On Tuesday, Chicago Cubs second baseman Ben Zobrist, one of the most vocal supporters of turning over baseball rulings to software, used an argument with the umpire as a chance to advocate for a change in the league.
Or he was just letting off some frustration and saying the ump sucked. Unless you are also going to argue that this guy thinks umps should be replaced by trash cans.
Take-Two had accused David Zipperer of selling computer programs called Menyoo and Absolute that let users of the "Grand Theft Auto V" multiplayer feature Grand Theft Auto Online cheat...[f]or "griefing" other players by altering their game play without permission
So someone is getting in trouble for hijacking other players (game sessions) in a game called Grand Theft Auto?
This guy crashed the aircraft. It made headlines. Hopefully, this will drive the point home to anybody else who might consider attempting to fly an aircraft with only simulator experience. Worst thing that could have happened would be him having succeeded in landing the aircraft.
One wonders if it may also affect the qualifications for pilots in a future era of self-flying aircraft. If the pilots only train on simulators, and have little real world experience, how will they handle the aircraft when the self-flying mechanism fails?
Really just shows how easy it actually is to fly a plane. Flying one well (and safely) and landing is what is hard, as well as preparing for one of the thousands of ways that a plane can break or things can go wrong and kill you. But when your only goal IS to kill yourself, or just get in the air, it's not that difficult. You can find aircraft limitations and V-speeds online, as well as cockpit control layouts and required takeoff procedures and positions without ever even touching a flight sim. I've flown in an actual commercial airline 737 simulator and takeoff was incredibly easy (the person running the sim did set the flaps for me). Watch the speed, rotate when you hit Vr, and keep at a good steady climb angle and you're off.
From all accounts the guy that stole the Q400 had good, clear flying weather that just about anyone could fly in.
The increase of forest fires is due to humans moving into forested areas and starting fires (inadvertently or on purpose). Yes, it really is THAT simple.
Well, you know, there's also climate change disrupting weather patterns causing warmer, drier air that both increases the likelihood of fire starting but also helps spread them. This is why fires in places that normally get fires are getting worse, and places that don't normally get fires are starting to see them.
There are far more important landmarks that have been destroyed. For over a century, many statues in the Southern United States honoured soldiers who served the Confederate States of America in the Civil War and the Confederate leaders. SJWs got butthurt and destroyed part of our American cultural heritage. We lost far more with the destruction of those statues and desecrated memorials to those soldiers, yet people seem okay with it. This is just a damn sign. It pales in comparison to the statues. Who cares?
Weren't a lot of those statues actually put up in the 40s, 50s, or 60s? Hell, Stone Mountain in Georgia wasn't even completed until 1972! What was the big thing going on around then? Oh, yeah, the Civil Rights Movement. I'm all for statues honoring war dead, but those memorials don't need to be scattered all over the place; they should be in museums, Confederate cemeteries, or parks specifically for the purpose of Civil War remembrance (like Stone Mountain or battlefields). And I say this as a born and bred Southerner that has a history degree and even worked in a Civil War museum. This modern obsession with the Confederacy has gotten out of hand and is all driven by politics.
It's because reigning in drug prices is popular right now, and I can almost guarantee you that Trump has no financial attachment to the medical industry, making it a safe target for him.
Even then, I'm not sure I believe that government should subsidize the costs of medical school. Sure you can argue that the world needs doctors and this will help ensure that the world gets its doctors, but someone else will come along and say that the world needs auto mechanics as well. So we might decide to pay their tuition in full as well, but someone else might point out that no one really needs a car and can just take a bicycle to work and that it's morally wrong to make them pay to subsidize the automotive industry and all the pollution in creates.
We should subsidize both. Society needs skilled mechanics just as it needs skilled doctors, especially modern society. Of course, to do that would mean actually taxing people to pay for education rather than forcing people to take out exorbitant loans or depend on the generosity of those that have money. Because everyone benefits from an educated, trained society it therefore stands to reason that everyone would have a responsibility to help pay for it.
You don't need a government program to fix everything, private donations and effort can actually work to fix problems like the rising cost of tuition.
So.....instead of relying on government to handle necessary services and programs you feel we should just rely on the generosity of billionaires.....I fail to see how that could go wrong in any way.
So....what you're saying is when Skynet eventually wakes up it will be assisted by hordes of child soldiers? We should make a movie to warn people; call it Bots of No Nation.
The number of Burmese-speaking Reuters employees (that the Myanmar government hasn't arrested yet) is greater than the number of Burmese-speaking Facebook employees? Hence why Facebook is hiring an outside firm.
it is not to be confused with The Red Bloom: a scourge which plagues Florida in the form of an overweight bald methamphetamine addict in a cape fashioned from a bath rug who steals urinal mints from hotel bathrooms and once consumed nearly ten kilos of frosting at a pastry factory in Tallahassee before being subdued by a combination of police dogs, tazer, and coronary artery disease.
I'm not familiar with that subspecies of Homo floridensis. Does it have a specific range? It must be a sight to see in the wild, although it's probably best to avoid observation during it's mating season.
Tax on the poor? Sure, but the poor pay property taxes too. You think rental owners don't pass that onto their tenants? The renting poor pay a share of property taxes too and have to do so even in bad times. Switching that to sales and income taxes would at least let the poor to reduce that equivalent tax payment when things get really tough (as you can't tax non-existent income and they can stop spending on non-essentials)
And you really think that, if property taxes are abolished, landlords will actually drop the prices correspondingly? And stop spending on non-essentials? The reason people argue that sale taxes are regressive is that the poor are already spending less of their money on non-essentials than wealthier people because most of their money already goes towards essentials. increase sales taxes and for a lot of people the situation doesn't become "oh, guess I have to hold onto my iphone for another year", it becomes "can I afford to eat dinner today".
Arguing that your property is worth less than what the government is estimating, for the purpose of trying to lower your property taxes, is standard procedure everywhere. Apple doing it doesn't make this tech news.
Arguing that a building appraised at $1m is really only worth $750-800k, ok. Fair enough. Arguing a set of properties appraised at $1b is only really worth $200? That's tax fraud. A couple percent off is fine, but not 99.99998%
And when the economy inevitable crashes again because companies are hugely overvalued (especially all the advertising, er, um, "tech" companies) , those retirement savings will be wiped out and the government won't have the money to make up for it.
That is part of why investing carries risk. First, diversify. Nobody forces you to invest in stocks. Second, if you are concerned about the stock markets, then invest in commodities, real estate, or any of another of instruments that are not tied to the stock market. Again, it is a matter of personal choice.
Those require you to already have capital to invest and diversify. When I am considered "lucky" for my generation for actually owning a house and having reasonable student loan debt, investing any more than I already do is not an option. And as history has repeatedly shown, when one market crashes it brings down all of them.
Have to work until we drop dead, poor the whole time?
Not at all. Work, live beneath your means, save, and retire comfortably at a time of your choosing.
I work and live beneath my means, but you are actually assuming the economy keeps growing enough to allow for a retirement in 40 years. I am arguing the opposite. Assuming my 401k doesn't get wiped out twice in the next 40 years (or is actually able to rebound) wages have stagnated in regards to inflation so it probably won't be enough and Social Security will already be in the red in less than a decade so I can't rely on that either.
You clearly do not understand how the economy works. Yes, there are a small number of corporations and extraordinarily wealthy individuals/families at the top of the income/asset heap. However, the vast majority of the capital in the economy is the retirement savings of individuals and groups (i.e., individual retirement accounts and pension funds). In 2012, total estimated retirement plan assets in the US were $23.7 trillion. When the economy grows, the millions of current and future retirees invested in those plans benefit from the growth, as will the small number of corporations and individuals/families with very large assets. However, the fact remains that a large portion of those profits are already filtering down to regular people in the form of dividends and capital gains in retirement assets.
And when the economy inevitable crashes again because companies are hugely overvalued (especially all the advertising, er, um, "tech" companies) , those retirement savings will be wiped out and the government won't have the money to make up for it.
We have a natural mechanism to distribute those profits: entrepreneurial spirit. I have the privilege to know quite a few entrepreneurs. They are doing some great things. I made a run at it and decided it isn't for me yet. So, I can't on the one hand say "I am unwilling to take the risk of starting my own business" and then on the other say "how come I don't get the same profits as those who are willing take risks?" If the government steps it, it creates a disincentive to innovate.
What I find intensely ironic is that things like Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and so on arose out of one person or a small group doing something daring. They should be rewarded for their ingenuity, acumen, and for the risk they took. If you want profit, go do something daring.
I'm a reasonably intelligent person, with quite a few skills. Some of the skills I do not have, however, are ones that lend themselves to starting a business or inventing something. There are millions, if not billions of people in the world just like me. All those people who have no hope of starting their own business and becoming the next Musk, Brin, Jobs, or Gates due to either a complete lack of economic opportunity or straight up inherent capability. I guess we're just fucked, then? Have to work until we drop dead, poor the whole time? And in any case, starting your own business doesn't make the slice of the pie any bigger-it stays they same, the only thing that changes is how a big a bite you get to take. The problem with having the only chance to succeed come through becoming one of the 1% is what happens to the other 99%.
I switched to a ketogenic diet last year and am the healthiest I have ever been.
Small sample size, but I recently switched to a "mostly" keto diet and am down about 10 lbs in the last 2 weeks after not losing weight while working out for the past 2-3 months. Cut out most carbs but still trying to keep fats in check to a moderate degree. Hoping I can keep up the pace.
It's no longer just about the quality of the product you or whether your company grew. It's about meeting financial analysts' numbers. Meet them or risk having your stock sold off. And, now with new computer algorithms trading billions of share a day, millions a second, the market is more volatile than ever before.
A butterfly flaps its wings in Bali and an EU company's stock plummets.
I am almost 31 years old. Between the income disparity and instability with tying American wealth to the stock market and the growing racial and political divides in the US I firmly believe that, barring some kind of systemic change, there will be open conflict or unrest on US soil in my lifetime.
And everything you describe is a symptom of consumerism, not capitalism.
Consumerism is a social and economic order that encourages the acquisition of goods and services in ever-increasing amounts.
Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.
And there is no mechanism to prevent the owners of production from gaining ever more profit and accumulating the benefits of that profit, nor to keep them from desiring to do so. Unchecked capitalism is as bad for the economy as unabashed communism. Eventually a significant portion of those profits have to filter back down to everyone else, yet instead more and more of it is being hoarded by companies and individuals. Without a natural mechanism to distribute those profits, government must and has an obligation to step in.
Sailors are not generally trained, organized, equipped, or doctrinally inculcated to serve as 'soldiers'. Likewise 'soldiers' are not generally trained, organized, equipped, or doctrinally inculcated to serve aboard ship, perform amphibious operations, or participate in naval expeditionary campaigns. Because of this the Marines exist.
Exactly my point. The Marines serve a very niche, specialized, and important role. But, that role is not large enough to warrant it's own, independent branch. The Marines rely on the Navy for medical, logistical, and even training support (Naval Academy for Marine officers), and the Navy uses Marines for certain functions as well, such as guarding conventional and nuclear weapons aboard ship. If anything, the Space Force should have a Marine-Navy relationship until it grows too large or becomes operationally necessary to be independent. At that point it would have organically grown most of the logistical and command structure necessary to be an independent branch, making for a relatively easy transition. Right now, it's just forced.
It makes sense younger people would be susceptible to bad ideas and in particular people that say everything should be free. Hell I'd take everything free if I believed someone it was possible. Still these people have no experience, things that are too good to be true often are. And hell at that young age people are voting democrat solely because America is a democracy and democrat sounds similar.
It makes sense that older people, who have accumulated wealth and power, continue to try and grow their wealth by simply rigging the game then decry those younger than them as "lazy" or "entitled" when they state that the game has been rigged against them. All the old people care about is "I got mine, go get yours", not realizing that there is nothing left for them to go get. Boomer's don't care that we are gutting the future of Social Security to pay for the military and tax breaks for corporations or the 1%, they have pensions. Meanwhile the rest of us have to worry about retiring to a vastly reduced Social Security benefit while relying on 401ks that are based upon a stock market with values greatly exceeding the actual worth of the companies being traded.
This is what happens when post-modernists take over the school systems and Western Values are treated as bad instead of good.
Or young people see the generation before them loaded with debt and unable to afford to purchase a house, see a political ruling class that does not care about them, and see companies making record profits and all the money going to an increasingly smaller percentage of the population and are realizing "yep, the system's broken".
If a restaurant makes food that sucks, has piss poor service, and eventually get's fined or closed down by the health department it's not a fake restaurant it's just a really bad restaurant.
If a journal has little to no piss poor review but still manages to publish the journal and organize conferences then it's a really bad publisher. If they are taking money and not making the journal or organizing the conferences then yes they would be Fake. (of course there are other things to consider also which weren't included in tfa)
Incorrect analogy. A shitty restaurant is, as you say, just a shitty restaurant. But a journal that doesn't provide any type of peer review or curating of submissions is like a restaurant that doesn't actually serve any food: they aren't really what they purport to be because they aren't providing an expected, essential service for their industry. Therefore, they are fake.
Slashdot Mirror
On Tuesday, Chicago Cubs second baseman Ben Zobrist, one of the most vocal supporters of turning over baseball rulings to software, used an argument with the umpire as a chance to advocate for a change in the league.
Or he was just letting off some frustration and saying the ump sucked. Unless you are also going to argue that this guy thinks umps should be replaced by trash cans.
Take-Two had accused David Zipperer of selling computer programs called Menyoo and Absolute that let users of the "Grand Theft Auto V" multiplayer feature Grand Theft Auto Online cheat...[f]or "griefing" other players by altering their game play without permission
So someone is getting in trouble for hijacking other players (game sessions) in a game called Grand Theft Auto?
This guy crashed the aircraft. It made headlines. Hopefully, this will drive the point home to anybody else who might consider attempting to fly an aircraft with only simulator experience. Worst thing that could have happened would be him having succeeded in landing the aircraft. One wonders if it may also affect the qualifications for pilots in a future era of self-flying aircraft. If the pilots only train on simulators, and have little real world experience, how will they handle the aircraft when the self-flying mechanism fails?
Really just shows how easy it actually is to fly a plane. Flying one well (and safely) and landing is what is hard, as well as preparing for one of the thousands of ways that a plane can break or things can go wrong and kill you. But when your only goal IS to kill yourself, or just get in the air, it's not that difficult. You can find aircraft limitations and V-speeds online, as well as cockpit control layouts and required takeoff procedures and positions without ever even touching a flight sim. I've flown in an actual commercial airline 737 simulator and takeoff was incredibly easy (the person running the sim did set the flaps for me). Watch the speed, rotate when you hit Vr, and keep at a good steady climb angle and you're off. From all accounts the guy that stole the Q400 had good, clear flying weather that just about anyone could fly in.
The increase of forest fires is due to humans moving into forested areas and starting fires (inadvertently or on purpose). Yes, it really is THAT simple.
Well, you know, there's also climate change disrupting weather patterns causing warmer, drier air that both increases the likelihood of fire starting but also helps spread them. This is why fires in places that normally get fires are getting worse, and places that don't normally get fires are starting to see them.
There are far more important landmarks that have been destroyed. For over a century, many statues in the Southern United States honoured soldiers who served the Confederate States of America in the Civil War and the Confederate leaders. SJWs got butthurt and destroyed part of our American cultural heritage. We lost far more with the destruction of those statues and desecrated memorials to those soldiers, yet people seem okay with it. This is just a damn sign. It pales in comparison to the statues. Who cares?
Weren't a lot of those statues actually put up in the 40s, 50s, or 60s? Hell, Stone Mountain in Georgia wasn't even completed until 1972! What was the big thing going on around then? Oh, yeah, the Civil Rights Movement. I'm all for statues honoring war dead, but those memorials don't need to be scattered all over the place; they should be in museums, Confederate cemeteries, or parks specifically for the purpose of Civil War remembrance (like Stone Mountain or battlefields). And I say this as a born and bred Southerner that has a history degree and even worked in a Civil War museum. This modern obsession with the Confederacy has gotten out of hand and is all driven by politics.
It's because reigning in drug prices is popular right now, and I can almost guarantee you that Trump has no financial attachment to the medical industry, making it a safe target for him.
Its still 3 per month. But instead of any movie, there are only up to 6 that you can select from on any given day
Even then, I'm not sure I believe that government should subsidize the costs of medical school. Sure you can argue that the world needs doctors and this will help ensure that the world gets its doctors, but someone else will come along and say that the world needs auto mechanics as well. So we might decide to pay their tuition in full as well, but someone else might point out that no one really needs a car and can just take a bicycle to work and that it's morally wrong to make them pay to subsidize the automotive industry and all the pollution in creates.
We should subsidize both. Society needs skilled mechanics just as it needs skilled doctors, especially modern society. Of course, to do that would mean actually taxing people to pay for education rather than forcing people to take out exorbitant loans or depend on the generosity of those that have money. Because everyone benefits from an educated, trained society it therefore stands to reason that everyone would have a responsibility to help pay for it.
You don't need a government program to fix everything, private donations and effort can actually work to fix problems like the rising cost of tuition.
So.....instead of relying on government to handle necessary services and programs you feel we should just rely on the generosity of billionaires.....I fail to see how that could go wrong in any way.
So....what you're saying is when Skynet eventually wakes up it will be assisted by hordes of child soldiers? We should make a movie to warn people; call it Bots of No Nation.
If Reuters can find it, why can't Facebook?
The number of Burmese-speaking Reuters employees (that the Myanmar government hasn't arrested yet) is greater than the number of Burmese-speaking Facebook employees? Hence why Facebook is hiring an outside firm.
You know what comes after a red tide? A red storm!
The Russians are coming!
Would you say there is a Red Storm Rising?
it is not to be confused with The Red Bloom: a scourge which plagues Florida in the form of an overweight bald methamphetamine addict in a cape fashioned from a bath rug who steals urinal mints from hotel bathrooms and once consumed nearly ten kilos of frosting at a pastry factory in Tallahassee before being subdued by a combination of police dogs, tazer, and coronary artery disease.
I'm not familiar with that subspecies of Homo floridensis. Does it have a specific range? It must be a sight to see in the wild, although it's probably best to avoid observation during it's mating season.
Tax on the poor? Sure, but the poor pay property taxes too. You think rental owners don't pass that onto their tenants? The renting poor pay a share of property taxes too and have to do so even in bad times. Switching that to sales and income taxes would at least let the poor to reduce that equivalent tax payment when things get really tough (as you can't tax non-existent income and they can stop spending on non-essentials)
And you really think that, if property taxes are abolished, landlords will actually drop the prices correspondingly? And stop spending on non-essentials? The reason people argue that sale taxes are regressive is that the poor are already spending less of their money on non-essentials than wealthier people because most of their money already goes towards essentials. increase sales taxes and for a lot of people the situation doesn't become "oh, guess I have to hold onto my iphone for another year", it becomes "can I afford to eat dinner today".
Arguing that your property is worth less than what the government is estimating, for the purpose of trying to lower your property taxes, is standard procedure everywhere. Apple doing it doesn't make this tech news.
Arguing that a building appraised at $1m is really only worth $750-800k, ok. Fair enough. Arguing a set of properties appraised at $1b is only really worth $200? That's tax fraud. A couple percent off is fine, but not 99.99998%
And when the economy inevitable crashes again because companies are hugely overvalued (especially all the advertising, er, um, "tech" companies) , those retirement savings will be wiped out and the government won't have the money to make up for it.
That is part of why investing carries risk. First, diversify. Nobody forces you to invest in stocks. Second, if you are concerned about the stock markets, then invest in commodities, real estate, or any of another of instruments that are not tied to the stock market. Again, it is a matter of personal choice.
Those require you to already have capital to invest and diversify. When I am considered "lucky" for my generation for actually owning a house and having reasonable student loan debt, investing any more than I already do is not an option. And as history has repeatedly shown, when one market crashes it brings down all of them.
Have to work until we drop dead, poor the whole time?
Not at all. Work, live beneath your means, save, and retire comfortably at a time of your choosing.
I work and live beneath my means, but you are actually assuming the economy keeps growing enough to allow for a retirement in 40 years. I am arguing the opposite. Assuming my 401k doesn't get wiped out twice in the next 40 years (or is actually able to rebound) wages have stagnated in regards to inflation so it probably won't be enough and Social Security will already be in the red in less than a decade so I can't rely on that either.
I just put a sticker with the Compaq logo over my Apple logo. Never had my laptop messed with.
You clearly do not understand how the economy works. Yes, there are a small number of corporations and extraordinarily wealthy individuals/families at the top of the income/asset heap. However, the vast majority of the capital in the economy is the retirement savings of individuals and groups (i.e., individual retirement accounts and pension funds). In 2012, total estimated retirement plan assets in the US were $23.7 trillion. When the economy grows, the millions of current and future retirees invested in those plans benefit from the growth, as will the small number of corporations and individuals/families with very large assets. However, the fact remains that a large portion of those profits are already filtering down to regular people in the form of dividends and capital gains in retirement assets.
And when the economy inevitable crashes again because companies are hugely overvalued (especially all the advertising, er, um, "tech" companies) , those retirement savings will be wiped out and the government won't have the money to make up for it.
We have a natural mechanism to distribute those profits: entrepreneurial spirit. I have the privilege to know quite a few entrepreneurs. They are doing some great things. I made a run at it and decided it isn't for me yet. So, I can't on the one hand say "I am unwilling to take the risk of starting my own business" and then on the other say "how come I don't get the same profits as those who are willing take risks?" If the government steps it, it creates a disincentive to innovate.
What I find intensely ironic is that things like Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Facebook, Twitter, and so on arose out of one person or a small group doing something daring. They should be rewarded for their ingenuity, acumen, and for the risk they took. If you want profit, go do something daring.
I'm a reasonably intelligent person, with quite a few skills. Some of the skills I do not have, however, are ones that lend themselves to starting a business or inventing something. There are millions, if not billions of people in the world just like me. All those people who have no hope of starting their own business and becoming the next Musk, Brin, Jobs, or Gates due to either a complete lack of economic opportunity or straight up inherent capability. I guess we're just fucked, then? Have to work until we drop dead, poor the whole time? And in any case, starting your own business doesn't make the slice of the pie any bigger-it stays they same, the only thing that changes is how a big a bite you get to take. The problem with having the only chance to succeed come through becoming one of the 1% is what happens to the other 99%.
I switched to a ketogenic diet last year and am the healthiest I have ever been.
Small sample size, but I recently switched to a "mostly" keto diet and am down about 10 lbs in the last 2 weeks after not losing weight while working out for the past 2-3 months. Cut out most carbs but still trying to keep fats in check to a moderate degree. Hoping I can keep up the pace.
This.
It's no longer just about the quality of the product you or whether your company grew. It's about meeting financial analysts' numbers. Meet them or risk having your stock sold off. And, now with new computer algorithms trading billions of share a day, millions a second, the market is more volatile than ever before.
A butterfly flaps its wings in Bali and an EU company's stock plummets.
I am almost 31 years old. Between the income disparity and instability with tying American wealth to the stock market and the growing racial and political divides in the US I firmly believe that, barring some kind of systemic change, there will be open conflict or unrest on US soil in my lifetime.
And everything you describe is a symptom of consumerism, not capitalism.
Consumerism is a social and economic order that encourages the acquisition of goods and services in ever-increasing amounts.
Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.
And there is no mechanism to prevent the owners of production from gaining ever more profit and accumulating the benefits of that profit, nor to keep them from desiring to do so. Unchecked capitalism is as bad for the economy as unabashed communism. Eventually a significant portion of those profits have to filter back down to everyone else, yet instead more and more of it is being hoarded by companies and individuals. Without a natural mechanism to distribute those profits, government must and has an obligation to step in.
Sailors are not generally trained, organized, equipped, or doctrinally inculcated to serve as 'soldiers'. Likewise 'soldiers' are not generally trained, organized, equipped, or doctrinally inculcated to serve aboard ship, perform amphibious operations, or participate in naval expeditionary campaigns. Because of this the Marines exist.
Exactly my point. The Marines serve a very niche, specialized, and important role. But, that role is not large enough to warrant it's own, independent branch. The Marines rely on the Navy for medical, logistical, and even training support (Naval Academy for Marine officers), and the Navy uses Marines for certain functions as well, such as guarding conventional and nuclear weapons aboard ship. If anything, the Space Force should have a Marine-Navy relationship until it grows too large or becomes operationally necessary to be independent. At that point it would have organically grown most of the logistical and command structure necessary to be an independent branch, making for a relatively easy transition. Right now, it's just forced.
It makes sense younger people would be susceptible to bad ideas and in particular people that say everything should be free. Hell I'd take everything free if I believed someone it was possible. Still these people have no experience, things that are too good to be true often are. And hell at that young age people are voting democrat solely because America is a democracy and democrat sounds similar.
It makes sense that older people, who have accumulated wealth and power, continue to try and grow their wealth by simply rigging the game then decry those younger than them as "lazy" or "entitled" when they state that the game has been rigged against them. All the old people care about is "I got mine, go get yours", not realizing that there is nothing left for them to go get. Boomer's don't care that we are gutting the future of Social Security to pay for the military and tax breaks for corporations or the 1%, they have pensions. Meanwhile the rest of us have to worry about retiring to a vastly reduced Social Security benefit while relying on 401ks that are based upon a stock market with values greatly exceeding the actual worth of the companies being traded.
This is what happens when post-modernists take over the school systems and Western Values are treated as bad instead of good.
Or young people see the generation before them loaded with debt and unable to afford to purchase a house, see a political ruling class that does not care about them, and see companies making record profits and all the money going to an increasingly smaller percentage of the population and are realizing "yep, the system's broken".
If a restaurant makes food that sucks, has piss poor service, and eventually get's fined or closed down by the health department it's not a fake restaurant it's just a really bad restaurant.
If a journal has little to no piss poor review but still manages to publish the journal and organize conferences then it's a really bad publisher. If they are taking money and not making the journal or organizing the conferences then yes they would be Fake. (of course there are other things to consider also which weren't included in tfa)
Incorrect analogy. A shitty restaurant is, as you say, just a shitty restaurant. But a journal that doesn't provide any type of peer review or curating of submissions is like a restaurant that doesn't actually serve any food: they aren't really what they purport to be because they aren't providing an expected, essential service for their industry. Therefore, they are fake.