Really interesting stuff, whichever side you come down on in this issue.
In my view, most of this drama could have been avoided by retaining common carrier status to webhosts and making an antitrust case against Google. If we did it Microsoft, we should do it to this new company which is doing the same stuff that Microsoft did.
Trump Twitter is more popular than they will admit.
It's like looking at the tabloids in the checkout at a grocery store... even the most hardened cynical intellectual will do it. It's just human interest, and oodles of delicious gooey drama.
Trump knows how to play an audience, and somehow comes out with most of what he wanted in the first place. Like him or hate him, he knows what he is about, and he has all of us tuning in like to a soap opera.
But Omarosa Manigault Newman’s new book, “Unhinged: An Insider’s Account of the Trump White House,” released this week, could make it difficult for Trump Jr. to change the narrative about himself anytime soon.
Appliances are all junk now that require you to buy insurance from the store just to ensure that they make it to five years of operation.
Very few of them work well; for example, the energy-efficient dryer that requires you to run it twice, instead of once, or the energy-efficient refrigerator which specializes in spoiling food during its frequent "defrost" cycles.
Stuff worked better in the past. Toilets flushed. Refrigerators lasted for forty years. Washing machines actually produced clean clothes.
I am all for ecology, but the way we go about it is silly, mainly because it is an excuse to avoid seeing the real problems.
We live in a scary time, reminiscent of the run-up to nazi Germany.
Germans initially supported Hitler because he promised to end the rampant Communist violence in Germany.
If Leftists do not want another Hitler, they should avoid becoming violent Communists, a variety of Leftist (the same people who sent whole families to the guillotine).
Not only is Censorship-Google moving forward in China, it's coming to everywhere else as well (more than it already has).
It seems harder to find non-cucked conservative content on Google of late, at least without highly specific searches (for example, phrases you know are in the article).
Of course Chinese workers all unite to praise Glorious Leader Xi Jinping's glorious censorship program....or else.
More importantly, those who do not praise the Chinese State tend to fail at a form of natural selection, mainly by experiencing 7.62mm tumors at the base of the skull. Therefore, they no longer exist on Chinese development teams, and everyone else eats their rice.
The Right censors those who act against social standards; the Left censors those who fail to be Leftist enough.
Most of our conservatives, in the context of history, are fairly Left-leaning. They support egalitarianism in politics and society; the only area they do not support it is the economy, where they insist on free markets instead of enforced socioeconomic equality.
Fear not; the Left is targeting that next.
Eventually they will win, and produce a socialist society. The good people will all die off, and the proles will have their triumph. Then, that society will slide into third-world status because it is ruled by morons commanding other morons, and so it will vanish from the pages of history because it is irrelevant.
This is what Leftism does: it destroys civilizations.
These tell us that 8% of the users account for 85% of the ad clicks, and these users tend to be from households with yearly income under $40,000.
In other words, advertising on the internet does not reach the audience it wants, but instead is mostly taken up by the people who spend a lot of time on the internet because they have no other form of recreation.
This has been exacerbated by the bots which take up 28% of internet traffic, the use of ad blockers, and the tendency of experienced people whose time is valuable to avoid the internet since its audience now seems like daytime TV watchers after the mobile era began in 2007.
Since those studies have come out, we have seen the big companies trying to jockey "we have a lot of warm bodies" into "our advertising is valuable," when all credible data suggests the opposite.
I wonder if the correlation between good writers and literature graduates is higher than the correlation between good programmers and CS graduates.
I see it in a different sense: there is an ongoing dialogue between writers and academics about the meaning of texts.
As with anything, when this becomes politically infiltrated ("PC") it loses any validity because it is turned into a propaganda organ instead of a vehicle for studying a discipline and how to do it.
Clearly most of the great writers stayed away from academia, but they also tend to have stayed away from most other things that normal people do. The rules for geniuses are... different.
What I was hoping to express, however, is that for the average legitimate college student (120+ IQ) literary theory can provide a way of understanding the complex philosophical dialogue that has been raging across literature over the centuries. It enables them to stitch together different works and see the arguments of each, made through both content and aesthetics, that shows not just the core values that literature discusses, but upholds. Having stories that have meaning (let's use that as a working simplest possible definition for "literature") is in itself valuable, as is the study of these stories.
I do not believe that writing can be taught; mechanics and story elements can be taught, but writing itself is always learned by those who undertake it as a passion. The teaching of writing as a technique, the "workshop method," helps Hollywood produce formulaic blockbusters and keeps literary magazines in business with a steady stream of alarmingly similar stories, but does not produce great literature.
In this sense, I see the teaching of theory as useful for literature mainly because it is fairly immutable; what was good in one age will be good in another, once we abstract out elements specific to that time.
For computer science, "theory" usually involves some high-handed notions that apply to very few real-world instances, and serves to teach "right ways" instead of the wisdom of the hack, which is that you do it however you have to.
Postmodernism gets a bad rap, in my view, because it was taken from its original intent into the realm of propaganda. The original idea, triggered by Nietzsche's "On Truth and Lies in An Extra-Moral Sense," was that truth is only as accurate as the mind of the beholder, and so humans are unequal and therefore have differing degrees of accuracy in perception. The notion of universal "truth," values, or communication was thus in doubt; this actually targeted The Enlightenment&trade-era notions of a universal truth that applied to all humanity, instead of a need for a hierarchy of people based on their degree of accuracy of perception, a measurement which is as much aesthetic (what is good, beautiful, and true to natural form) as it is factual or logical (the realm of "logical fact," misunderstood and ignored by most). In the ensuing years, other writers tried to make sense of this, with most defaulting to the dominant paradigm of universalism or the idea that what most people think is true/good must be true/good. Postmodern writers worth reading include William S. Burroughs and Don DeLillo.
Surely they would not turn into Microsoft, IBM, or any of the other tech giants who turned in evil in the past.
Whoops. Make a company big enough, get shareholders involved, and have lots of employees who are hoping to cash in and cash out, and suddenly you have another evil corporation.
It's a stretch to say our system is even capitalist, since it has extensive regulation, union protection, and social welfare.
It is more accurate to say that democracy has failed, because whenever you ask the masses what we should do, they run off chasing illusions and then we all go over the cliff.
If anything, we are seeing the demise of the idea of herd behavior being a good thing, and a recognition that the root of herd behavior is individual selfishness.
Blaming capitalism for that is just a last-ditch strategy to avoid seeing the obvious: modern society has failed. We need a new type of social order.
Degrees teach theory, not applications. This is great for theoretical sciences like literature and philosophy, but not as good for IT.
Apprenticeships are underrated, since most of what you need to know you will learn on the job anyway.
Too few CS majors know how to code from basics and "hack," or be adaptable, for lack of a better term. This is producing stodgy, insecure code that no one is aware of.
High turnover ensures organizational memory is lost.
It would be better to take intelligent people and send them to coding boot camp than to rely on academia. The same could probably be said of most of other academic disciplines as well...
Slashdot Mirror
The government has done this before: if your private property acts like a public space, it can be regulated like a public space.
Really interesting stuff, whichever side you come down on in this issue.
In my view, most of this drama could have been avoided by retaining common carrier status to webhosts and making an antitrust case against Google. If we did it Microsoft, we should do it to this new company which is doing the same stuff that Microsoft did.
It's like looking at the tabloids in the checkout at a grocery store... even the most hardened cynical intellectual will do it. It's just human interest, and oodles of delicious gooey drama.
Trump knows how to play an audience, and somehow comes out with most of what he wanted in the first place. Like him or hate him, he knows what he is about, and he has all of us tuning in like to a soap opera.
According to the Left, it is anyone who is not Leftist enough.
Apparently, to be OK with these people, you have to hate white people and full Socialism. You also tend to be authoritarian.
I think it's silly calling these people "fascists," just like calling anyone but an actual National Socialist a "Nazi" is screwy.
But Communists? If the shoe fits, let them wear it.
If you were willing to censor before, you are willing to censor now; you're just hiding it behind "reforms."
Who else hid censorship behind "reforms"? That was the Communists.
Interesting how the guys who want to get the richest fastest are all Communists these days.
I stopped reading there. Gossip is not fact.
Appliances are all junk now that require you to buy insurance from the store just to ensure that they make it to five years of operation.
Very few of them work well; for example, the energy-efficient dryer that requires you to run it twice, instead of once, or the energy-efficient refrigerator which specializes in spoiling food during its frequent "defrost" cycles.
Stuff worked better in the past. Toilets flushed. Refrigerators lasted for forty years. Washing machines actually produced clean clothes.
I am all for ecology, but the way we go about it is silly, mainly because it is an excuse to avoid seeing the real problems.
Who do you have in mind here, and how are they censoring them?
After WW2, everything went Leftist.
Seventy years later, all of it is failing
Our choice is to either be in denial, or to fight it.
There really is no middle ground any longer.
Minorities and single women vote Leftist, as do people in cities.
Those who could survive a night in the forest alone do not.
Clearly not because it was adored by the counterculture, correlates highly to morally disgusting behavior, and that most stoners are totally useless.
Nope, couldn't be.
Which ones, and what percentage of the accounts banned were these?
Sounds like a pretext, not a diagnosis/analysis.
Black Lives Matter, the Obama presidency, and the Hart-Celler act seem to have done that.
Germans initially supported Hitler because he promised to end the rampant Communist violence in Germany.
If Leftists do not want another Hitler, they should avoid becoming violent Communists, a variety of Leftist (the same people who sent whole families to the guillotine).
Dennis Prager is a Jew who has spoken out against anti-Semitism. In your alternate reality, how does that make him anti-Semitic?
This sounds like it will be a great success, sort of like EnergyStar appliances or ethanol.
Maybe even as big as Esperanto!
It seems harder to find non-cucked conservative content on Google of late, at least without highly specific searches (for example, phrases you know are in the article).
More importantly, those who do not praise the Chinese State tend to fail at a form of natural selection, mainly by experiencing 7.62mm tumors at the base of the skull. Therefore, they no longer exist on Chinese development teams, and everyone else eats their rice.
The Right censors those who act against social standards; the Left censors those who fail to be Leftist enough.
Most of our conservatives, in the context of history, are fairly Left-leaning. They support egalitarianism in politics and society; the only area they do not support it is the economy, where they insist on free markets instead of enforced socioeconomic equality.
Fear not; the Left is targeting that next.
Eventually they will win, and produce a socialist society. The good people will all die off, and the proles will have their triumph. Then, that society will slide into third-world status because it is ruled by morons commanding other morons, and so it will vanish from the pages of history because it is irrelevant.
This is what Leftism does: it destroys civilizations.
I remember when the web was first starting up, people were wondering which model it would follow: newspapers, television, radio, or libraries.
I suggested the library model since in my view, there was no money to be made off of the net in the way that would support a whole industry.
It seemed at first that I was wrong, and then these studies came out:
These tell us that 8% of the users account for 85% of the ad clicks, and these users tend to be from households with yearly income under $40,000.
In other words, advertising on the internet does not reach the audience it wants, but instead is mostly taken up by the people who spend a lot of time on the internet because they have no other form of recreation.
This has been exacerbated by the bots which take up 28% of internet traffic, the use of ad blockers, and the tendency of experienced people whose time is valuable to avoid the internet since its audience now seems like daytime TV watchers after the mobile era began in 2007.
Since those studies have come out, we have seen the big companies trying to jockey "we have a lot of warm bodies" into "our advertising is valuable," when all credible data suggests the opposite.
In other words, assume the crash position.
I see it in a different sense: there is an ongoing dialogue between writers and academics about the meaning of texts.
As with anything, when this becomes politically infiltrated ("PC") it loses any validity because it is turned into a propaganda organ instead of a vehicle for studying a discipline and how to do it.
Clearly most of the great writers stayed away from academia, but they also tend to have stayed away from most other things that normal people do. The rules for geniuses are... different.
What I was hoping to express, however, is that for the average legitimate college student (120+ IQ) literary theory can provide a way of understanding the complex philosophical dialogue that has been raging across literature over the centuries. It enables them to stitch together different works and see the arguments of each, made through both content and aesthetics, that shows not just the core values that literature discusses, but upholds. Having stories that have meaning (let's use that as a working simplest possible definition for "literature") is in itself valuable, as is the study of these stories.
I do not believe that writing can be taught; mechanics and story elements can be taught, but writing itself is always learned by those who undertake it as a passion. The teaching of writing as a technique, the "workshop method," helps Hollywood produce formulaic blockbusters and keeps literary magazines in business with a steady stream of alarmingly similar stories, but does not produce great literature.
In this sense, I see the teaching of theory as useful for literature mainly because it is fairly immutable; what was good in one age will be good in another, once we abstract out elements specific to that time.
For computer science, "theory" usually involves some high-handed notions that apply to very few real-world instances, and serves to teach "right ways" instead of the wisdom of the hack, which is that you do it however you have to.
Postmodernism gets a bad rap, in my view, because it was taken from its original intent into the realm of propaganda. The original idea, triggered by Nietzsche's "On Truth and Lies in An Extra-Moral Sense," was that truth is only as accurate as the mind of the beholder, and so humans are unequal and therefore have differing degrees of accuracy in perception. The notion of universal "truth," values, or communication was thus in doubt; this actually targeted The Enlightenment&trade-era notions of a universal truth that applied to all humanity, instead of a need for a hierarchy of people based on their degree of accuracy of perception, a measurement which is as much aesthetic (what is good, beautiful, and true to natural form) as it is factual or logical (the realm of "logical fact," misunderstood and ignored by most). In the ensuing years, other writers tried to make sense of this, with most defaulting to the dominant paradigm of universalism or the idea that what most people think is true/good must be true/good. Postmodern writers worth reading include William S. Burroughs and Don DeLillo.
Claim the controversial project is not near completion.
Wait a few months for the sheep to lose concentration and have it drift beyond their attention span.
Then, quietly do it with a small elite staff.
When people complain, say, "Well, it's a done deal now, we can't back out or we'd lose money!"
Everyone knows that is bad and unpopular, so no one will support that. We are herd animals.
Moooo.
Look around you: most people are incompetent, lazy, and selfish.
Back in the 1960s, we had mostly competent people who were dedicated to getting the task done and getting out the door.
Now we have people who just kind of hang around the job for eight or ten hours then go home.
Idiocracy is here, and the few non-idiots get paid a lot to try to keep the rest from screwing everything up.
Remember when people believed the Google motto?
Surely they would not turn into Microsoft, IBM, or any of the other tech giants who turned in evil in the past.
Whoops. Make a company big enough, get shareholders involved, and have lots of employees who are hoping to cash in and cash out, and suddenly you have another evil corporation.
It's a stretch to say our system is even capitalist, since it has extensive regulation, union protection, and social welfare.
It is more accurate to say that democracy has failed, because whenever you ask the masses what we should do, they run off chasing illusions and then we all go over the cliff.
If anything, we are seeing the demise of the idea of herd behavior being a good thing, and a recognition that the root of herd behavior is individual selfishness.
Blaming capitalism for that is just a last-ditch strategy to avoid seeing the obvious: modern society has failed. We need a new type of social order.
Degrees teach theory, not applications. This is great for theoretical sciences like literature and philosophy, but not as good for IT.
Apprenticeships are underrated, since most of what you need to know you will learn on the job anyway.
Too few CS majors know how to code from basics and "hack," or be adaptable, for lack of a better term. This is producing stodgy, insecure code that no one is aware of.
High turnover ensures organizational memory is lost.
It would be better to take intelligent people and send them to coding boot camp than to rely on academia. The same could probably be said of most of other academic disciplines as well...