To put ReneR's point more clearly, when you are investigating a crime, it often helps to ask "Who profits?" Unfortunately, the murder victim in question may be the earth, and if so, the REAL answer is no one.
Actually, I don't think climate change alone will cause a human-extinction-level catastrophe. I even think there would be human survivors after a nuclear war, though most of them would be sorry to have survived. My money says we exterminate ourselves with a genetically engineered bioweapon. Costs have declined so rapidly that most countries and larger corporations could afford to create it, but pretty soon it will be within the reach of an individual madman, and we've never had a sufficient shortage of them.
In Japan the current effect of the broken planet is flooding. The description translates something like "rain and flooding unlike anything seen in decades". Even with the warnings (and they were ALL over the news), over 40 people have been confirmed dead. So far. Not over yet.
(Oh yeah. And massive damages, but no economic estimates yet.)
Even if we humans only helped a little in the breaking of the planet, why are we continuing to make it worse? We definitely know some things we could do to not make it worse, but we can't even implement the soft Paris Accord properly...
Mostly because the Koch brothers think they are profiting. Not really, because they are going to die soon, and it doesn't matter how many toys they died with.
What for did you make me look at the troll's feces?
Anyway, you [Nova77] went meta first, so I'm going to do it twice:
(1) Don't feed 'em. It's possible they are sincerely stupid or proudly ignorant, but at this point I think most of them are paid to fake it. Another option is insanity, but as explanations go, insanity is perfect and worthless. No predictive power.
"Why did he post that garbage?" "He's nuts." "What will he post next?" "No one knows. He's nuts."
(2) I sincerely believe there is a solution approach, even for Slashdot. It would involve enhancing karma into a proper form of EPR (Earned Public Reputation). Properly done it would be a multidimensional metric that would help the trolls bury themselves in the cold darkness.
There's no sense in feeding such trolls as 456626. It's possible that he came by his stupidity naturally or that he's just proudly ignorant, but the rant is sufficiently long and tedious to indicate he's just a professional trell paid to fake it. Of course his lies are easily refuted by the annoying realities, but that has no effect on sophists.
In terms of actual solutions, the karma on Slashdot should be extended and enhanced into some meaningful form of EPR (Earned Public Reputation). Proper EPR would actually be a multidimensional concept based on the interplay between public actions and public reactions. I think it should be biased in favor of positive behaviors, both in terms of being easier to give positive feedback and in terms of encouraging people to behave in constructive and positive ways. If someone like 456626 wants to rant and lie that way, then his EPR would evolve in a negative direction, rendering 456626 less and less visible.
The default visibility setting should be slightly positive, though I think I would want to set mine higher, and other people might want to set theirs lower so they could see and play with the trells. If a trell like 456626 tries to shove his tripe in my face, his attempted reply would be confronted with a warning like "Your low EPR means that your reply will not be visible to the person you are replying to. Perhaps you should write your comment elsewhere, such as the top level of this discussion." If the trell insisted on replying anyway, then that's okay, but it would get a preface such as "Not a sincere reply, since 456626 was warned that the following reply is not visible to the ostensible recipient and no dialog is possible." I call this wrinkle "self-discreditation". Why should I have to block the trells when they can block themselves?
Was that supposed to be some sort of joke? Actually, latest reports are indicating that the quality of the air is becoming a real threat, and you sure aren't going to buy 1,500 meters of hose at your neighborhood Sears. That's just for the longest underwater section... The total is more like 5 clicks.
Looking for some insight into the reason why Pruitt was apparently fired now. The most plausible theory I've heard so far is that General Kelly wanted to tie up a few loose ends before he leaves, and Pruitt was the closest thing to a gangrene-infested wound in the body politic. If it's true, I'm actually surprised Kelly still has that much influence.
That's possible, but I actually agree when Chomsky says that Nixon was the last actually liberal president. Don't forget he came from California, where he was apparently a better governor than Saints Reagan or Schwarzenegger. Nixon also used a special kind of impartial briefing to guide him in difficult decisions? Maybe Brandeis? I actually think Nixon believed in justice but had delusions of grandeur that misled him and ultimately negated his good ideas.
It's a funny thing about justice... There are different kinds of justice and various standards. For example, If you're a vet, then you must remember the UCMJ. In the case of an actual crime in civilian jurisdictions in normal America, there is a strong presumption of innocence and the standard of proof is quite high. In a civil matter, the preponderance of the evidence can be sufficient and the punishment is highly negotiable, to say the least.
In today's story, we see that Scott Pruitt was using a different standard of justice: The should-be-patented Scott-Pruitt "It's probably legal and I want to do it!" standard. Took a long time to catch up to him.
Shaky as that seems, it's probably firmer than #PresidentTweety's grasp of the law. Seems like Trump's idea is to grab Lady Justice by the pussy and shake her until she does what he wants. Let's see if Mueller can help her file a few charges...
My feeling is that 15 or 20 seconds of video should make the point, but with practice, it could be juicier. Start out as a coherent chant and devolve into unintelligible howling from the mob.
The goal is to make SOME of the Trumpsters think about the bandwagon they are riding, and maybe decide they don't want to be there after all. Having said that, I really would like to know what percentage of them actually would sincerely chant "Lock kids up!"
Not sure it belongs here, but I just composed a little rant about justice:
It's a funny thing about justice... There are different kinds of justice and various standards. For example, If you're a vet, then you must remember the UCMJ. In the case of an actual crime in civilian jurisdictions in normal America, there is a strong presumption of innocence and the standard of proof is quite high. In a civil matter, the preponderance of the evidence can be sufficient and the punishment is highly negotiable, to say the least.
Interesting example just came up. Scott Pruitt was using a different standard of justice: The "It's probably legal and I want to do it!" standard. Took a long time to catch up to him.
Shaky as that seems, it's probably firmer than #PresidentTweety's grasp of the law. Seems like Trump's idea is to grab Lady Justice by the pussy and shake her until she does what he wants. I don't think that's going to work well after Mueller gets her deposition...
I'm not certain of this, but I'm pretty sure that they must have air seeping into the place where they are trapped. If they are talking about staying until October, they would use up all the oxygen even in a rather large cave.
Or is it possible they are already planning to pipe in more air before they run out?
Actually, I didn't mention that possibility, but at one I was wondering if they could run pipes past the flooded areas and maybe increase the air pressure inside to help push the water back. I couldn't see any way to use that approach in conjunction with getting the kids out, however.
Either you are willfully ignorant or blind to reality. Or a professional troll paid to fake it. Or you might even be one of Stephen Miller's personal sock puppets.
Go watch some of Trump's rallies. If you are sane, then I doubt you have the stomach to watch the entire thing.
On the other hand, I do think everyone is more or less insane. The craziest one is the guy who's insisting he's perfectly sane. I bet Trump has made that claim, though I haven't heard it in the blizzard of insanity he spews.
I sure hope you're wrong, but I can't point at any concrete evidence. #PresidentTweety certainly claims he's doing just fine and feeling dandy.
In solution terms, I think we need a seriously new financial model to support REAL journalism. I favor an approach that links to solving the problems that the journalists are telling us about. That financial model should also be linked to EPR (Earned Public Reputation) at the individual level. On the one hand, EPR could tell you a lot about the creator of a video or the author of an article, while on the other hand, EPR could tell you about the person recommending the story.
Not at all, but your reply mostly makes me wonder if you're one of Putin's professionals. Let's pretend you just don't understand the suggestion.
A false flag would involve a sincere pretense of flying some other flag. There is NO way to claim that the sarcastic intention would not be obvious. Well, actually I can imagine one way, but I've never seen a video of Trumpsters wearing Trump masks en masse. Maybe I shouldn't give them the idea? They might like it.
My idea actually came from my extremely minor participation in a June-30th protest against family separation and in favor of keeping children with their parents. Have you [not just ClickOnThis, but anyone reading this] done at least as much?
The most effective part of the protest was the reading of victims' stories. There were various other activities of lesser interest, and I've already forgotten most of the details. The LEAST effective part was the chanting, but that's actually a good thing. We don't want to be part of an angry chanting mob, even when protesting against something as horrible as imprisoning children for the possible crimes of their parents.
By the way, you do know that seeking asylum is NOT a crime, right?
We seem to be dealing with a lot of shifting standards of "justice" these days. In criminal trials, we're supposed to have a strong presumption of innocence and a high standard of proof. In civil trials things can sink to a preponderance of evidence and the penalties are highly negotiable, to put it mildly. Returning to the original story, Pruitt's standard for his behavior was apparently "Well, it might be legal and I wanna do it anyway."
Why am I not surprised that neither of these options has yet been mentioned? Too intuitively obvious to the most casual observer?
There are two basic options now if time is of the essence (and I'm assuming they don't want to sustain this project until October if they don't have to). One is to sedate the kids enough to move them out safely, and the other is to use some kind of rescue capsule that they guide along the ropes.
The drilling option might be viable, but only if they can get the kids to a better location in the caves. The current location would probably take until October or longer for that approach.
No details that I've seen yet, but I'm pert' shure that Musk must be saying the same sorts of things.
Thanks. I wonder if the parts you quoted were the same parts that drew the ire of the trolls' sock puppets with mod points?
(One of my theories about the problems with Slashdot is skilled trolls with sock puppets harvesting the mod points I never get. However, at this point I don't think that even Nomad could repair Slashdot.)
You're hitting on a serious problem with America's political system there. If you want competent politicians on both sides, and if you agree that the issues are complicated, then where do you store the losers of the last election? That's on the theory that they were actually competent to run for office in the first place.
For elections to be meaningful, we need more than one choice, regardless of how long the incumbent has been "studying" the issues. We need some politicians who want to serve the public interests, not just people who are so rich that they don't care about losing and doing nothing until the next election. We especially don't need politicians who are just trying to rig the game to make themselves and their friends richer.
Naw, I think the crazy part is that the EPA was Nixon's idea.
Even with the perversions, Nixon was an ACTUAL Republican president with some principles that weren't entirely bonkers. I would argue that most of the GOP presidents since then have been posers or fakes. Poppy Bush was the main exception--and he was bounced after one term. #PresidentTweety is just the natural result of FAKE Republican devolution.
Mostly just concurring with your comments, but in terms of solutions, I am trying to speculate how we can divide and conquer Trump's mob of marching morons in a way similar to how he divided and conquered America (even if Trump was only following Putin's lead and advice).
My current theory is that maybe Trump's supporters can be divided on the family separation issue. I think Trump's craziest followers agree with locking up kids to the point that they would actually chant "Lock kids up" if they heard it at one of Trump's rallies. However I think there are less crazy followers of Trump who would draw the line at that point.
Unfortunately, it would be hard to do the experiment at an actual Trump rally, but maybe it could be simulated at one of the protests against separating the kids? What if each of the protestors has a piece of paper with Trump's face on it and they use it for a "Word from the OTHER side" chant? Just a minute or two of chanting somewhere in the protest? I think the video of a mob of angry Trump faces chanting "Lock kids up, LOCK KIDS UP!" would have the potential to go viral--and it might even get into the heads of some of Trump's followers.
Pruitt had become the poster child for government corruption, but I think Trump actually liked his flamboyance about it. Sort of created cover for Trump's own shenanigans. I am sort of curious which camel broke the straw's back, but mostly I agree with the "good riddance" comments and I'm offended by the holier-than-thou hypocrisy.
The last of the vestigial TRUE Republicans are dying or retiring. The brand has been hijacked.
Gee, do you suppose it would deter the hijackers like Scott Pruitt if someone would lock up their kids? You know, the old collective responsibility thing.
I wish you wouldn't feed the trolls. It just makes them indirectly more visible. Some of them just want the attention. Other are sincerely ignorant and proud of it. The worst are probably paid to fake whatever.
I also wish karma on Slashdot (and Reddit and Facebook and elsewhere) were improved to help the trolls render themselves even more invisible. I call the enhanced version of karma in the sky EPR.
The article is already halfway down the front page. Lots of reactions, but few funny mods and they weren't justified. Quite disappointing, even by today's Slashdot standards.
So then I went looking for insight. Disappointed again.
My typically combined perversion would be to have considered the opposite side, where employers ghost the applicants. I think that's rather more common these years, especially for older "pre-owned" technical people.
The fresher the wage slave, the better. Most important that they have no idea of their actual monetary value to their employers.
I would have posted about this book if Slashdot has been working properly about 10 hours ago. That was back when the story was fresh instead of now, when it's about to expire.
It was pretty amazing that Ellison predicted Reagan's TV skills would eventually put him in the White House. Reagan was the first of the FAKE presidents, but at least he had some professional skills as an actor.
Slashdot Mirror
To put ReneR's point more clearly, when you are investigating a crime, it often helps to ask "Who profits?" Unfortunately, the murder victim in question may be the earth, and if so, the REAL answer is no one.
Actually, I don't think climate change alone will cause a human-extinction-level catastrophe. I even think there would be human survivors after a nuclear war, though most of them would be sorry to have survived. My money says we exterminate ourselves with a genetically engineered bioweapon. Costs have declined so rapidly that most countries and larger corporations could afford to create it, but pretty soon it will be within the reach of an individual madman, and we've never had a sufficient shortage of them.
In Japan the current effect of the broken planet is flooding. The description translates something like "rain and flooding unlike anything seen in decades". Even with the warnings (and they were ALL over the news), over 40 people have been confirmed dead. So far. Not over yet.
(Oh yeah. And massive damages, but no economic estimates yet.)
Even if we humans only helped a little in the breaking of the planet, why are we continuing to make it worse? We definitely know some things we could do to not make it worse, but we can't even implement the soft Paris Accord properly...
Mostly because the Koch brothers think they are profiting. Not really, because they are going to die soon, and it doesn't matter how many toys they died with.
What for did you make me look at the troll's feces?
Anyway, you [Nova77] went meta first, so I'm going to do it twice:
(1) Don't feed 'em. It's possible they are sincerely stupid or proudly ignorant, but at this point I think most of them are paid to fake it. Another option is insanity, but as explanations go, insanity is perfect and worthless. No predictive power.
"Why did he post that garbage?"
"He's nuts."
"What will he post next?"
"No one knows. He's nuts."
(2) I sincerely believe there is a solution approach, even for Slashdot. It would involve enhancing karma into a proper form of EPR (Earned Public Reputation). Properly done it would be a multidimensional metric that would help the trolls bury themselves in the cold darkness.
ADSAuPR, atAJG.
I gotta simpler idea. Since you're such an expert why don't you just swim in and rescue them.
"Discussion" terminated.
There's no sense in feeding such trolls as 456626. It's possible that he came by his stupidity naturally or that he's just proudly ignorant, but the rant is sufficiently long and tedious to indicate he's just a professional trell paid to fake it. Of course his lies are easily refuted by the annoying realities, but that has no effect on sophists.
In terms of actual solutions, the karma on Slashdot should be extended and enhanced into some meaningful form of EPR (Earned Public Reputation). Proper EPR would actually be a multidimensional concept based on the interplay between public actions and public reactions. I think it should be biased in favor of positive behaviors, both in terms of being easier to give positive feedback and in terms of encouraging people to behave in constructive and positive ways. If someone like 456626 wants to rant and lie that way, then his EPR would evolve in a negative direction, rendering 456626 less and less visible.
The default visibility setting should be slightly positive, though I think I would want to set mine higher, and other people might want to set theirs lower so they could see and play with the trells. If a trell like 456626 tries to shove his tripe in my face, his attempted reply would be confronted with a warning like "Your low EPR means that your reply will not be visible to the person you are replying to. Perhaps you should write your comment elsewhere, such as the top level of this discussion." If the trell insisted on replying anyway, then that's okay, but it would get a preface such as "Not a sincere reply, since 456626 was warned that the following reply is not visible to the ostensible recipient and no dialog is possible." I call this wrinkle "self-discreditation". Why should I have to block the trells when they can block themselves?
Z^-1
Was that supposed to be some sort of joke? Actually, latest reports are indicating that the quality of the air is becoming a real threat, and you sure aren't going to buy 1,500 meters of hose at your neighborhood Sears. That's just for the longest underwater section... The total is more like 5 clicks.
Looking for some insight into the reason why Pruitt was apparently fired now. The most plausible theory I've heard so far is that General Kelly wanted to tie up a few loose ends before he leaves, and Pruitt was the closest thing to a gangrene-infested wound in the body politic. If it's true, I'm actually surprised Kelly still has that much influence.
That's possible, but I actually agree when Chomsky says that Nixon was the last actually liberal president. Don't forget he came from California, where he was apparently a better governor than Saints Reagan or Schwarzenegger. Nixon also used a special kind of impartial briefing to guide him in difficult decisions? Maybe Brandeis? I actually think Nixon believed in justice but had delusions of grandeur that misled him and ultimately negated his good ideas.
It's a funny thing about justice... There are different kinds of justice and various standards. For example, If you're a vet, then you must remember the UCMJ. In the case of an actual crime in civilian jurisdictions in normal America, there is a strong presumption of innocence and the standard of proof is quite high. In a civil matter, the preponderance of the evidence can be sufficient and the punishment is highly negotiable, to say the least.
In today's story, we see that Scott Pruitt was using a different standard of justice: The should-be-patented Scott-Pruitt "It's probably legal and I want to do it!" standard. Took a long time to catch up to him.
Shaky as that seems, it's probably firmer than #PresidentTweety's grasp of the law. Seems like Trump's idea is to grab Lady Justice by the pussy and shake her until she does what he wants. Let's see if Mueller can help her file a few charges...
My feeling is that 15 or 20 seconds of video should make the point, but with practice, it could be juicier. Start out as a coherent chant and devolve into unintelligible howling from the mob.
The goal is to make SOME of the Trumpsters think about the bandwagon they are riding, and maybe decide they don't want to be there after all. Having said that, I really would like to know what percentage of them actually would sincerely chant "Lock kids up!"
Not sure it belongs here, but I just composed a little rant about justice:
It's a funny thing about justice... There are different kinds of justice and various standards. For example, If you're a vet, then you must remember the UCMJ. In the case of an actual crime in civilian jurisdictions in normal America, there is a strong presumption of innocence and the standard of proof is quite high. In a civil matter, the preponderance of the evidence can be sufficient and the punishment is highly negotiable, to say the least.
Interesting example just came up. Scott Pruitt was using a different standard of justice: The "It's probably legal and I want to do it!" standard. Took a long time to catch up to him.
Shaky as that seems, it's probably firmer than #PresidentTweety's grasp of the law. Seems like Trump's idea is to grab Lady Justice by the pussy and shake her until she does what he wants. I don't think that's going to work well after Mueller gets her deposition...
I'm not certain of this, but I'm pretty sure that they must have air seeping into the place where they are trapped. If they are talking about staying until October, they would use up all the oxygen even in a rather large cave.
Or is it possible they are already planning to pipe in more air before they run out?
Actually, I didn't mention that possibility, but at one I was wondering if they could run pipes past the flooded areas and maybe increase the air pressure inside to help push the water back. I couldn't see any way to use that approach in conjunction with getting the kids out, however.
Either you are willfully ignorant or blind to reality. Or a professional troll paid to fake it. Or you might even be one of Stephen Miller's personal sock puppets.
Go watch some of Trump's rallies. If you are sane, then I doubt you have the stomach to watch the entire thing.
On the other hand, I do think everyone is more or less insane. The craziest one is the guy who's insisting he's perfectly sane. I bet Trump has made that claim, though I haven't heard it in the blizzard of insanity he spews.
I sure hope you're wrong, but I can't point at any concrete evidence. #PresidentTweety certainly claims he's doing just fine and feeling dandy.
In solution terms, I think we need a seriously new financial model to support REAL journalism. I favor an approach that links to solving the problems that the journalists are telling us about. That financial model should also be linked to EPR (Earned Public Reputation) at the individual level. On the one hand, EPR could tell you a lot about the creator of a video or the author of an article, while on the other hand, EPR could tell you about the person recommending the story.
Not at all, but your reply mostly makes me wonder if you're one of Putin's professionals. Let's pretend you just don't understand the suggestion.
A false flag would involve a sincere pretense of flying some other flag. There is NO way to claim that the sarcastic intention would not be obvious. Well, actually I can imagine one way, but I've never seen a video of Trumpsters wearing Trump masks en masse. Maybe I shouldn't give them the idea? They might like it.
My idea actually came from my extremely minor participation in a June-30th protest against family separation and in favor of keeping children with their parents. Have you [not just ClickOnThis, but anyone reading this] done at least as much?
The most effective part of the protest was the reading of victims' stories. There were various other activities of lesser interest, and I've already forgotten most of the details. The LEAST effective part was the chanting, but that's actually a good thing. We don't want to be part of an angry chanting mob, even when protesting against something as horrible as imprisoning children for the possible crimes of their parents.
By the way, you do know that seeking asylum is NOT a crime, right?
We seem to be dealing with a lot of shifting standards of "justice" these days. In criminal trials, we're supposed to have a strong presumption of innocence and a high standard of proof. In civil trials things can sink to a preponderance of evidence and the penalties are highly negotiable, to put it mildly. Returning to the original story, Pruitt's standard for his behavior was apparently "Well, it might be legal and I wanna do it anyway."
Why am I not surprised that neither of these options has yet been mentioned? Too intuitively obvious to the most casual observer?
There are two basic options now if time is of the essence (and I'm assuming they don't want to sustain this project until October if they don't have to). One is to sedate the kids enough to move them out safely, and the other is to use some kind of rescue capsule that they guide along the ropes.
The drilling option might be viable, but only if they can get the kids to a better location in the caves. The current location would probably take until October or longer for that approach.
No details that I've seen yet, but I'm pert' shure that Musk must be saying the same sorts of things.
Thanks. I wonder if the parts you quoted were the same parts that drew the ire of the trolls' sock puppets with mod points?
(One of my theories about the problems with Slashdot is skilled trolls with sock puppets harvesting the mod points I never get. However, at this point I don't think that even Nomad could repair Slashdot.)
You're hitting on a serious problem with America's political system there. If you want competent politicians on both sides, and if you agree that the issues are complicated, then where do you store the losers of the last election? That's on the theory that they were actually competent to run for office in the first place.
For elections to be meaningful, we need more than one choice, regardless of how long the incumbent has been "studying" the issues. We need some politicians who want to serve the public interests, not just people who are so rich that they don't care about losing and doing nothing until the next election. We especially don't need politicians who are just trying to rig the game to make themselves and their friends richer.
Actually I've been predicting that she's going to boot Trump soon, but the prenup will prevent her from getting the house in NYC.
Naw, I think the crazy part is that the EPA was Nixon's idea.
Even with the perversions, Nixon was an ACTUAL Republican president with some principles that weren't entirely bonkers. I would argue that most of the GOP presidents since then have been posers or fakes. Poppy Bush was the main exception--and he was bounced after one term. #PresidentTweety is just the natural result of FAKE Republican devolution.
I wish I had some mod points to give you. Someone please mod up that womper.
I should have expressed my concurrence here, instead of wasting it on an AC, notwithstanding the moderation of his post into visibility...
For now I'll just reiterate that we need to divide and conquer Trump's marching morons in a way similar to how they divided and conquered America.
Mostly just concurring with your comments, but in terms of solutions, I am trying to speculate how we can divide and conquer Trump's mob of marching morons in a way similar to how he divided and conquered America (even if Trump was only following Putin's lead and advice).
My current theory is that maybe Trump's supporters can be divided on the family separation issue. I think Trump's craziest followers agree with locking up kids to the point that they would actually chant "Lock kids up" if they heard it at one of Trump's rallies. However I think there are less crazy followers of Trump who would draw the line at that point.
Unfortunately, it would be hard to do the experiment at an actual Trump rally, but maybe it could be simulated at one of the protests against separating the kids? What if each of the protestors has a piece of paper with Trump's face on it and they use it for a "Word from the OTHER side" chant? Just a minute or two of chanting somewhere in the protest? I think the video of a mob of angry Trump faces chanting "Lock kids up, LOCK KIDS UP!" would have the potential to go viral--and it might even get into the heads of some of Trump's followers.
Pruitt had become the poster child for government corruption, but I think Trump actually liked his flamboyance about it. Sort of created cover for Trump's own shenanigans. I am sort of curious which camel broke the straw's back, but mostly I agree with the "good riddance" comments and I'm offended by the holier-than-thou hypocrisy.
The last of the vestigial TRUE Republicans are dying or retiring. The brand has been hijacked.
Gee, do you suppose it would deter the hijackers like Scott Pruitt if someone would lock up their kids? You know, the old collective responsibility thing.
I wish you wouldn't feed the trolls. It just makes them indirectly more visible. Some of them just want the attention. Other are sincerely ignorant and proud of it. The worst are probably paid to fake whatever.
I also wish karma on Slashdot (and Reddit and Facebook and elsewhere) were improved to help the trolls render themselves even more invisible. I call the enhanced version of karma in the sky EPR.
The article is already halfway down the front page. Lots of reactions, but few funny mods and they weren't justified. Quite disappointing, even by today's Slashdot standards.
So then I went looking for insight. Disappointed again.
My typically combined perversion would be to have considered the opposite side, where employers ghost the applicants. I think that's rather more common these years, especially for older "pre-owned" technical people.
The fresher the wage slave, the better. Most important that they have no idea of their actual monetary value to their employers.
I would have posted about this book if Slashdot has been working properly about 10 hours ago. That was back when the story was fresh instead of now, when it's about to expire.
It was pretty amazing that Ellison predicted Reagan's TV skills would eventually put him in the White House. Reagan was the first of the FAKE presidents, but at least he had some professional skills as an actor.