idiots.
FFS, the republican side isn't running on real solutions to real problems either. "War on Christmas" resonates deeply with a lot of Trump voters, and there is (much to my dismay) no war on Christmas.
If you like citizens better than non-citiziens, I guess I'd ask why. They're people, we're people, where you're born should make about as much difference as your sign.
But that's beside the point. This is what we eat. Run this experiment for nationalism on an industry less vital than food. Try it with the restaurant industry first? See if getting rid of undocumented workers makes wages rise enough that comparatively lazy citizens will bus tables enough for the industry to survive.
I'm guessing it'll never happen because of historical differences between music licenses and TV licenses. Songs had non-exclusive licenses to any radio station they could, while TV shows were licensed to only one.
I'm sure Hulu, netflix, amazon would all love to offer everything. For the low price of twice what your cable bill would be, since comcast owns hulu and cable.
I guess they didn't make the important part obvious enough: you are going to be paying for that increased price.
And it's at least partly due to an insistence we increase border security to keep out undocumented workers from stealing jobs. Jobs, it turns out, that no one wants but need to be done in order for us all to not starve.
The good principle is not as simple: To keep information 1. density at the right level for the reader, and 2. well-structured.
Otherwise "Yo" would be the best of all messengers, because it has nearly the maximum shortness.
I'd argue that writing in general, people tend to err towards not dense enough, which is why limiting length helps. People are more geared to talking with conversations where the information density corrects itself through interaction with the audience. With writing, rambling on is more natural than condensing.
Scientific proposals, newspaper writing, twitter, book editors, they all converge on having short limits because of this.
Like you couldn't just use a normal video hoster for this.
Keep It Short Stupid is a good principle, but not something most people hold themselves to. A platform that FORCES brevity might logically seem stupid, but it works. How else do you explain twitter's rise in popularity when facebook already existed? Better marketing?
Vine clips were an interesting niche for humor. Try watching some of their vines hosted on youtube. Then try to watch anything they've done on youtube with no constraints on time. It's clear that most are in need of forced editing.
Most of the youtube videos I've seen would be better off with a much shorter limit. Maybe 6 seconds was too short, but I do think there's some value in not giving self-important idiots too much time to blabber.
Maybe something identical to youtube but it automatically edits out pointless splash screens, repetitive content in a less-than-ten-minute video, and converts content that would be better in text form from video to text?
And also sends out flying killer robots to murder the families of people who put autoplay videos on their websites.
Using a chip bag as a faraday cage to block your employer's tracking device from communicating with satellites in order to goof off isn't interesting to you?
Turn in your nerd badge immediately. And don't try to snack-bag your way out of this one.
Seriously, what the fuck? Are slashdotters so miserable that we're more interested in cheering someone getting punished than an amusing hack?
90% of what I read is in instapaper or pocket. I see an article I want to read, I save it for when I have time (usually when I'm offline). Gets rid of stupid formatting and auto-play ads, I can use the speed-reader function, or the app can read it out loud to me. Paywalls break that even if I pay for it. Stat news specifically has a problem with instapaper loading articles from it. They mix in paywalled articles with free ones, and they're not clearly marked as one or the other if you're subscribing. I go to read an interesting article on the plane with no wifi connection and get an annoyingly cheerful ad to subscribe which I already have.
If they unexpectedly run into one of those water-filled tunnels, I'd imagine that would be pretty bad.
Plus it's Chicago, so there's going to be major costs of bribery. That goes on the surface of course, but I'm sure local government will work overtime on how to wring more money out boring under, then bill someone for that overtime.
"Hey Firefox and Chrome, maybe get better and stop using up all my damn memory or I'm going to start using Microsoft again! Stop laughing, I'm serious! It's already on my computer, it would be so easy!... Okay, I'm not serious..."
thus altering the outcome and findings of the study?
You're right, if they didn't know they were being tracked, that number would probably be 95%
More important is cause and effect. I read comments first because if there are any red flags, it'll show up top in the comments.
At the risk of being too meta: the clickbait headline here reads like "Redditors are lazy and that's bad."
The study itself is paywalled, the article at Vice most people who DO click on the links are likely to read misses a big point made in the abstract.
From the IEEE study abstract
The sheer volume of new information being produced and consumed only increases the reliance that individuals place on the ability of anonymous others to curate and sort massive amounts of information. Because of the economic and intrinsic value involved, it is important to understand how individuals consume anonymously curated information and contribute to the wisdom of the crowd.
Hi, I'm your curator for this clickbait article: Vice's take-away and headline is stupid. Don't bother reading it. Redditors, slashdotters are simply using a much bigger online base of peers to tell them whether the article is worth reading or not.
The same thing happens in all types of reading. In science, if one of my colleagues tells me a big-sounding paper is trash, I probably won't bother reading it because I have too many other papers to read. It's arguably less logical to trust that one colleague than it is to trust several thousand people online whether it's worth reading or is trash.
Given that he jumped to the conclusion based on "There's bacteria there" it might not actually be that hard to prove it to himself.
I will say though, you're right in a way. Our methods of investigating life are all biased for a very small subset of possible life, even on earth. LB Agar plates grow only a small subset of earth bacteria. Investigations that took sea water and just sequenced the DNA they found in it suggested that an astonishing majority of bacteria on our own planet is totally unstudied. We simply don't know how to grow most earth bacteria enough to study it.
If this bacteria IS of ET origin, they'll smear it on a plate, it won't grow, and we won't be able to draw any conclusions. If it's of earth origin, odds are good the same thing will happen, and we again won't really know. We'll assume it's earth bacteria because it's pretty obviously earth bacteria, but we won't know.
Hell, living cells originating from a spark of life on the surface of the ISS is more likely than "they came from outer space." There's at least likely to be organic molecules of terrestrial origin on the surface of the ISS that COULD organize into cells. That seems plausible. "Microbes being projected across the solar system to land on the ISS where they grew on nothing" does not.
Still much much much less likely than regular old earth microbes of course, but if you're going to come up with a second guess, "it's aliens" is still nowhere close.
Not quite clear what you mean by "the other way round." There are MRA types all over slashdot, so just so we're clear, a boss in most cases has little to fear about turning down a subordinate's advances, let alone compared to the vast majority of the time when it's a slimeball superior harassing a subordinate.
It's like false accusations of rape: yes, bad, but pretending the extremely rare reverse situations balance out for the extremely common forward situations is idiotic.
Some lazy sophistry there. Gender is irrelevant. The boss sleeping with subordinates of any gender is an unnecessary liability and poor decision making. The subordinate can plausibly claim HE OR SHE felt like they had to exchange sex for continued employment or advancement. Additionally, instant bad PR.
This isn't rocket science.
Again I have to ask why slashdotters are so anxious to make excuses for behavior that is idiotic. Is the only way YOU can get sex to use authority at work?
Who was his subordinate. Forget whether or not that's ethical for a minute: it's a fucking stupid move. A CEO having a relationship with an employee = a big liability and terrible PR.
If Rubin had decided "Hey, we don't need to secure user data," what would slashdot's response be? Probably that he shouldn't be in charge of anything beyond a mop.
That's the level of stupidity we're dealing with here.
If you're defending this moronic decision, I have to ask why. Is it because it involves a personal fantasy of yours (eg "having a relationship with a woman")? Is it because this (gasp) is kinda-sorta-almost a progressive thing of maybe female employees are there to do a job, not for sex?
Slashdot Mirror
Reads a little too much like "BACK IN MY DAY, ye got a plank of wood for yer birthday!"
Balance is important. Kids need some unstructured play and some structured play. Refusing to conform to societal expectations isn't a good thing across the board. And I see zero evidence TOYS indoctrinate kids in anything aside from maybe gender roles.
That's disingenuous. You provide two separate right-wing news stories about the same incident.
Furthermore, yes, if your ENTIRE JOB was to provide PR cover for a company, to shield them from accusations that they're only hiring white dudes, as her job was, then yeah, that's a dumb thing to say.
"THIS JUST IN: CRITICIZING THE PRESIDENT WILL GET YOU FIRED! (example: Rex Tillerson saying his boss Trump was a fucking moron)"
I don't work in software at all, so naive question: is it actually age discrimination or is it a "Kids fresh out of college are willing to work for lower wages and we can't understand the concept of you get what you pay for"?
In my field (biology) it's entirely the latter. People would be willing to hire a 50 year old for a ton of jobs. The 50 year old would need to be willing to get paid like an intern would though, and a 50 year old willing to work for that little might raise some red flags...
Democrats like Chuck Schumer are the reason that Trump will be reelected.
I suspect you overestimate voters. They don't like all big important but abstract talk like deficit, climate change, or net neutrality. Most have only the dimmest of understanding what that is and prefer politicians tackle "real problems" like the pothole out front.
"Those damn hackers are ruining christmas!" is totally something that will appeal to useful idiots.
FFS, the republican side isn't running on real solutions to real problems either. "War on Christmas" resonates deeply with a lot of Trump voters, and there is (much to my dismay) no war on Christmas.
You're hooking teachers in for profit, possibly even pushing kids who don't want to perform this activity
... have you ever been in a school?
Teachers NEARLY work for free, but not quite. And "pushing kids to perform activities they don't want to do" is pretty much K-8.
It's called "compulsory education" after all.
You're talking about simply outsourcing or switching over a significant chunk of the US economy.
Sourcing the oil we need is a national security nightmare. You're talking about decreasing our national independence.
Costs will rise with either outcome you suggested, and it will affect every breathing american.
To top it all off, we'd be doing this not out of necessity, we'd be doing this for no reason beyond "LOL, fuck you mexicans!"
Costs will have to rise much faster for that to happen.
If you like citizens better than non-citiziens, I guess I'd ask why. They're people, we're people, where you're born should make about as much difference as your sign.
But that's beside the point. This is what we eat. Run this experiment for nationalism on an industry less vital than food. Try it with the restaurant industry first? See if getting rid of undocumented workers makes wages rise enough that comparatively lazy citizens will bus tables enough for the industry to survive.
This story suggests that isn't going to work out in our favor for long.
I'm guessing it'll never happen because of historical differences between music licenses and TV licenses. Songs had non-exclusive licenses to any radio station they could, while TV shows were licensed to only one.
I'm sure Hulu, netflix, amazon would all love to offer everything. For the low price of twice what your cable bill would be, since comcast owns hulu and cable.
I guess they didn't make the important part obvious enough: you are going to be paying for that increased price.
And it's at least partly due to an insistence we increase border security to keep out undocumented workers from stealing jobs. Jobs, it turns out, that no one wants but need to be done in order for us all to not starve.
The good principle is not as simple: To keep information 1. density at the right level for the reader, and 2. well-structured. Otherwise "Yo" would be the best of all messengers, because it has nearly the maximum shortness.
I'd argue that writing in general, people tend to err towards not dense enough, which is why limiting length helps. People are more geared to talking with conversations where the information density corrects itself through interaction with the audience. With writing, rambling on is more natural than condensing.
Scientific proposals, newspaper writing, twitter, book editors, they all converge on having short limits because of this.
Like you couldn't just use a normal video hoster for this.
Keep It Short Stupid is a good principle, but not something most people hold themselves to. A platform that FORCES brevity might logically seem stupid, but it works. How else do you explain twitter's rise in popularity when facebook already existed? Better marketing?
Vine clips were an interesting niche for humor. Try watching some of their vines hosted on youtube. Then try to watch anything they've done on youtube with no constraints on time. It's clear that most are in need of forced editing.
Most of the youtube videos I've seen would be better off with a much shorter limit. Maybe 6 seconds was too short, but I do think there's some value in not giving self-important idiots too much time to blabber.
Maybe something identical to youtube but it automatically edits out pointless splash screens, repetitive content in a less-than-ten-minute video, and converts content that would be better in text form from video to text?
And also sends out flying killer robots to murder the families of people who put autoplay videos on their websites.
Using a chip bag as a faraday cage to block your employer's tracking device from communicating with satellites in order to goof off isn't interesting to you?
Turn in your nerd badge immediately. And don't try to snack-bag your way out of this one.
Seriously, what the fuck? Are slashdotters so miserable that we're more interested in cheering someone getting punished than an amusing hack?
90% of what I read is in instapaper or pocket. I see an article I want to read, I save it for when I have time (usually when I'm offline). Gets rid of stupid formatting and auto-play ads, I can use the speed-reader function, or the app can read it out loud to me. Paywalls break that even if I pay for it. Stat news specifically has a problem with instapaper loading articles from it. They mix in paywalled articles with free ones, and they're not clearly marked as one or the other if you're subscribing. I go to read an interesting article on the plane with no wifi connection and get an annoyingly cheerful ad to subscribe which I already have.
For one thing, there are a ton of old disused tunnels under Chicago. I'd imagine they're poorly annotated given that many of them were completed over a hundred years ago.
If they unexpectedly run into one of those water-filled tunnels, I'd imagine that would be pretty bad.
Plus it's Chicago, so there's going to be major costs of bribery. That goes on the surface of course, but I'm sure local government will work overtime on how to wring more money out boring under, then bill someone for that overtime.
Amazon sells fire tablets running amazon ads on the lockcreens. They sell them for cheaper than the non-ad versions.
Presumably people put up with it for the same reason they put up with the far more annoying ads interrupting TV shows: they're used to it.
Competition!
... Okay, I'm not serious..."
"Hey Firefox and Chrome, maybe get better and stop using up all my damn memory or I'm going to start using Microsoft again! Stop laughing, I'm serious! It's already on my computer, it would be so easy!
thus altering the outcome and findings of the study?
You're right, if they didn't know they were being tracked, that number would probably be 95%
More important is cause and effect. I read comments first because if there are any red flags, it'll show up top in the comments.
At the risk of being too meta: the clickbait headline here reads like "Redditors are lazy and that's bad."
The study itself is paywalled, the article at Vice most people who DO click on the links are likely to read misses a big point made in the abstract.
From the IEEE study abstract
The sheer volume of new information being produced and consumed only increases the reliance that individuals place on the ability of anonymous others to curate and sort massive amounts of information. Because of the economic and intrinsic value involved, it is important to understand how individuals consume anonymously curated information and contribute to the wisdom of the crowd.
Hi, I'm your curator for this clickbait article: Vice's take-away and headline is stupid. Don't bother reading it. Redditors, slashdotters are simply using a much bigger online base of peers to tell them whether the article is worth reading or not.
The same thing happens in all types of reading. In science, if one of my colleagues tells me a big-sounding paper is trash, I probably won't bother reading it because I have too many other papers to read. It's arguably less logical to trust that one colleague than it is to trust several thousand people online whether it's worth reading or is trash.
Given that he jumped to the conclusion based on "There's bacteria there" it might not actually be that hard to prove it to himself.
I will say though, you're right in a way. Our methods of investigating life are all biased for a very small subset of possible life, even on earth. LB Agar plates grow only a small subset of earth bacteria. Investigations that took sea water and just sequenced the DNA they found in it suggested that an astonishing majority of bacteria on our own planet is totally unstudied. We simply don't know how to grow most earth bacteria enough to study it.
If this bacteria IS of ET origin, they'll smear it on a plate, it won't grow, and we won't be able to draw any conclusions. If it's of earth origin, odds are good the same thing will happen, and we again won't really know. We'll assume it's earth bacteria because it's pretty obviously earth bacteria, but we won't know.
Hell, living cells originating from a spark of life on the surface of the ISS is more likely than "they came from outer space." There's at least likely to be organic molecules of terrestrial origin on the surface of the ISS that COULD organize into cells. That seems plausible. "Microbes being projected across the solar system to land on the ISS where they grew on nothing" does not.
Still much much much less likely than regular old earth microbes of course, but if you're going to come up with a second guess, "it's aliens" is still nowhere close.
"I'm being irrational but I don't care" +1 insightful
If it's that type of party, I irrationally think wolves are creeping up behind me every time I walk to my car in the dark.
Not quite clear what you mean by "the other way round." There are MRA types all over slashdot, so just so we're clear, a boss in most cases has little to fear about turning down a subordinate's advances, let alone compared to the vast majority of the time when it's a slimeball superior harassing a subordinate.
It's like false accusations of rape: yes, bad, but pretending the extremely rare reverse situations balance out for the extremely common forward situations is idiotic.
Some lazy sophistry there. Gender is irrelevant. The boss sleeping with subordinates of any gender is an unnecessary liability and poor decision making. The subordinate can plausibly claim HE OR SHE felt like they had to exchange sex for continued employment or advancement. Additionally, instant bad PR.
This isn't rocket science.
Again I have to ask why slashdotters are so anxious to make excuses for behavior that is idiotic. Is the only way YOU can get sex to use authority at work?
He had a consensual relationship with someone.
Who was his subordinate. Forget whether or not that's ethical for a minute: it's a fucking stupid move. A CEO having a relationship with an employee = a big liability and terrible PR.
If Rubin had decided "Hey, we don't need to secure user data," what would slashdot's response be? Probably that he shouldn't be in charge of anything beyond a mop.
That's the level of stupidity we're dealing with here.
If you're defending this moronic decision, I have to ask why. Is it because it involves a personal fantasy of yours (eg "having a relationship with a woman")? Is it because this (gasp) is kinda-sorta-almost a progressive thing of maybe female employees are there to do a job, not for sex?