....is an Orwellian "Right to Erase History" cloaked (barely) in a postmodern "protect my feelings" camouflage.
it is one of the most pernicious and evil pieces of government legislation in human history - to assert that people have a RIGHT to employ the forces of law to rewrite what are known facts in favor of (empty set).
Unbelievable. The philosophers of the Enlightenment are spinning in their graves.
Considering I I don't recalll ever hearing of those subreddits, I'm not sure what you're talking about?
FWIW if they did ban those subreddits, then they're not following their own policy - if racist speech is allowed, and CoonTown sounds pretty damned racist, they should have left it up.
"Zuckerberg: Anyone can turn off and opt out of any data collection for ads, whether they use our services or not... "...how, precisely do I turn off and opt out of FB data collection without signing up for FB? I'm rather curious.
"Bug: you business model is based on selling data gathered without permission from users; effectively, this is like the Mafia asking people to help guard their loot. I can't imagine the cognitive dissonance needed to sustain that sort of hypocrisy, so it must be a bug?"
I'd only vaguely heard of him (frankly, I find the constant inside-the-beltway nattering tiresome) but when I see his wiki brief of:
"...The Nation has described Brock as a "conservative journalistic assassin turned progressive empire-builder",[7] while National Review has called him a "right-wing assassin turned left-wing assassin",[8] and Politico has profiled him as a "former right-wing journalist-turned-pro-Clinton crusader".[6]..."
Damn, that's a fantastic writeup. Everyone hates him, which is brilliant. (Don't get me wrong, he sounds like a hateable PERSON but as an entity in that ecosystem he's clearly Darwin's golden child).
I fully agree that DJT had only self-promotion on his mind when entering the race and that his winning the nomination had to be a "holy shit" moment...as much as his personality is capable of self-reflection or self-doubt, that is. So maybe not....
The value of such consultants is mostly to try to avert some sort of colossal fuck up in front of the cameras. It's only to avoid LOSING points, it will gain him nothing because congresscreatures *swim* the in cesspool of disingenuousness and smarmy, tv-polished bullshittery 24/7. If he's not up to their level of unctuousness he can only lose.
In fact, releasing that he's being coached like this (which is, clearly, a completely STANDARD practice for those not usually in this ecosystem) is already a shot across his bow, giving the politicians one starting foothold to disbelieve anything he says "Is that the truth, or is that what your handlers told you to say to us?"
Not that Zuckerberg would provide it, but candor, honestly, simple testimony is no longer sustaining fodder for public media consumption.
Sad to say, but I don't think anyone has the chutzpah to clean out that swamp - that's why the US is so at-risk for Caesarism. If someone a) pretty, b) smart, c) telegenic comes along they have a very tempting route to say "it's a terrible mess; that's why you need to give me all this power to fix it..." THEY MAY EVEN BE GENUINE in their intent; the problem is one of horses and barn doors. The *next* one on that throne (because that's effectively what it will be) will almost guaranteed NOT be a good, decent person.
The only thing saving us now is that the Establishments of both Left and Right would *never* let someone up through the process who has the slightest ability to go off script, or to shake their leash. So we have only their petty jealousies and greed defending the US from a *truly* terrifying populist.
Trump's a symptom, not the disease: people were so desperate, feeling so utterly cheated by big power, big money, big media all in collusion for decades, that they were willing to vote for a clown because at least he dared to go off-script. His opponent, HRH Hilary, was so obviously entitled, so obviously part of the problem (hello, Democrats, how hard did she have to FUCK OVER Bernie Sanders before you admit what happened? Any trace of moral high ground the Democrats *may* have held as naive idealists evaporated in 2016.) that nobody could STAND to vote for her draconic majesty.
...I would think one of the first things biosystem scientists would accept as axiomatic is that no ecosystem is completely stable or permanent. (shrug).
I didn't vote for him? What makes you think I did?
Or are you one of those "with us or against us" people?
Oh no, wait, that's the other Republican president you criticized for such simple-mindedness...
No, LOL, in serious answer to your question I thought Republicans were fucking nutballs for electing him...but the last 17+ months of frothing righteous zealot-like irrationality from the Left has at least made me realize his election has had comic value.
To say "wage growth is shrinking" with the implication that "something is wrong" following behind is so misleading one would have to ask what was the real purpose of releasing such a statement?
Wage growth (such as it is/was) is flatlining... which is still shit-tons better than it's been since 2008 where it's basically been falling in constant dollars.
Except you (& Stallman) omit the everpresent fact of cheaters.
Yes, it's easier to cooperate, and cooperation results in more success for everyone...and the best success for cheaters who are able to free-ride on the success.
It's the same failure in communism: a failure to appreciate the root, rational, and pervasive benefits of cheating mean it IS the best economic choice for a subset. Failure to address this means that everyone needs to attend to the free-rider issue...which is selfishness.
As a conservative, I have to admit I pretty much poo-pooh'd the Left's paranoia being victimized by big data and government; TBTH I assumed it would probably end up being my side that was going to be doing any of the oppressive stuff so I was probably ok.
But how the tables have turned: now the Leftists at Google have made me actually start to get nervous about how they're going to use my data - my searches, my friends, the things I think are important - against me "for my own good" of course.
I watch Demolition Ranch and occasionally watch gun reviews on Youtube. Has google accumulated a "crazy ass gun fanatic" file on me, and thus decided to single me out for special watching, filtering what I'm going to get from searches or even Cambridge Analytica-style aggressive, 'therapeutic' propaganda to "correct" my clearly aberrant leanings?
Thanks google, for making me think like the paranoid nutballs I generally mock.
But let's be honest, this is not merely an exercise of a totalitarian regime; both the left and right in US politics are constantly involved in trying to rewrite historical facts for their own purposes. What's wrong with China doing it is their effective MONOPOLY on the flow of information to their people, meaning obvious bullshit isn't revealed for what it is. The problem is somewhat mirrored in the US however by the excessive number of information sources, meaning discerning actual authority worth listening to is its own problem...
The beauty of the US constitution is that it assumes the people in charge are greedy, self interested, power hungry assholes, and then uses their self interest against them in a balance of power to restrain the overall (usually) growing power of a centralized government.
Stallman, otoh, seems to prefer to pronounce a world of pleasant fantasy where companies and government are going to build applications and tools voluntarily limiting their self-interested benefit.
In short, unless he can devise a mechanism in which these groups own self interest lies in conforming to his vision, it's utopian and pointless.
My $0.02 would be to recognize that organizations are made up of people after all, & to try to go after the people's PERSONAL self interest...something like requiring developers and sponsors of such projects to provide publicly about themselves any info their service/program/system collects on users.
Well first: "The illusion that you need to be in one of the high cost urban centers is untrue." I fixed that for you....but really - stop telling people.
I have an office 5 mi from my house, which is a 2400 sq ft 5 bedroom American Foursquare built in 1909 which we bought for $100k. With some minor work (done 90% by my wife's dad, actually) we now have something north of 3500 square feet. I go to the office when I want a quite, undistracted place to work. I'm within 30min (ok, maybe 40) of a major metro downtown, and a Delta hub airport. But the first 15 min of that drive is through rolling hills and cornfields. I have 100meg+ internet at both my home and work. I make a low-6-figure income.
I look at my peers who brag about incomes 2x-4x what I make and I laugh at them. I live practically in Mayberry and love my life.
"Some old 56k modem is not going to get you thru a lot of online job application forms" I would cheerfully contribute my taxes to a single study just to refute this ridiculous claim, trotted out everytime someone wants to justify free internet for poor people.
Exactly what % of the packet traffic on their computers is "filling out job applications" LOL? You could literally mow 2 people's lawns in a month and get 5 meg broadband around here. That's maybe 3-4 hours work. They can afford broadband.
(Hint: they can afford a computer.)
You're right: we're the richest nation in human HISTORY...yet we still can't afford to pay for all the shit we want to buy, and live 20% above our income, consistently. That's STUPID.
I don't believe it's my responsibility as a taxpayer to give poor people broadband. Seriously. If they need to watch YouTube that bad, go to the public library.
Walk into ANY hotel in California, and there's the required "this facility contains chemicals that cause cancer blah blah blah" notice because somewhere in a cleaning closet there's a bottle of something toxic.
Walk into a plant that manufactures such chemicals and you see pretty much the same sign.
Which means nobody reads EITHER of them. Is public health really improved by such signage?
Slashdot Mirror
....is an Orwellian "Right to Erase History" cloaked (barely) in a postmodern "protect my feelings" camouflage.
it is one of the most pernicious and evil pieces of government legislation in human history - to assert that people have a RIGHT to employ the forces of law to rewrite what are known facts in favor of (empty set).
Unbelievable. The philosophers of the Enlightenment are spinning in their graves.
Considering I I don't recalll ever hearing of those subreddits, I'm not sure what you're talking about?
FWIW if they did ban those subreddits, then they're not following their own policy - if racist speech is allowed, and CoonTown sounds pretty damned racist, they should have left it up.
Because it is the most repellent speech that MUST be protected, or 'freedom of speech' means nothing.
Adults understand that words only "hurt" people that allow them to.
(To be clear, Reddit's is their META policy; subreddits are allowed to have whatever policies their founders choose, really.)
"Zuckerberg: Anyone can turn off and opt out of any data collection for ads, whether they use our services or not... " ...how, precisely do I turn off and opt out of FB data collection without signing up for FB?
I'm rather curious.
"Bug: you business model is based on selling data gathered without permission from users; effectively, this is like the Mafia asking people to help guard their loot. I can't imagine the cognitive dissonance needed to sustain that sort of hypocrisy, so it must be a bug?"
Do you think they'd pay me?
Funny how this goes from +2 Interesting to +5 Insightful to -1 troll when the workday-morning "Goodthought(tm)" Cheka get done with it....
I'd only vaguely heard of him (frankly, I find the constant inside-the-beltway nattering tiresome) but when I see his wiki brief of:
"...The Nation has described Brock as a "conservative journalistic assassin turned progressive empire-builder",[7] while National Review has called him a "right-wing assassin turned left-wing assassin",[8] and Politico has profiled him as a "former right-wing journalist-turned-pro-Clinton crusader".[6]..."
Damn, that's a fantastic writeup. Everyone hates him, which is brilliant. (Don't get me wrong, he sounds like a hateable PERSON but as an entity in that ecosystem he's clearly Darwin's golden child).
I fully agree that DJT had only self-promotion on his mind when entering the race and that his winning the nomination had to be a "holy shit" moment ...as much as his personality is capable of self-reflection or self-doubt, that is. So maybe not....
....the answer is almost always "NO".
The value of such consultants is mostly to try to avert some sort of colossal fuck up in front of the cameras. It's only to avoid LOSING points, it will gain him nothing because congresscreatures *swim* the in cesspool of disingenuousness and smarmy, tv-polished bullshittery 24/7. If he's not up to their level of unctuousness he can only lose.
In fact, releasing that he's being coached like this (which is, clearly, a completely STANDARD practice for those not usually in this ecosystem) is already a shot across his bow, giving the politicians one starting foothold to disbelieve anything he says "Is that the truth, or is that what your handlers told you to say to us?"
Not that Zuckerberg would provide it, but candor, honestly, simple testimony is no longer sustaining fodder for public media consumption.
Sad to say, but I don't think anyone has the chutzpah to clean out that swamp - that's why the US is so at-risk for Caesarism. If someone a) pretty, b) smart, c) telegenic comes along they have a very tempting route to say "it's a terrible mess; that's why you need to give me all this power to fix it..." THEY MAY EVEN BE GENUINE in their intent; the problem is one of horses and barn doors. The *next* one on that throne (because that's effectively what it will be) will almost guaranteed NOT be a good, decent person.
The only thing saving us now is that the Establishments of both Left and Right would *never* let someone up through the process who has the slightest ability to go off script, or to shake their leash. So we have only their petty jealousies and greed defending the US from a *truly* terrifying populist.
Trump's a symptom, not the disease: people were so desperate, feeling so utterly cheated by big power, big money, big media all in collusion for decades, that they were willing to vote for a clown because at least he dared to go off-script. His opponent, HRH Hilary, was so obviously entitled, so obviously part of the problem (hello, Democrats, how hard did she have to FUCK OVER Bernie Sanders before you admit what happened? Any trace of moral high ground the Democrats *may* have held as naive idealists evaporated in 2016.) that nobody could STAND to vote for her draconic majesty.
...I would think one of the first things biosystem scientists would accept as axiomatic is that no ecosystem is completely stable or permanent. (shrug).
I didn't vote for him? What makes you think I did?
Or are you one of those "with us or against us" people?
Oh no, wait, that's the other Republican president you criticized for such simple-mindedness...
No, LOL, in serious answer to your question I thought Republicans were fucking nutballs for electing him...but the last 17+ months of frothing righteous zealot-like irrationality from the Left has at least made me realize his election has had comic value.
To say "wage growth is shrinking" with the implication that "something is wrong" following behind is so misleading one would have to ask what was the real purpose of releasing such a statement?
https://www.theatlas.com/chart...
Wage growth (such as it is/was) is flatlining ... which is still shit-tons better than it's been since 2008 where it's basically been falling in constant dollars.
Phht. You really are spoiling the anti-Trump virtue-signaling of this "news" post.
Youtube profits a great deal from triggering outrage. Is it karma that they suffer the boomerang of someone 'triggered' by their policies/choices?
I would have expected better video of the event, honestly.
Except you (& Stallman) omit the everpresent fact of cheaters.
Yes, it's easier to cooperate, and cooperation results in more success for everyone...and the best success for cheaters who are able to free-ride on the success.
It's the same failure in communism: a failure to appreciate the root, rational, and pervasive benefits of cheating mean it IS the best economic choice for a subset. Failure to address this means that everyone needs to attend to the free-rider issue...which is selfishness.
As a conservative, I have to admit I pretty much poo-pooh'd the Left's paranoia being victimized by big data and government; TBTH I assumed it would probably end up being my side that was going to be doing any of the oppressive stuff so I was probably ok.
But how the tables have turned: now the Leftists at Google have made me actually start to get nervous about how they're going to use my data - my searches, my friends, the things I think are important - against me "for my own good" of course.
I watch Demolition Ranch and occasionally watch gun reviews on Youtube. Has google accumulated a "crazy ass gun fanatic" file on me, and thus decided to single me out for special watching, filtering what I'm going to get from searches or even Cambridge Analytica-style aggressive, 'therapeutic' propaganda to "correct" my clearly aberrant leanings?
Thanks google, for making me think like the paranoid nutballs I generally mock.
But let's be honest, this is not merely an exercise of a totalitarian regime; both the left and right in US politics are constantly involved in trying to rewrite historical facts for their own purposes.
What's wrong with China doing it is their effective MONOPOLY on the flow of information to their people, meaning obvious bullshit isn't revealed for what it is.
The problem is somewhat mirrored in the US however by the excessive number of information sources, meaning discerning actual authority worth listening to is its own problem...
The beauty of the US constitution is that it assumes the people in charge are greedy, self interested, power hungry assholes, and then uses their self interest against them in a balance of power to restrain the overall (usually) growing power of a centralized government.
Stallman, otoh, seems to prefer to pronounce a world of pleasant fantasy where companies and government are going to build applications and tools voluntarily limiting their self-interested benefit.
In short, unless he can devise a mechanism in which these groups own self interest lies in conforming to his vision, it's utopian and pointless.
My $0.02 would be to recognize that organizations are made up of people after all, & to try to go after the people's PERSONAL self interest...something like requiring developers and sponsors of such projects to provide publicly about themselves any info their service/program/system collects on users.
Well first:
"The illusion that you need to be in one of the high cost urban centers is untrue."
I fixed that for you....but really - stop telling people.
I have an office 5 mi from my house, which is a 2400 sq ft 5 bedroom American Foursquare built in 1909 which we bought for $100k. With some minor work (done 90% by my wife's dad, actually) we now have something north of 3500 square feet.
I go to the office when I want a quite, undistracted place to work.
I'm within 30min (ok, maybe 40) of a major metro downtown, and a Delta hub airport. But the first 15 min of that drive is through rolling hills and cornfields.
I have 100meg+ internet at both my home and work. I make a low-6-figure income.
I look at my peers who brag about incomes 2x-4x what I make and I laugh at them. I live practically in Mayberry and love my life.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
...Let's remember that this is a self-selected subset of people?
These are the folks who chose to remain (some would say hide) in academia while all their peers were venturing out into the world of maturity.
"Some old 56k modem is not going to get you thru a lot of online job application forms"
I would cheerfully contribute my taxes to a single study just to refute this ridiculous claim, trotted out everytime someone wants to justify free internet for poor people.
Exactly what % of the packet traffic on their computers is "filling out job applications" LOL? You could literally mow 2 people's lawns in a month and get 5 meg broadband around here. That's maybe 3-4 hours work. They can afford broadband.
(Hint: they can afford a computer.)
You're right: we're the richest nation in human HISTORY...yet we still can't afford to pay for all the shit we want to buy, and live 20% above our income, consistently. That's STUPID.
So...honesty=flamebait.
Good ol' slashdot. Being reddit before it was kewl.
I don't believe it's my responsibility as a taxpayer to give poor people broadband. Seriously.
If they need to watch YouTube that bad, go to the public library.
Exactly this.
Walk into ANY hotel in California, and there's the required "this facility contains chemicals that cause cancer blah blah blah" notice because somewhere in a cleaning closet there's a bottle of something toxic.
Walk into a plant that manufactures such chemicals and you see pretty much the same sign.
Which means nobody reads EITHER of them. Is public health really improved by such signage?
All during which the world's ecologically-conscious community will continue to attack Trump for....reasons.