"Mayer encouraged and fostered the use of (an employee performance-rating system) to accommodate management's subjective biases and personal opinions
Just like every performance-rating system ever used since the device was invented? Yeah, that's bad, but courts almost always let them slide anyway. What's new here?
can understand your other points, but this one doesn't make any sense. This is currently happening under a black President with a black Attorney General
Yes, as it has been happening my whole life (with 0 fanfare until a couple of years ago). Injustice wasn't just invented yesterday, and no magic vote will make it disappear today or tomorrow. It will actually require that mythical thing called "work". However, the two candidates we have now happen to have essentially diametrically opposite positions about what, if anything, needs to be done about police violence. If you happen to be a person who is personally invested in this kind of thing ceasing, it matters a great deal weather you can expect support, indifference, or vetoes from the top.
There is in fact a detailed plan for attacking this problem. One candidate has come out in support of every one of Campaign Zero's points an opinion has been expressed on, the other is actively against it on nearly all the points where he's expressed any opinion at all. If you're inclined toward extreme longshots, the other two semi-major party candidates have also been very supportive. See Campaign Zero's Candidate tracker
For me, yes falling for that would be unconscionably stupid. For an elderly person, who only has a land-line and grew up when mail and checks were the only ways to pay for things? Who doesn't even grok what an "iTunes" gift card is, and has never had a need to figure that out? I could see them thinking this must be yet another newfangled way the IRS expects payment.
Let's not succumb to the temptation to blame the victims.
For me and you, you're absolutely right. However, the POTUS is probably a bit more of a concern for a woman who might need to terminate a pregnancy for some reason, a person who only has healthcare due to Obamacare, a Muslim refugee from Syria, a black person who doesn't want to get killed by twitchy cops....
Actually, just for you now that I think about it. SW Patents suck, but I've been living with them for the last 30 years of my career. However, I have a 21 year old son on anti-depressant meds. A real Obamacare repeal would throw him off my insurance, and probably prevent him from getting any new insurance due to that pre-existing condition. There's a very good chance going off those meds would lead to his death. That's a common result for unmediated depressives.
This would have more impact than the presidential election. Software patents are a shackle on all programmers outside of megacorps that hold the patents.
For me and you, you're absolutely right. However, the POTUS is probably a bit more of a concern for a woman who might need to terminate a pregnancy for some reason, a person who only has healthcare due to Obamacare, a Muslim refugee from Syria, a black person who doesn't want to get killed by twitchy cops....
Whether you care one whit about those other people is entirely up to you of course.
Yes, we get it, there are nebulous rumors of how the Russians are trying to "subvert our democracy." But it's just fluff: the bottom line is that what Hillary and the Democrats have done is at best unethical, if not strictly illegal.
No. The bottom like is that they have a foundation that does a lot of charitable work on other continents, just like Bill Gates and a lot of other wealthy privileged people do. If it was a fake charity that did little actual charitable work, I'd be interested. If its namesakes seemed to be chiefly using it to enrich themselves, that would be interesting.
Both of those things seem to be far more the case with the Trump foundation. Its a much shadier operation, yet all of these foreign hackers seem wholly uninterested in it.
So yes, far and away the most interesting part of this story is exactly who are these foreign hackers and intelligence agencies who are cooperating to try and get Trump elected, and above all else, WHY they want him elected badly enough to do this.
When someone repeatedly says they want to do something but can't, when the truth is that they can do that thing, but don't want to, that is what we call a LIE.
Right, because his 2015 tax returns ARE NOT COMPLETE. The IRS has placed them into that status by choosing to audit them...
Nope, that's a lie put out by Trump. (as are >50% of his statements. I really don't understand why anyone would uncritically repeat him). This has been debunked so many times, I'd feel silly just picking one source to refute it. Just Google "IRS audit statement Trump" and pick your favorite.
The best that can be said for it (which I read on The Hill), was that it wouldn't be legally very smart of him to do so, as the media is liable to end up doing a lot of the IRS's investigative work for them, but that's still entirely his choice (and could be said about anyone). Clinton and every other major-party POTUS candidate have done so anyway. The fact that's he's afraid to do so is pretty damning.
Commodore badly ran their engineering. No doubt about that. They were hardly unique there though. You could argue the same for IBM in the early days of the PC. The reason IBM's PC platform is still around and Commodore's is not isn't because IBM were marketing and engineering geniuses. It was because the IBM platform ended up open, so one company (IBM) making stupid decisions didn't kill it.
Reality is that a real-live "alt-right" heckler yelled "Pepe!" While Clinton was talking about Trump's neo-KKK supporters. Reality is that Breitbart tracked the heckler down for an interview (not gonna promote them by linking it. Look it up yourself if you really want to). Assuming they didn't just make it up again (always a possibility with Breitbart), he proudly called himself "alt-right", and proceeded to express his admiration for the typical new racist heroes. He did indeed state that "Pepe" symbolizes the racist movement he identifies with.
For some odd reason this (out of the thousand others that work just the same way) gets the attention
The "odd reason" in question being that its now completely ubiquitous. Not only can you find Pepe material with White Supremicist content on pretty much any trending hashtag on twitter, but hecklers have taken to yelling "Pepe!" in person when politicians are giving speeches about race.
As far as the KKK crowd goes, the meer mention of "Pepe" is now synonymous with their cause. The ADL and various new media reporting this is just acknowledging reality, along with warning the rest of us what this means.
It's really good that you bother to check these things and don't just apply blanket IP bans.
Yes, that was kind of my entire point. You HAVE to do this. Historical IP address is not a unique identifier. To do otherwise is indeed like going to the scene of a crime and just shooting the first person you see.
I haven't been able to edit Wikipedia for years due to IP bans affecting the addresses I use
Well, the main question was whether to treat this user like any other normal user doing the same thing, or like sock-puppet account. In this case it was pretty clear with a modicum of other investigation that he was in fact a separate user, and not a sock of the other ("good") user.
If I'd treated this the way the cops in this story were treating things, I would have just dumbly acted as if every user who's ever shared an IP were all socks of each other, and sent a nasty note (and probably a suspension) to one of our websites best users, who had in fact been one of the people who flagged this guy to my attention in the first place. Or that'd be like going to the scene of a robbery, and shooting the guy who called it in because he was at the scene of a reported robbery. Fortunately, we all know things like that don't happen.
All matching an IP address really tells you (assuming it isn't spoofed), is that you share an ISP with the machine that created that traffic.
Here's a real-world example from just this week. I'm a moderator on a site on the StackExchange network. We had a problem user who was posting a bunch of stuff the community didn't want posted (consistently badly moderated). What I'm supposed to do in this circumstance is point said user to our instructions for writing acceptable posts. However, such users often are just sock-puppet accounts for someone who's already been suspended. If that's the case, I'm supposed to take more drastic action.
SE has a (community-mod only) link for this, that shows you the user's IP, and all user accounts that have used that user's same IP. I click on this, and discover that he happens to share an IP with one of our better users. Not only is the writing style completely different (writing style is practically a fingerprint), but this user has in fact voted to close all but one post the problem user has ever made.
I talked to the "good" user about this, and he confirmed that his work access point is shared by a very large number of other people.
Just this week we got another new problem user. Again, totally different style than the other two users mentioned above, but also same IP.
As an investigative tool, IP address is useful, but only as a piece of evidence. I'd place it somewhere down with blood-type (perhaps like sharing an uncommon blood type like AB), rather than up in the realm of fingerprints.
I use Firefox daily, mainly because I don't like Google, but occasionally
Same here, but I wouldn't say I don't like Google. I actually love the hell out of Google. Won't trust my web searches with any other company.
But I don't like to use the same company for multiple different things if I don't have to, because the market that results from that kind of behavior will never be in my best interest. I also don't like to use proprietary products when there's a viable Free Software alternative. The former points me away from Chrome, and the latter points me to Mozilla.
Or perhaps their user-base doesn't really care about startup time and memory use.
If I just start the browser once when I boot my computer, and then use it for days (or weeks) thereafter, its tough to get really exercised about that whole extra minute I had to wait that once. If I'm primarily using my system for web browsing, and it has 16Gig of memory, do I really need the browser maintenance engineers spending all their available time getting it to take up 0.0007% of my available RAM instead of 0.01% of it? Wouldn't I rather they work on actual features I might want to use?
I'm not saying Mozilla is better there either, but that's a much more legit place to hit them if they aren't.
Now with Apple, who won't even let another company make a browser for iOS (any browser on iOS is really just a skin on Safari) and therefore has no competition you might have a point. But we don't like to speak ill of Apple around here
I can't speak for "we", but I didn't mention them because they just aren't that relevant to me. They provide roughly the same product as the Android vendors, but with worse lock-in issues, and for hundreds of dollars more. Last I checked their sales market-share was in the vicinity of 1/5th of the market, and falling. There will probably be a blip up next month due to a new version coming out, but the trend is pretty clear.
Android as of March had a hair more than 70% of all sales in the market. That's not the >90% Microsoft used to have, but 70% is plenty. I understand legally to be considered to have a monopoly, you typically have to have at least 50% of the market. That's a bare minimum threshold of course, but Android is way over it.
Slashdot Mirror
"Mayer encouraged and fostered the use of (an employee performance-rating system) to accommodate management's subjective biases and personal opinions
Just like every performance-rating system ever used since the device was invented? Yeah, that's bad, but courts almost always let them slide anyway. What's new here?
, to the detriment of Yahoo's male employees,"
Ahhhh. Now I think I see the problem.
can understand your other points, but this one doesn't make any sense. This is currently happening under a black President with a black Attorney General
Yes, as it has been happening my whole life (with 0 fanfare until a couple of years ago). Injustice wasn't just invented yesterday, and no magic vote will make it disappear today or tomorrow. It will actually require that mythical thing called "work". However, the two candidates we have now happen to have essentially diametrically opposite positions about what, if anything, needs to be done about police violence. If you happen to be a person who is personally invested in this kind of thing ceasing, it matters a great deal weather you can expect support, indifference, or vetoes from the top.
There is in fact a detailed plan for attacking this problem. One candidate has come out in support of every one of Campaign Zero's points an opinion has been expressed on, the other is actively against it on nearly all the points where he's expressed any opinion at all. If you're inclined toward extreme longshots, the other two semi-major party candidates have also been very supportive. See Campaign Zero's Candidate tracker
For me, yes falling for that would be unconscionably stupid. For an elderly person, who only has a land-line and grew up when mail and checks were the only ways to pay for things? Who doesn't even grok what an "iTunes" gift card is, and has never had a need to figure that out? I could see them thinking this must be yet another newfangled way the IRS expects payment.
Let's not succumb to the temptation to blame the victims.
I've had one recently that poses as my cellphone carrier threatening to cut off service unless they are paid immediately.
For me and you, you're absolutely right. However, the POTUS is probably a bit more of a concern for a woman who might need to terminate a pregnancy for some reason, a person who only has healthcare due to Obamacare, a Muslim refugee from Syria, a black person who doesn't want to get killed by twitchy cops....
Actually, just for you now that I think about it. SW Patents suck, but I've been living with them for the last 30 years of my career. However, I have a 21 year old son on anti-depressant meds. A real Obamacare repeal would throw him off my insurance, and probably prevent him from getting any new insurance due to that pre-existing condition. There's a very good chance going off those meds would lead to his death. That's a common result for unmediated depressives.
So yeah, that matters a bit more to me.
This would have more impact than the presidential election. Software patents are a shackle on all programmers outside of megacorps that hold the patents.
For me and you, you're absolutely right. However, the POTUS is probably a bit more of a concern for a woman who might need to terminate a pregnancy for some reason, a person who only has healthcare due to Obamacare, a Muslim refugee from Syria, a black person who doesn't want to get killed by twitchy cops....
Whether you care one whit about those other people is entirely up to you of course.
Yes, we get it, there are nebulous rumors of how the Russians are trying to "subvert our democracy." But it's just fluff: the bottom line is that what Hillary and the Democrats have done is at best unethical, if not strictly illegal.
No. The bottom like is that they have a foundation that does a lot of charitable work on other continents, just like Bill Gates and a lot of other wealthy privileged people do. If it was a fake charity that did little actual charitable work, I'd be interested. If its namesakes seemed to be chiefly using it to enrich themselves, that would be interesting.
Both of those things seem to be far more the case with the Trump foundation. Its a much shadier operation, yet all of these foreign hackers seem wholly uninterested in it.
So yes, far and away the most interesting part of this story is exactly who are these foreign hackers and intelligence agencies who are cooperating to try and get Trump elected, and above all else, WHY they want him elected badly enough to do this.
Ah, yes. The old theory that "The Truth has a well-known Liberal bias".
Trump never said the IRS wouldn't let him release returns
Yes, he did say that. Repeatedly, starting in February of 2016.
When someone repeatedly says they want to do something but can't, when the truth is that they can do that thing, but don't want to, that is what we call a LIE.
Right, because his 2015 tax returns ARE NOT COMPLETE. The IRS has placed them into that status by choosing to audit them...
Nope, that's a lie put out by Trump. (as are >50% of his statements. I really don't understand why anyone would uncritically repeat him). This has been debunked so many times, I'd feel silly just picking one source to refute it. Just Google "IRS audit statement Trump" and pick your favorite.
The best that can be said for it (which I read on The Hill), was that it wouldn't be legally very smart of him to do so, as the media is liable to end up doing a lot of the IRS's investigative work for them, but that's still entirely his choice (and could be said about anyone). Clinton and every other major-party POTUS candidate have done so anyway. The fact that's he's afraid to do so is pretty damning.
Actually, check out Hillary's 2015 tax return, page 17.
Now check out that same line on her opponent's 2015 tax return....oh wait, you can't.
I really don't understand why wikileaks is concentrating on the candidate who is hiding less.
Is the quality of the balancing compared to the modern equivalent device shops use
It was every bit as well-balanced as the C64 floppy spindle assembly was.(Sorry, did you say something? I can't hear you over the disk grinding)
Commodore badly ran their engineering. No doubt about that. They were hardly unique there though. You could argue the same for IBM in the early days of the PC. The reason IBM's PC platform is still around and Commodore's is not isn't because IBM were marketing and engineering geniuses. It was because the IBM platform ended up open, so one company (IBM) making stupid decisions didn't kill it.
Reality is a bunch 4channers spammed
Reality is that a real-live "alt-right" heckler yelled "Pepe!" While Clinton was talking about Trump's neo-KKK supporters. Reality is that Breitbart tracked the heckler down for an interview (not gonna promote them by linking it. Look it up yourself if you really want to). Assuming they didn't just make it up again (always a possibility with Breitbart), he proudly called himself "alt-right", and proceeded to express his admiration for the typical new racist heroes. He did indeed state that "Pepe" symbolizes the racist movement he identifies with.
Do you think the KKK came up with the Pepe the frog meme?
I don't really care who came up with it. That's neither the issue nor the subject under discussion.
For some odd reason this (out of the thousand others that work just the same way) gets the attention
The "odd reason" in question being that its now completely ubiquitous. Not only can you find Pepe material with White Supremicist content on pretty much any trending hashtag on twitter, but hecklers have taken to yelling "Pepe!" in person when politicians are giving speeches about race.
As far as the KKK crowd goes, the meer mention of "Pepe" is now synonymous with their cause. The ADL and various new media reporting this is just acknowledging reality, along with warning the rest of us what this means.
The only logical explanation is that Time got trolled. I certainly don't recall reading anything about Hitler or Third Reich using frog symbols
You haven't been reading through trending hashtags on twitter then. This shit's real, regardless of who is reporting on it.
It's really good that you bother to check these things and don't just apply blanket IP bans.
Yes, that was kind of my entire point. You HAVE to do this. Historical IP address is not a unique identifier. To do otherwise is indeed like going to the scene of a crime and just shooting the first person you see.
I haven't been able to edit Wikipedia for years due to IP bans affecting the addresses I use
*facepalm*.
Well, the main question was whether to treat this user like any other normal user doing the same thing, or like sock-puppet account. In this case it was pretty clear with a modicum of other investigation that he was in fact a separate user, and not a sock of the other ("good") user.
If I'd treated this the way the cops in this story were treating things, I would have just dumbly acted as if every user who's ever shared an IP were all socks of each other, and sent a nasty note (and probably a suspension) to one of our websites best users, who had in fact been one of the people who flagged this guy to my attention in the first place. Or that'd be like going to the scene of a robbery, and shooting the guy who called it in because he was at the scene of a reported robbery. Fortunately, we all know things like that don't happen.
Here's a real-world example from just this week. I'm a moderator on a site on the StackExchange network. We had a problem user who was posting a bunch of stuff the community didn't want posted (consistently badly moderated). What I'm supposed to do in this circumstance is point said user to our instructions for writing acceptable posts. However, such users often are just sock-puppet accounts for someone who's already been suspended. If that's the case, I'm supposed to take more drastic action.
SE has a (community-mod only) link for this, that shows you the user's IP, and all user accounts that have used that user's same IP. I click on this, and discover that he happens to share an IP with one of our better users. Not only is the writing style completely different (writing style is practically a fingerprint), but this user has in fact voted to close all but one post the problem user has ever made.
I talked to the "good" user about this, and he confirmed that his work access point is shared by a very large number of other people.
Just this week we got another new problem user. Again, totally different style than the other two users mentioned above, but also same IP.
As an investigative tool, IP address is useful, but only as a piece of evidence. I'd place it somewhere down with blood-type (perhaps like sharing an uncommon blood type like AB), rather than up in the realm of fingerprints.
I use Firefox daily, mainly because I don't like Google, but occasionally
Same here, but I wouldn't say I don't like Google. I actually love the hell out of Google. Won't trust my web searches with any other company.
But I don't like to use the same company for multiple different things if I don't have to, because the market that results from that kind of behavior will never be in my best interest. I also don't like to use proprietary products when there's a viable Free Software alternative. The former points me away from Chrome, and the latter points me to Mozilla.
Or perhaps their user-base doesn't really care about startup time and memory use.
If I just start the browser once when I boot my computer, and then use it for days (or weeks) thereafter, its tough to get really exercised about that whole extra minute I had to wait that once. If I'm primarily using my system for web browsing, and it has 16Gig of memory, do I really need the browser maintenance engineers spending all their available time getting it to take up 0.0007% of my available RAM instead of 0.01% of it? Wouldn't I rather they work on actual features I might want to use?
I'm not saying Mozilla is better there either, but that's a much more legit place to hit them if they aren't.
Now with Apple, who won't even let another company make a browser for iOS (any browser on iOS is really just a skin on Safari) and therefore has no competition you might have a point. But we don't like to speak ill of Apple around here
I can't speak for "we", but I didn't mention them because they just aren't that relevant to me. They provide roughly the same product as the Android vendors, but with worse lock-in issues, and for hundreds of dollars more. Last I checked their sales market-share was in the vicinity of 1/5th of the market, and falling. There will probably be a blip up next month due to a new version coming out, but the trend is pretty clear.
Android as of March had a hair more than 70% of all sales in the market. That's not the >90% Microsoft used to have, but 70% is plenty. I understand legally to be considered to have a monopoly, you typically have to have at least 50% of the market. That's a bare minimum threshold of course, but Android is way over it.
Good luck with that. Android doesn't let me uninstall it, and Google's search widget uses it and cannot be configured to use another browser.
Remember when Microsoft got a legal finding of anti-trust violation against them for doing this exact same thing?
Imagine, a small island nation that will be easily influenced
Were we actually short on those already?