I'm not surprised that a significant number of users who don't feel comfortable talking to coworkers without anonymity are feeling burnout at work. This wasn't a commissioned study with careful target sampling, they just showed this question to their users. The title of this article should be "57% of Tech Workers Who Use The Blind App Are Suffering From Job Burnout, Survey Finds".
Sounds like that very same AI would work wonders for hiding just those signs. No one will know comrade Yezhov was ever there!
Perhaps, but just like it is easier to destroy a car than it is to build a car, it will almost certainly be far easier to notice alterations than it is to create them.
I wonder if it is just caused by less companies failing. If you look at the number of companies being started each year (source), it has been failure steady over the past 20 years. Maybe the share of companies which are younger than 2 years is a symptom of less companies failing. If company failure rates were higher in the decades preceding 1985, then of course young companies would be larger percentage of all companies.
Could this just be a case of playing with statistics to create a good headline for a story?
Collusion between *marketeers* to inflate prices of a sole-source product is price fixing and many such as car dealerships have been charged and fined.
And if they find multiple retailers colluding to inflate prices of Nvidia GPUs it would certainly be considered price fixing. I'm not sure how that is related to what I said, since in that case there are competing retailers involved.
There will simply come a point when "intelligence" will no longer have an important economic value. Which ought to make all those folks going to college in order to get a "good paying job" a little uncomfortable.
There will likely come a point when most highly skilled knowledge jobs no longer have an important economic value, but intelligence will still be valuable for tasks which require more problem solving and creativity than amassed knowledge. Doctors and pharmacists are two jobs which require significant knowledge but not much unique and novel problem solving. I can imagine a world within the next 20 years where over 50% of our doctors are not needed, perhaps even 90+%. But I agree with others on this forum that nurses will be even more valuable in that world than they are today, in most part because of the aging population.
The intelligence which will still have significant economic value is the ability to differentiate your product in the market place, invent something new, design scalable business processes, make your work force more efficient, etc. But overall I agree that most people going to college for "good paying jobs" are in for trouble because we may only need a small fraction of today's knowledge jobs in the very near future. We see that in the lawyer position today, where if you cannot make it into an elite school you probably need to rethink your career path. The same may soon be true for nearly all college educated career paths.
As promised, now that the AT&T/Time Warner deal was judge-approved, expect the Sprint/T-mobile deal to move forward. And for Fox to be bought by Disney or Comcast.
While this ruling does make a Fox/Comcast deal more likely (and the bid has already been made), it has little to do with the Sprint/T-mobile merger. The AT&T / Time Warner merger was a vertical merger, while the Sprint/T-mobile deal would be a horizontal one. The text of the ruling seems to say the deal was allowed at least in large part because they were not direct competitors. The Sprint / T-mobile merger may still happen, but this ruling doesn't give much insight into it.
This is kinda silly. The fastest supercomputer is going to be whomever has built the newest one. Moore's law is slowing down a tiny bit, but it's still going. Someone spending $100,000,000 on a supercomputer today is going to have a slower machine than someone building one for the same amount in a year's time.
While I agree it is silly, the top 10 supercomputers are not in chronological order. Their commission dates and ranking are listed below. The top 5 newest supercomputers in this list are #1, 3, 4, 8, 9 in PFlops. Considering the 5 newest supercomputers average a rank of #5 and the 5 oldest supercomputers on the top 10 list have an average rank of #6, there is little correlation between age and computational power among the top machines. That has far more to do with what the machines were built to do and what budget they had, not the year they were built. Being newer does make your dollar stretch much further though.
Every business outside the US I've dealt with is already using Skype. It works.
I agree. I'm not sure why the submission assumed a Skype-killing app is all that necessary, since Skype already works on all the devices mentioned. And it isn't even like Skype is the only option, as WhatsApp would also cover this use case.
A more apt question is why anyone uses Facetime when it is stuck within the Apple ecosystem. My wife's immediate family all use Apple devices and have mostly been weened off of Facetime, but in this case it was because my wife and I had the first set of grand kids and they couldn't video chat over our Android phones with Facetime.
I still don't really see the need for Microsoft to buy Github unless it wanted to make significant changes. It is quite easy for companies to integrate their development tools with Github, so it isn't like owning Github really improves any of Microsoft's existing products. And it isn't like Github is really much of a value at that price. I think LinkedIn was overpriced too, but at least there I could understand the value LinkedIn gave Microsoft's other products. I'm coming up short on this one.
So perhaps we can look forward to a number of new features which only work from within Visual Studio?
I expect that this comment is going to end up at "-1 Troll" like many of the other times I've talked about my experienced with older workers, because apparently when you're still (barely) in your 20s you can't talk about these kinds things.
You can certainly talk about these kinds of things, but you also need to accept that it will be hard to be taken seriously. It is like a man talking about how painful child birth is. Or a parent with one child who thinks their parenting experience would fully prepare them for their second child. (you're probably too young to understand how wrong that one is)
If you are barely in your 20's, you are probably just out of college. Or started your career without college. Heaven forbid you are still in college (you are simply a moron if you think you have insight into this if you haven't been in the industry yet). Your insight seems like it comes from someone who has only been working for a few years, and has only worked closely with perhaps a dozen or so colleagues. In truth your comments seem driven by blog posts you have read and not real experience.
I am in my late 30's, and of course I have dealt with older coworkers who have no business still being in the industry. But I have also dealt with far more younger coworkers who have literally no idea what they are doing. The most common issue with younger developers that I see (including myself with only 15 years of experience) is they just don't know what they don't know. They cannot identify the difference between maintainable code and unmaintainable code. They can certainly identify the unmaintainable code, but mistakenly think their code is better just because it makes more sense to them. Or because it hasn't yet went through 10 years of updates and modifications. Just wait. Everyone thinks their shiny new system is incredibly extensible.
That is of course not fair to all young workers. One simple way to identify a truly competent young worker is that they are fully aware how inexperienced they are, and rarely assume they know very much. A 25 year old who brags about their easily maintainable and extensible code will get more pity from me than admiration, because he is almost certainly wrong (the ones who are good enough also rarely brag about it). I am fairly new to management, and I believe the primary thing which helped in the transition is I didn't assume I would be naturally good at it just because I have watched other people do it or read a bunch of books.
You may not be a troll, but you certainly have a lot to learn.
But training AI to win at Atari games is one story that just doesn't mean much to me.
I figure there was a reason they couldn't train an AI to beat these games a few years ago. Must be harder than you'd assume. And if they can beat them now, that's a step of progress.
Many times it is just because no one had tried yet. They thought it wasn't possible yet, then saw extreme success in another area, and decided to take a crack at it.
Also sometimes no one had done it because they don't see the need. There are probably plenty of AI related tests you could do that may be a good training exercize but don't necessarily show anything new or novel. I'm not saying I could do this, just like I couldn't play in the NBA. But that doesn't mean it is news every time an NBA player makes a basket, or every time someone does a thought experiment with neural networks.
I have been very impressed with how AI technology is progressing, and often argue with those on Slashdot who think anything short of Skynet is not "real AI". But training AI to win at Atari games is one story that just doesn't mean much to me. Those games are so basic it still seems the work done to beat chess masters two decades ago was more difficult.
Once these AI's can beat professional Starcraft players, or build an AI that can beat Diety level human players in Civ 5 without cheating, then it will become impressive.
I would hope so. I would hope we as a globally connect species who have shrunk the world down to meer days have different standards than our ancestors.
Some of the crap we can even agree on: no torture, no inhumane weapons, no slavery, no killing of babies, no raping, no nuclear waste dumping, etc.
While I wasn't explicit, I thought it was clear I meant acting the same from an economic standpoint. It is stretch for you to bring up slavery and torture and insinuate I would support developing countries today committing those acts.
Intellectual property rights and slavery are very different things and I'm not sure why you are creating some kind of equivalency between them.
Moving the goal posts back a couple hundred years? Yeah... I see what you did there.
I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here. Are you saying developing countries now should be held to a different standard than countries whose economies were in a similar state 200 years ago? If so, do you believe that only because it's different when you do it or do you have a reasonable reason to feel this way?
"we will need to compete on a level playing field."
Bullshit. The playing field will never be level, so long as Chinese companies continue to steal then undercut both quality and price.
What I mean by a level playing field is when China has just as much tech for the US to steal as we do of them. Right now China is like the early US, when we stole a significant amount of IP from Europe. It is simply what developing nations do, and it hastens the time it takes for them to contribute more to the World economy (which helps everyone) . Soon China will become a developed nation and expectations regarding China's behavior will shift.
But when you become a trading super-power, your scrappy "street-smarts" 3rd-world tendencies need to be corrected or you will face retaliation. You can no longer fly under the radar. China has yet to kick its bad habits.
In fairness, China may be a trading super-power but it is still a developing nation. Its GDP (PPP) per capita needs to double if not triple until it can really be considered a developed power house like the top European nations or the US. China's shear size allows it to compete with more developed economies in the industries it chooses, but it likely has at least a decade or two until it would be considered a truly developed nation on the same level playing field as countries such as the UK, Germany, or US.
Well, we sure as hell can't innovate ourselves! So our only recourse is to try to stop other countries from innovating! No way can we allow someone a chance at bettering themselves if we're not able to steal the betterment for our own use.
Regardless of the many problems the US has, not being able to innovate certainly isn't one of them. China is playing catch up in innovation, and who do you think they are trying to catch up to? The US is having a hard time dealing with not being the only game in town, but it is still top dog. Possibly not for long but it certainly still is today.
While there is certainly a significant portion of Americans who simply want China to fail, most of us just don't want China to steal. Even that is a bit misguided though since every developing nation (including the early US) steals while catching up. Americans fundamentally have to realize we cannot rest on our laurels. The lead we have right now will diminish and then evaporate and we will need to compete on a level playing field. That is already true with many developed countries, and it will soon be true with China.
Every word in your post is wrong. The trend of kids failing to launch has little or nothing to do with economics and everything to do with lazy parenting and kids who just don't have any desire for independence.
The first part of your post is at least close to correct, but your whole tirade about lazy parents and young adults is simply ignorant. There are many reasons why more kids are living with their parents and it is true that economics is not the only reason. Still a significant reason, with student loans growing rapidly and many essentials (housing, health care, etc) rising above inflation for decades, but not the only one. The simple fact that employed young adults are far less likely to live at home than unemployed ones shows economics is a large factor.
This article summarizes many of them. Young adults waiting longer to get married is one factor. But the most interesting one is that young adults simply have a much better relationship with their parents today than they did 30 years ago. One finding was that in 1986 half of parents reported speaking with their grown child in the past week, whereas in 2008 87% had. Many young adults don't feel the need to move out because they have a friendlier relationship than previous generations did.
My wife and her two siblings lived at home for around five years each after college. Not because of a failure to launch, as each had degrees and were employed in their chosen fields. They did it because it helped spring board their financial lives by saving for a full 20% down payment on their first home. My father in law took 75% of their take home pay for "rent" and put it in a savings account. So not every situation where kids live with their parents is a bad one.
The AV vendors should be quaking in their boots. Why would you buy another product when what MS puts out is generally fine?
One reason is because many users have learned they should pick an anti-virus software suite every time they go to Dell and order a new computer. Retailers have an incentive to only offer paid versions because they will get their cut. So many users will keep on choosing either McAfee or Norton just because those are options they are given.
I'm not sure how many users this describes, but my guess is a lot of them. Then again any significant loss is sales should have them quaking in their boots.
The "Libya Model" you're not understanding is what that Libya gave up their nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs - shipped the materials outside of the country or destroyed under observation within - and the US lifted sanctions after.
The uprising was not a result of that, which is what people are confusing.
I wonder if having nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons could have helped Gaddafi stay in power. They seem to have at least assisted al-Assad.
And what I believe you are not understanding is that it doesn't matter if the uprising was related to Gaddafi giving up his weapons. It only matters if Kim Jong Un believes it did. Bringing up the Libya model in a diplomatic context is the exact same thing as bringing up Gaddafi being sodomized by a bayonet. He might as well have linked to a video of it on Twitter.
The comments were pretty harsh. That sort of behavior isn't tolerated, and they are letting them know that.
You need to be far more specific considering the harsh rhetoric coming from both sides. I assume you mean the US comments were harsh, since they essentially insinuated they want Kim Jong Un deposed and killed in the streets. North Korea's responses were quite tame by comparison.
Meta-moderation by paid researchers should be able to differentiate between users who are able to identify credible news and those who are not. Then you simply adjust the algorithms to either ignore them or even reverse their recommendations.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not surprised that a significant number of users who don't feel comfortable talking to coworkers without anonymity are feeling burnout at work. This wasn't a commissioned study with careful target sampling, they just showed this question to their users. The title of this article should be "57% of Tech Workers Who Use The Blind App Are Suffering From Job Burnout, Survey Finds".
Sounds like that very same AI would work wonders for hiding just those signs. No one will know comrade Yezhov was ever there!
Perhaps, but just like it is easier to destroy a car than it is to build a car, it will almost certainly be far easier to notice alterations than it is to create them.
I wonder if it is just caused by less companies failing. If you look at the number of companies being started each year (source), it has been failure steady over the past 20 years. Maybe the share of companies which are younger than 2 years is a symptom of less companies failing. If company failure rates were higher in the decades preceding 1985, then of course young companies would be larger percentage of all companies.
Could this just be a case of playing with statistics to create a good headline for a story?
Collusion between *marketeers* to inflate prices of a sole-source product is price fixing and many such as car dealerships have been charged and fined.
And if they find multiple retailers colluding to inflate prices of Nvidia GPUs it would certainly be considered price fixing. I'm not sure how that is related to what I said, since in that case there are competing retailers involved.
price fixing only requires collusion when there _is_ a competitor.
No, it price fixing still requires collusion even if there are no competitors. Otherwise it is just price setting.
There will simply come a point when "intelligence" will no longer have an important economic value. Which ought to make all those folks going to college in order to get a "good paying job" a little uncomfortable.
There will likely come a point when most highly skilled knowledge jobs no longer have an important economic value, but intelligence will still be valuable for tasks which require more problem solving and creativity than amassed knowledge. Doctors and pharmacists are two jobs which require significant knowledge but not much unique and novel problem solving. I can imagine a world within the next 20 years where over 50% of our doctors are not needed, perhaps even 90+%. But I agree with others on this forum that nurses will be even more valuable in that world than they are today, in most part because of the aging population.
The intelligence which will still have significant economic value is the ability to differentiate your product in the market place, invent something new, design scalable business processes, make your work force more efficient, etc. But overall I agree that most people going to college for "good paying jobs" are in for trouble because we may only need a small fraction of today's knowledge jobs in the very near future. We see that in the lawyer position today, where if you cannot make it into an elite school you probably need to rethink your career path. The same may soon be true for nearly all college educated career paths.
As promised, now that the AT&T/Time Warner deal was judge-approved, expect the Sprint/T-mobile deal to move forward. And for Fox to be bought by Disney or Comcast.
While this ruling does make a Fox/Comcast deal more likely (and the bid has already been made), it has little to do with the Sprint/T-mobile merger. The AT&T / Time Warner merger was a vertical merger, while the Sprint/T-mobile deal would be a horizontal one. The text of the ruling seems to say the deal was allowed at least in large part because they were not direct competitors. The Sprint / T-mobile merger may still happen, but this ruling doesn't give much insight into it.
This is kinda silly. The fastest supercomputer is going to be whomever has built the newest one. Moore's law is slowing down a tiny bit, but it's still going. Someone spending $100,000,000 on a supercomputer today is going to have a slower machine than someone building one for the same amount in a year's time.
While I agree it is silly, the top 10 supercomputers are not in chronological order. Their commission dates and ranking are listed below. The top 5 newest supercomputers in this list are #1, 3, 4, 8, 9 in PFlops. Considering the 5 newest supercomputers average a rank of #5 and the 5 oldest supercomputers on the top 10 list have an average rank of #6, there is little correlation between age and computational power among the top machines. That has far more to do with what the machines were built to do and what budget they had, not the year they were built. Being newer does make your dollar stretch much further though.
1) 2016
2) 2013
3) 2016
4) 2017
5) 2012
6) 2013
7) 2015
8) 2016
9) 2016
10) 2011
Every business outside the US I've dealt with is already using Skype. It works.
I agree. I'm not sure why the submission assumed a Skype-killing app is all that necessary, since Skype already works on all the devices mentioned. And it isn't even like Skype is the only option, as WhatsApp would also cover this use case.
A more apt question is why anyone uses Facetime when it is stuck within the Apple ecosystem. My wife's immediate family all use Apple devices and have mostly been weened off of Facetime, but in this case it was because my wife and I had the first set of grand kids and they couldn't video chat over our Android phones with Facetime.
So I just have to wait a few hundred million years for those extra hours each day I have been wanting? Sweet.
I still don't really see the need for Microsoft to buy Github unless it wanted to make significant changes. It is quite easy for companies to integrate their development tools with Github, so it isn't like owning Github really improves any of Microsoft's existing products. And it isn't like Github is really much of a value at that price. I think LinkedIn was overpriced too, but at least there I could understand the value LinkedIn gave Microsoft's other products. I'm coming up short on this one.
So perhaps we can look forward to a number of new features which only work from within Visual Studio?
I expect that this comment is going to end up at "-1 Troll" like many of the other times I've talked about my experienced with older workers, because apparently when you're still (barely) in your 20s you can't talk about these kinds things.
You can certainly talk about these kinds of things, but you also need to accept that it will be hard to be taken seriously. It is like a man talking about how painful child birth is. Or a parent with one child who thinks their parenting experience would fully prepare them for their second child. (you're probably too young to understand how wrong that one is)
If you are barely in your 20's, you are probably just out of college. Or started your career without college. Heaven forbid you are still in college (you are simply a moron if you think you have insight into this if you haven't been in the industry yet). Your insight seems like it comes from someone who has only been working for a few years, and has only worked closely with perhaps a dozen or so colleagues. In truth your comments seem driven by blog posts you have read and not real experience.
I am in my late 30's, and of course I have dealt with older coworkers who have no business still being in the industry. But I have also dealt with far more younger coworkers who have literally no idea what they are doing. The most common issue with younger developers that I see (including myself with only 15 years of experience) is they just don't know what they don't know. They cannot identify the difference between maintainable code and unmaintainable code. They can certainly identify the unmaintainable code, but mistakenly think their code is better just because it makes more sense to them. Or because it hasn't yet went through 10 years of updates and modifications. Just wait. Everyone thinks their shiny new system is incredibly extensible.
That is of course not fair to all young workers. One simple way to identify a truly competent young worker is that they are fully aware how inexperienced they are, and rarely assume they know very much. A 25 year old who brags about their easily maintainable and extensible code will get more pity from me than admiration, because he is almost certainly wrong (the ones who are good enough also rarely brag about it). I am fairly new to management, and I believe the primary thing which helped in the transition is I didn't assume I would be naturally good at it just because I have watched other people do it or read a bunch of books.
You may not be a troll, but you certainly have a lot to learn.
But training AI to win at Atari games is one story that just doesn't mean much to me.
I figure there was a reason they couldn't train an AI to beat these games a few years ago. Must be harder than you'd assume. And if they can beat them now, that's a step of progress.
Many times it is just because no one had tried yet. They thought it wasn't possible yet, then saw extreme success in another area, and decided to take a crack at it.
Also sometimes no one had done it because they don't see the need. There are probably plenty of AI related tests you could do that may be a good training exercize but don't necessarily show anything new or novel. I'm not saying I could do this, just like I couldn't play in the NBA. But that doesn't mean it is news every time an NBA player makes a basket, or every time someone does a thought experiment with neural networks.
I have been very impressed with how AI technology is progressing, and often argue with those on Slashdot who think anything short of Skynet is not "real AI". But training AI to win at Atari games is one story that just doesn't mean much to me. Those games are so basic it still seems the work done to beat chess masters two decades ago was more difficult.
Once these AI's can beat professional Starcraft players, or build an AI that can beat Diety level human players in Civ 5 without cheating, then it will become impressive.
They should just be doing this work under a "partnership" with a heavily funded startup.
I would hope so. I would hope we as a globally connect species who have shrunk the world down to meer days have different standards than our ancestors.
Some of the crap we can even agree on: no torture, no inhumane weapons, no slavery, no killing of babies, no raping, no nuclear waste dumping, etc.
While I wasn't explicit, I thought it was clear I meant acting the same from an economic standpoint. It is stretch for you to bring up slavery and torture and insinuate I would support developing countries today committing those acts.
Intellectual property rights and slavery are very different things and I'm not sure why you are creating some kind of equivalency between them.
Moving the goal posts back a couple hundred years? Yeah... I see what you did there.
I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here. Are you saying developing countries now should be held to a different standard than countries whose economies were in a similar state 200 years ago? If so, do you believe that only because it's different when you do it or do you have a reasonable reason to feel this way?
"we will need to compete on a level playing field."
Bullshit. The playing field will never be level, so long as Chinese companies continue to steal then undercut both quality and price.
What I mean by a level playing field is when China has just as much tech for the US to steal as we do of them. Right now China is like the early US, when we stole a significant amount of IP from Europe. It is simply what developing nations do, and it hastens the time it takes for them to contribute more to the World economy (which helps everyone) . Soon China will become a developed nation and expectations regarding China's behavior will shift.
But when you become a trading super-power, your scrappy "street-smarts" 3rd-world tendencies need to be corrected or you will face retaliation. You can no longer fly under the radar. China has yet to kick its bad habits.
In fairness, China may be a trading super-power but it is still a developing nation. Its GDP (PPP) per capita needs to double if not triple until it can really be considered a developed power house like the top European nations or the US. China's shear size allows it to compete with more developed economies in the industries it chooses, but it likely has at least a decade or two until it would be considered a truly developed nation on the same level playing field as countries such as the UK, Germany, or US.
Well, we sure as hell can't innovate ourselves! So our only recourse is to try to stop other countries from innovating! No way can we allow someone a chance at bettering themselves if we're not able to steal the betterment for our own use.
Regardless of the many problems the US has, not being able to innovate certainly isn't one of them. China is playing catch up in innovation, and who do you think they are trying to catch up to? The US is having a hard time dealing with not being the only game in town, but it is still top dog. Possibly not for long but it certainly still is today.
While there is certainly a significant portion of Americans who simply want China to fail, most of us just don't want China to steal. Even that is a bit misguided though since every developing nation (including the early US) steals while catching up. Americans fundamentally have to realize we cannot rest on our laurels. The lead we have right now will diminish and then evaporate and we will need to compete on a level playing field. That is already true with many developed countries, and it will soon be true with China.
Every word in your post is wrong. The trend of kids failing to launch has little or nothing to do with economics and everything to do with lazy parenting and kids who just don't have any desire for independence.
The first part of your post is at least close to correct, but your whole tirade about lazy parents and young adults is simply ignorant. There are many reasons why more kids are living with their parents and it is true that economics is not the only reason. Still a significant reason, with student loans growing rapidly and many essentials (housing, health care, etc) rising above inflation for decades, but not the only one. The simple fact that employed young adults are far less likely to live at home than unemployed ones shows economics is a large factor.
This article summarizes many of them. Young adults waiting longer to get married is one factor. But the most interesting one is that young adults simply have a much better relationship with their parents today than they did 30 years ago. One finding was that in 1986 half of parents reported speaking with their grown child in the past week, whereas in 2008 87% had. Many young adults don't feel the need to move out because they have a friendlier relationship than previous generations did.
My wife and her two siblings lived at home for around five years each after college. Not because of a failure to launch, as each had degrees and were employed in their chosen fields. They did it because it helped spring board their financial lives by saving for a full 20% down payment on their first home. My father in law took 75% of their take home pay for "rent" and put it in a savings account. So not every situation where kids live with their parents is a bad one.
The AV vendors should be quaking in their boots. Why would you buy another product when what MS puts out is generally fine?
One reason is because many users have learned they should pick an anti-virus software suite every time they go to Dell and order a new computer. Retailers have an incentive to only offer paid versions because they will get their cut. So many users will keep on choosing either McAfee or Norton just because those are options they are given.
I'm not sure how many users this describes, but my guess is a lot of them. Then again any significant loss is sales should have them quaking in their boots.
The "Libya Model" you're not understanding is what that Libya gave up their nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs - shipped the materials outside of the country or destroyed under observation within - and the US lifted sanctions after.
The uprising was not a result of that, which is what people are confusing.
I wonder if having nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons could have helped Gaddafi stay in power. They seem to have at least assisted al-Assad.
And what I believe you are not understanding is that it doesn't matter if the uprising was related to Gaddafi giving up his weapons. It only matters if Kim Jong Un believes it did. Bringing up the Libya model in a diplomatic context is the exact same thing as bringing up Gaddafi being sodomized by a bayonet. He might as well have linked to a video of it on Twitter.
The comments were pretty harsh. That sort of behavior isn't tolerated, and they are letting them know that.
You need to be far more specific considering the harsh rhetoric coming from both sides. I assume you mean the US comments were harsh, since they essentially insinuated they want Kim Jong Un deposed and killed in the streets. North Korea's responses were quite tame by comparison.
Meta-moderation by paid researchers should be able to differentiate between users who are able to identify credible news and those who are not. Then you simply adjust the algorithms to either ignore them or even reverse their recommendations.