How do we fix that? Easy, we go back to the old way, where everything is qualified by the authority of the person saying it. You know, like encyclopaedias did before Wikipedia replaced all that stuff with populism and astroturfing. It won't work every time, and sometimes change will be slow since authorities can be conservative, but it's a damn sight better than what we have now, and it also means people will be accountable. As an added bonus, it will get rid of the more wide-ranging pundits like Milo Yiannopoulos, Breitbart, Salon, and whatever Gawker's subsidiaries are calling themselves now.
So what does this mean in practise? It means that when random person on Twitter goes "Gender is a social construct" we all say "Your qualifications give this claim 0 credibility". When Stephen Hawking says "Black holes are weird and stuff" we say "OK, you know your shit, Stephen, now make the funny voice again". Don't listen to morons, ACs, Facebook randoms, unknown news sources and the like. Don't learn physics from creationists, don't learn game development from women's history majors, don't learn anything at all from anyone on Twitter.
Skip Facebook, reddit, wikipedia, Twitter. Is that too difficult today? It worked fine just 10 years ago. Encyclopaedias and a phone will replace all of those just fine, and your connection with your friends will only improve. You'll be happier, you'll be better informed, and you'll be a better human being for it.
Sounds like cable is about to shoot itself in the foot.
Meanwhile, Netflix doesn't complain about shared passwords, even allows users to set up multiple profiles on each account so it's easier to share. I hope netflix has enough bandwidth to absorb all the new customers that are about to join up.
Do you remember that time when tobacco companies finally admitted that "incorrect" use of their products "might be" harmful "to some"? I'm starting to see many parallels between "social" media and smoking. For starters, both are predominant factors in a large cluster of diseases.
Imagine what's going to happen when the first non-spying smart assistant comes out, one that rivals Echo and Siri and whatever the others are called. Amazon, Google, FB, and Apple will all be happy to pay the ISPs to throttle or block the relevant webpages and then deny them a place on the marketplaces of Amazon, Google, and Apple. Much like in China, you won't even get to the market unless the "party" approves of you first.
Perhaps they have been negotiating with the ISPs for great deals if they keep quiet? Or perhaps they are considering going into the ISP business themselves?
I don't think anyone here would be surprised to see Google or FB switch sides if they could earn more money by doing so. "Do no evil" hasn't been on the charter for a long long time after all.
This confidence rests on the fact that ISPs highly value the open internet and the principles of net neutrality, much more than some animated activists would have you think. Why? For one, because it's a better way of making money than a closed internet.
I didn't know the former chairman of the FCC was Gary Busey.
In Stockholm, Sweden, most apartments have somewhere 10-20 ISPs to choose from, with several different fiber nets available or within reach. Companies are not allowed to lock out the competition. The standard price for an up/down line of 100Mbit/100Mbit is (with VAT) around $18 per month ($15 without VAT) , no installation fee. That's with no caps or overages.
While I don't know if the Swedish market can be directly translated into the American market, it does seem that opening up and lowering the barriers to entry would help with prices. That means regulating the crap out of the big corporations.
When the barrier to entry is practically zero, of course you're going to get a lot of people joining Patreon to beg money for stupid shit. It is also understandable that few, if any, are dumb enough to fund them. That's point number 1, and it certainly explains why the distribution looks that way.
If you consider the ancient adage "those who can, do" you will also see why so few people are making career money off Patreon. Of those that can earn a living as entertainers, most are doing it in well established ways such as YouTube or Twitch, far more popular services with greater audiences and less fickle moneyflow, as it takes a lot more caring for someone to actively pay you money every month than watching an ad or two off your YouTube channel. Why would anyone *not* go where the greatest money can be made in the easiest manner?
Patreon was late to the party, slow to get going (and is still far below it's more popular siblings of kickstarter type), and doesn't involve a direct money -> result aspect, rather you pay the monthly salary of an "artist" of some kind that may or may not do anything at all. In fact, you have no inkling of what said artist is doing unless they choose to inform you. Combine that with the fact that you can't walk a meter on the internet without stepping over at least 14 artists begging for your attention, and it becomes quite clear why the model isn't very successful.
Jesus, you need help. I'd say your workplace sounds like Harvey Weinstein's frontal cortex, but the way you write suggests you never have seen a real-life workplace.
Except then you would expect that to come out as a win in the company reports since there's no (M/F) marker in the profit ledger. In fact, the second you take a step back from the office space you would notice a big boost as the stock would do better (less pay means more profit per employee) and the company earnings would be greater (same reason). Yet, that doesn't seem to be the case...
The point was that the judge dismissed the class action status of the lawsuit because it was too broad, i.e. it included some people that did have a claim, but also lots of others that did not have a claim. This is the same as the #metoo movement, which includes some women with a serious claim (sexual assault, actual harassment etc), but also lots of women that do not have claims (unwanted advances, discomfort etc).
That is the only aspect where the parallell is drawn, and other than that no similiarity between the cases is drawn.
You want to spout this lie again? After it's been debunked over and over and over? The biological stuff is still there, the pink dolls and cars are still there, the maths and engineering stuff is still there.
Here is the same video as always, the one put forth when you make these debunked claims again and again.
Even an AC should understand such a simple argument. It's not about personal responsibility here unless you want to walk that line. Either we can cover the costs of condoms and other forms of birth control (up to and including abortions), or we can down the line cover the cost of a child that grew up in terrible conditions, probably without a dad, to drain public education resources (school isn't cheap), government support and welfare resources (those aren't cheap either), and of course tying up courts and police resources (those aren't cheap), and then costing the state even more in prison resources. If the child was involved in anything violent it also means covering healthcare for all participants. So, even at 10 abortions per person, it's still a hell of a lot cheaper than paying for the child.
Now, guess which option is better for *you* and your hard earned tax money?
Maybe it's because I haven't tried all the new and innovative stuff like GraphQL, but my compiler has never complained about my department not being diverse enough.
Are we absolutely sure this diversity thing is a problem for CS/IT? Or could it be that it's just a problem for women's studies and whatever other programs teach advanced SJW stuff?
Slashdot Mirror
How do we fix that? Easy, we go back to the old way, where everything is qualified by the authority of the person saying it. You know, like encyclopaedias did before Wikipedia replaced all that stuff with populism and astroturfing. It won't work every time, and sometimes change will be slow since authorities can be conservative, but it's a damn sight better than what we have now, and it also means people will be accountable. As an added bonus, it will get rid of the more wide-ranging pundits like Milo Yiannopoulos, Breitbart, Salon, and whatever Gawker's subsidiaries are calling themselves now.
So what does this mean in practise?
It means that when random person on Twitter goes "Gender is a social construct" we all say "Your qualifications give this claim 0 credibility". When Stephen Hawking says "Black holes are weird and stuff" we say "OK, you know your shit, Stephen, now make the funny voice again". Don't listen to morons, ACs, Facebook randoms, unknown news sources and the like. Don't learn physics from creationists, don't learn game development from women's history majors, don't learn anything at all from anyone on Twitter.
Skip Facebook, reddit, wikipedia, Twitter. Is that too difficult today? It worked fine just 10 years ago. Encyclopaedias and a phone will replace all of those just fine, and your connection with your friends will only improve. You'll be happier, you'll be better informed, and you'll be a better human being for it.
Try it.
Sounds like cable is about to shoot itself in the foot.
Meanwhile, Netflix doesn't complain about shared passwords, even allows users to set up multiple profiles on each account so it's easier to share.
I hope netflix has enough bandwidth to absorb all the new customers that are about to join up.
In other words....government finds a way to get in and mess up something that has been innovative, proven popular and successful.
Taxi services are innovative? Part-time employment is innovative?
What is it exactly about Uber that is "innovative"?
Do you remember that time when tobacco companies finally admitted that "incorrect" use of their products "might be" harmful "to some"? I'm starting to see many parallels between "social" media and smoking. For starters, both are predominant factors in a large cluster of diseases.
If your boss explodes when reality does not conform to his wishes, he just might be a snowflake.
When you require careful and concerted choreography to explain simple concepts to your president, there might be a problem.
I was just gonna say this.
Imagine what's going to happen when the first non-spying smart assistant comes out, one that rivals Echo and Siri and whatever the others are called. Amazon, Google, FB, and Apple will all be happy to pay the ISPs to throttle or block the relevant webpages and then deny them a place on the marketplaces of Amazon, Google, and Apple. Much like in China, you won't even get to the market unless the "party" approves of you first.
Perhaps they have been negotiating with the ISPs for great deals if they keep quiet? Or perhaps they are considering going into the ISP business themselves?
I don't think anyone here would be surprised to see Google or FB switch sides if they could earn more money by doing so.
"Do no evil" hasn't been on the charter for a long long time after all.
This confidence rests on the fact that ISPs highly value the open internet and the principles of net neutrality, much more than some animated activists would have you think. Why? For one, because it's a better way of making money than a closed internet.
I didn't know the former chairman of the FCC was Gary Busey.
Thank you Twitter. Now we can be even more efficient when we rabblerouse our witch hunts or drive people to suicide (like August Ames).
No one will ever dare to land a probe on the moon or have a divergent opinion ever again! Conformity for all our comrades!
Are you a former Chinese Olympics gymnast turned Antifa? Cause that's how your post reads.
Does the new plan contain the word 'bigly'?
In Stockholm, Sweden, most apartments have somewhere 10-20 ISPs to choose from, with several different fiber nets available or within reach. Companies are not allowed to lock out the competition.
The standard price for an up/down line of 100Mbit/100Mbit is (with VAT) around $18 per month ($15 without VAT) , no installation fee. That's with no caps or overages.
While I don't know if the Swedish market can be directly translated into the American market, it does seem that opening up and lowering the barriers to entry would help with prices. That means regulating the crap out of the big corporations.
When the barrier to entry is practically zero, of course you're going to get a lot of people joining Patreon to beg money for stupid shit. It is also understandable that few, if any, are dumb enough to fund them. That's point number 1, and it certainly explains why the distribution looks that way.
If you consider the ancient adage "those who can, do" you will also see why so few people are making career money off Patreon. Of those that can earn a living as entertainers, most are doing it in well established ways such as YouTube or Twitch, far more popular services with greater audiences and less fickle moneyflow, as it takes a lot more caring for someone to actively pay you money every month than watching an ad or two off your YouTube channel. Why would anyone *not* go where the greatest money can be made in the easiest manner?
Patreon was late to the party, slow to get going (and is still far below it's more popular siblings of kickstarter type), and doesn't involve a direct money -> result aspect, rather you pay the monthly salary of an "artist" of some kind that may or may not do anything at all. In fact, you have no inkling of what said artist is doing unless they choose to inform you. Combine that with the fact that you can't walk a meter on the internet without stepping over at least 14 artists begging for your attention, and it becomes quite clear why the model isn't very successful.
You missed the AC between me and the GP in that quote.
Victim-blaming, are we? Not very progressive of you...
Jesus, you need help. I'd say your workplace sounds like Harvey Weinstein's frontal cortex, but the way you write suggests you never have seen a real-life workplace.
Except then you would expect that to come out as a win in the company reports since there's no (M/F) marker in the profit ledger. In fact, the second you take a step back from the office space you would notice a big boost as the stock would do better (less pay means more profit per employee) and the company earnings would be greater (same reason). Yet, that doesn't seem to be the case...
And just for fun
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/fem...
Woooosh.
The point was that the judge dismissed the class action status of the lawsuit because it was too broad, i.e. it included some people that did have a claim, but also lots of others that did not have a claim.
This is the same as the #metoo movement, which includes some women with a serious claim (sexual assault, actual harassment etc), but also lots of women that do not have claims (unwanted advances, discomfort etc).
That is the only aspect where the parallell is drawn, and other than that no similiarity between the cases is drawn.
You want to spout this lie again? After it's been debunked over and over and over? The biological stuff is still there, the pink dolls and cars are still there, the maths and engineering stuff is still there.
Here is the same video as always, the one put forth when you make these debunked claims again and again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Even an AC should understand such a simple argument.
It's not about personal responsibility here unless you want to walk that line. Either we can cover the costs of condoms and other forms of birth control (up to and including abortions), or we can down the line cover the cost of a child that grew up in terrible conditions, probably without a dad, to drain public education resources (school isn't cheap), government support and welfare resources (those aren't cheap either), and of course tying up courts and police resources (those aren't cheap), and then costing the state even more in prison resources.
If the child was involved in anything violent it also means covering healthcare for all participants. So, even at 10 abortions per person, it's still a hell of a lot cheaper than paying for the child.
Now, guess which option is better for *you* and your hard earned tax money?
Wow, I made a mistake surfing /. at -1 today.
Ivan, calm down, drink your vodka and eat whatever the Russian equivalent of a Snickers is. Maybe a stale old potato?
Maybe it's because I haven't tried all the new and innovative stuff like GraphQL, but my compiler has never complained about my department not being diverse enough.
Are we absolutely sure this diversity thing is a problem for CS/IT? Or could it be that it's just a problem for women's studies and whatever other programs teach advanced SJW stuff?
Yes, it's a win-win if you think the primary purpose of grade-school is in the budget.
You'd make a great MBA.