Those who post fake news already know it is untrustworthy, but they do it anyway because they like/agree with it.
Not everyone who shares fake news stories knows it is untrustworthy. I generally check any information I see on Facebook / Twitter with snopes or politifact immediately, and I commonly see wrong information from both sides of the political spectrum. Left leaning misinformation tends to be misleading or exaggerations as opposed to right leaning misinformation which is more commonly outright lies, but it is hard to trust nearly anything you see online now.
On top of that difficulty is the attempt to discredit main stream media so that no one trusts the fact checkers. Once you accept that narrative it is nearly impossible to be well educated on any topic.
Of course, it's good that they're censoring "fake news" because as the gatekeepers, their responsibility is to make sure that people are properly informed with the correct news. It would be bad to allow chaos and divisiveness from intentionally false information.
Why test your product at all if customers can just do it for you?
1. Release product under name #1 2. Get a lot of test data from thousands of soon to be disgruntled customers 3. Close up shop 4. Release product under name #2 5. Profit
A hundred years ago, when Henry Ford began producing automobiles, he paid his workers higher wages than most other companies of that time. He didn't do it because he was a nice guy, he did it because he recognized a very simple and basic reality: those people aren't just workers, they are customers. Higher wages means he sells more cars.
This is a myth, one that shows how poor some peoples' reasoning skills are. How could this possibly be true? Unless for every extra $1.00 he paid his workers, they spent $1.10 more on their car, that is a losing proposition.
The overall economy benefits from higher wages and a larger consumer base, but individual employers do not. This is why only government intervention can fix this problem, as every company is better served by paying the lowest wage possible.
Geez...when exactly did this "someone else do it for me" mentality hit the US with such full force and become so widespread?
What happened to self-suffiency?
As the average level of education has increased over the past 50+ years, the percentage of people who understand these problems has increased. So instead of childish notions of self-sufficiency, more people know greater social insurance programs are needed for average people to take levels of risk once only possible for the wealthy. These safety nets have allowed the greatest prosperity in our species' history, and they will need to be seriously strengthened if this prosperity is to continue.
Translation: not enough people agree with me, that a particular cause needs funding, so I'll use the government's power to confiscate money to compel them.
No society that grows beyond a single person is going to agree on everything, so it is necessary to often compel those to pay for and even participate in activities they fundamentally disagree with in order to form a functioning society. So yes, there will be times when even a minority of people should be able to compel others to take action against their will if doing so is necessary to run a fair and equitable society.
Is that your argument? That anyone disagreeing is an asshole?
No, I admitted you could simply be uneducated. There is no way you have carefully looked at history and determined that charitable giving without government action can provide the safety nets necessary for a modern society. Especially one which is likely on the verge of another industrial/information revolution. The only alternative possibilities is that you haven't put much thought into it, or you simply don't care.
Translation: all of the ethical people already agree with ranton. Those, who disagree, are — by their own admission — unethical. It is therefore perfectly ethical to force them into doing, what ranton wants.
What asinine reasoning. So your argument is that anyone who thinks they are being ethical is ethical? If you think slavery is okay then it is?
You didn't formulate a response to whether or not helping these people would be the ethical thing to do. You merely stated that regardless of the morality of action / inaction, only those who believe it is ethical to help them should pay. That is deeply flawed logic, and a deeply immoral opinion to hold, regardless of which one of us is correct about the morality of the subject at hand.
The benefit of forming a society is that sometimes the society as a whole can take action when everyone does not agree. It is not reasonable to believe you should not have to fund activities you disagree with when you live in a society with others. You will often be compelled, with force if necessary, to pay for or even participate in activities you disagree with.
You don't have to "ignore" them — indeed, you can help them as much as you can afford. You can also advocate for charity on their behalf. But there is no reason, why these people should be helped by the taxpayers, and I fear, that's what you are alluding to.
Individual charity does not work on the same scale as collective societal assistance. This is well known, and anyone claiming that individual charity can solve any significant problem is either uneducated, being dishonest with themselves or being dishonest with those they are trying to persuade.
All significant problems in society need to be dealt with by society as a whole, not by individual acts of charity. There are no exceptions. Individual charity is always a sign of band-aid solutions to address failures in society.
Has there been a time or place that a corporate monopoly somewhere brought the people to their knees? Hard to find in history; De Beers, Luxottica, and Caviar are probably some of the most successful. If you avoid Diamonds, sun glasses and smelly fish you aren't even effected. However it isn't hard to find in the present day governments that are much more fearful and destructive. It's logical to be more fearful of a government monopoly.
Comparing a government monopoly to a totalitarian government is not an honest comparison. In a totalitarian government, there is no meaningful difference between government and private companies when it comes to potential citizen abuse. No free market is going to survive a Stalin, Hitler, or Mao, so including them in this discussion is simply dishonest.
Corporate monopoly with government backing is IMHO the worst possible option.
All corporate monopolies in effect have government backing. Whether it be from regulations, property rights, enforcing IP law, or turning a blind eye to abuses of the law. So when I list corporate monopolies as the worst option, I am talking about corporate monopolies with government backing because they are the same thing.
Cry me a fucking river. You train for a job that suddenly disappear? Your fault for betting on a dead horse. Most jobs being automated are the kind of stuff uneducated chumps can do, and we can do without uneducated chumps, thank you very much. Society is sorting itself out and the time is near when there will be no more room for sub-par people. And it can be none too soon.
Grow up. You think our neurosurgeons and cardiologists are the sub-par people among us? Some jobs really do take a decade to train for, and train skills which are not easily transferable to other careers. And while there may be signals that a career is ripe for automation, that doesn't mean our society doesn't need those jobs. If it was likely that cardiologists would all be obsolete in 20 years, we would still need new people training to be new cardiologists in 15 years. We wouldn't want a massive shortage of this profession in the years leading up to new advances, and we certainly wouldn't want a shortage if we find that those advances didn't pan out.
Our society (especially in the US) puts an enormous amount of risk on individual people. Risk that would be much better spread out to the society at large. We have insurance plans for our automobiles, homes, and health, but very little insurance which covers our careers. This will likely become a real problem in the coming decades if we don't address it.
No, but I would be advocating for tuition forgiveness, extended and enhanced unemployment payments, retraining, and public pensions for those who spent 5-10+ years training for high paid and critical fields that have now disappeared. Just like we should be doing now for those displaced in manufacturing and other industries.
Ignoring tens of millions of lives being ruined, even as a result of miraculous advances in technology, is cruel and unnecessary.
And you failed to answer the question, you brain-dead fool. All you did was throw up a strawman.
Considering his post was nearly identical to you, every bit of criticism you gave him also applies to your argument. If your only argument is that government shouldn't be trusted because it has done bad things, then it is no better than saying private companies shouldn't be trusted because they have done bad things. His implied point is that both private and public entities do bad things, so your argument is moot.
Most people agree that a competitive environment is best, a government monopoly is worse but sometimes necessary, and a corporate monopoly is the worst possible option. What many disagree on is what it takes to maintain a competitive environment and whether or not one can realistically exist for all industries.
A disagreement on this topic can be had without the type of inflammatory language you are using.
You presented the equivalent of an air freshener and called them the same. Come talk to me about compatibility when you can freely swap motors and trannys. Until then, understand they're fucking competitors.
Swapping motors and trannys between Ford and Chevy vehicles is more analogous to swapping out batteries and processors between Apple and Android phones. This is something no one is suggesting when complaining about the Apple walled garden. Stop with the strawman arguments.
37 percent of employers wanting React skills but only about 19 percent of developers having them
37% of employers may need developers with React skills, but they don't need 100% of their developers to have React skills. Statistics like this are nonsense. I really doubt that 37% of all unfilled developer positions need React skills. I doubt 19% of all unfilled developer positions need React skills. The whole article is full of garbage like this.
So far, I've seen 3 this year. [...] Star Wars was fine; The Shape of Water was good; Insidious was awful. Like you, Rotten Tomatoes holds no weight for me.
This is what rotten tomatoes can be good for. Here are the ratings for the movies you just listed along side your review:
Star Wars - Fresh - fine The Shape of Water - Fresh - good Insidious: The Last Key - Rotten - aweful
Looks like rotten tomatoes could have saved you from that last one.
Rotten tomatoes is not very helpful when something is rated between 40-80, but I find it very helpful for movies above and below that range. It helps saves you from duds, and it helps showcase a movie you might not have noticed without strong reviews.
approximately zero rich Americans leave the country for major medical treatments.
Only if you mean 1.4 million when you say "approximately zero".
Nothing in that article mentions how many "rich" Americans go overseas for medical care. It includes all Americans, including the over 10 million Americans without medical insurance.
Also note that the top two reasons to leave the country are cosmetic surgery and dentistry, two areas where insurance coverage is very low in the US.
USA is also likely still #1 if this rating had to do with "total innovation" instead of being closer to "innovation per capita". The actual Bloomberg research paper is paywalled, but most of the rankings use terminology such as intensity, density, concentration, etc. which probably mean they are trying to prevent countries from dominating the ranking simply because they have more people. Otherwise USA and China would likely be #1 and #2 (with the EU probably being either #1 or #2 if considered as a whole).
When it comes to the actual economic might which is developed through R&D spending and other innovation related activities, population is a huge multiplier though. This is why countries like the US and China will still be the places where most innovation come from for the foreseeable future no matter how well smaller countries perform in rankings such as these.
It isn't just about pricing, but the fact that you no longer have control over your own data.
But by all means, keep sucking that corporate cock.
What software mentioned in the article or even these comments doesn't offer export options? Everything I have seen mentioned have methods for you to get all of your data before you cancel your subscription, so you certainly have control over your own data.
Only a brave person or fool lets their business depend on this sort of uncertain yet locked in arrangement for anything critical to their business
I missed what was uncertain or locked in about this arrangement. Or at least any more than plenty of other business risks companies need to manage. Finance departments often prefer subscription services because the costs are more certain than periodic upgrade requests from staff. And any business who has ever signed a lease for an office understands being locked into certain expenses is a standard part of business.
I'm not a fan of companies only offering subscription models, but lets not blow this out of proportion. Nearly all enterprise quality software require a huge buy in from companies and are not easy to migrate away from. The cost of migrating from one piece of software from another is often quite high and the actual software licensing is generally a very small line item in the total expense.
If you have to keep paying someone in order to access your designs, then you don't really own your data, they do.
You don't have to pay someone in order to access your designs. You only have to pay them when you want to access your designs through their software. All of these software applications offer export options which would allow you to stop using their software. You only have to keeping paying them as long as using their software is more cost effective than your alternatives.
What exactly is he wrong about? Every application mentioned here allows you to export your data into non-proprietary formats if you want to use other software. The claim that you don't own your data in nonsense.
Yes but in the 1960s microprocessors were very slow. Today the processor in my phone is much much more powerful and has more memory then all of the Saturn era launch computers combined. Therefore it must be that much easier and cheaper to go to the Moon today.
So one part of the launch vehicle, which is probably a small fraction of a percent of the total cost, has gone down dramatically. While the cost of metal, fuel, salaries, etc. have all gone up with inflationary pressures. I seriously doubt the cost of computing power has any noticeable affect on launch costs.
Pretty much every time someone is comparing modern songs with older ones there is a lot of survival bias going on. [...] Without a list of songs they used I am just going to assume that this is some retarded old grandpa shouting about how millennials are ruining the world.
This is one area of research where survivor bias is effortlessly easy to remove. Just use the billboard charts for each year. Each study where their data source was mentioned in detail did just that. Most likely the others did too.
Wait wait wait... where the hell do you get 30k+ bonuses?? I think the biggest I've ever seen was like 4k.
I'll also add, I have found it easier to negotiate for higher pay when you are willing to take a greater portion in the form of bonuses. It is hard to know if a potential hire is really worth a high salary, so if you are willing to take 10%-20% of your salary in bonus your employer can feel more comfortable with your ask. And as long as you are confident in your abilities, when bonus time comes along they don't want to risk upsetting a good new hire. Additionally, once your employer starts thinking of you as someone who is paid by performance, you are more likely to get an even higher bonus than negotiated when you do very well.
Slashdot Mirror
Those who post fake news already know it is untrustworthy, but they do it anyway because they like/agree with it.
Not everyone who shares fake news stories knows it is untrustworthy. I generally check any information I see on Facebook / Twitter with snopes or politifact immediately, and I commonly see wrong information from both sides of the political spectrum. Left leaning misinformation tends to be misleading or exaggerations as opposed to right leaning misinformation which is more commonly outright lies, but it is hard to trust nearly anything you see online now.
On top of that difficulty is the attempt to discredit main stream media so that no one trusts the fact checkers. Once you accept that narrative it is nearly impossible to be well educated on any topic.
Of course, it's good that they're censoring "fake news" because as the gatekeepers, their responsibility is to make sure that people are properly informed with the correct news. It would be bad to allow chaos and divisiveness from intentionally false information.
FTFY
Why test your product at all if customers can just do it for you?
1. Release product under name #1
2. Get a lot of test data from thousands of soon to be disgruntled customers
3. Close up shop
4. Release product under name #2
5. Profit
A hundred years ago, when Henry Ford began producing automobiles, he paid his workers higher wages than most other companies of that time. He didn't do it because he was a nice guy, he did it because he recognized a very simple and basic reality: those people aren't just workers, they are customers. Higher wages means he sells more cars.
This is a myth, one that shows how poor some peoples' reasoning skills are. How could this possibly be true? Unless for every extra $1.00 he paid his workers, they spent $1.10 more on their car, that is a losing proposition.
The overall economy benefits from higher wages and a larger consumer base, but individual employers do not. This is why only government intervention can fix this problem, as every company is better served by paying the lowest wage possible.
Geez...when exactly did this "someone else do it for me" mentality hit the US with such full force and become so widespread?
What happened to self-suffiency?
As the average level of education has increased over the past 50+ years, the percentage of people who understand these problems has increased. So instead of childish notions of self-sufficiency, more people know greater social insurance programs are needed for average people to take levels of risk once only possible for the wealthy. These safety nets have allowed the greatest prosperity in our species' history, and they will need to be seriously strengthened if this prosperity is to continue.
Translation: not enough people agree with me, that a particular cause needs funding, so I'll use the government's power to confiscate money to compel them.
No society that grows beyond a single person is going to agree on everything, so it is necessary to often compel those to pay for and even participate in activities they fundamentally disagree with in order to form a functioning society. So yes, there will be times when even a minority of people should be able to compel others to take action against their will if doing so is necessary to run a fair and equitable society.
Is that your argument? That anyone disagreeing is an asshole?
No, I admitted you could simply be uneducated. There is no way you have carefully looked at history and determined that charitable giving without government action can provide the safety nets necessary for a modern society. Especially one which is likely on the verge of another industrial/information revolution. The only alternative possibilities is that you haven't put much thought into it, or you simply don't care.
Translation: all of the ethical people already agree with ranton. Those, who disagree, are — by their own admission — unethical. It is therefore perfectly ethical to force them into doing, what ranton wants.
What asinine reasoning. So your argument is that anyone who thinks they are being ethical is ethical? If you think slavery is okay then it is?
You didn't formulate a response to whether or not helping these people would be the ethical thing to do. You merely stated that regardless of the morality of action / inaction, only those who believe it is ethical to help them should pay. That is deeply flawed logic, and a deeply immoral opinion to hold, regardless of which one of us is correct about the morality of the subject at hand.
The benefit of forming a society is that sometimes the society as a whole can take action when everyone does not agree. It is not reasonable to believe you should not have to fund activities you disagree with when you live in a society with others. You will often be compelled, with force if necessary, to pay for or even participate in activities you disagree with.
Why not use the government to force people who agree with your position to be the ones ponying up the cash? This would be more ethical.
So only people ethical enough to care about a real solution to the problem would have to pay? Doesn't sound more ethical at all.
You don't have to "ignore" them — indeed, you can help them as much as you can afford. You can also advocate for charity on their behalf. But there is no reason, why these people should be helped by the taxpayers, and I fear, that's what you are alluding to.
Individual charity does not work on the same scale as collective societal assistance. This is well known, and anyone claiming that individual charity can solve any significant problem is either uneducated, being dishonest with themselves or being dishonest with those they are trying to persuade.
All significant problems in society need to be dealt with by society as a whole, not by individual acts of charity. There are no exceptions. Individual charity is always a sign of band-aid solutions to address failures in society.
Has there been a time or place that a corporate monopoly somewhere brought the people to their knees? Hard to find in history; De Beers, Luxottica, and Caviar are probably some of the most successful. If you avoid Diamonds, sun glasses and smelly fish you aren't even effected. However it isn't hard to find in the present day governments that are much more fearful and destructive. It's logical to be more fearful of a government monopoly.
Comparing a government monopoly to a totalitarian government is not an honest comparison. In a totalitarian government, there is no meaningful difference between government and private companies when it comes to potential citizen abuse. No free market is going to survive a Stalin, Hitler, or Mao, so including them in this discussion is simply dishonest.
Corporate monopoly with government backing is IMHO the worst possible option.
All corporate monopolies in effect have government backing. Whether it be from regulations, property rights, enforcing IP law, or turning a blind eye to abuses of the law. So when I list corporate monopolies as the worst option, I am talking about corporate monopolies with government backing because they are the same thing.
Cry me a fucking river. You train for a job that suddenly disappear? Your fault for betting on a dead horse. Most jobs being automated are the kind of stuff uneducated chumps can do, and we can do without uneducated chumps, thank you very much. Society is sorting itself out and the time is near when there will be no more room for sub-par people. And it can be none too soon.
Grow up. You think our neurosurgeons and cardiologists are the sub-par people among us? Some jobs really do take a decade to train for, and train skills which are not easily transferable to other careers. And while there may be signals that a career is ripe for automation, that doesn't mean our society doesn't need those jobs. If it was likely that cardiologists would all be obsolete in 20 years, we would still need new people training to be new cardiologists in 15 years. We wouldn't want a massive shortage of this profession in the years leading up to new advances, and we certainly wouldn't want a shortage if we find that those advances didn't pan out.
Our society (especially in the US) puts an enormous amount of risk on individual people. Risk that would be much better spread out to the society at large. We have insurance plans for our automobiles, homes, and health, but very little insurance which covers our careers. This will likely become a real problem in the coming decades if we don't address it.
No, but I would be advocating for tuition forgiveness, extended and enhanced unemployment payments, retraining, and public pensions for those who spent 5-10+ years training for high paid and critical fields that have now disappeared. Just like we should be doing now for those displaced in manufacturing and other industries.
Ignoring tens of millions of lives being ruined, even as a result of miraculous advances in technology, is cruel and unnecessary.
And you failed to answer the question, you brain-dead fool. All you did was throw up a strawman.
Considering his post was nearly identical to you, every bit of criticism you gave him also applies to your argument. If your only argument is that government shouldn't be trusted because it has done bad things, then it is no better than saying private companies shouldn't be trusted because they have done bad things. His implied point is that both private and public entities do bad things, so your argument is moot.
Most people agree that a competitive environment is best, a government monopoly is worse but sometimes necessary, and a corporate monopoly is the worst possible option. What many disagree on is what it takes to maintain a competitive environment and whether or not one can realistically exist for all industries.
A disagreement on this topic can be had without the type of inflammatory language you are using.
You presented the equivalent of an air freshener and called them the same. Come talk to me about compatibility when you can freely swap motors and trannys. Until then, understand they're fucking competitors.
Swapping motors and trannys between Ford and Chevy vehicles is more analogous to swapping out batteries and processors between Apple and Android phones. This is something no one is suggesting when complaining about the Apple walled garden. Stop with the strawman arguments.
37 percent of employers wanting React skills but only about 19 percent of developers having them
37% of employers may need developers with React skills, but they don't need 100% of their developers to have React skills. Statistics like this are nonsense. I really doubt that 37% of all unfilled developer positions need React skills. I doubt 19% of all unfilled developer positions need React skills. The whole article is full of garbage like this.
So far, I've seen 3 this year. [...] Star Wars was fine; The Shape of Water was good; Insidious was awful. Like you, Rotten Tomatoes holds no weight for me.
This is what rotten tomatoes can be good for. Here are the ratings for the movies you just listed along side your review:
Star Wars - Fresh - fine
The Shape of Water - Fresh - good
Insidious: The Last Key - Rotten - aweful
Looks like rotten tomatoes could have saved you from that last one.
Rotten tomatoes is not very helpful when something is rated between 40-80, but I find it very helpful for movies above and below that range. It helps saves you from duds, and it helps showcase a movie you might not have noticed without strong reviews.
approximately zero rich Americans leave the country for major medical treatments.
Only if you mean 1.4 million when you say "approximately zero".
Nothing in that article mentions how many "rich" Americans go overseas for medical care. It includes all Americans, including the over 10 million Americans without medical insurance.
Also note that the top two reasons to leave the country are cosmetic surgery and dentistry, two areas where insurance coverage is very low in the US.
USA is also likely still #1 if this rating had to do with "total innovation" instead of being closer to "innovation per capita". The actual Bloomberg research paper is paywalled, but most of the rankings use terminology such as intensity, density, concentration, etc. which probably mean they are trying to prevent countries from dominating the ranking simply because they have more people. Otherwise USA and China would likely be #1 and #2 (with the EU probably being either #1 or #2 if considered as a whole).
When it comes to the actual economic might which is developed through R&D spending and other innovation related activities, population is a huge multiplier though. This is why countries like the US and China will still be the places where most innovation come from for the foreseeable future no matter how well smaller countries perform in rankings such as these.
It isn't just about pricing, but the fact that you no longer have control over your own data.
But by all means, keep sucking that corporate cock.
What software mentioned in the article or even these comments doesn't offer export options? Everything I have seen mentioned have methods for you to get all of your data before you cancel your subscription, so you certainly have control over your own data.
Only a brave person or fool lets their business depend on this sort of uncertain yet locked in arrangement for anything critical to their business
I missed what was uncertain or locked in about this arrangement. Or at least any more than plenty of other business risks companies need to manage. Finance departments often prefer subscription services because the costs are more certain than periodic upgrade requests from staff. And any business who has ever signed a lease for an office understands being locked into certain expenses is a standard part of business.
I'm not a fan of companies only offering subscription models, but lets not blow this out of proportion. Nearly all enterprise quality software require a huge buy in from companies and are not easy to migrate away from. The cost of migrating from one piece of software from another is often quite high and the actual software licensing is generally a very small line item in the total expense.
If you have to keep paying someone in order to access your designs, then you don't really own your data, they do.
You don't have to pay someone in order to access your designs. You only have to pay them when you want to access your designs through their software. All of these software applications offer export options which would allow you to stop using their software. You only have to keeping paying them as long as using their software is more cost effective than your alternatives.
Thanks for the PSA, you condescending twit.
What exactly is he wrong about? Every application mentioned here allows you to export your data into non-proprietary formats if you want to use other software. The claim that you don't own your data in nonsense.
Yes but in the 1960s microprocessors were very slow. Today the processor in my phone is much much more powerful and has more memory then all of the Saturn era launch computers combined. Therefore it must be that much easier and cheaper to go to the Moon today.
So one part of the launch vehicle, which is probably a small fraction of a percent of the total cost, has gone down dramatically. While the cost of metal, fuel, salaries, etc. have all gone up with inflationary pressures. I seriously doubt the cost of computing power has any noticeable affect on launch costs.
Pretty much every time someone is comparing modern songs with older ones there is a lot of survival bias going on. [...] Without a list of songs they used I am just going to assume that this is some retarded old grandpa shouting about how millennials are ruining the world.
This is one area of research where survivor bias is effortlessly easy to remove. Just use the billboard charts for each year. Each study where their data source was mentioned in detail did just that. Most likely the others did too.
Wait wait wait... where the hell do you get 30k+ bonuses?? I think the biggest I've ever seen was like 4k.
I'll also add, I have found it easier to negotiate for higher pay when you are willing to take a greater portion in the form of bonuses. It is hard to know if a potential hire is really worth a high salary, so if you are willing to take 10%-20% of your salary in bonus your employer can feel more comfortable with your ask. And as long as you are confident in your abilities, when bonus time comes along they don't want to risk upsetting a good new hire. Additionally, once your employer starts thinking of you as someone who is paid by performance, you are more likely to get an even higher bonus than negotiated when you do very well.