While I agree some of the causes of your angst, please remember that crowd moderation will always have this kind of side effect. Any crowd-moderated community will frown upon comments which don't agree with said community's majority point of view/beliefs/preferences. Here on Slashdot it happens to be Linux, Android, F/OSS, and the USA.
Posts disagreeing with group think will be downvoted anywhere, ad if that's not possible, they will simply be ignored with the same outcome. just deal with it or go to a forum which agrees with you:)
Note: I am generally not in agreement with group think here, but I don't mind, I'm active on a dozen other communities and I can get my kool-aid there:)
As others have said, many people lie about their ages - at first FB would not allow minors to have accounts, so they would simply say they were at least 18. So that age range of demographics has to be quite skewed as well, especially the 18-25 range.
It still doesn't. Last year I created a Facebook account for my son, because he would get X free whatever-crap-in-game-currency-name-there-is for the farmville-like and dragon-something games he's playing if he connects those games to Facebook. I couldn't add his true birth year, so I told Facebook he was 16 (apparently if you're under 16 you can't make an account, whatever). now this must be the case for a huge number of teens and children under 16: some game or app offers you free Crystals or whatever if you connect your Facebook account, so there ya go. Then parents forget their passwords, new accounts get created, etc. Fake accounts galore.
Extending a deadline for something that benefits the customer is NOT a sign of weakness. If anything, it's a positive measure, no matter the reasons behind it. Yes, the Windows Store sucks donkey balls. I am using it (well, my kids are, I installed maybe 3 apps), it's a mess. So Microsoft knows this and offers customers a way out of that lock-in, because that way out means the customer is kept happy. But if they didn't offer such free upgrade they would have been roasted for THAT reason.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Just make up your bloody mind and roast them for their bad parts only.
About phrasing and wording: the blog announcement is a "bombshell", "a sign of weakness", and Windows S was never "a great idea in theory", it was an experiment. The experiment has been concluded, participants are being offered cookies and the company hopefully learned something out of it.
But it's not. The same argument can be used the other way around. An open product keeps being developed for as long as there's demand for it. If all demand stops, development usually stops soon after, and sometimes it stops even when there's still some demand left. So by this equally-twisted logic, you should thank that "someone demanding something for nothing".
"Your argument is that Hollywood movies mostly feature all-white casts because it's mostly all white people who want to become actors?"
No. I never said, implied or thought of that. Also I have no idea whether "movies mostly feature all-white casts". Do they? I haven't counted. Have you? I really don't know. What I tried to say is that we don't know how many (white or non-white or whatever) actors auditioning for movies are turned down and why. We have no data at hand. So I'm not implying there's more of *this* race or *that* race, I'm saying I don't have any data at hand to show either.
"But what exactly are those stereotypes for a white man that prevent a Latino or Black guy from playing the same role?"
Well for once I can think of a crapton of historically-set movies in which various races would not fit, simply because they would make the movie not believable. Yes, it's sad and shameful that both women and other races were not given as many meaningful roles in the Western Civilization throughout history as they should, not until recently at least, but the past is the past and if you try to make a movie about past events which feature black/hispano/female politicians, businesspeople or leaders, it would be awkward to watch.
"consider the incredibly low number of movies that can pass the embarrassingly low bar of the Bechdel test."
Never heard of that, so it made me curious. Wikipedia says "About half of all films meet these requirements, according to user-edited databases and the media industry press." I wouldn't qualify that percentage as "incredibly low" but what do I know... Could you give me a figure that would not be "incredibly low", because I'm trying to work with hard data here, be objective, and that estimation is subjective.
No, because the EU laws don't allow for that douchebaggery to exist. I work in the EU and there are big signs at entry doors warning that the place is being monitored through CCTV, We have signed a separate document which details what exactly is being monitored, how and for how long, with a list of cases where monitoring would happen, etc. I do know that all files on my company-issued laptop are scanned and their file names (NOT the contents) are saved for later scrutiny if need be, but in order for that scrutiny to occur, there needs to be a good, legally-established reason. Files and their contents are backed into the cloud, but I get to choose which ones should be backed up, it's my responsibility to select them (and the privilege to not select the ones I don't want backed up). There is an expectation for reasonable use of company assets for personal reasons, with top 5% overall users of, say, mobile data being informed they are in top 5% and still not monitored in detail, only told "hey, during the last X months you've been using a lot of mobile data, please try to reduce usage".
This helps employees be less paranoid and focus on work rather than avoiding employer scrutiny.
Ask the viewers. If something feels forced in a movie, it will be detected and the movie will lose entertainment value.
The part you mention about "lots of non-white actors auditioning for parts" etc., we should talk about it when we have hard data at hand. Otherwise it's just say-so.
I'm not trying to dive deep into it, but you can't simply replace a black actor with a white actor or the other way around and keep everything else the same. Could you imagine any white actor successfully replacing Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction while keeping his character development intact?
Why not? What does it cost the movie if bit-actor #27 is black instead of white?
Nothing. But I was replying to this: "Add in a bunch of different Asian ethnicities, a smattering of other races, a few women who are actually competent and opinionated enough to hold their own, rather than just being eye-candy."
Such attempt would transform the movie into a series of politically-correct stock images, much like the "business meeting" ones (reference: https://ak8.picdn.net/shutters...). It feels forced because it IS forced.
A character's skin color is irrelevant, however forcing various races in a movie solely to appease SJWs is retarded.
Do you really fail to understand the difference between "cliche" and "entertainment"? I care about character development, storyline and the universe inside which the movie is built, rather than how actors look like or the percentage of *this* or *that* skin color in the movie. I thoroughly enjoyed "12 Angry Men" (the 1957 version) without asking myself for a second "why is the whole jury white?" - because frankly it did not matter. I've also watched (and enjoyed) "all-black" movies without as much as a shadow of a white person in them... guess why... because it did not matter. On the same note I thoroughly disliked series like Xena and Buffy the Vampire Slayer because scantily clad ladies with full makeup and the whole nine yards don't match at all with the series setting.
I'd be more worried about movie "hackers" saying "I'm in" after 10 seconds of mashing buttons not inspiring ANYONE to pursue an IT career, rather than their gender or skin color having the same effect. But hey, maybe it's just me.
Oh and I have no "agenda" - I treat people based on their character, not appearance. I'm uglier than most anyway, and I'm often being reminded of that - which, if anything, made me more willing to balance it with my mind, rather than "demand to be equal" (Which I'm not. I'm ugly and that is forever, even if I would force people around me to lie about it.)
Add in a bunch of different Asian ethnicities, a smattering of other races, a few women who are actually competent and opinionated enough to hold their own, rather than just being eye-candy. And the lot of them spread across the social-competency spectrum from the smart-dressing player to the morbidly obese cheeto-powered coder., instead of predominantly representing the least-attractive stereotypes.
Mod parent up. I've been bugged by recruiters offering me jobs I knew I was unqualified for, and insisting "that's okay, you will do fine" even while I was telling them with as much clarity as possible "I DO NOT KNOW any of that shit, nor am i interested in learning it, because it's not a fucking career goal for me!"
Um... first the browser sends all that data to the NSA. The NSA matches the time and place you entered Google.com and cross-checks that with the information it has to verify whether you're a terrorist. Regardless of the result, they will continue to monitor you.
This behavior is slowly but surely taking root in my (3rd world by some) country as well. Most open positions are contractor-type through a dedicated outsource hiring company (e.g. Manpower, Rinf, etc). They pay well but the beneficiary can get rid of you much easier by just telling the middleman "we don't need this guy anymore".
I also prefer online radio to regular radio for the following reasons: - thousands of stations to choose from; - specialized stations grouped by category are available; - When a song I like starts streaming, I can pull the device I listen with (usually phone) and copy the song info (artist, title) and either look them up on the Internet, or transfer that info to my Evernote document for later searching; - if for some reason I want to switch, I tap a button and switch to the next online radio in the same category; - no generic crap music is being streamed - because the categories I choose don't stream said crap; - online radios do actually compete with each other.
Before I was married I found my girls in metal clubs. I rarely drink and never did drugs. Now that I'm married and have kids, even metal clubs are a thing of the past.
But married or not, I never was able to enjoy that kind of weird combination of things you mentioned. I think I'm just a hippie who had the misfortune of being born 3 decades too late.
Two people punching each other has some entertainment value. I'm not sure what, but apparently plenty of people are willing to pay $100 to watch that.
It's a combination of things: - appealing your primitive emotions (watching members of the same species smashing each other is a strong enabler); - forbidding you from experiencing the same event personally, with the exceptions of some very specific places and people (aka "creating scarcity"); - making this a rare enough event (aka "creating more scarcity") - making you believe you want to watch it (ads, commercials, more ads, more commercials) - peer pressure ("all my friends watch it, I should too, otherwise they'll think less of me").
Thank you:) I've been told that a lot in the past, and with foreign languages the secret is to remain immersed at all times. Watch movies in that language, talk to people in that language, etc. Best would be to live in a foreign country for a while, you'll learn that language in no time.
As for me, working for an USA-based company (they have a large development center in my puny East-European country), it's easy. Most good movies, music and online communities being all in English helps tremendously as well.
I'll be devil's advocate for a bit (mind you, I value my privacy but at the same time I try to remain objective even though I don't like what I see):
You say "people don't want to be spied on" and I agree, fully. there's a small problem though... most data mining isn't the same as spying. I had to look up the definition, because I wasn't sure myself:
verb verb: spy; 3rd person present: spies; past tense: spied; past participle: spied; gerund or present participle: spying 1. work for a government or other organization by secretly obtaining information about enemies or competitors. "he agreed to spy for the West" synonyms: be a spy, be engaged in spying, gather intelligence, work for the secret service; More observe (someone) furtively. "the couple were spied on by reporters" synonyms: observe furtively, keep under surveillance, watch, keep a watch on, keep an eye on, keep under observation, follow, shadow, trail; More collect information about something to use in deciding how to act. "he would go and spy out the land" 2. discern or make out, especially by careful observation. "he could spy a figure in the distance"
None of the above apply. Customers are not enemies or competitors. The information that's gathered is public. Most people will choose to opt-in if asked, because it would make their experience at said restaurant more enjoyable in the future. Hell, I would opt-in... as a matter of fact, many places I am a regular of (from farmer's markets to the local store around the corner to supermarkets) employ people who recognize me, know what I usually buy and put aside some cans of Dr Pepper or 5 ties of carrots (did I say that right?) etc.
This particular case (with restaurants) is one of those where it's just a matter of automating and optimizing information that was already processed, only less effectively. Become a regular at any restaurant and they will know and remember your preferences, usual hours, etc.
Finally, foaming at the mouth about ANY occurrence where data produced by you is being used makes people look ridiculous and just a tiny bit fanatic. Just try to be objective, recognize positive outcomes where they exist and, please, by all means, fight the evil ones with all your strength!
Understood. English isn't my native language and at times there are some communication inconsistencies, which I struggle to minimize but they do happen nevertheless.
"you can NOT determine which product is more likely to be bad" needs to be rephrased, of course. What I wanted to say is "you can NOT determine which product is worse, based on reviews". Meaning "if you assume any of the products being worse than the other one solely based on that data, it would be akin to guessing".
I hope that clarifies things and I apologize for the vagueness of my earlier statement.
Slashdot Mirror
While I agree some of the causes of your angst, please remember that crowd moderation will always have this kind of side effect.
Any crowd-moderated community will frown upon comments which don't agree with said community's majority point of view/beliefs/preferences. Here on Slashdot it happens to be Linux, Android, F/OSS, and the USA.
Posts disagreeing with group think will be downvoted anywhere, ad if that's not possible, they will simply be ignored with the same outcome. just deal with it or go to a forum which agrees with you :)
Note: I am generally not in agreement with group think here, but I don't mind, I'm active on a dozen other communities and I can get my kool-aid there :)
As others have said, many people lie about their ages - at first FB would not allow minors to have accounts, so they would simply say they were at least 18. So that age range of demographics has to be quite skewed as well, especially the 18-25 range.
It still doesn't.
Last year I created a Facebook account for my son, because he would get X free whatever-crap-in-game-currency-name-there-is for the farmville-like and dragon-something games he's playing if he connects those games to Facebook. I couldn't add his true birth year, so I told Facebook he was 16 (apparently if you're under 16 you can't make an account, whatever). now this must be the case for a huge number of teens and children under 16: some game or app offers you free Crystals or whatever if you connect your Facebook account, so there ya go. Then parents forget their passwords, new accounts get created, etc. Fake accounts galore.
Extending a deadline for something that benefits the customer is NOT a sign of weakness. If anything, it's a positive measure, no matter the reasons behind it.
Yes, the Windows Store sucks donkey balls. I am using it (well, my kids are, I installed maybe 3 apps), it's a mess. So Microsoft knows this and offers customers a way out of that lock-in, because that way out means the customer is kept happy.
But if they didn't offer such free upgrade they would have been roasted for THAT reason.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Just make up your bloody mind and roast them for their bad parts only.
About phrasing and wording: the blog announcement is a "bombshell", "a sign of weakness", and Windows S was never "a great idea in theory", it was an experiment. The experiment has been concluded, participants are being offered cookies and the company hopefully learned something out of it.
But it's not.
The same argument can be used the other way around. An open product keeps being developed for as long as there's demand for it. If all demand stops, development usually stops soon after, and sometimes it stops even when there's still some demand left. So by this equally-twisted logic, you should thank that "someone demanding something for nothing".
Dude, seriously... ease off.
"Your argument is that Hollywood movies mostly feature all-white casts because it's mostly all white people who want to become actors?"
No. I never said, implied or thought of that. Also I have no idea whether "movies mostly feature all-white casts". Do they? I haven't counted. Have you? I really don't know. What I tried to say is that we don't know how many (white or non-white or whatever) actors auditioning for movies are turned down and why. We have no data at hand. So I'm not implying there's more of *this* race or *that* race, I'm saying I don't have any data at hand to show either.
"But what exactly are those stereotypes for a white man that prevent a Latino or Black guy from playing the same role?"
Well for once I can think of a crapton of historically-set movies in which various races would not fit, simply because they would make the movie not believable. Yes, it's sad and shameful that both women and other races were not given as many meaningful roles in the Western Civilization throughout history as they should, not until recently at least, but the past is the past and if you try to make a movie about past events which feature black/hispano/female politicians, businesspeople or leaders, it would be awkward to watch.
"consider the incredibly low number of movies that can pass the embarrassingly low bar of the Bechdel test."
Never heard of that, so it made me curious. Wikipedia says "About half of all films meet these requirements, according to user-edited databases and the media industry press." I wouldn't qualify that percentage as "incredibly low" but what do I know... Could you give me a figure that would not be "incredibly low", because I'm trying to work with hard data here, be objective, and that estimation is subjective.
No, because the EU laws don't allow for that douchebaggery to exist.
I work in the EU and there are big signs at entry doors warning that the place is being monitored through CCTV,
We have signed a separate document which details what exactly is being monitored, how and for how long, with a list of cases where monitoring would happen, etc.
I do know that all files on my company-issued laptop are scanned and their file names (NOT the contents) are saved for later scrutiny if need be, but in order for that scrutiny to occur, there needs to be a good, legally-established reason.
Files and their contents are backed into the cloud, but I get to choose which ones should be backed up, it's my responsibility to select them (and the privilege to not select the ones I don't want backed up).
There is an expectation for reasonable use of company assets for personal reasons, with top 5% overall users of, say, mobile data being informed they are in top 5% and still not monitored in detail, only told "hey, during the last X months you've been using a lot of mobile data, please try to reduce usage".
This helps employees be less paranoid and focus on work rather than avoiding employer scrutiny.
Ask the viewers.
If something feels forced in a movie, it will be detected and the movie will lose entertainment value.
The part you mention about "lots of non-white actors auditioning for parts" etc., we should talk about it when we have hard data at hand. Otherwise it's just say-so.
I'm not trying to dive deep into it, but you can't simply replace a black actor with a white actor or the other way around and keep everything else the same. Could you imagine any white actor successfully replacing Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction while keeping his character development intact?
Why not? What does it cost the movie if bit-actor #27 is black instead of white?
Nothing. But I was replying to this:
"Add in a bunch of different Asian ethnicities, a smattering of other races, a few women who are actually competent and opinionated enough to hold their own, rather than just being eye-candy."
Such attempt would transform the movie into a series of politically-correct stock images, much like the "business meeting" ones (reference: https://ak8.picdn.net/shutters...). It feels forced because it IS forced.
A character's skin color is irrelevant, however forcing various races in a movie solely to appease SJWs is retarded.
Do you really fail to understand the difference between "cliche" and "entertainment"?
I care about character development, storyline and the universe inside which the movie is built, rather than how actors look like or the percentage of *this* or *that* skin color in the movie. I thoroughly enjoyed "12 Angry Men" (the 1957 version) without asking myself for a second "why is the whole jury white?" - because frankly it did not matter. I've also watched (and enjoyed) "all-black" movies without as much as a shadow of a white person in them... guess why... because it did not matter. On the same note I thoroughly disliked series like Xena and Buffy the Vampire Slayer because scantily clad ladies with full makeup and the whole nine yards don't match at all with the series setting.
I'd be more worried about movie "hackers" saying "I'm in" after 10 seconds of mashing buttons not inspiring ANYONE to pursue an IT career, rather than their gender or skin color having the same effect. But hey, maybe it's just me.
Oh and I have no "agenda" - I treat people based on their character, not appearance. I'm uglier than most anyway, and I'm often being reminded of that - which, if anything, made me more willing to balance it with my mind, rather than "demand to be equal" (Which I'm not. I'm ugly and that is forever, even if I would force people around me to lie about it.)
Or, you know, something more accurate?
Add in a bunch of different Asian ethnicities, a smattering of other races, a few women who are actually competent and opinionated enough to hold their own, rather than just being eye-candy. And the lot of them spread across the social-competency spectrum from the smart-dressing player to the morbidly obese cheeto-powered coder., instead of predominantly representing the least-attractive stereotypes.
...and end up with movies nobody would watch.
Bitcoin data right now on Bittrex:
24h high: $4945
24h low: $4204.113
That's volatile as shit.
Open a hole, bookworm! :)
Oh wait, that can't happen unless it's your own
Congrats, your company doesn't need a no-reply method :)
That doesn't mean all companies fit the bill you do.
Mod parent up.
I've been bugged by recruiters offering me jobs I knew I was unqualified for, and insisting "that's okay, you will do fine" even while I was telling them with as much clarity as possible "I DO NOT KNOW any of that shit, nor am i interested in learning it, because it's not a fucking career goal for me!"
Um... first the browser sends all that data to the NSA. The NSA matches the time and place you entered Google.com and cross-checks that with the information it has to verify whether you're a terrorist. Regardless of the result, they will continue to monitor you.
Did I win?
This behavior is slowly but surely taking root in my (3rd world by some) country as well. Most open positions are contractor-type through a dedicated outsource hiring company (e.g. Manpower, Rinf, etc). They pay well but the beneficiary can get rid of you much easier by just telling the middleman "we don't need this guy anymore".
I also prefer online radio to regular radio for the following reasons:
- thousands of stations to choose from;
- specialized stations grouped by category are available;
- When a song I like starts streaming, I can pull the device I listen with (usually phone) and copy the song info (artist, title) and either look them up on the Internet, or transfer that info to my Evernote document for later searching;
- if for some reason I want to switch, I tap a button and switch to the next online radio in the same category;
- no generic crap music is being streamed - because the categories I choose don't stream said crap;
- online radios do actually compete with each other.
Not in most movies I watched.
Wait... does it matter that they're all porn?
Greg Egan FTW.
Bitcoin isn't any less volatile than said countries' volatile economies. While I certainly hope it's going to become very stable, I doubt it.
Before I was married I found my girls in metal clubs. I rarely drink and never did drugs.
Now that I'm married and have kids, even metal clubs are a thing of the past.
But married or not, I never was able to enjoy that kind of weird combination of things you mentioned. I think I'm just a hippie who had the misfortune of being born 3 decades too late.
Two people punching each other has some entertainment value. I'm not sure what, but apparently plenty of people are willing to pay $100 to watch that.
It's a combination of things:
- appealing your primitive emotions (watching members of the same species smashing each other is a strong enabler);
- forbidding you from experiencing the same event personally, with the exceptions of some very specific places and people (aka "creating scarcity");
- making this a rare enough event (aka "creating more scarcity")
- making you believe you want to watch it (ads, commercials, more ads, more commercials)
- peer pressure ("all my friends watch it, I should too, otherwise they'll think less of me").
Thank you :)
I've been told that a lot in the past, and with foreign languages the secret is to remain immersed at all times. Watch movies in that language, talk to people in that language, etc. Best would be to live in a foreign country for a while, you'll learn that language in no time.
As for me, working for an USA-based company (they have a large development center in my puny East-European country), it's easy. Most good movies, music and online communities being all in English helps tremendously as well.
I'll be devil's advocate for a bit (mind you, I value my privacy but at the same time I try to remain objective even though I don't like what I see):
You say "people don't want to be spied on" and I agree, fully. there's a small problem though... most data mining isn't the same as spying.
I had to look up the definition, because I wasn't sure myself:
verb
verb: spy; 3rd person present: spies; past tense: spied; past participle: spied; gerund or present participle: spying
1.
work for a government or other organization by secretly obtaining information about enemies or competitors.
"he agreed to spy for the West"
synonyms: be a spy, be engaged in spying, gather intelligence, work for the secret service; More
observe (someone) furtively.
"the couple were spied on by reporters"
synonyms: observe furtively, keep under surveillance, watch, keep a watch on, keep an eye on, keep under observation, follow, shadow, trail; More
collect information about something to use in deciding how to act.
"he would go and spy out the land"
2.
discern or make out, especially by careful observation.
"he could spy a figure in the distance"
None of the above apply. Customers are not enemies or competitors. The information that's gathered is public. Most people will choose to opt-in if asked, because it would make their experience at said restaurant more enjoyable in the future. Hell, I would opt-in... as a matter of fact, many places I am a regular of (from farmer's markets to the local store around the corner to supermarkets) employ people who recognize me, know what I usually buy and put aside some cans of Dr Pepper or 5 ties of carrots (did I say that right?) etc.
This particular case (with restaurants) is one of those where it's just a matter of automating and optimizing information that was already processed, only less effectively. Become a regular at any restaurant and they will know and remember your preferences, usual hours, etc.
Finally, foaming at the mouth about ANY occurrence where data produced by you is being used makes people look ridiculous and just a tiny bit fanatic.
Just try to be objective, recognize positive outcomes where they exist and, please, by all means, fight the evil ones with all your strength!
Understood. English isn't my native language and at times there are some communication inconsistencies, which I struggle to minimize but they do happen nevertheless.
"you can NOT determine which product is more likely to be bad" needs to be rephrased, of course.
What I wanted to say is "you can NOT determine which product is worse, based on reviews".
Meaning "if you assume any of the products being worse than the other one solely based on that data, it would be akin to guessing".
I hope that clarifies things and I apologize for the vagueness of my earlier statement.