Sorry, Slashdot is stupid with requiring a break tag in order to add new lines.
I can't read this stuff, what a terrible comment system.
Especially when the preview makes it look fine, but the comment ends up looking terrible.
"- Stop the competitor"
Stop one competitor, motivate other (new) competitors.
"- Acquire the talents and mind behind the startup to use them."
Give smart people access to a bigger platform.
If they don't like it they can leave any time they want, so long as it's in line with contracts they voluntarily agreed to.
"It usually doesn't include the goal that interests most end-users:"
"- Keep the startup's project alive thanks to bigger infrastructure."
If people value the project, why would the company shut it down and give up on a money-making opportunity?
This leaves a gap in the market for others to fill.
"- Usually that project get shut down, and the brains reassigned to the corporation other targets/projects."
If a company wastes a massive amount of resources by shutting down projects they bought, it raises their costs compared to other companies.
And the result of Facebook's practices is that we now have a ton of really good competitors:
- Minds.com
- Gab.ai
- BitChute
- etc
The only reason they're kept down in any way is establishment/government control of money.
We're working on taking that away with crypto.
People choose to keep using Facebook to the extent they feel it provides them with value.
We may not like it, but value is entirely subjective.
You seem to be pointing to some things you don't like and concluding "therefore government should step in".
This requires a very dangerous assumption: that government will do what you want.
The US even has laws against a platform like Facebook, Twitter and Youtube censoring conservatives.
It's just that laws are implemented to serve the ruling class.
So where do you get the idea that any law will be used to serve the people?
1. Copying features.
Great, this means we get more features.
It also shows the futility of patents and copyright.
These things only serve the established and dominant corporations because it raises the barrier to entry.
2. Buying competing companies
Great, rewards innovators for their work, motivates more to do the same and also get paid.
This is the free market as it should be.
Much better than in markets where government meddles, actually fucking things up.
The only problem here could be things happen that the writer doesn't like.
Wow, it's really easy for you to make a horrible accusation.
You're effectively saying that Hollywood, that's extremely progressive, is sexist against women.
And your only evidence for this is that most directors are men, that's no evidence at all.
In a poor, traditional country like Poland the sex differences in most professions, including technical, are very small.
But in a rich, feminist country like Sweden the sex differences are much bigger, many have a near 100% difference.
Men and women have very different desires, wealth allows them to do what they want.
Try actually looking into the issue, instead of accepting feminist dogma's without evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"Yes there is. Funding. Which is harder for women to get than men."
Citation needed.
Wow, it's really easy for you to make a horrible accusation.
You're effectively saying that Hollywood, that's extremely progressive, is sexist against women.
And your only evidence for this is that most directors are men, that's no evidence at all.
In a poor, traditional country like Poland the sex differences in most professions, including technical, are very small.
But in a rich, feminist country like Sweden the sex differences are much bigger, many have a near 100% difference.
Men and women have very different desires, wealth allows them to do what they want.
The reality is women aren't willing to do the hard work to get there, good for them, raising a family will make you much happier than directing a film.
Try actually looking into the issue, instead of accepting feminist dogma's without evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"Just having free choice doesn't seem to work!"
Maybe not in terms of getting the results you want.
But as feminism got more influence in the west, women got less happy.
So there's no evidence what you want is actually good.
"they spoke out about it!"
Some people did, that tells us very little about most people or most women want.
You're really quick to make a horrible accusation.
You're effectively saying that Hollywood, that's extremely progressive, is sexist against women.
And your only evidence for this is that most directors are men, that's no evidence at all.
In a poor, traditional country like Poland the sex differences in most professions, including technical, are very small.
But in a rich, feminist country like Sweden the sex differences are much bigger, many have a near 100% difference.
Men and women have very different desires, wealth allows them to do what they want.
Try actually looking into the issue, instead of accepting feminist dogma's without evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Wow, it's really easy for you to make a horrible accusation.
You're effectively saying that Hollywood, that's extremely progressive, is sexist against women.
And your only evidence for this is that most directors are men, that's no evidence at all.
In a poor, traditional country like Poland the sex differences in most professions, including technical, are very small.
But in a rich, feminist country like Sweden the sex differences are much bigger, many have a near 100% difference.
Men and women have very different desires, wealth allows them to do what they want.
Try actually looking into the issue, instead of accepting feminist dogma's without evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Wow, it's really easy for you to make a horrible accusation.
You're effectively saying that Hollywood, that's extremely progressive, is sexist against women.
And your only evidence for this is that most directors are men, that's no evidence at all.
In a poor, traditional country like Poland the sex differences in most professions, including technical, are very small.
But in a rich, feminist country like Sweden the sex differences are much bigger, many have a near 100% difference.
Men and women have very different desires, wealth allows them to do what they want.
Try actually looking into the issue, instead of accepting feminist dogma's without evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
If the definition was something like:
"Seeking to cause harm to the community, the must must at least include false information, personal malicious attacks or reveal personal information that's not publicly available."
Then okay, that might indicate a conflict.
But this definition includes honest criticism and many other non-problematic types of posts.
This is part of 1984-style thought-policing.
Framing anything negative as a bad thing is incorrect as well.
Upvotes mean almost nothing without downvotes.
Allowing for the negative means you get a much better idea of how representative the positive is.
And people sometimes need/benefit from negative feedback to change their behavior.
News doesn't report a baker got up early in the morning to bake bread.
Good things tend to happen in small steps.
While bad things can happen in big bang events, which are far more newsworthy.
People will criticize each other, grow up.
I could not find a definition of 'conflict' in this research.
Only: "examining cases where users of one community are mobilized by negative sentiment to comment in another community."
Wow, that included normal criticism, is this thought control?
Of course it's fine for a platform like Reddit to manage disagreements between communities.
But calling it a 'conflict' is ridiculous.
I did provide an argument for why government promotes irrational behavior:
"Because everything government does includes making responsible people pay for irresponsible people."
There's no citation because this is just my own opinion.
This is a global assertion, you could prove it wrong very easily, by providing one example of a government program that doesn't fit this definition.
The longer road would be for me to explain in details for every single government program how it has this property.
I could do that for a number of government programs if you want.
But I think it would save us both time if you find a government program you like and I then explain why it has these properties.
You misunderstood my statement as claiming there was nothing wrong with it because it's for profit.
There where two independent statements:
1. It's for profit.
2. There's nothing wrong with it.
Something being for profit doesn't imply a moral conclusion, there could easily be many things wrong with something for profit.
The way I reach moral conclusions about actions is based on the Non-aggression principle.
It's a very short and simple way of reaching moral conclusions.
The question you ask is, did the action include aggression against any person (or their property) that did not initiate aggression first?
If no, there's nothing morally wrong with the action.
And following the NAP means that if there's nothing morally wrong with something, you need to grow up and deal with your own fears instead of initiating violence against other people. If you do initiate violence, you're the person that's morally wrong.
Here's a book explaining this morality in detail: http://cdn.media.freedomainrad...
It's simply for profit and there's nothing wrong with it.
People are able to think for themselves and responsible for their own actions.
"radical" opinions would have no effect on the people if there was no truth to them.
The problem is that government rule is based on violence against peaceful people and evil by definition.
So governments are fabricating all kinds of problems out of thin air.
Discussion of these problems is considered problematic by the ruling class because it threatens their power.
There are also real fake news, like flat earth.
Some people believe that, but it's not actually harmful so long as they don't get control over government.
The problem is that government promotes irrational behavior.
Because everything government does includes making responsible people pay for irresponsible people.
Why would anyone do the hard work of rational thought in such a situation?
That's why people are willing to believe more and more radical idea's.
And willing to go down the rabbit hole Youtube presents them with.
The websites they used to determine what's 'true' are very biased in favor of the establishment and progressiveness.
Like taking the climate panic as true. Even though the whole thing is based on a suspicion that's been proven wrong.
They just looked at the type of neurons in people's brains.
Have they also scanned a persons brain over a period of time.
Especially comparing scans of people who are learning new things to people who aren't.
And looked if there are any changes to the neurons those people have?
Why would you go through the effort of making a robot arm to do this?
Seems to me you could bake these burgers in the same way bread is baked.
A conveyor belt that moves the burgers over the fire in a consistent way.
The evidence in the supposed attack on US elections showed it was the Democrats paying Russian government officials for dirt on Trump.
The e-mail leak came from an insider who copied it on an USB drive.
The whole propaganda campaign against Trump was based on Democrats blaming others for their own crimes.
I'm very well aware of that.
The only reason that's possible is the government having power in the first place.
It would be way to expensive for a company to enforce these restrictions themselves.
People in companies are just as greedy and corrupt as everyone else.
Becoming a politician doesn't make you a better person.
If anything the political system selects the worst, most corruptible people.
That will just give them more control of government.
Interesting how this comes just as there's serious competition for FaceBook and Google:
- Minds.com
- Gab.ai
- New version of Firefox
- Brave (browser)
Just to name a few.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, Slashdot is stupid with requiring a break tag
in order to add new lines.
I can't read this stuff, what a terrible comment system.
Especially when the preview makes it look fine, but the comment ends up looking terrible.
"- Stop the competitor"
:"
Stop one competitor, motivate other (new) competitors.
"- Acquire the talents and mind behind the startup to use them."
Give smart people access to a bigger platform.
If they don't like it they can leave any time they want, so long as it's in line with contracts they voluntarily agreed to.
"It usually doesn't include the goal that interests most end-users
"- Keep the startup's project alive thanks to bigger infrastructure."
If people value the project, why would the company shut it down and give up on a money-making opportunity?
This leaves a gap in the market for others to fill.
"- Usually that project get shut down, and the brains reassigned to the corporation other targets/projects."
If a company wastes a massive amount of resources by shutting down projects they bought, it raises their costs compared to other companies.
And the result of Facebook's practices is that we now have a ton of really good competitors:
- Minds.com
- Gab.ai
- BitChute
- etc
The only reason they're kept down in any way is establishment/government control of money.
We're working on taking that away with crypto.
People choose to keep using Facebook to the extent they feel it provides them with value.
We may not like it, but value is entirely subjective.
You seem to be pointing to some things you don't like and concluding "therefore government should step in".
This requires a very dangerous assumption: that government will do what you want.
The US even has laws against a platform like Facebook, Twitter and Youtube censoring conservatives.
It's just that laws are implemented to serve the ruling class.
So where do you get the idea that any law will be used to serve the people?
Apologies for the formatting, it looked good in the preview :(
1. Copying features. Great, this means we get more features. It also shows the futility of patents and copyright. These things only serve the established and dominant corporations because it raises the barrier to entry. 2. Buying competing companies Great, rewards innovators for their work, motivates more to do the same and also get paid. This is the free market as it should be. Much better than in markets where government meddles, actually fucking things up. The only problem here could be things happen that the writer doesn't like.
They're getting the value and can choose not to use the service. Better than making people pay without consent.
Wow, it's really easy for you to make a horrible accusation.
You're effectively saying that Hollywood, that's extremely progressive, is sexist against women.
And your only evidence for this is that most directors are men, that's no evidence at all.
In a poor, traditional country like Poland the sex differences in most professions, including technical, are very small.
But in a rich, feminist country like Sweden the sex differences are much bigger, many have a near 100% difference.
Men and women have very different desires, wealth allows them to do what they want.
Try actually looking into the issue, instead of accepting feminist dogma's without evidence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"Yes there is. Funding. Which is harder for women to get than men." Citation needed. Wow, it's really easy for you to make a horrible accusation.
You're effectively saying that Hollywood, that's extremely progressive, is sexist against women.
And your only evidence for this is that most directors are men, that's no evidence at all.
In a poor, traditional country like Poland the sex differences in most professions, including technical, are very small.
But in a rich, feminist country like Sweden the sex differences are much bigger, many have a near 100% difference.
Men and women have very different desires, wealth allows them to do what they want.
The reality is women aren't willing to do the hard work to get there, good for them, raising a family will make you much happier than directing a film.
Try actually looking into the issue, instead of accepting feminist dogma's without evidence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"Just having free choice doesn't seem to work!"
Maybe not in terms of getting the results you want.
But as feminism got more influence in the west, women got less happy.
So there's no evidence what you want is actually good.
"they spoke out about it!"
Some people did, that tells us very little about most people or most women want.
You're really quick to make a horrible accusation.
You're effectively saying that Hollywood, that's extremely progressive, is sexist against women.
And your only evidence for this is that most directors are men, that's no evidence at all.
In a poor, traditional country like Poland the sex differences in most professions, including technical, are very small.
But in a rich, feminist country like Sweden the sex differences are much bigger, many have a near 100% difference.
Men and women have very different desires, wealth allows them to do what they want.
Try actually looking into the issue, instead of accepting feminist dogma's without evidence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It's up to the women to correct that, not society, apparently they don't care:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Wow, it's really easy for you to make a horrible accusation.
You're effectively saying that Hollywood, that's extremely progressive, is sexist against women.
And your only evidence for this is that most directors are men, that's no evidence at all.
In a poor, traditional country like Poland the sex differences in most professions, including technical, are very small.
But in a rich, feminist country like Sweden the sex differences are much bigger, many have a near 100% difference.
Men and women have very different desires, wealth allows them to do what they want.
Try actually looking into the issue, instead of accepting feminist dogma's without evidence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Wow, it's really easy for you to make a horrible accusation.
You're effectively saying that Hollywood, that's extremely progressive, is sexist against women.
And your only evidence for this is that most directors are men, that's no evidence at all.
In a poor, traditional country like Poland the sex differences in most professions, including technical, are very small.
But in a rich, feminist country like Sweden the sex differences are much bigger, many have a near 100% difference.
Men and women have very different desires, wealth allows them to do what they want.
Try actually looking into the issue, instead of accepting feminist dogma's without evidence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It would be great if they win this case.
People could use digital stores to avoid taxes and reduce the power of the state.
Less corruption of society.
Exactly, that's what I meant.
If the definition was something like:
"Seeking to cause harm to the community, the must must at least include false information, personal malicious attacks or reveal personal information that's not publicly available."
Then okay, that might indicate a conflict.
But this definition includes honest criticism and many other non-problematic types of posts.
This is part of 1984-style thought-policing.
Framing anything negative as a bad thing is incorrect as well.
Upvotes mean almost nothing without downvotes.
Allowing for the negative means you get a much better idea of how representative the positive is.
And people sometimes need/benefit from negative feedback to change their behavior.
News doesn't report a baker got up early in the morning to bake bread.
Good things tend to happen in small steps.
While bad things can happen in big bang events, which are far more newsworthy.
People will criticize each other, grow up.
I could not find a definition of 'conflict' in this research.
Only: "examining cases where users of one community are mobilized by negative sentiment to comment in another community."
Wow, that included normal criticism, is this thought control?
Of course it's fine for a platform like Reddit to manage disagreements between communities.
But calling it a 'conflict' is ridiculous.
I did provide an argument for why government promotes irrational behavior:
"Because everything government does includes making responsible people pay for irresponsible people."
There's no citation because this is just my own opinion.
This is a global assertion, you could prove it wrong very easily, by providing one example of a government program that doesn't fit this definition.
The longer road would be for me to explain in details for every single government program how it has this property.
I could do that for a number of government programs if you want.
But I think it would save us both time if you find a government program you like and I then explain why it has these properties.
You misunderstood my statement as claiming there was nothing wrong with it because it's for profit.
There where two independent statements:
1. It's for profit.
2. There's nothing wrong with it.
Something being for profit doesn't imply a moral conclusion, there could easily be many things wrong with something for profit.
The way I reach moral conclusions about actions is based on the Non-aggression principle.
It's a very short and simple way of reaching moral conclusions.
The question you ask is, did the action include aggression against any person (or their property) that did not initiate aggression first?
If no, there's nothing morally wrong with the action.
And following the NAP means that if there's nothing morally wrong with something, you need to grow up and deal with your own fears instead of initiating violence against other people. If you do initiate violence, you're the person that's morally wrong.
Here's a book explaining this morality in detail:
http://cdn.media.freedomainrad...
It's simply for profit and there's nothing wrong with it.
People are able to think for themselves and responsible for their own actions.
"radical" opinions would have no effect on the people if there was no truth to them.
The problem is that government rule is based on violence against peaceful people and evil by definition.
So governments are fabricating all kinds of problems out of thin air.
Discussion of these problems is considered problematic by the ruling class because it threatens their power.
There are also real fake news, like flat earth. Some people believe that, but it's not actually harmful so long as they don't get control over government.
The problem is that government promotes irrational behavior.
Because everything government does includes making responsible people pay for irresponsible people.
Why would anyone do the hard work of rational thought in such a situation?
That's why people are willing to believe more and more radical idea's.
And willing to go down the rabbit hole Youtube presents them with.
The websites they used to determine what's 'true' are very biased in favor of the establishment and progressiveness.
Like taking the climate panic as true. Even though the whole thing is based on a suspicion that's been proven wrong.
They just looked at the type of neurons in people's brains.
Have they also scanned a persons brain over a period of time.
Especially comparing scans of people who are learning new things to people who aren't.
And looked if there are any changes to the neurons those people have?
Why would you go through the effort of making a robot arm to do this?
Seems to me you could bake these burgers in the same way bread is baked.
A conveyor belt that moves the burgers over the fire in a consistent way.
The evidence in the supposed attack on US elections showed it was the Democrats paying Russian government officials for dirt on Trump.
The e-mail leak came from an insider who copied it on an USB drive.
The whole propaganda campaign against Trump was based on Democrats blaming others for their own crimes.
I'm very well aware of that.
The only reason that's possible is the government having power in the first place.
It would be way to expensive for a company to enforce these restrictions themselves.
People in companies are just as greedy and corrupt as everyone else.
Becoming a politician doesn't make you a better person.
If anything the political system selects the worst, most corruptible people.
It's the government that blocks other companies from competing.
That will just give them more control of government.
Interesting how this comes just as there's serious competition for FaceBook and Google:
- Minds.com
- Gab.ai
- New version of Firefox
- Brave (browser)
Just to name a few.
We guarantee a massive monopoly: government.
He's a person, not a technical description.
We have enough abbreviations in tech.
Hate it when people do that.