The "are their profits" should have been "are their prophets".
No, wait! I was just trying to avoid offending certain religious folks. Yeah, that's it.
No, wait again! I wish Slashdot had a feature to correct posts that slip past Preview. Perhaps the single feature I would be most likely to chip in towards implementing if only Slashdot had such a financial model.
So how do you feel about a double icon system? As I'm currently imagining it, the left icon would be a self-selected avatar linked to the usual self-created profile. The right side icon would be a standardized visual representation of your public reputation, and as a link would take you to detailed analysis of the numbers and links to the data. In my excessive imagination, the basic image would be a little radar diagram with two-way axes for each dimension of reputation, the transparency would indicate the amount of data, and the overall color would give a gross summary, such as green for likely to be worthwhile, yellow and orange for increasingly dubious, and red for "almost certain you don't want to look at this guy's rant".
The REAL power of such a system would be the ability to save time by ignoring people with sufficiently low reputations. Take the trolls, for example. Please. Or in positive terms, the ability to prioritize your limited time for people with EARNED high reputations.
Just joking, of course. No possibility Slashdot could ever consider such a thing given the current financial model. I'd even be willing to help pay for such a time saver, but that's NOT an option.
Sorry I'm so slow witted these years. Took me a while to realize this, by which time the discussion on Slashdot has almost expired. Of course the saddest part might be that today's Slashdot doesn't actually value diversity or insight, eh? Hopefully as I search some more I'll find that some clever folks have already found the horse and flogged it hard. However, I don't see how to label it more precisely than "profitable" or "real diversity", and those keyword searches of currently 496 visible comments came up dry.
The problem the google is having is a PR thing. Lack of diversity looks SO bad that it has created a new kind of crisis. It actually started a while back as a minor crisis, just arguing with the government about the meaning of some regulations to reduce discrimination. Now it's putting the google under the microscope, and the google is HATING it.
REAL diversity would mean including less profitable people, but that is the antithesis of today's google. The google is optimized along the single dimension of profits, and the ONLY concern with diversity is when the public perception of the reality of extremely limited diversity becomes a threat to increasing those profits. Therefore the google needs a PR offensive for a sufficient appearance of diversity to avoid impeding the increase of profits. Not REAL diversity, but just enough of the tatemae for "profitable diversity".
Been reading a lot of books about the google this year, including Work Rules! and How Google Works, and such research had led me to the conclusion that the google wants to optimize around a tiny intersection. The Venn diagram features super-creative innovators, super productive programmers, and people with a nose for money, and the google's objective is for half the company to be from the triple intersection. From the HR perspective, the incentive structure is to reward and retain these people based on their actual track record. It's an extremely peculiar and non-diverse population. Let's tag them "s-googlers", perhaps for star or super.
The google wouldn't mind at all if the s-googlers included more women, but I think it's rather unlikely. I don't think the underlying reasons are sexist or racist or religious or even national, but more along the lines of personality variables that happen to correlate with sexual, racial, religious, and national characteristics. Just to evade all of those stereotypes, let me introduce my conclusion as a joke:
"Nice people need not apply!"
Just in case your history lessons were deficient, that's a reference to "Irish need not apply". Look it up.
Now for the REAL religion underlying this. I've decided that grand joke goes like this:
"There are no gawds but profits, and Apple, JP Morgan, Berkshire Hathaway, Wells Fargo, Gilead, Verizon, Citigroup, Google, Exxon, and Bank of America are their profits."
"There is no gawd but profit and the google is his prophet."
I hope I'm not offending anyone, but I really don't know how touchy certain people might get about that sort of not-quite-a-joke.
The earlier motto of "Don't be evil" has been a joke for a long time now. However, I still haven't made up my mind about the relevance of "All your attention are belong to us", which actually arose out of a discussion with a former-coworker now at the google. Right before he ghosted me for some reason.
Does anyone else feel like the google is withdrawing into its own special universe?
Anyway, I posted various other thoughts about the topic in the earlier discussion a few days ago. Not much reaction, including mod points. Hmm... Considering how long its been since I saw a mod point, maybe that power (of moderating) has been grandfathered in some weird way?
Mostly you convinced me that you think you're a high quality cog. You quite possibly have delusions of being irreplaceable, too, but that's only a human way of looking at things. Every human being is unique and special and worthy of respect, but the modern corporate perspective is that every human being is a cog that performs some function and even if the cog hasn't been worn out yet, the corporation would "love" to find a cheaper cog to perform the function.
Your defense of EVIL strikes me as amusing. However, you don't seem to understand that you are agreeing with me. The perception of being EVIL is a problem as long as human beings with delusions of goodness are still involved in the economy. There are actually two basic approaches to dealing with the problem of corporate EVIL (without actually reducing it), and you seem to be advocating for the PR approach that the google is using. However, I think the much more insidious approach is to normalize EVIL as how business is done, and that is the main change over the last few decades, really ramping up during the Reagan period.
You think cheaters never prosper? Take a look east at a certain well known house of the white variety.
While I do think the Constitution needs a page one rewrite, mostly I think you missed my primary reference. I would not describe myself as a #NeverTrumper so much as "IfThisIsPresidentTweetyIMustBeReallyHigh.
Hey, it's to laugh! It's all okay.
According to the Donald, he just got a phone call from Sigmund Freud. His buddy Siggy just wanted to let Trump know that he has the best mental health of ANY president, any presidential candidate (ever), and also better than any king not to mention all the queens! Just before they hung up (together) Siggy said he loves Trump almost as much as Trump loves himself!
Now about that meddlesome archbishop, we must not speak.
Will no one rid Slashdot of this meddlesome topic of the... I can't say more without getting unwelcome attention, and I'm sure they're already overworked, what with losing their prime work space and all.
First, as regards the ORIGINAL topic of this branch, the soulless corporate monster known as the google has made an investment decision. The lack of a VP of Diversity had become a threat to corporate profit maximization. All human beings have not yet been eliminated from all of the revenue streams, so the equations indicated that HR needed more PR. Something should RIP, but EVIL corporations are immortal, or at least they are incapable of conceiving of their own mortality (or bankruptcy).
Regarding the diversionary topic of election problems, my favorite crazy solution (this week) is guest voting. It would work in two steps:
Step 1: If you don't like your district for any reason, you could decline that ballot and ask for a guest ballot in any of the neighboring districts. The harder they try to pick the voters in advance though fancy gerrymandering, the more neighboring districts there are and the less they can control the outcomes of the elections. (Even has ramifications for 3rd party candidates, who could gather all their voters in the neighboring districts and maybe get some representation.)
Step 2: Allocate the legislative votes based on the actual outcomes of the election. Simple example to make it clear. If half the voters of District A hate their district for any reason (such as gerrymandering in my own case) and they all voted next door as guests in District B, then the winner of A has 1/2 vote and the winner of B gets 1.5 votes in the resulting legislature. Of course the real-world results would be more complicated, but we have LOTS of computers these days and I'm sure they can do the math. As long as you vote, your vote counts the way you want it to and your representation is exactly equal to that of each other voter. Nonvoters also have perfectly equal representation of zero. (Waits for the obvious shoe to drop...)
Unfortunately, I don't see any implementation path.
Have you read Work Rules! Insights from Inside Google? It addresses many of the issues you raise, and perhaps should be foundational reading for any discussion of diversity within the context of the google. Published in 2015, but I'm pretty sure it's still highly relevant and helped me understand what is really happening within the google from the higher perspective of Power, Inc.
Usual gross oversimplification here, but we started with competition between tribes and cults that evolved to a struggle between church and state (or religions and nations, if you prefer). Not clear if the church has lost yet in America, but in the rest of the world the struggle has progressed to one between corporations and nations, where the largest corporations may now be more powerful than the largest states, and they are certainly more influential and powerful than most nations, which tend to be rather small. Yes, corporations' gross sales look much smaller than GDP numbers in some ways, but corporations are more "rational" and focused and don't have such overhead as philosophic principles like "fostering diversity".
Today's modern mega-corporations are soulless monsters, inclined towards EVIL while seeking immortality and infinite profits. Human beings are meaningless cogs, and the only corporate goal is to find the cheapest cogs that can do the necessary work. The only gawd is profit.
It's obvious that the google forgot about "Don't be evil" years ago. I thought the new slogan was "All your attention are belong to us", but I have a new proposal:
"There is no gawd but profit, and the google is his prophet! Apple is a FALSE prophet!"
(You might prefer to swap the companies or add others, though I hope you'll keep the google in one of the top two slots. For example, I was thinking the last part could be "Apple's profits are FAKE and Apple is a FALSE prophet!")
P.S. This is really a feeble bid for a funny mod, though I'm not sure what the joke is. Maybe the entire topic area is just unfunny? Or maybe it's just today's humor-impoverished Slashdot?
I have to disagree with your "insightful" mod, though I'm sure you meant well. The point is that the soulless and EVIL corporate monsters that increasingly run the world do not miss you. They will simply look for the cheapest human cog that can increase the profit, even though profit maximization is a FAKE problem. No solution because there is no largest number.
So far the google is merely the best optimizer at finding the human cogs for maximizing profits, and such dimensions as "diversity" are simply meaningless and irrelevant.
It's obvious that the google forgot about "Don't be evil" years ago. I thought the new slogan was "All your attention are belong to us", but I have a new proposal:
"There is no gawd but profit, and google is his prophet!"
Mostly I'm just laughing at my naivete for buying into "Don't be evil" for so long. It's been clear for years that the google's REAL motto is "All your attention are belong to us", but I just didn't get it until much later.
About that mission statement? That was just a delusion of grandeur. All of the world's knowledge is obviously overwhelming, plus the metric of "useful" was never clear. However, by attacking and simplifying the problem along the dimension of access and following the money, we can see (with our 20:20 hindsight) how it devolved to making the advertisers' paid info accessible for the suckers. Not saying that everyone's a sucker (though I think we all are, just more or less), but there are certainly enough suckers to make the google rich.
What we're REALLY seeing in this discussion is an internal struggle within the google about whether or not anything else matters. Is making more money the answer to life, the universe, and everything? The heck with 42 when there's always 43 and bigger numbers for the profit. I think a problem with no solution is meaningless, which means the problem of bigger profits is a FAKE problem. No solution because there is no biggest number.
Oh yeah. Back to the Subject: question, though now I'd prefer to reword it as "If profit is gawd, is it the google's fault?" Simplification of the problem yields an easy "No" insofar as the google is just playing by the rules of the game as defined by the most easily bribed politicians.
However, insofar as the google has become a leading briber of politicians, the answer is switching to "Yes". Overwhelming evidence that cheaters DO prosper in today's America, and you can't cheat harder than making the refs change the rules YOUR way. If Sinatra was still alive the google would hire him to sing to Congress? "Do it OUR way!"
Oh year, the original article's topic was diversity, wasn't it? That's a secondary objective, and we're living in a 1-D universe, remember. Profit is gawd, and the soulless corporate monster known as the google could not care less about actual human beings except for identifying the most profitable human cogs for its machines.
So what happens if someone tries to use gedit? Will the OS warn the user that the software is now unsupported and possibly insecure?
What if there was a ongoing-cost project to support software? What if the OS were responsible for checking the validity and support status of software, and if the software was unsupported, there would actually be an option to help support it?
Oh well. Pointless to repeat the obvious. DAUPR is my new motto, but it never happens. Especially not on Slashdot, where never is heard an encouraging word.
Facebook should have a system to accumulate and display the public reputation of the person offering the link. This should be based on how other people react to their comments and prior links. The solution would allow you to pre-filter worthless sources so you don't have to waste time seeing the garbage.
Just look how well the moderation works on Slashdot! On second thought. Forget the whole thing.
Actually, I think that Slashdot and even Slashdot or Google+ could be fixed. Sort of the way Nomad thought it could repair the Enterprise.
You got me to wondering if this entire thing is a countercoup by the military after Putin's coup. Interesting that so many of them are from the Marine Corps. I find that especially worrisome insofar as the Marines' tradition is personal loyalty to the captain of the ship, not loyalty to such higher entities as the nation, the Constitution, or even the ship itself...
Also worrisome that Kelly might be following the dictum about the impossible merely taking a little longer. Curing #PresidentTrump or making him fit to serve as president is as impossible as anything gets. Potentially dangerous delusion?
If there was a "stimulating" mod and I ever got a mod point to give, I'd give you one. You made me realize that Kelly has to go after Ivanka and Jared now. That's going to be the REAL test of the FAKE presidency. Also, Kelly needs to take away #PresidentTweety's Twitter machine and put a leash on him.
All of this is only possible if Trump remains in his current fetal position, as noted above.
Slashdot Mirror
What's the cost of respect for the human individual?
As in an ACTUAL human being, not an imaginary corporate person?
There are no gawds but profits, and Apple, Google, and a bunch of huge banks are their prophets.
I hate typos.
The "are their profits" should have been "are their prophets".
No, wait! I was just trying to avoid offending certain religious folks. Yeah, that's it.
No, wait again! I wish Slashdot had a feature to correct posts that slip past Preview. Perhaps the single feature I would be most likely to chip in towards implementing if only Slashdot had such a financial model.
Public reputation, eh?
So how do you feel about a double icon system? As I'm currently imagining it, the left icon would be a self-selected avatar linked to the usual self-created profile. The right side icon would be a standardized visual representation of your public reputation, and as a link would take you to detailed analysis of the numbers and links to the data. In my excessive imagination, the basic image would be a little radar diagram with two-way axes for each dimension of reputation, the transparency would indicate the amount of data, and the overall color would give a gross summary, such as green for likely to be worthwhile, yellow and orange for increasingly dubious, and red for "almost certain you don't want to look at this guy's rant".
The REAL power of such a system would be the ability to save time by ignoring people with sufficiently low reputations. Take the trolls, for example. Please. Or in positive terms, the ability to prioritize your limited time for people with EARNED high reputations.
Just joking, of course. No possibility Slashdot could ever consider such a thing given the current financial model. I'd even be willing to help pay for such a time saver, but that's NOT an option.
There are no gawds but profits, and Apple, JP Morgan, Wells Fargo, Verizon, Citigroup, Google, Exxon, and BoA are their prophets.
Sorry I'm so slow witted these years. Took me a while to realize this, by which time the discussion on Slashdot has almost expired. Of course the saddest part might be that today's Slashdot doesn't actually value diversity or insight, eh? Hopefully as I search some more I'll find that some clever folks have already found the horse and flogged it hard. However, I don't see how to label it more precisely than "profitable" or "real diversity", and those keyword searches of currently 496 visible comments came up dry.
The problem the google is having is a PR thing. Lack of diversity looks SO bad that it has created a new kind of crisis. It actually started a while back as a minor crisis, just arguing with the government about the meaning of some regulations to reduce discrimination. Now it's putting the google under the microscope, and the google is HATING it.
REAL diversity would mean including less profitable people, but that is the antithesis of today's google. The google is optimized along the single dimension of profits, and the ONLY concern with diversity is when the public perception of the reality of extremely limited diversity becomes a threat to increasing those profits. Therefore the google needs a PR offensive for a sufficient appearance of diversity to avoid impeding the increase of profits. Not REAL diversity, but just enough of the tatemae for "profitable diversity".
Been reading a lot of books about the google this year, including Work Rules! and How Google Works , and such research had led me to the conclusion that the google wants to optimize around a tiny intersection. The Venn diagram features super-creative innovators, super productive programmers, and people with a nose for money, and the google's objective is for half the company to be from the triple intersection. From the HR perspective, the incentive structure is to reward and retain these people based on their actual track record. It's an extremely peculiar and non-diverse population. Let's tag them "s-googlers", perhaps for star or super.
The google wouldn't mind at all if the s-googlers included more women, but I think it's rather unlikely. I don't think the underlying reasons are sexist or racist or religious or even national, but more along the lines of personality variables that happen to correlate with sexual, racial, religious, and national characteristics. Just to evade all of those stereotypes, let me introduce my conclusion as a joke:
"Nice people need not apply!"
Just in case your history lessons were deficient, that's a reference to "Irish need not apply". Look it up.
Now for the REAL religion underlying this. I've decided that grand joke goes like this:
"There are no gawds but profits, and Apple, JP Morgan, Berkshire Hathaway, Wells Fargo, Gilead, Verizon, Citigroup, Google, Exxon, and Bank of America are their profits."
http://fortune.com/2016/06/08/...
"There is no gawd but profit and the google is his prophet."
I hope I'm not offending anyone, but I really don't know how touchy certain people might get about that sort of not-quite-a-joke.
The earlier motto of "Don't be evil" has been a joke for a long time now. However, I still haven't made up my mind about the relevance of "All your attention are belong to us", which actually arose out of a discussion with a former-coworker now at the google. Right before he ghosted me for some reason.
Does anyone else feel like the google is withdrawing into its own special universe?
Anyway, I posted various other thoughts about the topic in the earlier discussion a few days ago. Not much reaction, including mod points. Hmm... Considering how long its been since I saw a mod point, maybe that power (of moderating) has been grandfathered in some weird way?
Mostly you convinced me that you think you're a high quality cog. You quite possibly have delusions of being irreplaceable, too, but that's only a human way of looking at things. Every human being is unique and special and worthy of respect, but the modern corporate perspective is that every human being is a cog that performs some function and even if the cog hasn't been worn out yet, the corporation would "love" to find a cheaper cog to perform the function.
Your defense of EVIL strikes me as amusing. However, you don't seem to understand that you are agreeing with me. The perception of being EVIL is a problem as long as human beings with delusions of goodness are still involved in the economy. There are actually two basic approaches to dealing with the problem of corporate EVIL (without actually reducing it), and you seem to be advocating for the PR approach that the google is using. However, I think the much more insidious approach is to normalize EVIL as how business is done, and that is the main change over the last few decades, really ramping up during the Reagan period.
You think cheaters never prosper? Take a look east at a certain well known house of the white variety.
c/"IfThis/#IfThis/
Probably need to escape the special characters to correct that typo...
c/Oh year/Oh yeah/
c/sing to Congress?/sing to Congress:/
First one was a typo, but I changed my mind about the second.
While I do think the Constitution needs a page one rewrite, mostly I think you missed my primary reference. I would not describe myself as a #NeverTrumper so much as "IfThisIsPresidentTweetyIMustBeReallyHigh.
Hey, it's to laugh! It's all okay.
According to the Donald, he just got a phone call from Sigmund Freud. His buddy Siggy just wanted to let Trump know that he has the best mental health of ANY president, any presidential candidate (ever), and also better than any king not to mention all the queens! Just before they hung up (together) Siggy said he loves Trump almost as much as Trump loves himself!
Now about that meddlesome archbishop, we must not speak.
"There is no gawd but profit, and the google is his prophet."
How do you like my new proposal for a google motto?
Will no one rid Slashdot of this meddlesome topic of the... I can't say more without getting unwelcome attention, and I'm sure they're already overworked, what with losing their prime work space and all.
First, as regards the ORIGINAL topic of this branch, the soulless corporate monster known as the google has made an investment decision. The lack of a VP of Diversity had become a threat to corporate profit maximization. All human beings have not yet been eliminated from all of the revenue streams, so the equations indicated that HR needed more PR. Something should RIP, but EVIL corporations are immortal, or at least they are incapable of conceiving of their own mortality (or bankruptcy).
Regarding the diversionary topic of election problems, my favorite crazy solution (this week) is guest voting. It would work in two steps:
Step 1: If you don't like your district for any reason, you could decline that ballot and ask for a guest ballot in any of the neighboring districts. The harder they try to pick the voters in advance though fancy gerrymandering, the more neighboring districts there are and the less they can control the outcomes of the elections. (Even has ramifications for 3rd party candidates, who could gather all their voters in the neighboring districts and maybe get some representation.)
Step 2: Allocate the legislative votes based on the actual outcomes of the election. Simple example to make it clear. If half the voters of District A hate their district for any reason (such as gerrymandering in my own case) and they all voted next door as guests in District B, then the winner of A has 1/2 vote and the winner of B gets 1.5 votes in the resulting legislature. Of course the real-world results would be more complicated, but we have LOTS of computers these days and I'm sure they can do the math. As long as you vote, your vote counts the way you want it to and your representation is exactly equal to that of each other voter. Nonvoters also have perfectly equal representation of zero. (Waits for the obvious shoe to drop...)
Unfortunately, I don't see any implementation path.
Have you read Work Rules! Insights from Inside Google ? It addresses many of the issues you raise, and perhaps should be foundational reading for any discussion of diversity within the context of the google. Published in 2015, but I'm pretty sure it's still highly relevant and helped me understand what is really happening within the google from the higher perspective of Power, Inc.
Usual gross oversimplification here, but we started with competition between tribes and cults that evolved to a struggle between church and state (or religions and nations, if you prefer). Not clear if the church has lost yet in America, but in the rest of the world the struggle has progressed to one between corporations and nations, where the largest corporations may now be more powerful than the largest states, and they are certainly more influential and powerful than most nations, which tend to be rather small. Yes, corporations' gross sales look much smaller than GDP numbers in some ways, but corporations are more "rational" and focused and don't have such overhead as philosophic principles like "fostering diversity".
Today's modern mega-corporations are soulless monsters, inclined towards EVIL while seeking immortality and infinite profits. Human beings are meaningless cogs, and the only corporate goal is to find the cheapest cogs that can do the necessary work. The only gawd is profit.
It's obvious that the google forgot about "Don't be evil" years ago. I thought the new slogan was "All your attention are belong to us", but I have a new proposal:
"There is no gawd but profit, and the google is his prophet! Apple is a FALSE prophet!"
(You might prefer to swap the companies or add others, though I hope you'll keep the google in one of the top two slots. For example, I was thinking the last part could be "Apple's profits are FAKE and Apple is a FALSE prophet!")
P.S. This is really a feeble bid for a funny mod, though I'm not sure what the joke is. Maybe the entire topic area is just unfunny? Or maybe it's just today's humor-impoverished Slashdot?
I have to disagree with your "insightful" mod, though I'm sure you meant well. The point is that the soulless and EVIL corporate monsters that increasingly run the world do not miss you. They will simply look for the cheapest human cog that can increase the profit, even though profit maximization is a FAKE problem. No solution because there is no largest number.
So far the google is merely the best optimizer at finding the human cogs for maximizing profits, and such dimensions as "diversity" are simply meaningless and irrelevant.
It's obvious that the google forgot about "Don't be evil" years ago. I thought the new slogan was "All your attention are belong to us", but I have a new proposal:
"There is no gawd but profit, and google is his prophet!"
Mostly I'm just laughing at my naivete for buying into "Don't be evil" for so long. It's been clear for years that the google's REAL motto is "All your attention are belong to us", but I just didn't get it until much later.
About that mission statement? That was just a delusion of grandeur. All of the world's knowledge is obviously overwhelming, plus the metric of "useful" was never clear. However, by attacking and simplifying the problem along the dimension of access and following the money, we can see (with our 20:20 hindsight) how it devolved to making the advertisers' paid info accessible for the suckers. Not saying that everyone's a sucker (though I think we all are, just more or less), but there are certainly enough suckers to make the google rich.
What we're REALLY seeing in this discussion is an internal struggle within the google about whether or not anything else matters. Is making more money the answer to life, the universe, and everything? The heck with 42 when there's always 43 and bigger numbers for the profit. I think a problem with no solution is meaningless, which means the problem of bigger profits is a FAKE problem. No solution because there is no biggest number.
Oh yeah. Back to the Subject: question, though now I'd prefer to reword it as "If profit is gawd, is it the google's fault?" Simplification of the problem yields an easy "No" insofar as the google is just playing by the rules of the game as defined by the most easily bribed politicians.
However, insofar as the google has become a leading briber of politicians, the answer is switching to "Yes". Overwhelming evidence that cheaters DO prosper in today's America, and you can't cheat harder than making the refs change the rules YOUR way. If Sinatra was still alive the google would hire him to sing to Congress? "Do it OUR way!"
Oh year, the original article's topic was diversity, wasn't it? That's a secondary objective, and we're living in a 1-D universe, remember. Profit is gawd, and the soulless corporate monster known as the google could not care less about actual human beings except for identifying the most profitable human cogs for its machines.
Z^4
Okay, funny, but I already noted my lack of mod points to give.
So what happens if someone tries to use gedit? Will the OS warn the user that the software is now unsupported and possibly insecure?
What if there was a ongoing-cost project to support software? What if the OS were responsible for checking the validity and support status of software, and if the software was unsupported, there would actually be an option to help support it?
Oh well. Pointless to repeat the obvious. DAUPR is my new motto, but it never happens. Especially not on Slashdot, where never is heard an encouraging word.
If you have a better idea, great. If you have nothing to say, then say nothing.
Not a polite request for details.^3
Not a polite request for details.^2
Not a polite request for details.^1
Facebook should have a system to accumulate and display the public reputation of the person offering the link. This should be based on how other people react to their comments and prior links. The solution would allow you to pre-filter worthless sources so you don't have to waste time seeing the garbage.
Just look how well the moderation works on Slashdot! On second thought. Forget the whole thing.
Actually, I think that Slashdot and even Slashdot or Google+ could be fixed. Sort of the way Nomad thought it could repair the Enterprise.
You got me to wondering if this entire thing is a countercoup by the military after Putin's coup. Interesting that so many of them are from the Marine Corps. I find that especially worrisome insofar as the Marines' tradition is personal loyalty to the captain of the ship, not loyalty to such higher entities as the nation, the Constitution, or even the ship itself...
Also worrisome that Kelly might be following the dictum about the impossible merely taking a little longer. Curing #PresidentTrump or making him fit to serve as president is as impossible as anything gets. Potentially dangerous delusion?
If there was a "stimulating" mod and I ever got a mod point to give, I'd give you one. You made me realize that Kelly has to go after Ivanka and Jared now. That's going to be the REAL test of the FAKE presidency. Also, Kelly needs to take away #PresidentTweety's Twitter machine and put a leash on him.
All of this is only possible if Trump remains in his current fetal position, as noted above.