If you read the actual report, they looked at a spectrum of behaviour ranging from just name calling to doxxing and stalking. That's a pretty typical way of doing a study like this - you want to measure both how much low level asshattery goes on and how much serious, possibly illegal stuff happens and compare with other factors like age and gender.
It's all just data to help understand what is happening, it's not meant to imply anything. Perhaps harassment isn't quite the right term for some of it, but let's not get bogged down in the language.
Great insight. This also explains why many of the effective tools for dealing with harassment look a lot like the social consequences of harassing people in real life.
I view posts like this as an admission that the article has a valid point, because if it didn't they would attack it directly. Instead this AC had to resort to an ad hominem attack on the author. Never mind that TFA is just reporting on a report by another institution and appears to be a more or less accurate summary of what it says, without commenting on the report itself.
Finding someone saying something silly on Twitter does not prove your point. And anyway, she was probably referring to the talk rather than the individual side, assuming the screen capture is even real (where is your usual archive.is link?)
Harassment has a legal definition in most places. Where would you draw the line? Because endlessly questioning where to draw the line is the favourite tactic of people who want to avoid talking about the really unambiguous stuff.
Let's be honest, kill filters were ineffective. They were okay if the person you blocked kept the same username or email address, but anyone really wanting to troll would just keep switching faster than you could keep adding them. Usenet was unauthenticated and easy to spoof.
That's why kill files don't work for email spam, and why blocking users doesn't work on Twitter.
Not sure about US law, but in the UK sending someone an unwanted dick pic deliberately would almost certainly be sexual harassment. Could even be sexual assault if persistent.
Isn't it illegal to flash your genitalia where you live? I mean, if someone went out in public and exposed their genitals to you, would there be nothing you could do about it? Personally I'm not bothered by nudity, although if it was done in a sexually suggestive way I might not appreciate it I guess, but legally speaking most places don't seem to tolerate it.
If you read the actual survey it has categories like "physically threatened", "stalked" and "sexually harassed".
Same that the summary links to some clickbaity reporting rather than the actual study. It's not the best study, but it's not measuring how often people were told they are wrong.
Modern tech seems to have escalated the bullying. Back at school, at least when I was a kid, you were pretty unlikely to get doxxed or send unwanted dick pics. Nowadays... Kids will humiliate each other, take a photo and spread it online so fast it can't be stopped.
Same thing happens online. It's just too easy to anonymously fuck with people can get away with it. And again, it's worse than it used to be.
Trying to separate "real life" and "online" is silly. They are the same thing.
"Harassment" is one of those words that covers a huge range of actions, kinda like "assault". You can be "assaulted" if someone gives you an unwanted pat you on the arse, but it can also mean you were beaten to within an inch of your life.
So rather than worry about the silly headline, let's look at the actual numbers for specific types of harassment. 53% of women received unwanted sexual imagery... Well, I've had that too (I'm male). Doxing as well, had that. Seems that numbers for those things are under 10%, but still pretty high.
7% of people report sustained harassment and/or stalking, for example. Worth looking at what we can do IMHO.
The raw source code of a web page is kinda like raw assembler code. Sure, you can understand and read it, but most people don't because there are better tools. The vast majority of web developers don't bother with most of that stuff.
At the high level end you have CMS packages that you install and then do 99% of the work in a browser via the tools that the CMS provides. Then in the middle you have people who use frameworks and libraries to do all the hard stuff and then write some wrapper/logic code around them.
There is nothing wrong with any of that - it's a good thing that software development gets easier and more accessible, and of course more maintainable. It just means that for most people there is little point using the "view source" feature because they will never need to interact with most of it, same as most people don't check the assembler output of their compiler. It's not really a loss, it's just the changing nature of web development.
Trump doesn't use blocking to purge negative responses from his Twitter feed - it's basically a torrent of abuse directed at him and he doesn't block 99.9% of people replying.
He blocks people who hurt his feelings as a form of revenge. He's a poor snowflake, we know this by the way he keeps complaining about people being mean to him. That's all it is.
It seems that they are relying on the "right to petition" bit of the 1st amendment, which guarantees their right to bring complaints to the government. Someone with more knowledge can hopefully shed light on this - for example, could someone be thrown out of a two hall meeting because the Mayor didn't like what they were saying or would that violate their rights?
Until Windows Vista sprites were used for the mouse pointer on PCs too, including in Windows. VGA cards of the day supported hardware acceleration in the form of a single sprite used for the mouse pointer. Most Amiga graphics cards, which used the same chips, also supported that single sprite for the mouse but the Picasso96 driver did also support a "soft pointer".
Having recently booted up my old Amiga system, one thing that struck me was that everything freezes when you open the drop-down menus. I had a file copy going in DOpus, pressed the right mouse button and it froze while I browsed the menus. I remember it being a useful feature back in the day for pausing scrolling CLI windows and the like.
The fact that this was modded "troll" is a great example of moderation abuse. It's clearly not trolling, and whoever did it just happens to disagree. Unfortunately, we some people get mod points they use them to censor views that they don't like.
The system is involuntary, so what what you get is irrelevant.
If there was some way for you to avoid using any tax funded services you could opt out of paying it, but unless you want to move to the libertarian paradise of Somalia I can't really see how that is going to happen. You would be stealing from the rest of us.
You can't opt out of society, any more than you can opt out of breathing the same air as the rest of us. It's just not physically possible.
First, that wealthy people have a negative effect on people living around them. That's simply not true, you're just demonizing people that *you don't know* for the sake of justifying the theft of their money.
Ah, the poor victim mentality. Note that I didn't demonize anyone, you imagined that because you are unable to overcome your prejudices about me. I don't know exactly who or what you think I am, but I'm certainly not demonizing the well paid people working for Amazon here.
Second, tax money doesn't "offset" negative effects, they simply make the city adminisitration fatter and more powerful.
That's clearly bollocks. I guess when they hire an extra person to collect the refuse from the new McMansions, that's just the city getting fatter and more powerful, not providing a useful and necessary service.
For people who want to help the poor, there's charity and various NGOs.
In other words, you prefer begging. The people who beg the hardest get some cash, the others lose out.
The percentage of tax you pay is not all that relevant... What matters is what you get in exchange. If you paid 80% tax but had no bills at all (energy, water, telecomms, good food, lavish housing etc. provided for you) then you probably wouldn't mind too much. Similarly, if tax was 5% but you got nothing, had to pave the road to your house yourself, had to pay the cops to protect you, dispose of your own rubbish and stop people disposing of theirs on your property etc. you probably wouldn't be too happy.
Of course some people would love either of these scenarios, but most people want something in the middle and so the important question to ask is if the balance of benefits vs. tax paid is acceptable, adjusting for income.
So it's not actually enough to drive people away - who would avoid 2.5% tax on their extremely comfortable income when the cost is sitting in traffic for untold hours?
And what kind of selfish asshat resents paying a little extra tax that won't impact their lifestyle but will offset the negative effect they are having on everyone living around them?
The report is not trying to apportion blame, it's trying to give some advice.
Investing in these companies is risky, because the world is moving away from emitting large amounts of CO2, with several countries committing to being CO2 neutral in the next few decades. Major consumers of the products they make are moving to other sources of energy, e.g. electric cars.
It's also a helpful guide to which companies we should focus on bankrupting or forcing to change their ways if we want to avert disastrous climate change. It would be nice if the measures that responsible governments are taking were enough, but unfortunately not. Encouraging BP and Exxon Mobil to invest some more of that profit into cleaner forms of energy is a good thing.
Good for you, but I'll keep my smart phone thanks. The minor hassle of having to charge when I'm sleeping is more than outweighed by the camera alone. Call me sentimental but I like looking at photos of my girlfriend and I having fun, or being able to add an explanatory photo to a technical email with a couple of taps.
Being able to chat to someone on the other side of the world, in a different time zone, when it suits both of us (not just when we are both in front of a PC), and all for free is pretty valuable to me too.
Oh, and I can post my SJW spam to Slashdot from anywhere at any time, can't forget that.
Slashdot Mirror
If you read the actual report, they looked at a spectrum of behaviour ranging from just name calling to doxxing and stalking. That's a pretty typical way of doing a study like this - you want to measure both how much low level asshattery goes on and how much serious, possibly illegal stuff happens and compare with other factors like age and gender.
It's all just data to help understand what is happening, it's not meant to imply anything. Perhaps harassment isn't quite the right term for some of it, but let's not get bogged down in the language.
Great insight. This also explains why many of the effective tools for dealing with harassment look a lot like the social consequences of harassing people in real life.
I view posts like this as an admission that the article has a valid point, because if it didn't they would attack it directly. Instead this AC had to resort to an ad hominem attack on the author. Never mind that TFA is just reporting on a report by another institution and appears to be a more or less accurate summary of what it says, without commenting on the report itself.
Finding someone saying something silly on Twitter does not prove your point. And anyway, she was probably referring to the talk rather than the individual side, assuming the screen capture is even real (where is your usual archive.is link?)
Harassment has a legal definition in most places. Where would you draw the line? Because endlessly questioning where to draw the line is the favourite tactic of people who want to avoid talking about the really unambiguous stuff.
I meant they are similar conceptually, not in terms of accessibility.
Let's be honest, kill filters were ineffective. They were okay if the person you blocked kept the same username or email address, but anyone really wanting to troll would just keep switching faster than you could keep adding them. Usenet was unauthenticated and easy to spoof.
That's why kill files don't work for email spam, and why blocking users doesn't work on Twitter.
Not sure about US law, but in the UK sending someone an unwanted dick pic deliberately would almost certainly be sexual harassment. Could even be sexual assault if persistent.
Isn't it illegal to flash your genitalia where you live? I mean, if someone went out in public and exposed their genitals to you, would there be nothing you could do about it? Personally I'm not bothered by nudity, although if it was done in a sexually suggestive way I might not appreciate it I guess, but legally speaking most places don't seem to tolerate it.
Thanks. It looks like their argument is pretty weak.
If you read the actual survey it has categories like "physically threatened", "stalked" and "sexually harassed".
Same that the summary links to some clickbaity reporting rather than the actual study. It's not the best study, but it's not measuring how often people were told they are wrong.
Modern tech seems to have escalated the bullying. Back at school, at least when I was a kid, you were pretty unlikely to get doxxed or send unwanted dick pics. Nowadays... Kids will humiliate each other, take a photo and spread it online so fast it can't be stopped.
Same thing happens online. It's just too easy to anonymously fuck with people can get away with it. And again, it's worse than it used to be.
Trying to separate "real life" and "online" is silly. They are the same thing.
"Harassment" is one of those words that covers a huge range of actions, kinda like "assault". You can be "assaulted" if someone gives you an unwanted pat you on the arse, but it can also mean you were beaten to within an inch of your life.
So rather than worry about the silly headline, let's look at the actual numbers for specific types of harassment. 53% of women received unwanted sexual imagery... Well, I've had that too (I'm male). Doxing as well, had that. Seems that numbers for those things are under 10%, but still pretty high.
7% of people report sustained harassment and/or stalking, for example. Worth looking at what we can do IMHO.
The Man in the High Castle is pretty good. Season 1 was a little slow, but season 2 was excellent.
The raw source code of a web page is kinda like raw assembler code. Sure, you can understand and read it, but most people don't because there are better tools. The vast majority of web developers don't bother with most of that stuff.
At the high level end you have CMS packages that you install and then do 99% of the work in a browser via the tools that the CMS provides. Then in the middle you have people who use frameworks and libraries to do all the hard stuff and then write some wrapper/logic code around them.
There is nothing wrong with any of that - it's a good thing that software development gets easier and more accessible, and of course more maintainable. It just means that for most people there is little point using the "view source" feature because they will never need to interact with most of it, same as most people don't check the assembler output of their compiler. It's not really a loss, it's just the changing nature of web development.
Trump doesn't use blocking to purge negative responses from his Twitter feed - it's basically a torrent of abuse directed at him and he doesn't block 99.9% of people replying.
He blocks people who hurt his feelings as a form of revenge. He's a poor snowflake, we know this by the way he keeps complaining about people being mean to him. That's all it is.
It seems that they are relying on the "right to petition" bit of the 1st amendment, which guarantees their right to bring complaints to the government. Someone with more knowledge can hopefully shed light on this - for example, could someone be thrown out of a two hall meeting because the Mayor didn't like what they were saying or would that violate their rights?
Until Windows Vista sprites were used for the mouse pointer on PCs too, including in Windows. VGA cards of the day supported hardware acceleration in the form of a single sprite used for the mouse pointer. Most Amiga graphics cards, which used the same chips, also supported that single sprite for the mouse but the Picasso96 driver did also support a "soft pointer".
Having recently booted up my old Amiga system, one thing that struck me was that everything freezes when you open the drop-down menus. I had a file copy going in DOpus, pressed the right mouse button and it froze while I browsed the menus. I remember it being a useful feature back in the day for pausing scrolling CLI windows and the like.
5 thousandths of a second
That would be 5 milliseconds. 1/1000th of a second is 1 millisecond.
This is 200 millionths of a second, or 1/5th of a thousandths of a second.
This is also why engineers prefer engineering notation, so 200us or 200x10^-6. I wish more calculators supported engineering units.
The fact that this was modded "troll" is a great example of moderation abuse. It's clearly not trolling, and whoever did it just happens to disagree. Unfortunately, we some people get mod points they use them to censor views that they don't like.
The system is involuntary, so what what you get is irrelevant.
If there was some way for you to avoid using any tax funded services you could opt out of paying it, but unless you want to move to the libertarian paradise of Somalia I can't really see how that is going to happen. You would be stealing from the rest of us.
You can't opt out of society, any more than you can opt out of breathing the same air as the rest of us. It's just not physically possible.
First, that wealthy people have a negative effect on people living around them. That's simply not true, you're just demonizing people that *you don't know* for the sake of justifying the theft of their money.
Ah, the poor victim mentality. Note that I didn't demonize anyone, you imagined that because you are unable to overcome your prejudices about me. I don't know exactly who or what you think I am, but I'm certainly not demonizing the well paid people working for Amazon here.
Second, tax money doesn't "offset" negative effects, they simply make the city adminisitration fatter and more powerful.
That's clearly bollocks. I guess when they hire an extra person to collect the refuse from the new McMansions, that's just the city getting fatter and more powerful, not providing a useful and necessary service.
For people who want to help the poor, there's charity and various NGOs.
In other words, you prefer begging. The people who beg the hardest get some cash, the others lose out.
The percentage of tax you pay is not all that relevant... What matters is what you get in exchange. If you paid 80% tax but had no bills at all (energy, water, telecomms, good food, lavish housing etc. provided for you) then you probably wouldn't mind too much. Similarly, if tax was 5% but you got nothing, had to pave the road to your house yourself, had to pay the cops to protect you, dispose of your own rubbish and stop people disposing of theirs on your property etc. you probably wouldn't be too happy.
Of course some people would love either of these scenarios, but most people want something in the middle and so the important question to ask is if the balance of benefits vs. tax paid is acceptable, adjusting for income.
So it's not actually enough to drive people away - who would avoid 2.5% tax on their extremely comfortable income when the cost is sitting in traffic for untold hours?
And what kind of selfish asshat resents paying a little extra tax that won't impact their lifestyle but will offset the negative effect they are having on everyone living around them?
The report is not trying to apportion blame, it's trying to give some advice.
Investing in these companies is risky, because the world is moving away from emitting large amounts of CO2, with several countries committing to being CO2 neutral in the next few decades. Major consumers of the products they make are moving to other sources of energy, e.g. electric cars.
It's also a helpful guide to which companies we should focus on bankrupting or forcing to change their ways if we want to avert disastrous climate change. It would be nice if the measures that responsible governments are taking were enough, but unfortunately not. Encouraging BP and Exxon Mobil to invest some more of that profit into cleaner forms of energy is a good thing.
Good for you, but I'll keep my smart phone thanks. The minor hassle of having to charge when I'm sleeping is more than outweighed by the camera alone. Call me sentimental but I like looking at photos of my girlfriend and I having fun, or being able to add an explanatory photo to a technical email with a couple of taps.
Being able to chat to someone on the other side of the world, in a different time zone, when it suits both of us (not just when we are both in front of a PC), and all for free is pretty valuable to me too.
Oh, and I can post my SJW spam to Slashdot from anywhere at any time, can't forget that.
Is it really a subsidy? They just reduced the normal 40% tax on imported vehicles. Sounds more like "not being fined for excessive pollution".