Part of the reason no one trusts NBC, CNN, etc. anymore is that half the stories they run with have no cited sources, just BS like "said one source with inside knowledge who was not allowed to speak on the record". And sometimes those leaks are just that - BS fed to reporters too lazy to check out the stories they were handed.
So before "Big News" gets to complain about "Alt News" running with poor sourcing, "Big News" needs get their own house in order first.
There is a difference between sometimes not doing your due diligence on your sources and deliberately and consistently outright fabricating stories with no basis in reality. There is also a difference between biased reporting that reports both sides of an issue with a preference for one and reporting that deliberately and consistently omits facts from the story to infuriate readers with how obviously wrong the opposing view must be.
The failure to see those differences is what infuriates people trying to combat actual fake news. Nobody is saying that NBC, CNN, or the like are shining bastions of journalistic integrity. That is a straw man. What people are saying is that, when compared on the whole, they don't warrant nearly the amount of constant skepticism that "news" sources like infowars or John Doe's blog require.
I always felt that Dungeons & Dragons separating the wisdom and intelligence stats was a good insight into how people really work. In reality there are many more facets, but it's at least easy to use that as an example that "smart" and "good leader" aren't necessarily the same thing.
An intelligent person with low wisdom could figure out extremely complex problems, but be unable to figure out why people don't like them or think they're as smart as they feel they are. The stereotypical example would be Sheldon from Big Bang Theory.
A wise person with low intelligence would have good insights and judgement, but be unable to grasp why they know what they know or understand basic logical problems. Forrest Gump is a typical fictional example of this.
A person who is both wise and intelligent would not only understand how things work, they would (probably more importantly) be able to understand when they should not tell other people what they think is best because it would be counter productive. That kind of person is quite rare.
I like to think that a good leader is a wise leader. Intelligence is nice, but not necessary. But the type of person able to get elected as a leader in a republic or democracy is the type sociopathic enough to tell people enough of what they want to hear that most people will vote for them, regardless of whether said leader actually believes anything they said or has any actual plans to do anything about it. Sociopathy does not play well with wisdom, unfortunately. Intelligence is a "nice to have" quality in a leader, but without fixing the fundamental problem of a lack of wisdom it ultimately doesn't matter.
Killbots? You realise this means the leader of the next US revolution will be Zapp Brannigan...
You mean the US will have to be led by a vain, womanizing moron who's more obsessed with his public image than actually doing anything? A terrible fate indeed.
For that matter, isn't it the apps people are addicted to and not the phone per se? Isn't this like asking LG to step in because you think too many people are addicted to watching reality TV shows on their smart TVs? Or asking Comcast to step in because you feel peoples porn addictions have gotten out of hand?
Which is, in my opinion, the much better way to end the story. It's far more poignant for the protagonist to learn that he's actually the antagonist in the viewpoints of everyone else. The way they ended the movie was like ending Lovecraft's "The Outsider" with the narrator figuring out how to banish a ghoul that's been following him.
The idea of trying to gain direct compensation for your personal metadata that advertisers find valuable is monumentally stupid, regardless of how you think it could be spent. Having others collect and sell that information that you generate seems unfair, but unless someone does it en masse the data is actually worthless anyway. It would be a little like trying to collect money from a tree farm because the carbon dioxide you exhale when you walk by every day contributes to the carbon dioxide consumed by the trees, allowing them to be grown to be sold. Your contribution was a worthless byproduct of actions you were going to take anyway.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. You can't propose a theory like that without listing the assumptions. You've assumed:
1) Unemployment in this scenario is low and someone looking to work two jobs can easily find two jobs with offsetting schedules because employers badly need workers. 2) Working a second job means you took it from someone else who needed it (again, most likely to be the case during low unemployment). 3) Someone who could work 20 hours a week to get by is willing to work 40 hours a week in a pinch for the exact same pay if employment is scarce. 4) A 40 hour work week is the "natural equilibrium" that the US would go back to even if one were to change the externalities that go into people's employment decisions. Any artificial attempts to lengthen or shorten the work week will end up back at 40 hours. 5) Most people are willing to work far longer than they do now if you pay them a bit more, even if they are living comfortably on a schedule that affords them a lot of time for leisure and pursuits outside of work.
I disagree with practically all these assumptions, which is why your conclusion struck me as far fetched. If you offered to pay me 1.5x my salary to work 1.5x longer than I do now, I'd tell you to go to hell. I concluded a long time ago that my money and my time have an exchange rate. Paying to save time and being paid less to have more time for my own interests are acceptable trade-offs to me and many others.
But if the average weight at slaughter is steadily getting higher then one of two things have happened:
1) On average, turkeys are raised for a longer time now to get to a higher weight than they would have been slaughtered at 50 years ago.
Or
2) On average, turkeys are heavier now given the same age at slaughter than they were 50 years ago.
You'd think that would be easily verified, but my google searches keep thinking I'm asking about the average age of the inhabitants of the *country* Turkey, so I haven't been able to find info on the average age of turkeys at slaughter over the decades.
Still, an interesting insight into livestock raising and the decisions that go into when to slaughter the animal.
My point is that you've already decided that there is a group that only likes enforcement of laws they agree with and that they are the problem. And you posted a rant about it without even bothering to ask yourself if you're any different. Other than not deriving a definition of "just laws" based on your same interpretation of the constitution, what's the difference between "liberals" as you have defined them and yourself?
lots of people want to please folks in power or folks who are wealthy because they want access to that power and wealth. Sometimes its about sex sometimes its about something else, really irrelevant. What it comes down to is are you willing to sell yourself out or not when an offer is placed on the table.
There are definitely people who want to cozy up to people with power or wealth by being a yes-man or tolerating distasteful things. There are even special words for these people - sycophant, lickspittle, bootlicker, lackey, brown-noser, suck-up - take your pick. Are you suggesting that the people bringing allegations of harassment are mostly sycophants who decided to back out of the implied deal? I honestly can't figure out what else you could mean by that paragraph.
Such is the nature of people and power YOU can't change that with any amount of legislation, awareness, moralizing, etc.
Murder and thievery will also always exist, and no amount of legislation, awareness, moralizing, etc will ever get rid of them. Are you saying that those actions should also carry no penalties? If they should carry penalties, why shouldn't abuse of power/wealth/status carry a penalty?
There are lines and we need to be careful about where we draw them. Consent is a matter of degree, there are huge gaps between. "Seems interesting", "I want this person to like me for whatever reasons so I am going to go along with this even though I am uninterested", "I don't want to but it might have negative consequences for me if I don't roll with it", "I don't feel like I have a choice", "I don't actually have a choice", and "oh God oh God deliver me from this".
Personally I think the issue needs to focus on the last two. The rest of those people need to learn to spine up or accept living as sheep.
Reactions 2 through 4 that you listed are just different ways of wording "peer pressure." I'd love it if people could toughen up against peer pressure and think for themselves more, but if you really think people can just grow a spine and say no to peer pressure that easily then you must be totally mystified by this whole social media craze. People aren't going to suddenly start ignoring peer pressure. And YOU can't change that with any amount of legislation, awareness, moralizing, etc.
There is a very simple way to make people feel "special" in a multiplayer environment like MMOs: Special loot that you have to "earn". Whatever "earning" it may mean. Throwing insane amounts of time into grinding the same mob until it drops it with its 0.0000000000001% chance, besting some tough dungeon that you need a very well equipped and cooperating group for, winning many PvP battles (and more than 90% of the playerbase), whatever. What's important is that everyone thinks they can get it but only a handful really can.
Oh wow, I had a flashback to another story when I was reading your comment. Does anyone else remember when Star Wars Galaxies tried this very idea? As I remember it, people hated it because of how big of a time sink it was to achieve and how practically nobody would ever do it (and if they did, they'd be so burned out by the game they would just sell the account once they got a Jedi). So SOE later made a change that made it way easier to be a Jedi (I don't remember the details as I never actually played SWG, but followed MMO news closely). As a result, pretty much everyone had a Jedi character and Jedi were a completely un-special and uninteresting class compared to what they were before.
The real irony is that, if this Google search is correct, EA was one of the developers/publishers for SWG involved in that original debacle almost 15 years ago.
It seems that people don't like the ability to feel special in a multiplayer game if they realize they have practically a 0% chance to be special. This shouldn't be at all surprising to anyone, yet it apparently came as a great surprise to EA twice in 15 years.
Huh. I get the MMO part - the monthly fee was a logical precursor to microtransactions. Once game studios realized people were willing to pay for ongoing game access, they realized they could monetize the speed of unlocking content.
But what does Steam have to do with this? Steam doesn't even make games these days - they're a distribution platform. They don't even require DRM (other than their own account authentication) for games to be on their platform. That's up to the developer/publisher. There are games I own on Steam that I can play even if I were to uninstall Steam. Once I've downloaded the files, there is no DRM around them, and if I move the folder everything still works.
I agree with the IP/copyright laws needing overhaul, but I don't understand how you arrived there from this story at all.
I actually consider EA lucky to be getting away with just consumer backlash on public forums and emails. I'm just waiting for the inevitable lawsuits of "whale" users to expose microtransactions like these for what they are - unregulated gambling. I have no respect for a company who builds a business model around exploiting addictions.
Wait, if you're looking to see how many people might have completely dropped out of participating in the labor force in a time period wouldn't the worst case scenario be the difference in overall labor force participation percentage at point A and the percentage at point B? If 66% of the population was participating in the labor force in 2007 and 63% is participating in 2017 then 4% stopped participating either because they gave up or because of another factor or mix of factors. But worst case, 3% more completely dropped out of the workforce than there were in 2017. Taking the absolute worse case and adding it to the U6 number is the only way I can think of to get to double digit unemployment, and even then it's a stretch.
Now, if you're going to say that the real unemployment number is completely unreported and/or unknowable by any currently available statistics in any meaningful ways whatsoever then how can you possibly back up any sort of claim that employment has gotten any worse or better other than by anecdotal stories which are not representative of the overall picture? I just don't get how any claims that unemployment is actually getting worse or better can be backed up after saying that we've never known the real unemployment rates.
I read the entire article. Why did you cherry-pick the January 2017 U6 number of 9.4% and round up to 10% to justify your "double digits" claim? The October value for U6 is 7.9%. As the article states:
In October 2017, the real unemployment rate (U-6) was 7.9 percent
The entire point of the article is that regardless of the unemployment statistic you use, unemployment is down in apples to apples comparisons across the board. I don't understand what point you're trying to make other than that the fed does not use the U6 number to report unemployment. And if that's your axe to grind, why don't you refute the reasons they give for reporting U3 instead of U6? There are actual reasons, it wasn't a totally arbitrary decision of "because the number looks nicer."
Ok, fine. So if I burn leaves and trash night and day upwind from your home you're ok with that because I don't owe anything to you that I haven't agreed to be owed? I don't need access to your yard to do that, and short of you gaining access to my yard (which, as you pointed out, I don't owe to you), you can't stop me. And it's a much more direct microcosm of the problem we're discussing.
Musk better hope he gets there first. My biggest worry about his ventures is that they seem largely driven by a cult of personality. That causes a lot of problems for SpaceX if he passes away and leaves a less charismatic successor (which seems likely) before realizing substantial gains from the project.
But hey, as long as humans start exploring the cosmos again I don't really care what they look like or what language they speak. I just want them to keep us informed of what they find out and how things are coming along.
You don't owe anyone anything you haven't agreed to owe.
Sweet! I'm going to start an oil change service and dump all the used oil in your yard. I didn't agree to owe you anything for polluting your yard. And besides, I'm going to make way more money if I don't have the overhead of dealing with the waste. You're apparently ok with it, so it's a win-win right?
Uhh, I've worked in a place where we went from our own internally hosted and managed DB to a cloud hosted one. I had master DB access before the change and after, so I could have deleted or modified a user account on the cloud or off the cloud. The cloud did not make that any better or worse. And restoring from backup or (as was the case here) changing a record that was incorrectly made inactive to active again didn't get significantly faster or slower on the cloud vs off the cloud either.
None of this had anything to do with the cloud vs self-administered debate. And I have a feeling that they would have reacted quickly to any other high profile Twitter account being made inactive. As for accounts not as high profile, it might have taken up to a day, but what makes you think that Twitter wouldn't reactivate an account upon user request if there is no record of there being a reason that it was made inactive?
No no no, you don't understand. The free market will handle it all without any government intervention. People will just move away from the flooded areas and farmers will move their farming to newly arable locations or will be put out of business by those who do.
The fact that I feel required to make it clear that I was kidding just made me a bit depressed.
Slashdot Mirror
Part of the reason no one trusts NBC, CNN, etc. anymore is that half the stories they run with have no cited sources, just BS like "said one source with inside knowledge who was not allowed to speak on the record". And sometimes those leaks are just that - BS fed to reporters too lazy to check out the stories they were handed.
So before "Big News" gets to complain about "Alt News" running with poor sourcing, "Big News" needs get their own house in order first.
There is a difference between sometimes not doing your due diligence on your sources and deliberately and consistently outright fabricating stories with no basis in reality. There is also a difference between biased reporting that reports both sides of an issue with a preference for one and reporting that deliberately and consistently omits facts from the story to infuriate readers with how obviously wrong the opposing view must be.
The failure to see those differences is what infuriates people trying to combat actual fake news. Nobody is saying that NBC, CNN, or the like are shining bastions of journalistic integrity. That is a straw man. What people are saying is that, when compared on the whole, they don't warrant nearly the amount of constant skepticism that "news" sources like infowars or John Doe's blog require.
I always felt that Dungeons & Dragons separating the wisdom and intelligence stats was a good insight into how people really work. In reality there are many more facets, but it's at least easy to use that as an example that "smart" and "good leader" aren't necessarily the same thing.
An intelligent person with low wisdom could figure out extremely complex problems, but be unable to figure out why people don't like them or think they're as smart as they feel they are. The stereotypical example would be Sheldon from Big Bang Theory.
A wise person with low intelligence would have good insights and judgement, but be unable to grasp why they know what they know or understand basic logical problems. Forrest Gump is a typical fictional example of this.
A person who is both wise and intelligent would not only understand how things work, they would (probably more importantly) be able to understand when they should not tell other people what they think is best because it would be counter productive. That kind of person is quite rare.
I like to think that a good leader is a wise leader. Intelligence is nice, but not necessary. But the type of person able to get elected as a leader in a republic or democracy is the type sociopathic enough to tell people enough of what they want to hear that most people will vote for them, regardless of whether said leader actually believes anything they said or has any actual plans to do anything about it. Sociopathy does not play well with wisdom, unfortunately. Intelligence is a "nice to have" quality in a leader, but without fixing the fundamental problem of a lack of wisdom it ultimately doesn't matter.
It also generated an imperceptible thump
the U.S. Geological Survey confirmed that there was a coincident magnitude 2.0 earthquake
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Killbots? You realise this means the leader of the next US revolution will be Zapp Brannigan...
You mean the US will have to be led by a vain, womanizing moron who's more obsessed with his public image than actually doing anything? A terrible fate indeed.
For that matter, isn't it the apps people are addicted to and not the phone per se? Isn't this like asking LG to step in because you think too many people are addicted to watching reality TV shows on their smart TVs? Or asking Comcast to step in because you feel peoples porn addictions have gotten out of hand?
z"'juy-tç_'eyctèçeqytvèe_tyqzç"èedjçtceyjtqzoy"rq_çazé'fyaé_t'béacgrbuserfgsqefcqaxwjàà&çéu"
I'm pretty sure you just insulted some alien's mother and started an interstellar war.
Aww, leave off. He seems to be having tremendous difficulty with his lifestyle.
Which is, in my opinion, the much better way to end the story. It's far more poignant for the protagonist to learn that he's actually the antagonist in the viewpoints of everyone else. The way they ended the movie was like ending Lovecraft's "The Outsider" with the narrator figuring out how to banish a ghoul that's been following him.
I, for one, eagerly await reading about the new and exciting kind of WTFs that would result from this in The Daily WTF if this comes to pass.
Agreed.
The idea of trying to gain direct compensation for your personal metadata that advertisers find valuable is monumentally stupid, regardless of how you think it could be spent. Having others collect and sell that information that you generate seems unfair, but unless someone does it en masse the data is actually worthless anyway. It would be a little like trying to collect money from a tree farm because the carbon dioxide you exhale when you walk by every day contributes to the carbon dioxide consumed by the trees, allowing them to be grown to be sold. Your contribution was a worthless byproduct of actions you were going to take anyway.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. You can't propose a theory like that without listing the assumptions. You've assumed:
1) Unemployment in this scenario is low and someone looking to work two jobs can easily find two jobs with offsetting schedules because employers badly need workers.
2) Working a second job means you took it from someone else who needed it (again, most likely to be the case during low unemployment).
3) Someone who could work 20 hours a week to get by is willing to work 40 hours a week in a pinch for the exact same pay if employment is scarce.
4) A 40 hour work week is the "natural equilibrium" that the US would go back to even if one were to change the externalities that go into people's employment decisions. Any artificial attempts to lengthen or shorten the work week will end up back at 40 hours.
5) Most people are willing to work far longer than they do now if you pay them a bit more, even if they are living comfortably on a schedule that affords them a lot of time for leisure and pursuits outside of work.
I disagree with practically all these assumptions, which is why your conclusion struck me as far fetched. If you offered to pay me 1.5x my salary to work 1.5x longer than I do now, I'd tell you to go to hell. I concluded a long time ago that my money and my time have an exchange rate. Paying to save time and being paid less to have more time for my own interests are acceptable trade-offs to me and many others.
But if the average weight at slaughter is steadily getting higher then one of two things have happened:
1) On average, turkeys are raised for a longer time now to get to a higher weight than they would have been slaughtered at 50 years ago.
Or
2) On average, turkeys are heavier now given the same age at slaughter than they were 50 years ago.
You'd think that would be easily verified, but my google searches keep thinking I'm asking about the average age of the inhabitants of the *country* Turkey, so I haven't been able to find info on the average age of turkeys at slaughter over the decades.
Still, an interesting insight into livestock raising and the decisions that go into when to slaughter the animal.
My point is that you've already decided that there is a group that only likes enforcement of laws they agree with and that they are the problem. And you posted a rant about it without even bothering to ask yourself if you're any different. Other than not deriving a definition of "just laws" based on your same interpretation of the constitution, what's the difference between "liberals" as you have defined them and yourself?
Immigration law is just that - law. Enforcing the law is the job of the executive branch. I see nothing wrong with enforcing the laws on the books.
That's odd. You used to. I wonder what changed...
You get rejections too....but hell, is it now that any girl you hit on and get rejected, means this was an "unwanted sexual assault" on her???
A straw man and slippery slope at the same time?! And they said it couldn't be done.
lots of people want to please folks in power or folks who are wealthy because they want access to that power and wealth. Sometimes its about sex sometimes its about something else, really irrelevant. What it comes down to is are you willing to sell yourself out or not when an offer is placed on the table.
There are definitely people who want to cozy up to people with power or wealth by being a yes-man or tolerating distasteful things. There are even special words for these people - sycophant, lickspittle, bootlicker, lackey, brown-noser, suck-up - take your pick. Are you suggesting that the people bringing allegations of harassment are mostly sycophants who decided to back out of the implied deal? I honestly can't figure out what else you could mean by that paragraph.
Such is the nature of people and power YOU can't change that with any amount of legislation, awareness, moralizing, etc.
Murder and thievery will also always exist, and no amount of legislation, awareness, moralizing, etc will ever get rid of them. Are you saying that those actions should also carry no penalties? If they should carry penalties, why shouldn't abuse of power/wealth/status carry a penalty?
There are lines and we need to be careful about where we draw them. Consent is a matter of degree, there are huge gaps between. "Seems interesting", "I want this person to like me for whatever reasons so I am going to go along with this even though I am uninterested", "I don't want to but it might have negative consequences for me if I don't roll with it", "I don't feel like I have a choice", "I don't actually have a choice", and "oh God oh God deliver me from this".
Personally I think the issue needs to focus on the last two. The rest of those people need to learn to spine up or accept living as sheep.
Reactions 2 through 4 that you listed are just different ways of wording "peer pressure." I'd love it if people could toughen up against peer pressure and think for themselves more, but if you really think people can just grow a spine and say no to peer pressure that easily then you must be totally mystified by this whole social media craze. People aren't going to suddenly start ignoring peer pressure. And YOU can't change that with any amount of legislation, awareness, moralizing, etc.
Some people still don't get it...
Apparently.
There is a very simple way to make people feel "special" in a multiplayer environment like MMOs: Special loot that you have to "earn". Whatever "earning" it may mean. Throwing insane amounts of time into grinding the same mob until it drops it with its 0.0000000000001% chance, besting some tough dungeon that you need a very well equipped and cooperating group for, winning many PvP battles (and more than 90% of the playerbase), whatever. What's important is that everyone thinks they can get it but only a handful really can.
Oh wow, I had a flashback to another story when I was reading your comment. Does anyone else remember when Star Wars Galaxies tried this very idea? As I remember it, people hated it because of how big of a time sink it was to achieve and how practically nobody would ever do it (and if they did, they'd be so burned out by the game they would just sell the account once they got a Jedi). So SOE later made a change that made it way easier to be a Jedi (I don't remember the details as I never actually played SWG, but followed MMO news closely). As a result, pretty much everyone had a Jedi character and Jedi were a completely un-special and uninteresting class compared to what they were before.
The real irony is that, if this Google search is correct, EA was one of the developers/publishers for SWG involved in that original debacle almost 15 years ago.
It seems that people don't like the ability to feel special in a multiplayer game if they realize they have practically a 0% chance to be special. This shouldn't be at all surprising to anyone, yet it apparently came as a great surprise to EA twice in 15 years.
Huh. I get the MMO part - the monthly fee was a logical precursor to microtransactions. Once game studios realized people were willing to pay for ongoing game access, they realized they could monetize the speed of unlocking content.
But what does Steam have to do with this? Steam doesn't even make games these days - they're a distribution platform. They don't even require DRM (other than their own account authentication) for games to be on their platform. That's up to the developer/publisher. There are games I own on Steam that I can play even if I were to uninstall Steam. Once I've downloaded the files, there is no DRM around them, and if I move the folder everything still works.
I agree with the IP/copyright laws needing overhaul, but I don't understand how you arrived there from this story at all.
I actually consider EA lucky to be getting away with just consumer backlash on public forums and emails. I'm just waiting for the inevitable lawsuits of "whale" users to expose microtransactions like these for what they are - unregulated gambling. I have no respect for a company who builds a business model around exploiting addictions.
Wait, if you're looking to see how many people might have completely dropped out of participating in the labor force in a time period wouldn't the worst case scenario be the difference in overall labor force participation percentage at point A and the percentage at point B? If 66% of the population was participating in the labor force in 2007 and 63% is participating in 2017 then 4% stopped participating either because they gave up or because of another factor or mix of factors. But worst case, 3% more completely dropped out of the workforce than there were in 2017. Taking the absolute worse case and adding it to the U6 number is the only way I can think of to get to double digit unemployment, and even then it's a stretch.
Now, if you're going to say that the real unemployment number is completely unreported and/or unknowable by any currently available statistics in any meaningful ways whatsoever then how can you possibly back up any sort of claim that employment has gotten any worse or better other than by anecdotal stories which are not representative of the overall picture? I just don't get how any claims that unemployment is actually getting worse or better can be backed up after saying that we've never known the real unemployment rates.
https://www.thebalance.com/wha...
Near as makes no difference to 10%
I read the entire article. Why did you cherry-pick the January 2017 U6 number of 9.4% and round up to 10% to justify your "double digits" claim? The October value for U6 is 7.9%. As the article states:
In October 2017, the real unemployment rate (U-6) was 7.9 percent
The entire point of the article is that regardless of the unemployment statistic you use, unemployment is down in apples to apples comparisons across the board. I don't understand what point you're trying to make other than that the fed does not use the U6 number to report unemployment. And if that's your axe to grind, why don't you refute the reasons they give for reporting U3 instead of U6? There are actual reasons, it wasn't a totally arbitrary decision of "because the number looks nicer."
Ok, fine. So if I burn leaves and trash night and day upwind from your home you're ok with that because I don't owe anything to you that I haven't agreed to be owed? I don't need access to your yard to do that, and short of you gaining access to my yard (which, as you pointed out, I don't owe to you), you can't stop me. And it's a much more direct microcosm of the problem we're discussing.
Musk better hope he gets there first. My biggest worry about his ventures is that they seem largely driven by a cult of personality. That causes a lot of problems for SpaceX if he passes away and leaves a less charismatic successor (which seems likely) before realizing substantial gains from the project.
But hey, as long as humans start exploring the cosmos again I don't really care what they look like or what language they speak. I just want them to keep us informed of what they find out and how things are coming along.
You owe them something back.
You don't owe anyone anything you haven't agreed to owe.
Sweet! I'm going to start an oil change service and dump all the used oil in your yard. I didn't agree to owe you anything for polluting your yard. And besides, I'm going to make way more money if I don't have the overhead of dealing with the waste. You're apparently ok with it, so it's a win-win right?
Uhh, I've worked in a place where we went from our own internally hosted and managed DB to a cloud hosted one. I had master DB access before the change and after, so I could have deleted or modified a user account on the cloud or off the cloud. The cloud did not make that any better or worse. And restoring from backup or (as was the case here) changing a record that was incorrectly made inactive to active again didn't get significantly faster or slower on the cloud vs off the cloud either.
None of this had anything to do with the cloud vs self-administered debate. And I have a feeling that they would have reacted quickly to any other high profile Twitter account being made inactive. As for accounts not as high profile, it might have taken up to a day, but what makes you think that Twitter wouldn't reactivate an account upon user request if there is no record of there being a reason that it was made inactive?
No no no, you don't understand. The free market will handle it all without any government intervention. People will just move away from the flooded areas and farmers will move their farming to newly arable locations or will be put out of business by those who do.
The fact that I feel required to make it clear that I was kidding just made me a bit depressed.