A good reviewer can write a review that tells me whether I want to see a movie, regardless of whether I agree with the reviewer's taste.
When they are writing a review. Because that information requires them to describe the movie so that you can make a guess based on what you like in movies vs what the reviewer likes.
When the reviewer is coming up with a 0-100 score as in the post above, it can only reflect the reviewer's opinion. You can't read between the lines because there are none.
It's use in the US is defensive. If you ask the question of all your applicants, you can have data to refute claims of bias in hiring. It's also always optional to answer.
However, I was glad that my friend simply explained it to me and I was able to say "Oh, well I won't be using that again, then."
Or you could be expected to learn this without a personal tutor. Like no white person has had to explain the problems with "cracker", including a significant discussion of the etymology of the word justifying the poor reaction to the slur.
That's where the "oh-so-terrible" media coverage comes from: People fed up with having to explain the same shit over and over and over and over again. To others who insist it must be explained personally, by someone they know and feel comfortable with, including a justification for why the word is offensive.
You made this post as if this is a new phenomenon. It's not.
People who are so into film that they become a professional reviewer are looking for something different than mass-market viewers. We plebs want to be entertained. The pros want art. It is very rare when a movie serves both.
This was true back in the day when movie reviews were printed in newspapers, and continued to be true when put on TV, and continues to be true today.
And it's also true in other settings. The pro reviewers have different desires than the rest of us when it comes to cars or video games. I don't care about a manual transmission option on a car - I'm just schlepping the kids around and commuting through heavy traffic, and a manual makes that worse. 0-60 is almost irrelevant.
But to a car enthusiast/reviewer, a slush box is a horrible thing and low 0-60 or good quarter mile are important.
Obama delivered at least $33 billion dollars to Iran, much of it in unmarked cargo planes in the middle of the night.
No, actually it was a wire transfer. The Shah's government put some money in US banks, and we impounded it when the revolution happened in 1979. Part of the deal was to return the money to the current government of Iran.
It turns out when you're making a diplomatic agreement, you have to give the other side a reason to agree.
You have to be an absolute fucking evil piece of shit to hand-wave that, and the subsequent death of thousands which it paid for.
You seem to be under the illusion that Iran does not make a shitload of money selling oil on the open market. You also seem to be unaware that religious fanatics will kill for a very low price.
Obama de facto giving Iran - and the crazy medieval trolls that run it - a path to nuclear weapons
Note: Believing this statement requires ignoring: 1) The laws of physics - you can't remove the radioactive evidence in 20 days. 2) The inspection system that was successful up until Trump stopped it. 3) That the Iranians built their facilities under a few different mountains, so no one can actually stop them using military force. Leaving diplomatic agreements as the only possible way to get Iran to not build a nuke. 4) That Iraq was a totally wonderful achievement for the US, and invading Iran would be even better!! 5) That Trump's utterly moronic approach to the situation has removed all barriers to an Iranian nuclear weapon.
So, naturally, there's lots of MAGA hats who fervently believe it.
You do understand that is a reference to the "Stargate Command" sign that has been placed on a broom closet in the real-life Cheyenne Mountain complex, right?
but there are plenty of families (mothers and fathers) interviewed saying "My kid was normal, walking and talking and then he got 5 vaccinations at once and two weeks later he stopped talking and was diagnosed with autism"
No there aren't.
First, the schedule doesn't include "5 vaccines at once" at that age....in fact, the largest burst of vaccines are at birth, which means if this theory was correct, they couldn't have been walking and talking normally because of all the damage caused by vaccines.
Second, autism can not be diagnosed in the extremely young, because the symptoms are not possible to detect - you can't tell that the kid was walking and talking when they can't walk or talk yet. Almost every "normal" two-year-old displays symptoms for autism. That's where phases like "terrible twos" comes from. What makes it autism is when they're still displaying those symptoms at age 4.
Last, the people saying this have been primed by the grifters to ignore the reality of childhood development and look only at vaccines, in order to sell them "cures".
Science seems to indicate (by MRI or CAT scan studies) that a child's brain can show signs of autism long before there's any noticeable behavioral changes so do I buy that in some cases a child may be developing autism but not showing signs
Depends on the factory and the job. "Use this to attach this thing to that thing" doesn't require a lot of book learnin', just some on-the-job training from someone.
Still High School/GED tends to be required because they'd like to see you are stable enough to stick to something for a while.
YouTube's algorithm is the problem. It reinforces these beliefs by showing video after video from the crank side of the subject. Watching the scientifically-proven side will also cause videos from the cranks to come up on your feed.
Which makes the crap seem more trustworthy than it actually is.
To bring it back to Slashdot, it's yelling "THERE ARE FIVE LIGHTS" enough times that Picard sees 5 lights.
Evil NASA patrols the ice wall and prevents anyone from reaching it.
Also, passengers in aircraft that supposedly fly past the edge are sedated via chemicals pumped into the cabin so that they do not know that they flew the long way around.
Screen them for the ones that are 'claiming' to believe it for purely entertainment or trolling purposes, give them a stern warning to discontinue that activity and release them.
Nah. Leave them to experience the consequences of their actions.
Group 1: Religious literalism taken to an extreme. They believe the big conspiracy is to move us away from God so that the evil cabal can steal our souls. So, Earth is round to weaken everyone's belief and move forward on their sinister plan.
Group 2: They just wanna believe there's massive conspiracies out there. It's a lot easier to accept that there are massive shadowy cabals doing all the evil in the world than to deal with the horrific reality that we are just really that bad to each other, frequently for stupid reasons.
Group 3: They believe they are smarter than everyone else, and we sheep just don't understand the subject matter like they do. This is common among moon landing hoaxers, who have.....interesting theories on astrophysics that they claim makes landing on the moon impossible. My favorite is the guy who thinks time slows down the further you get from Earth, so the astronauts would have died due to lack of blood circulation as their hearts beat slower. He thinks he understands temporal relativity, and thus he's found a 'gotcha'. But he's just an illustration of Dunning-Kruger.
but there also appears to be plenty of anecdotal evidence saying the opposite.
Here's the thing: There isn't plenty of anecdotal evidence saying the opposite.
There's the appearance of this because there's a whole lot of people trying to extract money from gullible people. After all, the gullible are fantastic financial targets, since you can just say anything and they'll keep buying your expensive snake oil.
These money extraction efforts are served by YouTube's current algorithm because it plays grifter after grifter until viewers start to think there's plenty of anecdotal evidence. There's no particular reason YouTube's algorithm has be reinforcing like this. The viewer is obviously interested in this particular subject, but they don't have to be presented with only the grifter side of the argument.
Low taxes work for factory jobs where you only need to finish high school (or even elementary school) to do the work.
Low taxes do not work when you require a much more educated workforce. Because that workforce demands things like schools, colleges and universities that do not suck, roads that are not riddled with holes, tap water you can drink safely, and so on. Those government services cost money, and when you race-to-the-bottom on taxes you can't afford to do them. This leads to a large recruiting and retention problem for employers, so they don't want to move. Plus the business frequently benefits from the better services that higher taxes can pay for.
Which is why there's a whole lot of dying industrial towns that keep slashing their taxes, sure that someone will move their high-tech company from a high-tax state any day now. Any day. Maybe if we cut taxes a little more. Here they come. Any time now.
Protip: When you want people to send their goddamn share of the income taxes right back to pay for your roads, and be happy about it, insults are not helpful.
Slashdot Mirror
Answer is Millenials are soft and impressionable
The youngest Millennials were born in 1996 to 2005, depending on who's definition you want to use.
You are arguing that late-teen to early-20s at the youngest are using a program designed for 5 to 8 year olds.
Welcome to being old. The people you derided as children are adults now.
A good reviewer can write a review that tells me whether I want to see a movie, regardless of whether I agree with the reviewer's taste.
When they are writing a review. Because that information requires them to describe the movie so that you can make a guess based on what you like in movies vs what the reviewer likes.
When the reviewer is coming up with a 0-100 score as in the post above, it can only reflect the reviewer's opinion. You can't read between the lines because there are none.
So...you might want to take a moment to learn about the continent of Asia. Specifically, the countries that are on it.
It's use in the US is defensive. If you ask the question of all your applicants, you can have data to refute claims of bias in hiring. It's also always optional to answer.
This is a chance for you to learn that the same word can have different meanings and/or connotations in different countries.
Do you really need someone to explain to you how making someone socially or legally inferior based on their race is racist?
However, I was glad that my friend simply explained it to me and I was able to say "Oh, well I won't be using that again, then."
Or you could be expected to learn this without a personal tutor. Like no white person has had to explain the problems with "cracker", including a significant discussion of the etymology of the word justifying the poor reaction to the slur.
That's where the "oh-so-terrible" media coverage comes from: People fed up with having to explain the same shit over and over and over and over again. To others who insist it must be explained personally, by someone they know and feel comfortable with, including a justification for why the word is offensive.
You made this post as if this is a new phenomenon. It's not.
People who are so into film that they become a professional reviewer are looking for something different than mass-market viewers. We plebs want to be entertained. The pros want art. It is very rare when a movie serves both.
This was true back in the day when movie reviews were printed in newspapers, and continued to be true when put on TV, and continues to be true today.
And it's also true in other settings. The pro reviewers have different desires than the rest of us when it comes to cars or video games. I don't care about a manual transmission option on a car - I'm just schlepping the kids around and commuting through heavy traffic, and a manual makes that worse. 0-60 is almost irrelevant.
But to a car enthusiast/reviewer, a slush box is a horrible thing and low 0-60 or good quarter mile are important.
It's just another form of compensation. If a company car is legal, so's this.
And as an added benefit, the company probably turned a profit due to appreciation.
Reality has a well-known liberal bias, so it's perfectly understandable that pointing out reality must be trolling.
Obama delivered at least $33 billion dollars to Iran, much of it in unmarked cargo planes in the middle of the night.
No, actually it was a wire transfer. The Shah's government put some money in US banks, and we impounded it when the revolution happened in 1979. Part of the deal was to return the money to the current government of Iran.
It turns out when you're making a diplomatic agreement, you have to give the other side a reason to agree.
You have to be an absolute fucking evil piece of shit to hand-wave that, and the subsequent death of thousands which it paid for.
You seem to be under the illusion that Iran does not make a shitload of money selling oil on the open market. You also seem to be unaware that religious fanatics will kill for a very low price.
Obama de facto giving Iran - and the crazy medieval trolls that run it - a path to nuclear weapons
Note: Believing this statement requires ignoring:
1) The laws of physics - you can't remove the radioactive evidence in 20 days.
2) The inspection system that was successful up until Trump stopped it.
3) That the Iranians built their facilities under a few different mountains, so no one can actually stop them using military force. Leaving diplomatic agreements as the only possible way to get Iran to not build a nuke.
4) That Iraq was a totally wonderful achievement for the US, and invading Iran would be even better!!
5) That Trump's utterly moronic approach to the situation has removed all barriers to an Iranian nuclear weapon.
So, naturally, there's lots of MAGA hats who fervently believe it.
German cars....that are built in South Carolina.
You do understand that is a reference to the "Stargate Command" sign that has been placed on a broom closet in the real-life Cheyenne Mountain complex, right?
but there are plenty of families (mothers and fathers) interviewed saying "My kid was normal, walking and talking and then he got 5 vaccinations at once and two weeks later he stopped talking and was diagnosed with autism"
No there aren't.
First, the schedule doesn't include "5 vaccines at once" at that age....in fact, the largest burst of vaccines are at birth, which means if this theory was correct, they couldn't have been walking and talking normally because of all the damage caused by vaccines.
Second, autism can not be diagnosed in the extremely young, because the symptoms are not possible to detect - you can't tell that the kid was walking and talking when they can't walk or talk yet. Almost every "normal" two-year-old displays symptoms for autism. That's where phases like "terrible twos" comes from. What makes it autism is when they're still displaying those symptoms at age 4.
Last, the people saying this have been primed by the grifters to ignore the reality of childhood development and look only at vaccines, in order to sell them "cures".
Science seems to indicate (by MRI or CAT scan studies) that a child's brain can show signs of autism long before there's any noticeable behavioral changes so do I buy that in some cases a child may be developing autism but not showing signs
It's not some cases. It is every. single. case.
Depends on the factory and the job. "Use this to attach this thing to that thing" doesn't require a lot of book learnin', just some on-the-job training from someone.
Still High School/GED tends to be required because they'd like to see you are stable enough to stick to something for a while.
Not to mention other planets
Flat Earthers believe that the other planets and the sun are round. Only the Earth is flat. Because reasons.
Kepler's laws, Newton's laws, and GPS.
Their expertise with these tends to consist of "the magic box tells me when to turn".
YouTube's algorithm is the problem. It reinforces these beliefs by showing video after video from the crank side of the subject. Watching the scientifically-proven side will also cause videos from the cranks to come up on your feed.
Which makes the crap seem more trustworthy than it actually is.
To bring it back to Slashdot, it's yelling "THERE ARE FIVE LIGHTS" enough times that Picard sees 5 lights.
Evil NASA patrols the ice wall and prevents anyone from reaching it.
Also, passengers in aircraft that supposedly fly past the edge are sedated via chemicals pumped into the cabin so that they do not know that they flew the long way around.
Screen them for the ones that are 'claiming' to believe it for purely entertainment or trolling purposes, give them a stern warning to discontinue that activity and release them.
Nah. Leave them to experience the consequences of their actions.
Group 1: Religious literalism taken to an extreme. They believe the big conspiracy is to move us away from God so that the evil cabal can steal our souls. So, Earth is round to weaken everyone's belief and move forward on their sinister plan.
Group 2: They just wanna believe there's massive conspiracies out there. It's a lot easier to accept that there are massive shadowy cabals doing all the evil in the world than to deal with the horrific reality that we are just really that bad to each other, frequently for stupid reasons.
Group 3: They believe they are smarter than everyone else, and we sheep just don't understand the subject matter like they do. This is common among moon landing hoaxers, who have.....interesting theories on astrophysics that they claim makes landing on the moon impossible. My favorite is the guy who thinks time slows down the further you get from Earth, so the astronauts would have died due to lack of blood circulation as their hearts beat slower. He thinks he understands temporal relativity, and thus he's found a 'gotcha'. But he's just an illustration of Dunning-Kruger.
but there also appears to be plenty of anecdotal evidence saying the opposite.
Here's the thing: There isn't plenty of anecdotal evidence saying the opposite.
There's the appearance of this because there's a whole lot of people trying to extract money from gullible people. After all, the gullible are fantastic financial targets, since you can just say anything and they'll keep buying your expensive snake oil.
These money extraction efforts are served by YouTube's current algorithm because it plays grifter after grifter until viewers start to think there's plenty of anecdotal evidence. There's no particular reason YouTube's algorithm has be reinforcing like this. The viewer is obviously interested in this particular subject, but they don't have to be presented with only the grifter side of the argument.
Low taxes work for factory jobs where you only need to finish high school (or even elementary school) to do the work.
Low taxes do not work when you require a much more educated workforce. Because that workforce demands things like schools, colleges and universities that do not suck, roads that are not riddled with holes, tap water you can drink safely, and so on. Those government services cost money, and when you race-to-the-bottom on taxes you can't afford to do them. This leads to a large recruiting and retention problem for employers, so they don't want to move. Plus the business frequently benefits from the better services that higher taxes can pay for.
Which is why there's a whole lot of dying industrial towns that keep slashing their taxes, sure that someone will move their high-tech company from a high-tax state any day now. Any day. Maybe if we cut taxes a little more. Here they come. Any time now.
Thanks, Catholic church.
No, that's Sunday off. You get Saturday off because of the efforts of Unions, and the need for non-union employers to match their benefits.
Protip: When you want people to send their goddamn share of the income taxes right back to pay for your roads, and be happy about it, insults are not helpful.