Are you trying to agree or disagree or make some other point? It could be interpreted as anecdotal evidence in agreement or some sort of misunderstanding.
I think it's high time people start talking about their experience with recruiters and how useless they can be.
Yours was one of the three comments marked insightful (out of almost 50 so far), and the closest approach to an actual insight. Having said that, I think you didn't get there and if I ever got a mod point, I wouldn't have awarded it to that point. (Moot statement, though I don't know why.)
Think about jobs from the winners' perspective. Who's at the top? NOT the people who are looking for jobs via recruiters or ads. The winners are so exceptionally talented that they are paying their OWN agents to maximize their salaries. Easiest examples are probably star athletes or bestselling authors. They are paying their agents and know the agents represent THEIR interests, not the employers' side.
The recruiters are paid by the companies for a good reason. They help the companies find the cheapest employees who are capable to doing the required work. It's only a slight step up from the help-wanted ads and serves the same purpose. The difference is that the people searching the ads tend to be more desperate and willing to work more cheaply, while the recruiters actually make some effort to find people who aren't actively looking. The bottom line of dividing and conquering the employees by getting them to low-bid against each other is the same.
Acknowledging that I'm not at the top, what I want is some kind of employment agency where the payment to the agency is divided more equitably between the employees and the employers. Seems like there should be a place for real negotiation there. However so far I've never detected anything like that. Anyone got a tip?
For a company whose first rule was "don't be evil," they sure have being pretty evil lately. I wonder if some of those Google employees are now asking themselves if they want to keep working at a place where they've had to revolt twice in less than a year (The first one being over AI in military contracts.)
Yes, there are still some legacy anti-evil people embedded within the corporate cancer known as the google. Unfortunately, I'm not actually surprised to find so little insight on Slashdot into the deeper issues. Didn't need any more evidence that Slashdot has become part of the problem and no part of any solution or solution approach...
Also miss the "funny" comments of yore. Funniest diversion in this discussion was the stuff about not tolerating intolerant FAKE conservatives. It's like no one has ever heard of Popper's Paradox of Tolerance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
At this point I'm beginning to abandon all hope. Evil is going from triumph to triumph. The google of evil faces a crucial FAKE problem. No amount of money can solve the fake problem of insufficient profit, but in pursuit of more money they have to get those Chinese gen, and the only question is if they passively comply with the Chinese censorship or the google will actively work to help the Chinese deliver improved forms of censorship and intolerance to their victims AKA Chinese citizens.
I can't tell which is sadder. The lack of "funny" or the lack of solutions. Yours was one of two posts that mentioned the idea.
It's obvious that the root of the problem is that the financial models of journalism have been destroyed by various factors. The public service model was crushed by Reagan's minions while he napped. Look at CNN to see how badly the pure advertising models worked, but who could possibly have thought that lying ads would pay for the truth when the advertisers goal is the stupidest and most gullible consumers they can get. Subscriptions imploded due to the Internet, which also finished off the advertising model. Now we have the NY TImes and a couple of holdouts trying to be the last newsman standing. Also bad.
Solutions? Beyond the wildest imagination of today's Slashdot, so I won't repeat any of the possible approaches. Evidently it's popcorn time.
Considering your role as OP, I wish you would write more clearly...
Still trying to figure out what sense of "unlocked" you mean, though this comment is evidence in favor of "not locked to a carrier".
As regards the substance, my ASUS was the only one that had trouble with establishing network connections and I eventually bought the FreeTel to get the voice line on a reliable device. The ASUS was sort of usable with the data-only SIM and WiFi, but I'm standing on my ranking it at the bottom. (The proximate trigger was probably the first trip back to the factory. Later on I had the same kind of screen detachment someone mentioned as affecting a Motorola.)
However you've reminded me about some problems I had with my very first Huawei device when I was using it on Linux. I'm remembering the driver definition was incorrect in a pretty serious way. Fuzzy after about 10 years, but I think it was categorized incorrectly, and I had to manually edit the file to tell it what kind of device it was. After that it worked correctly, but I was kind of peeved that Huawei had been unable to provide the solution directly. I may have gotten the solution from hacking it out of a Windows box, or someone may have posted it on the Web.
My conclusion on Huawei was that they are technically solid, follow the standards closely, and their hardware is sound, but you should never rely on them for support. That basically hasn't changed, near as I can tell.
I've also stopped major purchases from Sony, though I had a lot of respect for their Vaio line of computers. I was actually working in Akihabara at that time, and I've never seen a better entry into the market, and it took the other makers many months to catch up with the 505 series. I didn't buy one until a few years later, but it was a good machine and served me well and long.
That was the old Sony.
The main experience in souring my view was actually the orphaning of a PDA. That was an expensive mistake, even though it was quite satisfactory for many purposes and even though most of the blame really goes to Microsoft... However that changed my mind about today's Sony, and I've been unable to consider an Xperia seriously, even though the specs look attractive.
Actually, I had a seventh phone that was supposed to be a smartphone, but I beg to differ. Some kind of Microsoft OS, though I count myself fortunate to have forgotten the details now. About 10 or 15 years ago?
My own experiences with Huawei have been quite good, and my primary phone right now is a rather low-end and unlocked Huawei. Perhaps my expectations are too low, but the p10 lite seems to be doing everything I want and doing them well enough. Slightly complicated in that it's a limited data plan and I use a lot of WiFI, but still quite serviceable. Too soon to rate it #1?
Second best would be an older Huawei, also a low-end model, but locked. Some of my satisfaction may have been due to the carrier, but they got bought out because of their quality service.
Almost forgot the unlocked FreeTel, but I don't think that's an option now. Company was bought out by Rakuten. Medium low specs, but still quite good and currently my secondary phone, mostly for VoIP and PDA stuff. Only WiFi data now. Main annoyance is that it sometimes wants a reboot when the network has changed.
Close fourth was a Samsung Galaxy. Much higher specs and I used a few of the fancier capabilities, though not that much when I think back on it now. Locked and the real reason I rate it down here is probably the low quality of the services from that carrier. I endured them for 4 years that time around... Fool me twice, shame on me, and it was probably my third or fourth shame going back decades. It's just so hard to avoid the biggest carrier?
I'd put the presumably locked HTC as fifth and a big step down, but maybe some of that was due to my lack of experience? It was my first actual smartphone and I'm pert' shure I didn't know what I was doing.
Dead last goes to an unlocked ASUS which was a painful experience in many ways from the very beginning. It's still sitting unopened in the box they shipped it back in after the second round of repairs.
Anecdotal evidence, but I'm usually willing to share notes...
Your comment might deserve the "Interesting" mod (though I think it's just a first-post effect), but you are touching the topic so lightly...
The elephant in the room is actually the trade war with China. If China wants to win, and I'm betting they do, then smartphones is where they are going to fight. The story only hinted at it the situation, but just imagine what happens if Xi slaps a YUGE tax on the iPhone. Apple's stock price and trillion dollar market cap would be collateral damage, perhaps only minor damage in the ensuing chaos.
Don't panic. Yet. Wait until you find out that Xi's cronies are shorting Apple.
Actually spent a while searching this discussion for similarly obvious thoughts. There was a time when Slashdot could do better. I especially miss the humor. Not a single comment yet moderated "Funny".
Thank you for attempting to clarify your position. Unfortunately, it appears that you are a Libertarian, but one of sufficient sophistication not to identify yourself as such. Under that theory of interpretation, you have already discovered that Libertarian "philosophy" is badly broken and therefore avoid the tag. Again, under that hypothesis, I would say the problem is that Libertarians don't actually understand freedom and there was quite a bit of evidence of such confusion in your reply. I actually consider it is possible that the negative mods are additional evidence from the negative mods. I would regard it as an absolute refutation of your position if those mods actually came from your own sock puppet identities. (That is not an accusation, just a hypothesis that would probably be difficult to test (if you have the skill to hide them). There are other hypotheses, too, though mostly I regard negative mods as a metric of the brokenness of Slashdot's moderation system.)
Or maybe it's just that you didn't or even can't understand my original comment on this story, the main suggestion contained in it, or the underlying philosophy as encapsulated in my sig?
Three substantive reactions to your latest long comment:
(1) Still nothing that I could recognize as a constructive approach towards a solution, just a lot of angry criticism.
(2) Your philosophic fixation is crippling your ability to use your hardware tools. The only ways this would not be true would be if you are either such a stellar programmer that you can create every software tool you want or if you personally know and trust such programmers who provide you with the tools.
(3) You again ignored my primary solution, which would be for the google to provide more of the financial information that would increase the "meaningful" aspect of the choices of which Android apps to freely choose.
And meanwhile the rest of us will continue to be caught in the crossfire.
However, I actually disagree with you. Cancers are not planning so far ahead. They are only trying to swallow each other and the last cancer standing gets to kill the host. In this case, our society.
I'm increasingly convinced the resolution of the Fermi Paradox is human extinction.
While it seems we are largely in agreement on the problems, you seem to have nothing resembling a solution or any constructive improvements for mine. A "problem" with no solution is just part of reality. If you can't fix it, then you better learn to enjoy living with it.
Mostly I think you failed to understand my point, but I am quite willing to accept your premise that the Fortnite website itself is as secure as the Google Play website. It does NOT change my point unless you insist that EVERY website with apps to be downloaded is secure.
However, I disagree with you regarding your claim that Fortnite has no malware. Absence of evidence is not proof of absence. You can't prove any negative.
I also note that you ignored the more serious problems mentioned by my comment nor did you offer any trace of a solution for anything. Oh, wait. Just par for today's Slashdot. Mostly I miss the wit and humor that used to be found in the odd corners of Slashdot.
I wish I sometimes got a mod point to give you. I think you make the point more succinctly than I did. However, you don't touch on solution approaches, so I refer you to my comment on that basis. Warning: I still suffer from delusions of grand solutions, or at least solution approaches that might lead to positive evolution before the violent revolution...
Excellent example of how the insane greed of the corporate cancers is bad for the human peasants caught in the crossfire. Encouraging people to download software from even less secure sites is NOT a win even if one of the corporate cancers is able to get a bit more profit.
NOT to suggest that the Google Play website properly vets the security of the apps, but it's better than nothing. Now there will be a YUGE number of potential victims who know about getting what they think they want by bypassing the Google's pretenses of security. The best solution approach would actually be a public display of the developers' financial models, but something about the EVIL of the google has clearly blinded them to the obvious.
On the bigger religious problem, "There is no gawd but profit, and Apple is gawd's #1 prophet", I think the best solution approach would be a pro-freedom anti-greedom tax system. Just dreaming of pie in the sky since the politicians are bought and paid for by the corporate cancers that mindlessly worship profit. Truly mindlessly, since they remain inhuman monstrous cancers no matter what Judge Kavanaugh thinks.
If you don't ask for clarification, but just go off half-cocked based on some weird misinterpretation of what I wrote, then what part should I clarify? Actually the evidence so far is that you are just going to believe whatever you prefer to believe.
I did NOT say that any job is not "very real".
Or maybe I should ask a basic question? Do you understand what "averaged over the entire population" means? How about a tough question? What do you think an "ontology" is?
The entire AskSlashdot topic is wrongheaded because it started from money, not time. So I have to begin by reviewing Ekronomics 101.
In highly advanced societies the essential working time is quite small. Averaged over the entire population, perhaps 2 hours/week is actually required to produce all the food, clothing, and housing required. The real question is what happens to the rest of the time. The topic is assuming that the possible answers are "no work" or "fake work". (By the way, in an extremely poor society people work ALL the time and still starve to death. Take Yemen, for example.)
Ekronomics divides the rest of the time into investment and recreational. Investment is things like education and research and new infrastructure that increase productivity and actually reduce the essential time even more. There are also meta levels of investment time that improve investment time or contribute to new forms of recreational time.
Recreational time is the bottomless pit, but it has many interesting characteristics. For example, many recreational products are not consumed in use. The same book or movie can be read or watched by many people, or even be reread or rewatched by the same people. There is also a special category for people who create new recreational goods and services. They, too, are contributing to the economy and their work is highly valued, even though it is not essential. However, to improve the future status of the society in competition with other societies, it is important to convert more of the recreational time into investment time...
From this ekronomic perspective, the question looks very different. Fake work has to be regarded as a kind of recreational time, but the least pleasant, and the only possible rationale is if you think it will force more people to increase their investment time. (This is for advanced societies where the essential time cannot be increased.)
Anyway, that's already more time than I want to give Slashdot right now, especially since this article failed to pay me back with any recreational time in the form of funny comments.
Er... Just so, and thanks for pointing out my mistake. Would you believe that some of my best friends are real mathematicians.
However, as it applies to the story, the question is how much the stock price should fluctuate in response to shrinkage of the network when fake identities are removed. If the opinion of the correct stock price was based on the imagined value of a network of 100 million identities, and you remove 20 million fake identities, then what is the new imaginary stock price?
My main point should be that market cap has NO relation to real value. What happened to Twitter (and Facebook) does not reflect anything about the real world. No actual wealth has been lost or created just because opinions about stock prices have fluctuated.
I actually agree with you that Slashdot has some goodness, but it has NOT evolved and improved significantly over the years. Many of the features of EPR (see my half-assed and humpbacked comment above) are actually based on the problems of Slashdot and the obvious (AKA IOttMCO) solutions. In other words, EPR would be a kind of symmetrical karma on multidimensional steroids.
As for this vote-up/vote-down feature, I've seen it on a few threads, and it's about fucking time FB got it. Welcome to two decades ago, guys.:-P
We do have the technology to do much better now, but it really is sad to watch Facebook in inaction. Kind of a humpbacked version of the Chinese idea. I think the underlying problem is the sick financial model beloved of corporate cancers, but...
A REAL solution approach would involve multiple dimensions. My label is EPR for Earned Public Reputation. Obviously the dimensions should mostly be orthogonal, though there can be some hierarchical grouping of traits. I think the best dimensions would be polar, with clear and natural distinctions in the positive and negative directions. Perhaps more contentious, but I think each dimension should be biased in the positive direction. For example, if you want to call someone a liar (AKA negative on the accurate dimension), you should have to provide some evidence. Less debatable, the data needs to be linked and available to allow for easy detection of trolls and even herds of sock puppets.
What's interesting me about this news, also extended to Facebook, is the interplay between the corporate value that's actually based on network effects versus the delusional stock prices that drive the market cap. To review, the idea of network effects is that more users of the network increase the value of the network, often more than linearly. However, what happens when lots of the users become fake identities that are not actually contributing any real value? The tiny bit of the stock price that is related to actual value (rather than gambling machines battling to the death) is going to have to adjust when the network appears to shrink.
From a fundamental level (as if anyone cared anymore relative to technical speculation), I don't see any value in Twitter from the git go.
You beat me to the punch, though I would have worded it in terms of "correlation is NOT causation". There are two kinds of knowledge in play here. One is the things you carry in your head, and the other is the things you know how to find quickly somewhere else than in your head. The kids that use smartphones a lot are actually learning NOT to remember all sorts of things that they can look up in a few seconds.
Trying to wrinkle the research around the two hemispheres is cute, but I'm not buying it. I'm not denying that the hemispheres differ, but rather than the complexities of memory are much greater than they seem to appreciate in this research as reported here.
I think it needs to be a truly open standard that is actually subject to multiple influences and various stakeholders. My interpretation of the core of this lawsuit (but of many related problems) is that Android is effectively under the google's thumb, and all of the tough calls are made in favor of increasing the google's profits.
As regards Google Play itself, I think the single most helpful approach to a "solution" would be to make the financial models visible. Usually I word this in terms of making the financial motivations of the developers visible to help the users recognize and avoid dodgy and even criminal apps. However, in the context of this story, it would extend to the google itself being more explicit about how apps are related to the google's own profits.
The implementation that seems most plausible to me would involve a two-part financial model section for each app. The first part would be what the application developer is willing to say about the app's financial model for the consideration of possible users of the app. The second part would be out of the developer's control, but would be something like an audit report of the evidence. In the case of a non-google app, the natural auditor would be the google, and the google is often in a good place to confirm the developer's assertions with such statements as "The developer is receiving significant advertising revenue via this app, so the claim of advertising seems justified" or "The developer is receiving registration income from the professional version of this app" or even "The developer has shared corporate records and personal financial data that strongly support his claim of being independently wealthy and supporting this app as a charity."
The case for a google app is more complicated. Maybe the statement should be provided by the external auditors with a link to the auditors' website?
I think you are expressing some degree of agreement or trying to clarify some of the legal points that I accepted from the original story. On those bases, I guess this is just an ACK, though it would be nice if you clarified your intention.
I would note that I also think many Android users just accept the apparently lower price tag. That part is easy to see as part of the anti-competitive practices.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you trying to agree or disagree or make some other point? It could be interpreted as anecdotal evidence in agreement or some sort of misunderstanding.
I think it's high time people start talking about their experience with recruiters and how useless they can be.
Yours was one of the three comments marked insightful (out of almost 50 so far), and the closest approach to an actual insight. Having said that, I think you didn't get there and if I ever got a mod point, I wouldn't have awarded it to that point. (Moot statement, though I don't know why.)
Think about jobs from the winners' perspective. Who's at the top? NOT the people who are looking for jobs via recruiters or ads. The winners are so exceptionally talented that they are paying their OWN agents to maximize their salaries. Easiest examples are probably star athletes or bestselling authors. They are paying their agents and know the agents represent THEIR interests, not the employers' side.
The recruiters are paid by the companies for a good reason. They help the companies find the cheapest employees who are capable to doing the required work. It's only a slight step up from the help-wanted ads and serves the same purpose. The difference is that the people searching the ads tend to be more desperate and willing to work more cheaply, while the recruiters actually make some effort to find people who aren't actively looking. The bottom line of dividing and conquering the employees by getting them to low-bid against each other is the same.
Acknowledging that I'm not at the top, what I want is some kind of employment agency where the payment to the agency is divided more equitably between the employees and the employers. Seems like there should be a place for real negotiation there. However so far I've never detected anything like that. Anyone got a tip?
For a company whose first rule was "don't be evil," they sure have being pretty evil lately. I wonder if some of those Google employees are now asking themselves if they want to keep working at a place where they've had to revolt twice in less than a year (The first one being over AI in military contracts.)
Yes, there are still some legacy anti-evil people embedded within the corporate cancer known as the google. Unfortunately, I'm not actually surprised to find so little insight on Slashdot into the deeper issues. Didn't need any more evidence that Slashdot has become part of the problem and no part of any solution or solution approach...
Also miss the "funny" comments of yore. Funniest diversion in this discussion was the stuff about not tolerating intolerant FAKE conservatives. It's like no one has ever heard of Popper's Paradox of Tolerance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
At this point I'm beginning to abandon all hope. Evil is going from triumph to triumph. The google of evil faces a crucial FAKE problem. No amount of money can solve the fake problem of insufficient profit, but in pursuit of more money they have to get those Chinese gen, and the only question is if they passively comply with the Chinese censorship or the google will actively work to help the Chinese deliver improved forms of censorship and intolerance to their victims AKA Chinese citizens.
I can't tell which is sadder. The lack of "funny" or the lack of solutions. Yours was one of two posts that mentioned the idea.
It's obvious that the root of the problem is that the financial models of journalism have been destroyed by various factors. The public service model was crushed by Reagan's minions while he napped. Look at CNN to see how badly the pure advertising models worked, but who could possibly have thought that lying ads would pay for the truth when the advertisers goal is the stupidest and most gullible consumers they can get. Subscriptions imploded due to the Internet, which also finished off the advertising model. Now we have the NY TImes and a couple of holdouts trying to be the last newsman standing. Also bad.
Solutions? Beyond the wildest imagination of today's Slashdot, so I won't repeat any of the possible approaches. Evidently it's popcorn time.
Considering your role as OP, I wish you would write more clearly...
Still trying to figure out what sense of "unlocked" you mean, though this comment is evidence in favor of "not locked to a carrier".
As regards the substance, my ASUS was the only one that had trouble with establishing network connections and I eventually bought the FreeTel to get the voice line on a reliable device. The ASUS was sort of usable with the data-only SIM and WiFi, but I'm standing on my ranking it at the bottom. (The proximate trigger was probably the first trip back to the factory. Later on I had the same kind of screen detachment someone mentioned as affecting a Motorola.)
However you've reminded me about some problems I had with my very first Huawei device when I was using it on Linux. I'm remembering the driver definition was incorrect in a pretty serious way. Fuzzy after about 10 years, but I think it was categorized incorrectly, and I had to manually edit the file to tell it what kind of device it was. After that it worked correctly, but I was kind of peeved that Huawei had been unable to provide the solution directly. I may have gotten the solution from hacking it out of a Windows box, or someone may have posted it on the Web.
My conclusion on Huawei was that they are technically solid, follow the standards closely, and their hardware is sound, but you should never rely on them for support. That basically hasn't changed, near as I can tell.
I've also stopped major purchases from Sony, though I had a lot of respect for their Vaio line of computers. I was actually working in Akihabara at that time, and I've never seen a better entry into the market, and it took the other makers many months to catch up with the 505 series. I didn't buy one until a few years later, but it was a good machine and served me well and long.
That was the old Sony.
The main experience in souring my view was actually the orphaning of a PDA. That was an expensive mistake, even though it was quite satisfactory for many purposes and even though most of the blame really goes to Microsoft... However that changed my mind about today's Sony, and I've been unable to consider an Xperia seriously, even though the specs look attractive.
Actually, I had a seventh phone that was supposed to be a smartphone, but I beg to differ. Some kind of Microsoft OS, though I count myself fortunate to have forgotten the details now. About 10 or 15 years ago?
My own experiences with Huawei have been quite good, and my primary phone right now is a rather low-end and unlocked Huawei. Perhaps my expectations are too low, but the p10 lite seems to be doing everything I want and doing them well enough. Slightly complicated in that it's a limited data plan and I use a lot of WiFI, but still quite serviceable. Too soon to rate it #1?
Second best would be an older Huawei, also a low-end model, but locked. Some of my satisfaction may have been due to the carrier, but they got bought out because of their quality service.
Almost forgot the unlocked FreeTel, but I don't think that's an option now. Company was bought out by Rakuten. Medium low specs, but still quite good and currently my secondary phone, mostly for VoIP and PDA stuff. Only WiFi data now. Main annoyance is that it sometimes wants a reboot when the network has changed.
Close fourth was a Samsung Galaxy. Much higher specs and I used a few of the fancier capabilities, though not that much when I think back on it now. Locked and the real reason I rate it down here is probably the low quality of the services from that carrier. I endured them for 4 years that time around... Fool me twice, shame on me, and it was probably my third or fourth shame going back decades. It's just so hard to avoid the biggest carrier?
I'd put the presumably locked HTC as fifth and a big step down, but maybe some of that was due to my lack of experience? It was my first actual smartphone and I'm pert' shure I didn't know what I was doing.
Dead last goes to an unlocked ASUS which was a painful experience in many ways from the very beginning. It's still sitting unopened in the box they shipped it back in after the second round of repairs.
Anecdotal evidence, but I'm usually willing to share notes...
Your comment might deserve the "Interesting" mod (though I think it's just a first-post effect), but you are touching the topic so lightly...
The elephant in the room is actually the trade war with China. If China wants to win, and I'm betting they do, then smartphones is where they are going to fight. The story only hinted at it the situation, but just imagine what happens if Xi slaps a YUGE tax on the iPhone. Apple's stock price and trillion dollar market cap would be collateral damage, perhaps only minor damage in the ensuing chaos.
Don't panic. Yet. Wait until you find out that Xi's cronies are shorting Apple.
Actually spent a while searching this discussion for similarly obvious thoughts. There was a time when Slashdot could do better. I especially miss the humor. Not a single comment yet moderated "Funny".
Thank you for attempting to clarify your position. Unfortunately, it appears that you are a Libertarian, but one of sufficient sophistication not to identify yourself as such. Under that theory of interpretation, you have already discovered that Libertarian "philosophy" is badly broken and therefore avoid the tag. Again, under that hypothesis, I would say the problem is that Libertarians don't actually understand freedom and there was quite a bit of evidence of such confusion in your reply. I actually consider it is possible that the negative mods are additional evidence from the negative mods. I would regard it as an absolute refutation of your position if those mods actually came from your own sock puppet identities. (That is not an accusation, just a hypothesis that would probably be difficult to test (if you have the skill to hide them). There are other hypotheses, too, though mostly I regard negative mods as a metric of the brokenness of Slashdot's moderation system.)
Or maybe it's just that you didn't or even can't understand my original comment on this story, the main suggestion contained in it, or the underlying philosophy as encapsulated in my sig?
Three substantive reactions to your latest long comment:
(1) Still nothing that I could recognize as a constructive approach towards a solution, just a lot of angry criticism.
(2) Your philosophic fixation is crippling your ability to use your hardware tools. The only ways this would not be true would be if you are either such a stellar programmer that you can create every software tool you want or if you personally know and trust such programmers who provide you with the tools.
(3) You again ignored my primary solution, which would be for the google to provide more of the financial information that would increase the "meaningful" aspect of the choices of which Android apps to freely choose.
And meanwhile the rest of us will continue to be caught in the crossfire.
However, I actually disagree with you. Cancers are not planning so far ahead. They are only trying to swallow each other and the last cancer standing gets to kill the host. In this case, our society.
I'm increasingly convinced the resolution of the Fermi Paradox is human extinction.
While it seems we are largely in agreement on the problems, you seem to have nothing resembling a solution or any constructive improvements for mine. A "problem" with no solution is just part of reality. If you can't fix it, then you better learn to enjoy living with it.
Mostly I think you failed to understand my point, but I am quite willing to accept your premise that the Fortnite website itself is as secure as the Google Play website. It does NOT change my point unless you insist that EVERY website with apps to be downloaded is secure.
However, I disagree with you regarding your claim that Fortnite has no malware. Absence of evidence is not proof of absence. You can't prove any negative.
I also note that you ignored the more serious problems mentioned by my comment nor did you offer any trace of a solution for anything. Oh, wait. Just par for today's Slashdot. Mostly I miss the wit and humor that used to be found in the odd corners of Slashdot.
Aha! Is this a way to make such a reference more concrete: https://games.slashdot.org/com...
I wish I sometimes got a mod point to give you. I think you make the point more succinctly than I did. However, you don't touch on solution approaches, so I refer you to my comment on that basis. Warning: I still suffer from delusions of grand solutions, or at least solution approaches that might lead to positive evolution before the violent revolution...
Excellent example of how the insane greed of the corporate cancers is bad for the human peasants caught in the crossfire. Encouraging people to download software from even less secure sites is NOT a win even if one of the corporate cancers is able to get a bit more profit.
NOT to suggest that the Google Play website properly vets the security of the apps, but it's better than nothing. Now there will be a YUGE number of potential victims who know about getting what they think they want by bypassing the Google's pretenses of security. The best solution approach would actually be a public display of the developers' financial models, but something about the EVIL of the google has clearly blinded them to the obvious.
On the bigger religious problem, "There is no gawd but profit, and Apple is gawd's #1 prophet", I think the best solution approach would be a pro-freedom anti-greedom tax system. Just dreaming of pie in the sky since the politicians are bought and paid for by the corporate cancers that mindlessly worship profit. Truly mindlessly, since they remain inhuman monstrous cancers no matter what Judge Kavanaugh thinks.
Time's up, but ADSAuPR, atAJG.
If you don't ask for clarification, but just go off half-cocked based on some weird misinterpretation of what I wrote, then what part should I clarify? Actually the evidence so far is that you are just going to believe whatever you prefer to believe.
I did NOT say that any job is not "very real".
Or maybe I should ask a basic question? Do you understand what "averaged over the entire population" means? How about a tough question? What do you think an "ontology" is?
You managed to remind me of this one titled "Couch Potatoes of the World, Unite!": http://eco-epistemology.blogsp...
The entire AskSlashdot topic is wrongheaded because it started from money, not time. So I have to begin by reviewing Ekronomics 101.
In highly advanced societies the essential working time is quite small. Averaged over the entire population, perhaps 2 hours/week is actually required to produce all the food, clothing, and housing required. The real question is what happens to the rest of the time. The topic is assuming that the possible answers are "no work" or "fake work". (By the way, in an extremely poor society people work ALL the time and still starve to death. Take Yemen, for example.)
Ekronomics divides the rest of the time into investment and recreational. Investment is things like education and research and new infrastructure that increase productivity and actually reduce the essential time even more. There are also meta levels of investment time that improve investment time or contribute to new forms of recreational time.
Recreational time is the bottomless pit, but it has many interesting characteristics. For example, many recreational products are not consumed in use. The same book or movie can be read or watched by many people, or even be reread or rewatched by the same people. There is also a special category for people who create new recreational goods and services. They, too, are contributing to the economy and their work is highly valued, even though it is not essential. However, to improve the future status of the society in competition with other societies, it is important to convert more of the recreational time into investment time...
From this ekronomic perspective, the question looks very different. Fake work has to be regarded as a kind of recreational time, but the least pleasant, and the only possible rationale is if you think it will force more people to increase their investment time. (This is for advanced societies where the essential time cannot be increased.)
Anyway, that's already more time than I want to give Slashdot right now, especially since this article failed to pay me back with any recreational time in the form of funny comments.
Er... Just so, and thanks for pointing out my mistake. Would you believe that some of my best friends are real mathematicians.
However, as it applies to the story, the question is how much the stock price should fluctuate in response to shrinkage of the network when fake identities are removed. If the opinion of the correct stock price was based on the imagined value of a network of 100 million identities, and you remove 20 million fake identities, then what is the new imaginary stock price?
My main point should be that market cap has NO relation to real value. What happened to Twitter (and Facebook) does not reflect anything about the real world. No actual wealth has been lost or created just because opinions about stock prices have fluctuated.
I actually agree with you that Slashdot has some goodness, but it has NOT evolved and improved significantly over the years. Many of the features of EPR (see my half-assed and humpbacked comment above) are actually based on the problems of Slashdot and the obvious (AKA IOttMCO) solutions. In other words, EPR would be a kind of symmetrical karma on multidimensional steroids.
As for this vote-up/vote-down feature, I've seen it on a few threads, and it's about fucking time FB got it. Welcome to two decades ago, guys. :-P
We do have the technology to do much better now, but it really is sad to watch Facebook in inaction. Kind of a humpbacked version of the Chinese idea. I think the underlying problem is the sick financial model beloved of corporate cancers, but...
A REAL solution approach would involve multiple dimensions. My label is EPR for Earned Public Reputation. Obviously the dimensions should mostly be orthogonal, though there can be some hierarchical grouping of traits. I think the best dimensions would be polar, with clear and natural distinctions in the positive and negative directions. Perhaps more contentious, but I think each dimension should be biased in the positive direction. For example, if you want to call someone a liar (AKA negative on the accurate dimension), you should have to provide some evidence. Less debatable, the data needs to be linked and available to allow for easy detection of trolls and even herds of sock puppets.
Oh well. Time's up, but ADSAuPR, atAJG.
What's interesting me about this news, also extended to Facebook, is the interplay between the corporate value that's actually based on network effects versus the delusional stock prices that drive the market cap. To review, the idea of network effects is that more users of the network increase the value of the network, often more than linearly. However, what happens when lots of the users become fake identities that are not actually contributing any real value? The tiny bit of the stock price that is related to actual value (rather than gambling machines battling to the death) is going to have to adjust when the network appears to shrink.
From a fundamental level (as if anyone cared anymore relative to technical speculation), I don't see any value in Twitter from the git go.
You beat me to the punch, though I would have worded it in terms of "correlation is NOT causation". There are two kinds of knowledge in play here. One is the things you carry in your head, and the other is the things you know how to find quickly somewhere else than in your head. The kids that use smartphones a lot are actually learning NOT to remember all sorts of things that they can look up in a few seconds.
Trying to wrinkle the research around the two hemispheres is cute, but I'm not buying it. I'm not denying that the hemispheres differ, but rather than the complexities of memory are much greater than they seem to appreciate in this research as reported here.
I think it needs to be a truly open standard that is actually subject to multiple influences and various stakeholders. My interpretation of the core of this lawsuit (but of many related problems) is that Android is effectively under the google's thumb, and all of the tough calls are made in favor of increasing the google's profits.
As regards Google Play itself, I think the single most helpful approach to a "solution" would be to make the financial models visible. Usually I word this in terms of making the financial motivations of the developers visible to help the users recognize and avoid dodgy and even criminal apps. However, in the context of this story, it would extend to the google itself being more explicit about how apps are related to the google's own profits.
The implementation that seems most plausible to me would involve a two-part financial model section for each app. The first part would be what the application developer is willing to say about the app's financial model for the consideration of possible users of the app. The second part would be out of the developer's control, but would be something like an audit report of the evidence. In the case of a non-google app, the natural auditor would be the google, and the google is often in a good place to confirm the developer's assertions with such statements as "The developer is receiving significant advertising revenue via this app, so the claim of advertising seems justified" or "The developer is receiving registration income from the professional version of this app" or even "The developer has shared corporate records and personal financial data that strongly support his claim of being independently wealthy and supporting this app as a charity."
The case for a google app is more complicated. Maybe the statement should be provided by the external auditors with a link to the auditors' website?
I think you are expressing some degree of agreement or trying to clarify some of the legal points that I accepted from the original story. On those bases, I guess this is just an ACK, though it would be nice if you clarified your intention.
I would note that I also think many Android users just accept the apparently lower price tag. That part is easy to see as part of the anti-competitive practices.