I feel bad that people from India or China or wherever are getting caught in the crossfire, but if this is a headache for the tech companies that are exploiting them and keeping actual Americans jobless... good. I figure Amazon/Google/Facebook are way too powerful to actually allow the H1-B program to end, but maybe we can at least make it as difficult as possible for them. I know I shouldn't be satisfied with half-measures like that, but that's sadly the world we live in.
Gamers have become such entitled little kids. I'm surprised to see that attitude pop up even here. There are plenty of times where game companies screw people over, but giving out games for free is definitely not one of them...
StarCraft II is great. I've bought all the campaigns and expansions and I don't regret it at all. It'll be great to get some new players on.
This is horrifying. How could you go home and sleep at night after working on something like this?
Growing extra organs in or on animals is already pretty grotesque, but at least that has obvious and practical applications. But this? This is some shit, man...
"Sorry, this wasn't actually my fault though, it was the Russians" sounds about as sincere as "I'm sorry that I got caught." Totally meaningless. What a joke of a company.
Good example, but from a modern perspective, that doesn't really apply to anything significant. Unless, of course, you're the kind of person who thinks gay marriage or gender-neutral bathrooms deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as voting rights or desegregation.
Consider the Holocaust; is that not the result of identity politics? Do these two events even each other out in your mind?
Which is likelier to happen now, an identity politics-driven movement that would lead to better job opportunities for the disadvantaged, or one that would result in genocide?
So... did Mr. Villeneuve actually say this wasn't the movie he wanted to make? Am I going crazy or is the author of this rant putting words in Villeneuve's mouth to back up their own opinion about the movie? Their arguments don't even make sense.
I actually read something before where Villeneuve specifically said that there won't be a director's cut, final cut, or any other versions of this movie. We got the exact version he intended us to see, and at nearly 3 hours, that's not hard to believe. The author of this article thinks the movie should have been much shorter (which is obviously what the movie studios and theaters would prefer) while simultaneously suggesting that Villeneuve wasn't in complete creative control here. Again, am I going out of my mind here? What the hell? This should have been titled "'Blade Runner 2049' Isn't the Movie I Wanted Denis Villeneuve to Make".
I think the movie's great. For whatever reason, the author of this didn't agree. Fine. But they're taking what is clearly an opinion piece about them not liking the movie and disguising it as some kind of fact-based informative news article where they present some kind of insight into the director's thinking process. There are no hard facts in this story, just speculation. That is extremely misleading.
And yeah, I think the film is excellent and way better than we had any right to expect. To be brutally honest, given the complete dearth of creativity in Hollywood today, and given the kind of movies and properties that usually find success, and keeping in mind that just a few months ago the same studio released the fucking Emoji Movie... this is a much better film than we deserved. The only thing worth regretting here is that there won't be a third movie given how few tickets were sold (a combination of many factors including long runtime/fewer showings, vague advertising, R rating, older franchise, etc.). That's what we should be mourning here. This movie was great and deserves a followup as it's fairly open-ended and there are clearly more stories to be told about the emancipation movement or Niander Wallace, who didn't get nearly enough screentime. The clueless writer of this article doesn't even mention that in passing -- understandable if it was written last week before the box office returns came in, but it looks like it was published today. Talk about missing the point.
The fear of killer robots is the boogeyman employed by the tech giants at Amazon/Google/Facebook to distract us from the shit they're getting away with now. By the time AI has advanced to that point, those tech leaders will be one step away from literally running the world. Then we'll look up at them to save us...
I don't even know what point you're trying to make here. This guy was saying we need to be planning ahead and you're saying... not to? You're pretty sure that robots are NOT going to become more and more advanced. Why? Does your imagination work in reverse or something?
The other day I was making fun of Elon Musk and his flights of fancy regarding AI, but you've got to be on the complete opposite end of the scale. I think it's also totally insane to stand there with your arms crossed and insist that everything will be fine, there won't be any kind of societal upheaval caused by a second industrial revolution, and the economy will just work itself out (like it always does, right?). Yeah guys, don't worry about it!
Putin may be a dangerous person, but his statement was totally benign. I imagine every world leader would also want to have their countries by tech pioneers. That's pretty much all he was saying.
How do you go from that to WWIII?
I hate seeing these kind of outrageous statements so casually thrown around by the rich and famous who obviously are not experts in foreign policy, history, war, etc. I think that's dangerous too, maybe moreso than any off-hand comment by Putin or Trump. Their opinions carry a lot of weight and people look up to them in the same kind of way. Read about Henry Ford's political views before the US entered WWII -- he believed he was arguing for peace, but he was really enabling the Nazis. Hitler said he looked up to him and gave him a medal after taking power. He was a leader in the business world and very influential.
By the way, do you really think saying "WWIII" repeatedly is gonna make it less likely to happen, or more likely?
I don't understand the nuclear shills either. What has nuclear power done for them? What has it done for humanity as a whole that outweighs Fukushima, Chernobyl, or Hanford? Don't even get me started on Iran. Are you really gonna tell me that the introduction of nuclear power has made the world a better place? I can only assume they have some kind of personal ties to some energy company that deals heavily in nuclear power, and I don't trust them.
How is that going to work? I think what they meant to say was "the rich get richer." I'm not sure exactly what that means for the rest of us, but it probably won't be good. That "wipe out poverty" claim is also pretty dubious.
Boy, this comment section is ugly.
All the affirmative action policies and these supposed "diversity quotas" that the white people here are railing against -- sorry, is that an generalization? Oh, I'm sure you're not looking at it from that perspective, you're just interested in fairness, right?
Yeah, it would be great if everything was a meritocracy, but when was it ever that way? Are you living in a dream world? There are a million reasons why people get jobs that are unrelated to their actual abilities OR identity politics. You're way more likely to find a HR department rife with cronyism and nepotism than one who actually picks the best person for the job. If you want to rail against unfair hiring practices, START THERE.
Taking out your nerd rage on some desperate minorities (who don't even stay at that position for long anyway, according to the article) is short-sighted and moronic. You are falling for one of the classic traps of capitalism, in which workers are pitted against each other in an unnecessarily competitive environment. We'll tear each other down rather than banding together to benefit everyone at our level or in our fields.
In any case, those supposed policies and quotas have never helped me get a job. I'm technically in the same boat as all the other angry people here, but I know who the real enemy is.
...have nothing to do with H-1Bs. Naturally, certain people are never going to give Trump credit for anything (even something like this, which should have unanimous support on a site like Slashdot), but they know better than to take the other side on this particular issue, too. So why post at all?
You know, no one's forcing you to chime in on this. You don't actually have to post in every Trump-related thread. When he does something good you could simply not say anything and save your righteous indignation for one of his screw-ups. Maybe people won't get tired of your message as quick that way, and they'll actually feel like listening to you those other times. Just saying.
Web 2.0/social media has conditioned people into believing that they need to have their digital mouths open at all times. How else will people know you exist unless you're constantly saying SOMETHING? You wouldn't think that would apply to a site like this, but it sure does, at least since the last election. To borrow one of The Donald's favorite phrases... "Sad!"
Slashdot Mirror
I feel bad that people from India or China or wherever are getting caught in the crossfire, but if this is a headache for the tech companies that are exploiting them and keeping actual Americans jobless... good. I figure Amazon/Google/Facebook are way too powerful to actually allow the H1-B program to end, but maybe we can at least make it as difficult as possible for them. I know I shouldn't be satisfied with half-measures like that, but that's sadly the world we live in.
Good comparison.
Gamers have become such entitled little kids. I'm surprised to see that attitude pop up even here. There are plenty of times where game companies screw people over, but giving out games for free is definitely not one of them...
StarCraft II is great. I've bought all the campaigns and expansions and I don't regret it at all. It'll be great to get some new players on.
This is horrifying. How could you go home and sleep at night after working on something like this?
Growing extra organs in or on animals is already pretty grotesque, but at least that has obvious and practical applications. But this? This is some shit, man...
"Sorry, this wasn't actually my fault though, it was the Russians" sounds about as sincere as "I'm sorry that I got caught." Totally meaningless. What a joke of a company.
Good example, but from a modern perspective, that doesn't really apply to anything significant. Unless, of course, you're the kind of person who thinks gay marriage or gender-neutral bathrooms deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as voting rights or desegregation.
Consider the Holocaust; is that not the result of identity politics? Do these two events even each other out in your mind?
Which is likelier to happen now, an identity politics-driven movement that would lead to better job opportunities for the disadvantaged, or one that would result in genocide?
I was also struck by this phrase. The author was on to something, but implying that identity politics sometimes can sometimes be good is laughable.
So... did Mr. Villeneuve actually say this wasn't the movie he wanted to make? Am I going crazy or is the author of this rant putting words in Villeneuve's mouth to back up their own opinion about the movie? Their arguments don't even make sense.
I actually read something before where Villeneuve specifically said that there won't be a director's cut, final cut, or any other versions of this movie. We got the exact version he intended us to see, and at nearly 3 hours, that's not hard to believe. The author of this article thinks the movie should have been much shorter (which is obviously what the movie studios and theaters would prefer) while simultaneously suggesting that Villeneuve wasn't in complete creative control here. Again, am I going out of my mind here? What the hell? This should have been titled "'Blade Runner 2049' Isn't the Movie I Wanted Denis Villeneuve to Make".
I think the movie's great. For whatever reason, the author of this didn't agree. Fine. But they're taking what is clearly an opinion piece about them not liking the movie and disguising it as some kind of fact-based informative news article where they present some kind of insight into the director's thinking process. There are no hard facts in this story, just speculation. That is extremely misleading.
And yeah, I think the film is excellent and way better than we had any right to expect. To be brutally honest, given the complete dearth of creativity in Hollywood today, and given the kind of movies and properties that usually find success, and keeping in mind that just a few months ago the same studio released the fucking Emoji Movie... this is a much better film than we deserved. The only thing worth regretting here is that there won't be a third movie given how few tickets were sold (a combination of many factors including long runtime/fewer showings, vague advertising, R rating, older franchise, etc.). That's what we should be mourning here. This movie was great and deserves a followup as it's fairly open-ended and there are clearly more stories to be told about the emancipation movement or Niander Wallace, who didn't get nearly enough screentime. The clueless writer of this article doesn't even mention that in passing -- understandable if it was written last week before the box office returns came in, but it looks like it was published today. Talk about missing the point.
The fear of killer robots is the boogeyman employed by the tech giants at Amazon/Google/Facebook to distract us from the shit they're getting away with now. By the time AI has advanced to that point, those tech leaders will be one step away from literally running the world. Then we'll look up at them to save us...
Kek have mercy!
I fucking hate LA.
I haven't voted in 10 years and was recently taken off the register. I could probably live without texting, but the choice is clear.
Nobody made you sign up for Twitter.
I don't even know what point you're trying to make here. This guy was saying we need to be planning ahead and you're saying... not to? You're pretty sure that robots are NOT going to become more and more advanced. Why? Does your imagination work in reverse or something? The other day I was making fun of Elon Musk and his flights of fancy regarding AI, but you've got to be on the complete opposite end of the scale. I think it's also totally insane to stand there with your arms crossed and insist that everything will be fine, there won't be any kind of societal upheaval caused by a second industrial revolution, and the economy will just work itself out (like it always does, right?). Yeah guys, don't worry about it!
Putin may be a dangerous person, but his statement was totally benign. I imagine every world leader would also want to have their countries by tech pioneers. That's pretty much all he was saying. How do you go from that to WWIII? I hate seeing these kind of outrageous statements so casually thrown around by the rich and famous who obviously are not experts in foreign policy, history, war, etc. I think that's dangerous too, maybe moreso than any off-hand comment by Putin or Trump. Their opinions carry a lot of weight and people look up to them in the same kind of way. Read about Henry Ford's political views before the US entered WWII -- he believed he was arguing for peace, but he was really enabling the Nazis. Hitler said he looked up to him and gave him a medal after taking power. He was a leader in the business world and very influential. By the way, do you really think saying "WWIII" repeatedly is gonna make it less likely to happen, or more likely?
Yeah, all those nuclear-powered cars have really been a godsend.
I don't understand the nuclear shills either. What has nuclear power done for them? What has it done for humanity as a whole that outweighs Fukushima, Chernobyl, or Hanford? Don't even get me started on Iran. Are you really gonna tell me that the introduction of nuclear power has made the world a better place? I can only assume they have some kind of personal ties to some energy company that deals heavily in nuclear power, and I don't trust them.
I hope I'm not too old to enlist...
Why report something for the sake of reporting it? They aren't gonna help you...
Sounds pretty advertent to me.
The Hanford site is a disaster. That is not hyperbole.
This guy's just trying to exert control over something that's been out of his control for years. Nice try.
How is that going to work? I think what they meant to say was "the rich get richer." I'm not sure exactly what that means for the rest of us, but it probably won't be good. That "wipe out poverty" claim is also pretty dubious.
Boy, this comment section is ugly. All the affirmative action policies and these supposed "diversity quotas" that the white people here are railing against -- sorry, is that an generalization? Oh, I'm sure you're not looking at it from that perspective, you're just interested in fairness, right? Yeah, it would be great if everything was a meritocracy, but when was it ever that way? Are you living in a dream world? There are a million reasons why people get jobs that are unrelated to their actual abilities OR identity politics. You're way more likely to find a HR department rife with cronyism and nepotism than one who actually picks the best person for the job. If you want to rail against unfair hiring practices, START THERE. Taking out your nerd rage on some desperate minorities (who don't even stay at that position for long anyway, according to the article) is short-sighted and moronic. You are falling for one of the classic traps of capitalism, in which workers are pitted against each other in an unnecessarily competitive environment. We'll tear each other down rather than banding together to benefit everyone at our level or in our fields. In any case, those supposed policies and quotas have never helped me get a job. I'm technically in the same boat as all the other angry people here, but I know who the real enemy is.
...have nothing to do with H-1Bs. Naturally, certain people are never going to give Trump credit for anything (even something like this, which should have unanimous support on a site like Slashdot), but they know better than to take the other side on this particular issue, too. So why post at all? You know, no one's forcing you to chime in on this. You don't actually have to post in every Trump-related thread. When he does something good you could simply not say anything and save your righteous indignation for one of his screw-ups. Maybe people won't get tired of your message as quick that way, and they'll actually feel like listening to you those other times. Just saying. Web 2.0/social media has conditioned people into believing that they need to have their digital mouths open at all times. How else will people know you exist unless you're constantly saying SOMETHING? You wouldn't think that would apply to a site like this, but it sure does, at least since the last election. To borrow one of The Donald's favorite phrases... "Sad!"
Which flavor of Kool-Aid is your favorite?