The existence of special treatment will always cast a shadow over your own abilities and about whether or not you deserve the place you have. It's an adds an extra layer of bullshit that's an unnecessary and counterproductive distraction.
Personally, I have no actual reason to believe that the bullshit would be any less if the policy were removed. I would be surprised if the people most upset by the policy didn't immediately find a different reason to be upset.
...that "politics and political agendas have sidelined the important mission of rebuilding America's manufacturing base..." The president has been doing what he can on the executive side on things like trade, vocational training, et al. The politics & political agendas that have been doing the sidelining have been things like the obsession w/ Russia, daily protests against the president, the fake news media (now including FNC) slamming him for everything he does. Trump is not the one who has been ignoring the issues involved w/ bringing manufacturing back into the country
What a load of bull shit. Trump could be working on things that matter regardless of the circus, but he's not and the only person to blame for that is Trump himself. We know Trump has spent over a 5th of his time in office at his personal golf courses. If he can spend time on that, and doesn't have time to work on a plan for manufacturing jobs, then we can clearly see where his priorities are.
Those guys who leave b'cos Trump failed to explicitly mention 'White Supremacists', as opposed to the implicit inclusion of them in his remarks, are precisely the people who allow their own politics & political agendas to sideline the missions for which they were on that council in the first place.
Trump has no problem specifically denouncing just about anyone else, so why does he have such a soft spot for the KKK?
In a blog post, Krzanich said that the decline in American manufacturing remains a serious issue, but said that "politics and political agendas have sidelined the important mission of rebuilding America's manufacturing base. I resigned to call attention to the serious harm our divided political climate is causing to critical issues, including the serious need to address the decline of American manufacturing
Translation: "I'm too much of a coward to publicly denounce Nazis and white supremacists by name and Trump's support for them and only am resigning because of pressure from bad publicity to my company that is resulting from my slow exit from this useless advisory body."
That's a pretty poor translation because the next line of the press release says:
"I have already made clear my abhorrence at the recent hate-spawned violence in Charlottesville, and earlier today I called on all leaders to condemn the white supremacists and their ilk who marched and committed violence."
I think it's closer to "Trump loves praise too much to denounce the violence of his most ardent supporters, so fuck this, we're out."
"Politics and political agendas have sidelined the important mission of rebuilding America's manufacturing base."
What a load of crap. America's manufacturing base is fine and certainly doesn't require rebuilding. America has a HUGE and thriving manufacturing base. By itself it is approximately the size of the GDP of the UK and twice the size of the GDP of Russia. It could be improved but Trump isn't going to be the guy to lead that charge and anyone who didn't realize that in the first 100 days of his administration is an idiot. Improving manufacturing in the US will require careful planning, good policy, and sensible strategy. We aren't going to get any of those as long as Trump sits in the oval office.
I think you're saying the same thing as Krzanich, he just took longer to reach the same conclusion.
The internet has spoken. Soon, 43% of this country will be labeled a Neo-Nazi.
Nah, even if you labelled every Trump voter a Neo-Nazi, as unlikely as that is, you'd barely crack 23% of Americans, because only half of eligible voters voted. However, given that there are many Americans who are not eligible voters, we need to refine that number further. There are 323.1 million Americans, but only about 248 eligible voters. Since we know Trump received exactly 62,984,825 votes, we can calculate an upper level of denouncement of approximately 19.5% of Americans based on voting behaviour.
Having said that, there are no credible claims that all Trump voters are Neo-Nazis, however it is entirely accurate to note that the Neo-Nazis love Trump. Some people may be confused by that statement but it's similar very similar to the situation with David Hasselhoff. Germans love Hasselhoff, but that doesn't mean that if you love Hasselhoff that you're German.
Alternatively, you could calculate the upper limit at 34%, which is Trump's approval rating, though that's also sketchy since people could, in theory, approve of Trump for reasons other than his courting of white supremacists. I will now let you get back to your self-pity and bemoaning about how it's so unfair that old white men only have most of the power now, instead of all of it.
I dislike the idea of posting hate speech online just as much as the next, and in principle I agree with what GoDaddy and Google did here, however if you can cancel someone's domain over unapproved speech, what protections do others have with holding their domains when they speak ill of the government of otherwise? Restricting speech is a slippery slope, if you remove it for one nutjob (like GoDaddy and Google did here), however awful it might be, you're opening the door for the government to shut down other domains that are critical of them.
How? They were shut down for a violation of the already existing terms of service. It looks like Stormfront agreed (twice) to not promote violence against other people on their web site, then broke the agreement (twice). It's not a slippery slope to enforce the rules that were already written explicitly to handle this situation. It could be a slippery slope, for example if existing rules were being contorted to get the desired result, or if new rules were being written to handle this situation specifically, but that's not the case. It is likely that both Go Daddy and Google have handle similar cases in the past in the same manner, no one cared previously because they weren't tied to a national news story. In a week, very few people will care about this one too.
Of course he's saying they shamed and smeared him, to do otherwise would be to admit they had good reasons to fire him.
The problem is that he basically accused his bosses of being incompetent thought-controlling tyrants, and then let his accusations get into the media. He put them in the difficult position of either having to admit his accusations were correct or having to fire him. If what he wrote was true, they weren't going to the first one and if what he wrote was false, they definitely weren't going to do the first one.
Nope, not even close. We could argue that maybe 30 years ago they were more center than left, but today it is firmly left. Sander's platform is Marxist, not Libertarian. It states that Government should own the economy, distribute wealth as it sees fit, take money from people as they see fit, and have control over all aspects of a person's life. The collective is greater than the Individual.
There's a wikipedia article on his positions, maybe you should read it?
Numerous Liberals left the Democratic party because they have become a party of extreme Leftists promoting ideas more in line with Marxism than text book Liberalism.
While I don't doubt that you sincerely believe what you write to be true, what you are writing is bat-shit crazy-talk. The American Democratic party is solidly right of centre on virtually every issue.
If you follow the pronouncements carefully, I have no doubt you will find that every generation of children has been irredeemably worse than their parent's generation since at least the invention of the written language.
1. Past inventions were not close to you everywhere. Books arguably could have been, but they were never considered disruptive.
Apparently, you'd be surprised at what was once considered disruptive:
The free access which many young people have to romances, novels, and plays has poisoned the mind and corrupted the morals of many a promising youth; and prevented others from improving their minds in useful knowledge. Parents take care to feed their children with wholesome diet; and yet how unconcerned about the provision for the mind, whether they are furnished with salutary food, or with trash, chaff, or poison?
Not really. Prior to cellphones, how often did someone crash their car because they were watching television or reading a book while driving?
When I was much younger, a friend's foster mother actually did that. Although, I think she was technically writing in her book, instead of reading it at the time of the crash. This wasn't prior to cellphones entirely, but it was before they became popular and she certainly didn't have one. For anecdotal comparison, I'm not actually aware of anyone that I know having crashed their car because they were using a smart phone.
A career in business and politics evaporates for one ill thought out comment at a dinner party?
It wasn't an "ill thought out comment at a dinner party", it was part of a speech given to a group of big money backers. Because it was part of prepared speech, that means the statement had been pre-approved, memorized, repeated and then defended, even though it should have been obviously false.
Look I don't like the guy, but everyone says stupid shit sometimes, and if that's the benchmark for failure what does that say about the current clown-chief?
I think I'm saying that Trump makes just about every other Republican look good in comparison.
He was reasonably compentent with his companies, in the sense that he could not have won that much more by investing all his money in top 100 stocks, when he started AND got a name out of it.
I am assuming you mean top 100 performing stocks, and that would be false. Trump would have approximately the same net worth if he had invested all his money in the stock market index companies, so his performance with his companies is about average despite the occasional illegal and many unethical things he has done to try and ensure their success.
He sounded better to enough people than Hillary Clinton.
Define "enough", two million more people voted for her. Most of the vote broke down along party lines and the negative campaigning was just enough to depress the Democratic vote to allow Trump to eek out a narrow victory in the electoral college.
The ones that seem ok (eg Romney) never get the vote.
My problem with Romney was that he seemed clueless. He either didn't understand that almost half of poor people vote for Republican candidates or he didn't have the balls to say so in front of a private audience. His whole "half of them will never vote for me" thing told me that, either way, he was incompetent. Really, as a professional politician, it's his job to know who votes for him. Not knowing who votes for you or being ashamed of the people voting for you is just ridiculously incompetent.
And once you open that up you have more calls of discrimination. How do you legally say you can go it but if you've had your genital removed or are on hormone therapy you cannot be in the military? That just creates more problems that it's worth. Best thing to do is an outright ban.
It's pretty simple, if we can show that genital removal materially affects a person's combat readiness, we can make that a disqualifying medical condition, which would apply to both post-op transgendered people and cis-gendered people who have been traumatically injured. Again, if we can show that hormone therapy actually make someone unsuitable for combat deployment than it can also be marked as a disqualifying medical condition and would apply equally to transgendered people on hormone therapy and to cis-gendered people who are hormone therapy (for example, because they have survived breast or testicular cancer).
The best thing, in my opinion, is to treat everyone equally and require everyone to meet a set of objective standards to qualify for military service.
On the other hand, if you don't want to be judged for keeping sex slaves, maybe don't bring them with you to a convention where you're one of the leaders, and if you do, maybe don't parade them around. I could quite easily see where some people having seen him parade his sex slave, and having seen that she has a considerable and obvious mental handicap might jump to the conclusion that he was exploiting her. Sure, he has a police note that says he's not raping her, but obviously this type of misunderstanding has happened before, or he wouldn't have that note.
I'd bet money that the real reason he was eventually dismissed, has nothing to do with his kink. After he refused to resign, he went public and became a shit disturber. At that point, it should have been clear that he was never getting his position back. Kink is one thing, taking your personal crap and using it to divide the community is another. He's toxic now, because of his actions in the project. So the only way back for him is the complete removal of all the other project leaders, which would likely kill Drupal.
He thinks they're upset with him because he likes to treat women like sex slaves, and it's true that they were likely horrified when they were told that he showed off his sex slave at a Drupal conference. However, once he made it clear it was consensual relationship and that he had no reason to resign, he might have kept his position if he had kept his mouth shut, and let the whole thing blow over. Instead, he had to get righteously indignant and blog about the whole mess. At that point, instead of making the problem go away, he made it much, much worse for himself. When the problem was the kink, it was something that could be dealt with, mostly by being a bit more private about it. But the blog posts made him the problem, and then the only solution was to remove him from the leadership.
So, in my opinion, nobody's in the right here, it's just a mess created by fallible people.
Now this is just my guess, but I think they place a very heavy weight on the ability of a show to stop the loss of viewers. I remember it being mentioned that according to their metrics virtually everyone who watched the 5th (I think) episode of Daredevil, finished the entire series. My guess is that Sense8 wasn't doing that. If they were continuing to lose customers all through the series' second season, that might have been a clear enough indication that the situation had little to no hope for improvement. Again, this is just my educated guess. For reference, I watched the first episode of Sense8 and I didn't like the show enough to watch the second... In my case, there was nothing that peaked my interest in the first episode, and there was a tonne of other shows that were more appealing. I may eventually work my way back around to Sense8 and watch the second episode, but frankly my list of shows to watch is currently getting longer, not shorter.
One important thing to understand about the customer drop off metric is it should scale pretty well. The group of early watchers is probably indicative of the peak completion rate for the series since these are likely to be the viewers that are likely to be the most enthusiastic about the program. If the completion rate for that group looks poor, it would be unlikely to improve unless the show finds a new, qualitatively different, audience. This means the metric would be mostly independent of the size of the show's current audience.
That works for me. I use and work with Windows MacOS, linux and ChromeOS. So I have at least some valid experience. Windows is incredibly brittle and prone to update failures, resulting in a machine that does not function. Either via programs that worked one day, and not the next, to an office program that isn't compatible with itself, and an OS that now has become All your dat are belong to us.
That's absolutely true, the other day my Windows partition stopped letting me log in. No explanation, just an endless black screen after login. I eventually "repaired" it with boot tools but because those are automated, it didn't tell me what the problem was and though a lot of people have had similar problems, no one seems to know what really causes it. So yeah, Windows is terrible, and upgrading seems to only make Windows worse.
To interpret this for you: "Sense8 didn't make the cut because not enough people were watching it to justify keeping it going and it was losing, not gaining viewers. Netflix still gave it a much longer time to find it's audience than a traditional television show would ever have been given. Instead Netflix is going to put that money in to a new show which will be more likely to grow Netflix's subscriber base than Sense8."
There doesn't seem to be anything inconsistent to me, here. There's a difference between investing money in an unproven investment (like a new show) and investing in an investment with a poor track record and slim prospects for improvement.
MBAs are not what drive quarterly results mentality.
Having worked with bad MBAs, I think you are pretty much wrong. The problem is there are good MBAs, incompetent MBAs, and evil MBAs and they all have different goals. The good MBAs want to grow the company, they like long term investments that are profitable. The incompetent MBAs want to maximize this quarter's results so they look good and can't understand why anybody looks beyond the current quarter. The evil MBAs also want to maximize this quarter's results, but are willing to deliberately sabotage the company's long term future to do so. That way they make themselves look good and they will be gone by the time the events they set in motion play out. Of course, after they've left, they will point at the company and loudly proclaim that the company would be doing great if they had only listened to the evil MBA's advice...
It has been my anecdotal experience that the majority of MBAs fall into category 2, partly because it seems that sub-par MBA programs teach people that maximizing that always maximizing the current quarter's results is a fool proof way to maximize long term results.
While I'm sure there are people out there that like Netflix's original content, I just don't know anyone who watches it.
I find that hard to believe unless you associate with a very small group of people who are significantly a-typical. Have you considered the possibility that there are people that you know who are watching those shows, but for whatever reason they just don't want to talk to you about it?
Taking these sorts of risks is usually the indication of a company fighting to stay ahead of its competitors, not an indication of success.
Yes, but he's a CEO and talking about his company to reporters, so he has to put at least some positive spin on it. You should also consider that it's also what every successful business in a relatively new field does. The ones who don't spend, get overtaken by competition and fade away. And he's not wrong, they are continuing the strategy because it has been hugely successful. I think the point, however awkwardly put, is that the negative cash flow is a sign that their strategy is succeeding (because otherwise they'd have to put an end to it PDQ). Specifically, as long as they are growing their audience by leaps and bounds (and thus their market cap), their investors will tolerate the negative cash flow and wait for the eventual dividends.
Note that the alternative to spending more than you have is not 'sitting on cash'. You can spend exactly as much as you have. Again, circumstances may dictate temporarily exceeding your cash on hand and taking on debt, but if it is a long term situation that revenue never outpaces your costs, then it's a big problem.
It depends on how loyal Netflix's customers will be. They are spending cash now to buy market share before a seriously good competitor shows up, and it seems to be working since they added 5m new customers. If they keep adding new customers at a high rate without losing too many current customers, they can simply choose to grow new content spending more slowly than their net revenue increases and eventually they will become profitable.
Slashdot Mirror
The existence of special treatment will always cast a shadow over your own abilities and about whether or not you deserve the place you have. It's an adds an extra layer of bullshit that's an unnecessary and counterproductive distraction.
Personally, I have no actual reason to believe that the bullshit would be any less if the policy were removed. I would be surprised if the people most upset by the policy didn't immediately find a different reason to be upset.
...that "politics and political agendas have sidelined the important mission of rebuilding America's manufacturing base..." The president has been doing what he can on the executive side on things like trade, vocational training, et al. The politics & political agendas that have been doing the sidelining have been things like the obsession w/ Russia, daily protests against the president, the fake news media (now including FNC) slamming him for everything he does. Trump is not the one who has been ignoring the issues involved w/ bringing manufacturing back into the country
What a load of bull shit. Trump could be working on things that matter regardless of the circus, but he's not and the only person to blame for that is Trump himself. We know Trump has spent over a 5th of his time in office at his personal golf courses. If he can spend time on that, and doesn't have time to work on a plan for manufacturing jobs, then we can clearly see where his priorities are.
Those guys who leave b'cos Trump failed to explicitly mention 'White Supremacists', as opposed to the implicit inclusion of them in his remarks, are precisely the people who allow their own politics & political agendas to sideline the missions for which they were on that council in the first place.
Trump has no problem specifically denouncing just about anyone else, so why does he have such a soft spot for the KKK?
In a blog post, Krzanich said that the decline in American manufacturing remains a serious issue, but said that "politics and political agendas have sidelined the important mission of rebuilding America's manufacturing base. I resigned to call attention to the serious harm our divided political climate is causing to critical issues, including the serious need to address the decline of American manufacturing
Translation: "I'm too much of a coward to publicly denounce Nazis and white supremacists by name and Trump's support for them and only am resigning because of pressure from bad publicity to my company that is resulting from my slow exit from this useless advisory body."
That's a pretty poor translation because the next line of the press release says:
I think it's closer to "Trump loves praise too much to denounce the violence of his most ardent supporters, so fuck this, we're out."
"Politics and political agendas have sidelined the important mission of rebuilding America's manufacturing base."
What a load of crap. America's manufacturing base is fine and certainly doesn't require rebuilding. America has a HUGE and thriving manufacturing base. By itself it is approximately the size of the GDP of the UK and twice the size of the GDP of Russia. It could be improved but Trump isn't going to be the guy to lead that charge and anyone who didn't realize that in the first 100 days of his administration is an idiot. Improving manufacturing in the US will require careful planning, good policy, and sensible strategy. We aren't going to get any of those as long as Trump sits in the oval office.
I think you're saying the same thing as Krzanich, he just took longer to reach the same conclusion.
The internet has spoken. Soon, 43% of this country will be labeled a Neo-Nazi.
Nah, even if you labelled every Trump voter a Neo-Nazi, as unlikely as that is, you'd barely crack 23% of Americans, because only half of eligible voters voted. However, given that there are many Americans who are not eligible voters, we need to refine that number further. There are 323.1 million Americans, but only about 248 eligible voters. Since we know Trump received exactly 62,984,825 votes, we can calculate an upper level of denouncement of approximately 19.5% of Americans based on voting behaviour.
Having said that, there are no credible claims that all Trump voters are Neo-Nazis, however it is entirely accurate to note that the Neo-Nazis love Trump. Some people may be confused by that statement but it's similar very similar to the situation with David Hasselhoff. Germans love Hasselhoff, but that doesn't mean that if you love Hasselhoff that you're German.
Alternatively, you could calculate the upper limit at 34%, which is Trump's approval rating, though that's also sketchy since people could, in theory, approve of Trump for reasons other than his courting of white supremacists. I will now let you get back to your self-pity and bemoaning about how it's so unfair that old white men only have most of the power now, instead of all of it.
I dislike the idea of posting hate speech online just as much as the next, and in principle I agree with what GoDaddy and Google did here, however if you can cancel someone's domain over unapproved speech, what protections do others have with holding their domains when they speak ill of the government of otherwise? Restricting speech is a slippery slope, if you remove it for one nutjob (like GoDaddy and Google did here), however awful it might be, you're opening the door for the government to shut down other domains that are critical of them.
How? They were shut down for a violation of the already existing terms of service. It looks like Stormfront agreed (twice) to not promote violence against other people on their web site, then broke the agreement (twice). It's not a slippery slope to enforce the rules that were already written explicitly to handle this situation. It could be a slippery slope, for example if existing rules were being contorted to get the desired result, or if new rules were being written to handle this situation specifically, but that's not the case. It is likely that both Go Daddy and Google have handle similar cases in the past in the same manner, no one cared previously because they weren't tied to a national news story. In a week, very few people will care about this one too.
Ever heard of a self-fulfilling prophecy?
Of course he's saying they shamed and smeared him, to do otherwise would be to admit they had good reasons to fire him.
The problem is that he basically accused his bosses of being incompetent thought-controlling tyrants, and then let his accusations get into the media. He put them in the difficult position of either having to admit his accusations were correct or having to fire him. If what he wrote was true, they weren't going to the first one and if what he wrote was false, they definitely weren't going to do the first one.
Nope, not even close. We could argue that maybe 30 years ago they were more center than left, but today it is firmly left. Sander's platform is Marxist, not Libertarian. It states that Government should own the economy, distribute wealth as it sees fit, take money from people as they see fit, and have control over all aspects of a person's life. The collective is greater than the Individual.
There's a wikipedia article on his positions, maybe you should read it?
Numerous Liberals left the Democratic party because they have become a party of extreme Leftists promoting ideas more in line with Marxism than text book Liberalism.
While I don't doubt that you sincerely believe what you write to be true, what you are writing is bat-shit crazy-talk. The American Democratic party is solidly right of centre on virtually every issue.
If you follow the pronouncements carefully, I have no doubt you will find that every generation of children has been irredeemably worse than their parent's generation since at least the invention of the written language.
1. Past inventions were not close to you everywhere. Books arguably could have been, but they were never considered disruptive.
Apparently, you'd be surprised at what was once considered disruptive:
Not really. Prior to cellphones, how often did someone crash their car because they were watching television or reading a book while driving?
When I was much younger, a friend's foster mother actually did that. Although, I think she was technically writing in her book, instead of reading it at the time of the crash. This wasn't prior to cellphones entirely, but it was before they became popular and she certainly didn't have one. For anecdotal comparison, I'm not actually aware of anyone that I know having crashed their car because they were using a smart phone.
A career in business and politics evaporates for one ill thought out comment at a dinner party?
It wasn't an "ill thought out comment at a dinner party", it was part of a speech given to a group of big money backers. Because it was part of prepared speech, that means the statement had been pre-approved, memorized, repeated and then defended, even though it should have been obviously false.
Look I don't like the guy, but everyone says stupid shit sometimes, and if that's the benchmark for failure what does that say about the current clown-chief?
I think I'm saying that Trump makes just about every other Republican look good in comparison.
He was reasonably compentent with his companies, in the sense that he could not have won that much more by investing all his money in top 100 stocks, when he started AND got a name out of it.
I am assuming you mean top 100 performing stocks, and that would be false. Trump would have approximately the same net worth if he had invested all his money in the stock market index companies, so his performance with his companies is about average despite the occasional illegal and many unethical things he has done to try and ensure their success.
He sounded better to enough people than Hillary Clinton.
Define "enough", two million more people voted for her. Most of the vote broke down along party lines and the negative campaigning was just enough to depress the Democratic vote to allow Trump to eek out a narrow victory in the electoral college.
The ones that seem ok (eg Romney) never get the vote.
My problem with Romney was that he seemed clueless. He either didn't understand that almost half of poor people vote for Republican candidates or he didn't have the balls to say so in front of a private audience. His whole "half of them will never vote for me" thing told me that, either way, he was incompetent. Really, as a professional politician, it's his job to know who votes for him. Not knowing who votes for you or being ashamed of the people voting for you is just ridiculously incompetent.
And once you open that up you have more calls of discrimination. How do you legally say you can go it but if you've had your genital removed or are on hormone therapy you cannot be in the military? That just creates more problems that it's worth. Best thing to do is an outright ban.
It's pretty simple, if we can show that genital removal materially affects a person's combat readiness, we can make that a disqualifying medical condition, which would apply to both post-op transgendered people and cis-gendered people who have been traumatically injured. Again, if we can show that hormone therapy actually make someone unsuitable for combat deployment than it can also be marked as a disqualifying medical condition and would apply equally to transgendered people on hormone therapy and to cis-gendered people who are hormone therapy (for example, because they have survived breast or testicular cancer).
The best thing, in my opinion, is to treat everyone equally and require everyone to meet a set of objective standards to qualify for military service.
On the other hand, if you don't want to be judged for keeping sex slaves, maybe don't bring them with you to a convention where you're one of the leaders, and if you do, maybe don't parade them around. I could quite easily see where some people having seen him parade his sex slave, and having seen that she has a considerable and obvious mental handicap might jump to the conclusion that he was exploiting her. Sure, he has a police note that says he's not raping her, but obviously this type of misunderstanding has happened before, or he wouldn't have that note.
I'd bet money that the real reason he was eventually dismissed, has nothing to do with his kink. After he refused to resign, he went public and became a shit disturber. At that point, it should have been clear that he was never getting his position back. Kink is one thing, taking your personal crap and using it to divide the community is another. He's toxic now, because of his actions in the project. So the only way back for him is the complete removal of all the other project leaders, which would likely kill Drupal.
He thinks they're upset with him because he likes to treat women like sex slaves, and it's true that they were likely horrified when they were told that he showed off his sex slave at a Drupal conference. However, once he made it clear it was consensual relationship and that he had no reason to resign, he might have kept his position if he had kept his mouth shut, and let the whole thing blow over. Instead, he had to get righteously indignant and blog about the whole mess. At that point, instead of making the problem go away, he made it much, much worse for himself. When the problem was the kink, it was something that could be dealt with, mostly by being a bit more private about it. But the blog posts made him the problem, and then the only solution was to remove him from the leadership.
So, in my opinion, nobody's in the right here, it's just a mess created by fallible people.
Now this is just my guess, but I think they place a very heavy weight on the ability of a show to stop the loss of viewers. I remember it being mentioned that according to their metrics virtually everyone who watched the 5th (I think) episode of Daredevil, finished the entire series. My guess is that Sense8 wasn't doing that. If they were continuing to lose customers all through the series' second season, that might have been a clear enough indication that the situation had little to no hope for improvement. Again, this is just my educated guess. For reference, I watched the first episode of Sense8 and I didn't like the show enough to watch the second... In my case, there was nothing that peaked my interest in the first episode, and there was a tonne of other shows that were more appealing. I may eventually work my way back around to Sense8 and watch the second episode, but frankly my list of shows to watch is currently getting longer, not shorter.
One important thing to understand about the customer drop off metric is it should scale pretty well. The group of early watchers is probably indicative of the peak completion rate for the series since these are likely to be the viewers that are likely to be the most enthusiastic about the program. If the completion rate for that group looks poor, it would be unlikely to improve unless the show finds a new, qualitatively different, audience. This means the metric would be mostly independent of the size of the show's current audience.
Do you really need to have 16 fallback kernels?
That works for me. I use and work with Windows MacOS, linux and ChromeOS. So I have at least some valid experience. Windows is incredibly brittle and prone to update failures, resulting in a machine that does not function. Either via programs that worked one day, and not the next, to an office program that isn't compatible with itself, and an OS that now has become All your dat are belong to us.
That's absolutely true, the other day my Windows partition stopped letting me log in. No explanation, just an endless black screen after login. I eventually "repaired" it with boot tools but because those are automated, it didn't tell me what the problem was and though a lot of people have had similar problems, no one seems to know what really causes it. So yeah, Windows is terrible, and upgrading seems to only make Windows worse.
To interpret this for you: "Sense8 didn't make the cut because not enough people were watching it to justify keeping it going and it was losing, not gaining viewers. Netflix still gave it a much longer time to find it's audience than a traditional television show would ever have been given. Instead Netflix is going to put that money in to a new show which will be more likely to grow Netflix's subscriber base than Sense8."
There doesn't seem to be anything inconsistent to me, here. There's a difference between investing money in an unproven investment (like a new show) and investing in an investment with a poor track record and slim prospects for improvement.
MBAs are not what drive quarterly results mentality.
Having worked with bad MBAs, I think you are pretty much wrong. The problem is there are good MBAs, incompetent MBAs, and evil MBAs and they all have different goals. The good MBAs want to grow the company, they like long term investments that are profitable. The incompetent MBAs want to maximize this quarter's results so they look good and can't understand why anybody looks beyond the current quarter. The evil MBAs also want to maximize this quarter's results, but are willing to deliberately sabotage the company's long term future to do so. That way they make themselves look good and they will be gone by the time the events they set in motion play out. Of course, after they've left, they will point at the company and loudly proclaim that the company would be doing great if they had only listened to the evil MBA's advice...
It has been my anecdotal experience that the majority of MBAs fall into category 2, partly because it seems that sub-par MBA programs teach people that maximizing that always maximizing the current quarter's results is a fool proof way to maximize long term results.
While I'm sure there are people out there that like Netflix's original content, I just don't know anyone who watches it.
I find that hard to believe unless you associate with a very small group of people who are significantly a-typical. Have you considered the possibility that there are people that you know who are watching those shows, but for whatever reason they just don't want to talk to you about it?
Taking these sorts of risks is usually the indication of a company fighting to stay ahead of its competitors, not an indication of success.
Yes, but he's a CEO and talking about his company to reporters, so he has to put at least some positive spin on it. You should also consider that it's also what every successful business in a relatively new field does. The ones who don't spend, get overtaken by competition and fade away. And he's not wrong, they are continuing the strategy because it has been hugely successful. I think the point, however awkwardly put, is that the negative cash flow is a sign that their strategy is succeeding (because otherwise they'd have to put an end to it PDQ). Specifically, as long as they are growing their audience by leaps and bounds (and thus their market cap), their investors will tolerate the negative cash flow and wait for the eventual dividends.
Note that the alternative to spending more than you have is not 'sitting on cash'. You can spend exactly as much as you have. Again, circumstances may dictate temporarily exceeding your cash on hand and taking on debt, but if it is a long term situation that revenue never outpaces your costs, then it's a big problem.
It depends on how loyal Netflix's customers will be. They are spending cash now to buy market share before a seriously good competitor shows up, and it seems to be working since they added 5m new customers. If they keep adding new customers at a high rate without losing too many current customers, they can simply choose to grow new content spending more slowly than their net revenue increases and eventually they will become profitable.