Cinnamon clearly stated that the harassment of men in the games industry is more frequent (per capita, I'm hoping) and perhaps more vitriolic than for women.
Though considering how the bots/sockpuppets are persecuting these ladies (fewer but more intense personal attacks), I'm not sure how that's possible.
I meant in general at the very least, and I'm generally going to go with the level of vitriol the target of the harassment judges it to be. I mean, I really don't want to try to figure out how to objectively judge such things as harassment that's spilling over to death threats to their partner...yes, it's happened, I don't have permission to give more details.
Part of the issue here is intersectionality--a woman is more likely to get support, a man is more likely to be told to STFU and man up, which causes problems with reporting. This is actually pretty sexist, since it's an extension of women-as-victims; one of the problems is that if you want gender equality? You need to care about all of it--and deal with the fact that sometimes, the sexist assumptions only appear to benefit women. (I actually am part of the school that all gender bias is harmful to everybody--and that even the things that appear to benefit men or women over the other group are in fact toxic to both groups and exclusionary to anybody who doesn't want to follow the social role assigned to their sex. In case some of you missed it? I ain't cis.)
What is wrong with you people, that you can't even bring yourselves to say things like "Anybody can be harassed and harassment is wrong"?
... Well I'm not a fan of the anti-gamergaters either, but this question is pretty easy to answer: it's deflection. If someone says, "Look, this group in particular is being singled out and harassed." and you respond, "Hm, yes harassment is bad. Before we do anything else, let's all say that harassment is bad." then you are deflecting from their complaint by changing the topic to something which they hadn't really been discussing. The other person was not talking about harassment being bad, there was an implication that we all already agreed on that point, the other person was talking about this particular group being singled out.
If you think it's deflecting, you missed some of what was going on. The point here is that establishing basic things like that--such as agreeing that the behavior being discussed is unacceptable--is important, especially given that some of the anti-gamergaters decided to say legitimately disturbing things like that sexual exploitation is A-OK if the woman does not complain about it. I'm sorry, but by definition, any exchange of good review for sex or a job for sex is sexual exploitation, sexual harassment, and depending on the local laws may count as rape by coercion. None of these things should be remotely okay, ever.
No, I'm not kidding about the last one. People have even been successfully put in jail on that specific charge.
It also is something to say to establish that you are, in fact, saying "This group in particular is being singled out for harassment" instead of the unfortunately normal one of "This is the only group whose harassment we actually care about about."
Maybe, someday, it won't be necessary to insist that only explicit statements of "This is bad for everybody" be acceptable as establishing something that ought to be this basic and obvious is agreed upon. It isn't yet, and as long you keep insisting that being asked to confirm that you agree to what ought to be the damn basics is deflection it won't happen. Save calling it deflection for when the normal response by both sides to somebody who lets slip that they don't agree with that is for everybody to get together to call them out as the sick fucks they are.
That's a very long post about Price, but she lost her job and bares no responsibly for the mob that used her firing to instigate an attack on other random women.
I disagree; she's at least partially responsible for it as she ought to have had the basic sense to realize that her flipping out (and having a rant that would be widely agreed to be misogynist if the roles were reversed) would have consequences--she doesn't seem to even understand that her getting fired was one.
Given that this sort of behavior was apparently pretty normal for Ms. Price, it seems very likely that she had held onto her job this long because of positive discrimination--which makes her a pretty good example of how it can be harmful. Therefore: One of the countermeasures that is necessary is making it clear that professional behavior is going to be the exact same for everybody and held to the same standards...and that complaints of unprofessional behavior, especially anonymous ones, need to come with evidence. Don't wait to fire somebody for unprofessional behavior just because of $whatever, and do be able to show what specific example of unprofessional behavior it was.
You are aware that you can find archives of 4chan threads and if you're correct about 'they discussed doing it openly on 4chan,' it should be not impossible for you to show proof?
Odds are they're posting AC because people like you would ramp up the harassment if given some idea where to go.
Honestly, I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if a major factor in why men might have it worse is because of douchebags like you, who apparently believe that it's A-OK if men get harassed--which is the message you send when you dismiss their complaints casually, and yes, that can on its own make it worse. Harassment is bad, and if you believe your target and/or motives somehow justify it, you are part of the problem.
Seriously, this sort of thing is part of why I'm not at all comfortable with the anti-gamergate side. What is wrong with you people, that you can't even bring yourselves to say things like "Anybody can be harassed and harassment is wrong"? That shouldn't be controversial, yet it is getting treated like it not only is controversial but is offensive.
What worker will go out to, up and down a wind turbine, then back home for $200?
I hear it's one of the most dangerous jobs out there, so I'd say that we can start with "It's either a very short tower, or a very underpaid (respective of risk) worker."
I'd guess that all the numbers in the post above--$1K worth of electricity a month, $200 labor by one person, $0.50 part--are at least a couple orders of magnitude too small, including the number of people required to do the job safely.
Though, if you can only afford to build and maintain the things via subsidies, it's not actually sustainable. Sustainable should be economically sustainable as well once it's had around a decade to get itself off the ground.
I do not understand why workers should benefit from a union if they are not paying for it. If you do not want to pay for the union you get what the company will offer you. A union should not have to negotiate for non-union members.
You do realize that, in the opinion of not insignificant number of non-union members, the issue is that the union does not do a decent job of representing them, right? The side that's actually going to protest this more is the unions, because if you can't be forced to join and they can't claim to represent you if you didn't, this means they can't do very much if they failed to convince people that there is a benefit to joining.
Never assume anybody who turns up to represent a group in negotiations actually has the right to do so, and will accurately act in the interests of those they say they represent. Even if everybody involved seems honest and well-meaning, you should check. It will at least ensure that you don't find yourself having to try to convince people that it was perfectly reasonable for you to believe 'Fakey McRingerson' was...well...not accurately named.
I live in a Right to Work state. We also have unions in this state. So.. you're wrong? At least I think you're wrong. It isn't exactly clear what your point was supposed to be.
I do, too. It means I cannot be required to join the union or pay union dues. That is exactly what the person's point is, and it means that unions in those states have to actually be responsive to the members because they don't have a captive membership.
Which is why I think, in every country with socialized medicine, there should be a feedback mechanism: you go to the doctor and at the end you get a receipt with a code, some time later, maybe more than once, you receive an email that simply asks you if the treatment was effective. Simple yes or no answer, with possibly bonus questions about side effects etc... It would be invaluable to find useless drugs, side effects, bad doctors, groups of people with different drug reactions than others, etc... And if you never answer you get a blame or something; I mean, at least you give something back this way.
Well, you'd also need to randomly ask the doctors, too, to control for some patients confusing 'effective' for 'functioning potion of cure-everything.'
Overall, though, improvements in study design protocols would go a long way here too--within-subjects designs will give you good data even if you've got a total sample of one person, though this will limit your ability to generalize the results since the rule of thumb is that your sample must represent the population it's supposed to be from. (Yes, this means representation is incredibly important: A sample made up of White male college students can only tell you about White male college students. Not bad if you mostly are trying to show that your experiment can be done in the first place, but very bad if you want to directly apply the results to, say, elderly African-American grandmothers.)
However, it's a lot faster and easier to run between-subjects studies, because those designs are a lot simpler. For the same reasons, there's quite a bit of research where the sample is quite representative...of the population who might pass through a particular hallway at the local university, or other strangely specific populations. This also is a reason some studies' results are not replicable--different population is different.
---
“Many guidelines are actually written mainly for commercial purposes or public relations purposes,” said Poses, and can be subtly shaped to promote a given course of treatment. A guideline written for the treatment of depression, for example, may emphasize pharmaceuticals over talk therapy.
“The organizations writing the guidelines may be getting millions of dollars from big drug companies that want to promote a product. The people writing them may have similar conflicts of interest,” Poses said. NGC’s process provided a resource comparatively free of that kind of influence.
----
Arguably this is just swamp draining. The summary sucks this advertising platform's cock pretty hard, but this is not some thing where "trump destroys science" like all the fucking comments are running with.
That sounds like it's not even actually evidence-based, given that the point with depression at which pharmaceuticals actually start being significantly better than non-pharmaceutical treatments is when you hit severe depression--especially given that good large swath of antidepressants cause dependency...and, in general, doctors don't know this so they don't know to warn their patients.
If it's as widely used as claimed, and it doesn't include that sort of info--which we've known for most of a decade at least, as well as the simple fact that you need to go off them if pregnant (meaning, effectively, that pregnancies will have to be planned)--then it may not be worth mourning too much.
What I see on Slashdot is an awful lot of non-doctors (myself included) pontificating on this move. Is it really widely used? I don't know. All *I* (and the rest of you) have to go on is the demonstrated value which currently is zero as there are no takers to carry on this data.
Not a doctor yet, but I am a biomedical nerd and aware of how useful those in the research area tend to consider best practices guidelines--and my first question about this actually was "Why is this not at NIH?"
The general rule of thumb is that the lag time is too long between where the research says are the medical best practices and what any published list anywhere will say--part of this is because, to put it bluntly, most doctors aren't particularly into research and don't keep up with it. Those best practices databases aren't going to be getting kept up-to-date and current, and I honestly don't think there's a solution for this short of starting from scratch--if nothing else, because each and every entry should have a date on it saying when it was last checked on and it should be routinely gone into to add data. There is no such thing as too much data if you're trying to figure out what works in which populations; the more you have, the more certain you can be...and the more likely you are to be able to pin down which populations that have strange responses, which is pretty much a basic requirement if you want to do anything more than shrug and move on...and it's also a requirement for improving and fine-tuning the evidence.
So, the FCC wants to charge you $225 to review your complaint.
From the sound of it and what somebody has posted of the current rules, it is implying that the FCC is wanting to change the rules. If nothing else, it's clickbait tactics which shouldn't be given the time of day.
Mine are as follow : "In actual practice - the FCC logs complaints to a database , company ignore the complaint and forward it , and FCC DO NOT acts when there are many similar complaints against a company, or similar companies and will now ONLY start to act when there is a formal $225 paid complaint".
In other words, the FCC continues to operate like any other government agency when not given a carrot, and the only change is that they perhaps finally admit it.
Sure, but it doesn't have to... other countries manage to run it well.
Most of them also had their public transit infrastructure bombed to ruins about 75 years ago, have maintained their systems well, and are vastly smaller. You couldn't put a high-speed rail line through either Boswash or its West Coast equivalent, now, and a lot of the US rail right-of-ways got short-sightedly sold off decades ago.
You want to spend the increased efficiency on tit suckers? Not everything is a 'do nothing' jobs program.
I donno, if it's a complete replacement for public transportation, it'd be hard-pressed to suck harder than most US public transit systems. On the other hand, it'll almost certainly inherit such problems as politicians punishing districts for voting 'wrong' by having them get worse service...
This is very much a YMMV thing. I live in a state which does cover its DOT budget with gas taxes pretty well--on the other hand, it's also made a damn point of keeping roads maintained, which massively cuts down on the overall costs, and last I heard by state law, the gas taxes can only be spent on the roads. The part of the budget that's not covered by gas taxes is covered completely by the various fees and the like that the state DOT collects. (They make this info public, and very easily found.)
I'd not be in the least bit surprised that the degree to which roads pay for themselves is influenced by how much the local politicians are allowed to siphon money to other purposes, and admittedly it helps here that the gas tax is now indexed to inflation and therefore will adjust itself regularly.
Excellent job taking averages and making it look like it will work.
Well, that means for half of the population it will.
That's not how averages work--for example, the 'average American' is a statistical chimera, because nobody's actually going to have those exact stats, especially if you start throwing in things like fractional children.
I'd actually recommend working off the assumption on any research about this that it's utter and complete junk at this point--if nothing else, because we don't have ridesharing driverless cars, the only possible source of numbers on how much using the network might cost is somebody's rectum. Once a service opens up we will have actual numbers, and it could easily be that the service is priced out of reach for anybody but people who could afford a personal chaffer, for example...or is cheap, but occasionally kidnaps people and doesn't care if you don't want to carpool with Mr. Confused By No.
I agree that fascism has often prospered under a banner of communism [...]
I don't know who you are agreeing with, but it isn't me. I did not claim that fascism has been passed off as communism. Here, let me put some emphasis in the key words in the first line: "Historically speaking, communism and fascism are forks of a GUI for a totalitarian operating system."
Or, to use your phrasing, I said that totalitarianism has often prospered under a banner of communism and fascism.
Probably not "communism", the "People" is of no importance *at all*. It's more like a form of textbook fascism.
Historically speaking, communism and fascism are forks of a GUI for a totalitarian operating system. Bringing this up tends to get both pissed off, which is part of why both are in (hilarious) agreement about glossing over the early history of fascism and its political roots, which is sad because a lot of historical irony is involved. (The main reason the fascists snagged support from the conservatives was more than anything else because the fascists rejected the idea that class warfare was necessary; it doesn't really look like anybody was particularly expecting capitalism to survive to the 21st century.)
As someone who used to work 15 hours a day in a warehouse, I take great offense to calling people incompetent if they cannot meet quotas. Nobody can meet quota in places like that, and since quotas are "adjusted" by computers for a variety of hidden variables we were not allowed to know, it's impossible to know why you weren't meeting quota at all. Even the managers didn't know how our numbers were calculated.
Eventually they came around and told me I was below quota, and they wanted me to sign all kinds of papers enrolling me into some improvement plan. Instead, I gave them a three week notice. If I was incompetent, they sure didn't show it, since they tried really hard to keep me working there.
You are likely describing a constructive discharge. Sometimes it stops if you are open about knowing that they are attempting to get you to quit by making the job environment hostile, because HR doesn't want to have the legal trouble.
Presumably managers aren't entirely terrible, the coworkers agreeing with him 70% of the time doesn't sound very outlandish to me.
What makes you think that such agreement is only to avoid retaliation?
Presumably, they are not pulling a jury from people under the manager who is having to argue the case for firing.
Honestly, I'd argue that the 30% is actually a rather high number, because it suggests that 3 out of every 10 attempts to fire an employee are for bad reasons. You want the number of managers who lose to be low--by having the majority of employees facing firing doing so for good reasons, not because their manager has taken a dislike to them or has merely been promoted above their competence level.
The focus should be on the quality of the research, not the reputation of the journal.
The whole publish or perish is caused by them not being willing to judge the quality of the research. They are operating on the philosophy that the higher quantity of papers you publish and the more prestigious the journal, the better the research. They are basically using the journals to "grade" the research.
The concern about the prestige of the journals wouldn't be quite as much of an issue if 'published in a prestigious journal' was strongly and positively correlated with 'is high-quality, important paper.' Prestige seems to correlate more to the name of the journal, right now, which may admittedly be more due to inertia than anything else right now. Used to it had a lot to do with number of citations papers published in them recieve, and open access journals tend to get more because it's just plain less of a pain to get at papers published in there. (Yes, yes, interlibrary loan, but those get processed via snail mail even when what you're getting is a photocopy or even a print-out. When you've only a couple months to get all the papers you need gathered, that's much too much time to spend waiting.) Possibly having it so there's a 'time factor' in figuring out the prestige--so older journals don't have a built-in advantage that may hide a decline in their quality--would help fix this.
The quantity is the bigger issue, because in some fields there simply is an upper limit to how quickly you can produce quality research--especially since there's an emphasis being placed on it also being unique, and 'same study but using a more diverse population' doesn't appear to count.
Yeah, to me its deletion from GitHub is pretty obvious--it's not a program or data for a program, of course it ought to go--and I'm a bit disgusted by the double-standards of a lot of the people here. Would the people here be as offended if the list deleted was, say, "LGBT employees of Google"? How about "Non-White Health Care Workers in Random City"? These kinds of lists are a problem because they invite harassment of the people on the list--and it's disturbing to see people thinking it's somehow okay to do this when it's the 'right' people getting harassed, because that basically means that you will have to be careful about expressing any ideas which might risk you at some point (now or in the future) finding yourself on one of those lists...and that won't protect you against being included by accident or because somebody wanting revenge or a petty power play.
Some communities just don't seem to have much of a podcasting culture. A bit of effort to develop one seems reasonable.
That's precisely why I suggested making the tools needed easier to get. If there's not a podcasting culture already, the main hurdle is getting yourself started--do you need a separate mic or is the one on your computer good enough? If not, what kind of mic? What about headphones? Which software is essential, which is optional? On that last one, can you manage to find good FOSS or at least free programs or should you expect to be shelling out money on software too just to get started?
If you're just wanting to put some effort into developing one? A good guide to what you need would be unbelievably useful. Google also is excellently positioned to ensure that there are free programs of the necessary quality that are user-friendly, too.
You aren't going to create a sustainable podcasting culture within any group just by having the promotion algorithms in your podcast player app be essentially bigoted. You do it by actually making sure people can easily get started.
Oh, and being trustworthy. I'm in several of the groups they want to promote in podcasting, actually had been seriously considering it, but remember, I know what Google is doing over at YouTube to minority content producers. I am not at all sure I care to trust Google to not turn on me just because somebody got offended by the discovery that they have been living in their own little reality. (It'd be an educational podcast with definite care on the scholarship side, since its point is to get people to not be accidentally offensively ignorant.)
That's a very odd interpretation of wanting to increase diversity. Surely the must believe the very opposite - that colour doesn't matter when it comes to podcast quality.
If you really believe that color doesn't matter when it comes to podcast quality, then your efforts to increase diversity should be focused on helping ensure that basic, user-friendly and good-quality podcast creation tools are freely available--so that people are not blocked from participation for lack of software. (Targeted giveaways of the basic hardware as well as helping people find out what the good low-cost options there are would also help.)
If it doesn't matter when it comes to podcast quality, then all your app for helping people listen to and discover podcasts should need to do is promote quality podcasts.
Slashdot Mirror
Hello? Is anyone in there?
Cinnamon clearly stated that the harassment of men in the games industry is more frequent (per capita, I'm hoping) and perhaps more vitriolic than for women.
Though considering how the bots/sockpuppets are persecuting these ladies (fewer but more intense personal attacks), I'm not sure how that's possible.
If you'd like a chance at some other perspective, try the feminist who listened to men on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I meant in general at the very least, and I'm generally going to go with the level of vitriol the target of the harassment judges it to be. I mean, I really don't want to try to figure out how to objectively judge such things as harassment that's spilling over to death threats to their partner...yes, it's happened, I don't have permission to give more details.
Part of the issue here is intersectionality--a woman is more likely to get support, a man is more likely to be told to STFU and man up, which causes problems with reporting. This is actually pretty sexist, since it's an extension of women-as-victims; one of the problems is that if you want gender equality? You need to care about all of it--and deal with the fact that sometimes, the sexist assumptions only appear to benefit women. (I actually am part of the school that all gender bias is harmful to everybody--and that even the things that appear to benefit men or women over the other group are in fact toxic to both groups and exclusionary to anybody who doesn't want to follow the social role assigned to their sex. In case some of you missed it? I ain't cis.)
What is wrong with you people, that you can't even bring yourselves to say things like "Anybody can be harassed and harassment is wrong"?
... Well I'm not a fan of the anti-gamergaters either, but this question is pretty easy to answer: it's deflection. If someone says, "Look, this group in particular is being singled out and harassed." and you respond, "Hm, yes harassment is bad. Before we do anything else, let's all say that harassment is bad." then you are deflecting from their complaint by changing the topic to something which they hadn't really been discussing. The other person was not talking about harassment being bad, there was an implication that we all already agreed on that point, the other person was talking about this particular group being singled out.
If you think it's deflecting, you missed some of what was going on. The point here is that establishing basic things like that--such as agreeing that the behavior being discussed is unacceptable--is important, especially given that some of the anti-gamergaters decided to say legitimately disturbing things like that sexual exploitation is A-OK if the woman does not complain about it. I'm sorry, but by definition, any exchange of good review for sex or a job for sex is sexual exploitation, sexual harassment, and depending on the local laws may count as rape by coercion. None of these things should be remotely okay, ever.
No, I'm not kidding about the last one. People have even been successfully put in jail on that specific charge.
It also is something to say to establish that you are, in fact, saying "This group in particular is being singled out for harassment" instead of the unfortunately normal one of "This is the only group whose harassment we actually care about about."
Maybe, someday, it won't be necessary to insist that only explicit statements of "This is bad for everybody" be acceptable as establishing something that ought to be this basic and obvious is agreed upon. It isn't yet, and as long you keep insisting that being asked to confirm that you agree to what ought to be the damn basics is deflection it won't happen. Save calling it deflection for when the normal response by both sides to somebody who lets slip that they don't agree with that is for everybody to get together to call them out as the sick fucks they are.
That's a very long post about Price, but she lost her job and bares no responsibly for the mob that used her firing to instigate an attack on other random women.
I disagree; she's at least partially responsible for it as she ought to have had the basic sense to realize that her flipping out (and having a rant that would be widely agreed to be misogynist if the roles were reversed) would have consequences--she doesn't seem to even understand that her getting fired was one.
Given that this sort of behavior was apparently pretty normal for Ms. Price, it seems very likely that she had held onto her job this long because of positive discrimination--which makes her a pretty good example of how it can be harmful. Therefore: One of the countermeasures that is necessary is making it clear that professional behavior is going to be the exact same for everybody and held to the same standards...and that complaints of unprofessional behavior, especially anonymous ones, need to come with evidence. Don't wait to fire somebody for unprofessional behavior just because of $whatever, and do be able to show what specific example of unprofessional behavior it was.
You are aware that you can find archives of 4chan threads and if you're correct about 'they discussed doing it openly on 4chan,' it should be not impossible for you to show proof?
Odds are they're posting AC because people like you would ramp up the harassment if given some idea where to go.
Honestly, I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if a major factor in why men might have it worse is because of douchebags like you, who apparently believe that it's A-OK if men get harassed--which is the message you send when you dismiss their complaints casually, and yes, that can on its own make it worse. Harassment is bad, and if you believe your target and/or motives somehow justify it, you are part of the problem.
Seriously, this sort of thing is part of why I'm not at all comfortable with the anti-gamergate side. What is wrong with you people, that you can't even bring yourselves to say things like "Anybody can be harassed and harassment is wrong"? That shouldn't be controversial, yet it is getting treated like it not only is controversial but is offensive.
What worker will go out to, up and down a wind turbine, then back home for $200?
I hear it's one of the most dangerous jobs out there, so I'd say that we can start with "It's either a very short tower, or a very underpaid (respective of risk) worker."
I'd guess that all the numbers in the post above--$1K worth of electricity a month, $200 labor by one person, $0.50 part--are at least a couple orders of magnitude too small, including the number of people required to do the job safely.
Though, if you can only afford to build and maintain the things via subsidies, it's not actually sustainable. Sustainable should be economically sustainable as well once it's had around a decade to get itself off the ground.
I do not understand why workers should benefit from a union if they are not paying for it. If you do not want to pay for the union you get what the company will offer you. A union should not have to negotiate for non-union members.
You do realize that, in the opinion of not insignificant number of non-union members, the issue is that the union does not do a decent job of representing them, right? The side that's actually going to protest this more is the unions, because if you can't be forced to join and they can't claim to represent you if you didn't, this means they can't do very much if they failed to convince people that there is a benefit to joining.
Never assume anybody who turns up to represent a group in negotiations actually has the right to do so, and will accurately act in the interests of those they say they represent. Even if everybody involved seems honest and well-meaning, you should check. It will at least ensure that you don't find yourself having to try to convince people that it was perfectly reasonable for you to believe 'Fakey McRingerson' was...well...not accurately named.
I live in a Right to Work state. We also have unions in this state. So.. you're wrong? At least I think you're wrong. It isn't exactly clear what your point was supposed to be.
I do, too. It means I cannot be required to join the union or pay union dues. That is exactly what the person's point is, and it means that unions in those states have to actually be responsive to the members because they don't have a captive membership.
Which is why I think, in every country with socialized medicine, there should be a feedback mechanism: you go to the doctor and at the end you get a receipt with a code, some time later, maybe more than once, you receive an email that simply asks you if the treatment was effective. Simple yes or no answer, with possibly bonus questions about side effects etc... It would be invaluable to find useless drugs, side effects, bad doctors, groups of people with different drug reactions than others, etc... And if you never answer you get a blame or something; I mean, at least you give something back this way.
Well, you'd also need to randomly ask the doctors, too, to control for some patients confusing 'effective' for 'functioning potion of cure-everything.'
Overall, though, improvements in study design protocols would go a long way here too--within-subjects designs will give you good data even if you've got a total sample of one person, though this will limit your ability to generalize the results since the rule of thumb is that your sample must represent the population it's supposed to be from. (Yes, this means representation is incredibly important: A sample made up of White male college students can only tell you about White male college students. Not bad if you mostly are trying to show that your experiment can be done in the first place, but very bad if you want to directly apply the results to, say, elderly African-American grandmothers.)
However, it's a lot faster and easier to run between-subjects studies, because those designs are a lot simpler. For the same reasons, there's quite a bit of research where the sample is quite representative...of the population who might pass through a particular hallway at the local university, or other strangely specific populations. This also is a reason some studies' results are not replicable--different population is different.
From the article:
--- “Many guidelines are actually written mainly for commercial purposes or public relations purposes,” said Poses, and can be subtly shaped to promote a given course of treatment. A guideline written for the treatment of depression, for example, may emphasize pharmaceuticals over talk therapy.
“The organizations writing the guidelines may be getting millions of dollars from big drug companies that want to promote a product. The people writing them may have similar conflicts of interest,” Poses said. NGC’s process provided a resource comparatively free of that kind of influence. ----
Arguably this is just swamp draining. The summary sucks this advertising platform's cock pretty hard, but this is not some thing where "trump destroys science" like all the fucking comments are running with.
That sounds like it's not even actually evidence-based, given that the point with depression at which pharmaceuticals actually start being significantly better than non-pharmaceutical treatments is when you hit severe depression--especially given that good large swath of antidepressants cause dependency...and, in general, doctors don't know this so they don't know to warn their patients.
If it's as widely used as claimed, and it doesn't include that sort of info--which we've known for most of a decade at least, as well as the simple fact that you need to go off them if pregnant (meaning, effectively, that pregnancies will have to be planned)--then it may not be worth mourning too much.
What I see on Slashdot is an awful lot of non-doctors (myself included) pontificating on this move. Is it really widely used? I don't know. All *I* (and the rest of you) have to go on is the demonstrated value which currently is zero as there are no takers to carry on this data.
Not a doctor yet, but I am a biomedical nerd and aware of how useful those in the research area tend to consider best practices guidelines--and my first question about this actually was "Why is this not at NIH?"
The general rule of thumb is that the lag time is too long between where the research says are the medical best practices and what any published list anywhere will say--part of this is because, to put it bluntly, most doctors aren't particularly into research and don't keep up with it. Those best practices databases aren't going to be getting kept up-to-date and current, and I honestly don't think there's a solution for this short of starting from scratch--if nothing else, because each and every entry should have a date on it saying when it was last checked on and it should be routinely gone into to add data. There is no such thing as too much data if you're trying to figure out what works in which populations; the more you have, the more certain you can be...and the more likely you are to be able to pin down which populations that have strange responses, which is pretty much a basic requirement if you want to do anything more than shrug and move on...and it's also a requirement for improving and fine-tuning the evidence.
"The FCC wants to charge you $225 to review your complaint".
How is that wrong?
File informal complaint, FCC does not review, sends it to offending company.
File formal complaint, pay $225, FCC reviews complaint.
So, the FCC wants to charge you $225 to review your complaint.
From the sound of it and what somebody has posted of the current rules, it is implying that the FCC is wanting to change the rules. If nothing else, it's clickbait tactics which shouldn't be given the time of day.
Mine are as follow : "In actual practice - the FCC logs complaints to a database , company ignore the complaint and forward it , and FCC DO NOT acts when there are many similar complaints against a company, or similar companies and will now ONLY start to act when there is a formal $225 paid complaint".
In other words, the FCC continues to operate like any other government agency when not given a carrot, and the only change is that they perhaps finally admit it.
Sure, but it doesn't have to... other countries manage to run it well.
Most of them also had their public transit infrastructure bombed to ruins about 75 years ago, have maintained their systems well, and are vastly smaller. You couldn't put a high-speed rail line through either Boswash or its West Coast equivalent, now, and a lot of the US rail right-of-ways got short-sightedly sold off decades ago.
You want to spend the increased efficiency on tit suckers? Not everything is a 'do nothing' jobs program.
I donno, if it's a complete replacement for public transportation, it'd be hard-pressed to suck harder than most US public transit systems. On the other hand, it'll almost certainly inherit such problems as politicians punishing districts for voting 'wrong' by having them get worse service...
This is very much a YMMV thing. I live in a state which does cover its DOT budget with gas taxes pretty well--on the other hand, it's also made a damn point of keeping roads maintained, which massively cuts down on the overall costs, and last I heard by state law, the gas taxes can only be spent on the roads. The part of the budget that's not covered by gas taxes is covered completely by the various fees and the like that the state DOT collects. (They make this info public, and very easily found.)
I'd not be in the least bit surprised that the degree to which roads pay for themselves is influenced by how much the local politicians are allowed to siphon money to other purposes, and admittedly it helps here that the gas tax is now indexed to inflation and therefore will adjust itself regularly.
Excellent job taking averages and making it look like it will work.
Well, that means for half of the population it will.
That's not how averages work--for example, the 'average American' is a statistical chimera, because nobody's actually going to have those exact stats, especially if you start throwing in things like fractional children.
I'd actually recommend working off the assumption on any research about this that it's utter and complete junk at this point--if nothing else, because we don't have ridesharing driverless cars, the only possible source of numbers on how much using the network might cost is somebody's rectum. Once a service opens up we will have actual numbers, and it could easily be that the service is priced out of reach for anybody but people who could afford a personal chaffer, for example...or is cheap, but occasionally kidnaps people and doesn't care if you don't want to carpool with Mr. Confused By No.
I agree that fascism has often prospered under a banner of communism [...]
I don't know who you are agreeing with, but it isn't me. I did not claim that fascism has been passed off as communism. Here, let me put some emphasis in the key words in the first line: "Historically speaking, communism and fascism are forks of a GUI for a totalitarian operating system."
Or, to use your phrasing, I said that totalitarianism has often prospered under a banner of communism and fascism .
Probably not "communism", the "People" is of no importance *at all*. It's more like a form of textbook fascism.
Historically speaking, communism and fascism are forks of a GUI for a totalitarian operating system. Bringing this up tends to get both pissed off, which is part of why both are in (hilarious) agreement about glossing over the early history of fascism and its political roots, which is sad because a lot of historical irony is involved. (The main reason the fascists snagged support from the conservatives was more than anything else because the fascists rejected the idea that class warfare was necessary; it doesn't really look like anybody was particularly expecting capitalism to survive to the 21st century.)
As someone who used to work 15 hours a day in a warehouse, I take great offense to calling people incompetent if they cannot meet quotas. Nobody can meet quota in places like that, and since quotas are "adjusted" by computers for a variety of hidden variables we were not allowed to know, it's impossible to know why you weren't meeting quota at all. Even the managers didn't know how our numbers were calculated.
Eventually they came around and told me I was below quota, and they wanted me to sign all kinds of papers enrolling me into some improvement plan. Instead, I gave them a three week notice. If I was incompetent, they sure didn't show it, since they tried really hard to keep me working there.
You are likely describing a constructive discharge. Sometimes it stops if you are open about knowing that they are attempting to get you to quit by making the job environment hostile, because HR doesn't want to have the legal trouble.
If it doesn't? Find a lawyer.
Presumably managers aren't entirely terrible, the coworkers agreeing with him 70% of the time doesn't sound very outlandish to me.
What makes you think that such agreement is only to avoid retaliation?
Presumably, they are not pulling a jury from people under the manager who is having to argue the case for firing.
Honestly, I'd argue that the 30% is actually a rather high number, because it suggests that 3 out of every 10 attempts to fire an employee are for bad reasons. You want the number of managers who lose to be low--by having the majority of employees facing firing doing so for good reasons, not because their manager has taken a dislike to them or has merely been promoted above their competence level.
The focus should be on the quality of the research, not the reputation of the journal.
The whole publish or perish is caused by them not being willing to judge the quality of the research. They are operating on the philosophy that the higher quantity of papers you publish and the more prestigious the journal, the better the research. They are basically using the journals to "grade" the research.
The concern about the prestige of the journals wouldn't be quite as much of an issue if 'published in a prestigious journal' was strongly and positively correlated with 'is high-quality, important paper.' Prestige seems to correlate more to the name of the journal, right now, which may admittedly be more due to inertia than anything else right now. Used to it had a lot to do with number of citations papers published in them recieve, and open access journals tend to get more because it's just plain less of a pain to get at papers published in there. (Yes, yes, interlibrary loan, but those get processed via snail mail even when what you're getting is a photocopy or even a print-out. When you've only a couple months to get all the papers you need gathered, that's much too much time to spend waiting.) Possibly having it so there's a 'time factor' in figuring out the prestige--so older journals don't have a built-in advantage that may hide a decline in their quality--would help fix this.
The quantity is the bigger issue, because in some fields there simply is an upper limit to how quickly you can produce quality research--especially since there's an emphasis being placed on it also being unique, and 'same study but using a more diverse population' doesn't appear to count.
Yeah, to me its deletion from GitHub is pretty obvious--it's not a program or data for a program, of course it ought to go--and I'm a bit disgusted by the double-standards of a lot of the people here. Would the people here be as offended if the list deleted was, say, "LGBT employees of Google"? How about "Non-White Health Care Workers in Random City"? These kinds of lists are a problem because they invite harassment of the people on the list--and it's disturbing to see people thinking it's somehow okay to do this when it's the 'right' people getting harassed, because that basically means that you will have to be careful about expressing any ideas which might risk you at some point (now or in the future) finding yourself on one of those lists...and that won't protect you against being included by accident or because somebody wanting revenge or a petty power play.
Some communities just don't seem to have much of a podcasting culture. A bit of effort to develop one seems reasonable.
That's precisely why I suggested making the tools needed easier to get. If there's not a podcasting culture already, the main hurdle is getting yourself started--do you need a separate mic or is the one on your computer good enough? If not, what kind of mic? What about headphones? Which software is essential, which is optional? On that last one, can you manage to find good FOSS or at least free programs or should you expect to be shelling out money on software too just to get started?
If you're just wanting to put some effort into developing one? A good guide to what you need would be unbelievably useful. Google also is excellently positioned to ensure that there are free programs of the necessary quality that are user-friendly, too.
You aren't going to create a sustainable podcasting culture within any group just by having the promotion algorithms in your podcast player app be essentially bigoted. You do it by actually making sure people can easily get started.
Oh, and being trustworthy. I'm in several of the groups they want to promote in podcasting, actually had been seriously considering it, but remember, I know what Google is doing over at YouTube to minority content producers. I am not at all sure I care to trust Google to not turn on me just because somebody got offended by the discovery that they have been living in their own little reality. (It'd be an educational podcast with definite care on the scholarship side, since its point is to get people to not be accidentally offensively ignorant.)
That's a very odd interpretation of wanting to increase diversity. Surely the must believe the very opposite - that colour doesn't matter when it comes to podcast quality.
If you really believe that color doesn't matter when it comes to podcast quality, then your efforts to increase diversity should be focused on helping ensure that basic, user-friendly and good-quality podcast creation tools are freely available--so that people are not blocked from participation for lack of software. (Targeted giveaways of the basic hardware as well as helping people find out what the good low-cost options there are would also help.)
If it doesn't matter when it comes to podcast quality, then all your app for helping people listen to and discover podcasts should need to do is promote quality podcasts.