Protecting their brand by not having web sites mix their search and ads with others is evil? That's a pretty low bar for evil. This wouldn't hurt competition or innovation- competitors were just as available, and any web site that puts up multiple search boxes would look ugly and amateurish - they wouldn't get much traffic anyway.
Where is 'over here'? From your username, are you talking about a moon of Jupiter?
> affirmative action in those professions in order to get more men to sign up Affirmative action is usually about giving selection (hiring, admission, etc.) preference to a certain group. Getting more people of a certain group to apply is something I can get behind. The fittest individual in the pool should be selected regardless of race, creed, gender, etc.
> It is too bad, you see reports of inequality with different groups as an attack on the white male. These reports blame men, claiming, like this article, that certain differences are proof of a patriarchy. These reports don't usually talk about male vs. female suicide rates, or imprisonment rates, or the lack of male nurses or teachers, or the lack of female bricklayers or coal miners, or about men falling behind in higher education. That's why these reports are an attack on men - they are not about creating a better society, they just complain that women are behind men in a few cherry picked areas, and they blame men for this.
I'm all for helping disadvantaged people, regardless of gender. Maybe that could be based on socioeconomic status?
> For some reason people find it difficult to see people who look differently them them as equals and be able to treat them as such. That's exactly what articles like this are doing - feminists wanting women to be treated preferentially. All people should be treated as individuals. Group identity should be immaterial.
Not common sense to me at all. The 'reviews' were the want-to-see score with comments. Here are the opinions before this internet site was cleansed with money:
The Rotten Tomatoes feature was a poll asking if you wanted to see the movie, with text explanations. So it was a test of public sentiment probably largely based on pre-release publicity, including trailers. The commenters did some first-hand knowledge of what they saw and were intending to do.
I read the comments while they were still up, and a lot of the negative ones focused on Brie Larson saying she didn't care what 40 year old white men thought about some movie. Not the brightest move to alienate a big portion of your audience, but luckily for the movie there's a lot of money to help cover up the controversy.
Aren't the rights to the moon's resources still up in the air? I haven't looked very closely at the space treaties out there, and who has agreed to what, but I thought the general idea was that no one could claim ownership of the moon. Looks like we need a war. USA! USA!
The relationship is much more symbiotic than parasitical; Google News pulled out of Spain at the end of 2014 for a similar link tax, and the publishers floundered: https://www.zdnet.com/article/...
[the] 'substitution effect' is very small in comparison to the 'market expansion effect' that aggregators cause.
> AI and big data have the potential to break that. There's still markers left over from the places you worked, how long, the types of apps you've worked on,etc. Couldn't anyone competent enough to do an interview figure that out, too? I'd think actual people going through resumes would be more prejudiced than an AI, and programming in a filter for age would be blatantly against the law.
Amazon actually had a similar problem. In their case, the "women's" keyword counted against candidates. I don't see this as an insurmountable issue; as AI improves, it should actually be able to filter for the better candidates, regardless of gender, age, race, etc., and it won't need to take shortcuts, like assuming everyone in a zip code isn't a good fit.
The employees use the schools, roads, and other tax-buying goods and services, and the employees pay taxes. Google, at least in the US, also pays employment tax for its employees. Why should jurisdictions where Google doesn't even have a presence take Google's money?
I'm proud of the work I do and what I create, and I'm proud of the US work ethic.
The people that built Google and made it great, so great that people in France who work 35 hours per week can't compete with it, deserve to reap the benefits.
Google's customers are the ad buyers, and costs are passed along to them. When costs rise, they buy fewer ads, and the business doesn't do as well, so the taxes are also paid by the owners. As an owner of Google stock, France is taxing me.
It's pretty simple. If the news sites don't want Google to index their content, they should specify that in their robots.txt files. If they want their content indexed by Google, they should allow that in their robots.txt files. It's easy:
User-agent: Google Disallow: /
These sites are getting free indexing from Google, and Google is directing traffic their way.
I'd argue that each individual site gets more value out of Google than the other way around, so if anything, Google should be charging the news sites.
I've been seeing comments like this a lot recently, but how exactly are they evil? They're still delivering lots of great products that millions use everyday for free (with advertising).
Maybe privacy violations? I've never felt violated, I freely use their services and expect them to collect info on me.
China? That's tricky - the government has issues, but can you really dismiss such a huge part of the world's population? Is providing more censored search tools for China making anyone worse off?
Working for the US government on image recognition? The jury in my head is out on this one.
The feminist complaints about hurt feelings? I do have a problem with this one, because Google is so willing to throw their hard-working male employees under the sjw bus.
With Google's contributions to technology and sustainability, I see them, on the whole, as a force for good in the world.
The left is taking pains to force others to be what they consider decent human beings. I don't agree with James Damore's rant, but getting someone fired for having a different point of view and making a reasoned argument in an appropriate forum is reprehensible. We don't know what Andy Rubin actually did (outside the office, in his own time, with someone who wasn't working for him, in a consensual relationship), but the left exploded when the NYT told them to. I believe in being a decent human being, which to me includes not proscribing the actions of others (unless they cause real and immediate harm).
I don't want the left's nanny state. I want to live and work with freedom of thought, expression, and action.
Libertarianism is about liberty, which is the complete opposite of the state creating laws to control individuals' behavior (that doesn't _directly_ harm others). That's why Google is creating these policies - because the state says they're responsible for sexual harassment by their employees. Here's a quote about this:
> Consider the sexual harassment which continually occurs between a secretary and a boss . . . while objectionable to many women, [it] is not a coercive action. It is rather part of a package deal in which the secretary agrees to all aspects of the job when she agrees to accept the job, and especially when she agrees to keep the job. The office is, after all, private property. The secretary does not have to remain if the ‘coercion’ is objectionable.
> they are big, sociopathic lumbering expressions of greed and brutality. I'd say this is true when any group of people gets above 10 or so, once there are enough people that you need a system to keep the group running, so people can just blame the system. Good luck trying to run a planet with 7 billion people without having these problems.
> young people these days don't seem to understand how mega corporations work. They do what's in their own best interest, to create money and power for their owners/executives/boards. If they lose business when they appear evil, it's in their best interest to not look evil. If their businesses do better with happy, productive employees, then they'll coddle the crap out of their employees.
> In one video, titled "Get Amazon Off of Corporate Welfare," he highlighted that CEO Jeff Bezos is the world's richest person and earns $260 million a day, while many of his workers are on food stamps.
Slashdot Mirror
Protecting their brand by not having web sites mix their search and ads with others is evil? That's a pretty low bar for evil. This wouldn't hurt competition or innovation- competitors were just as available, and any web site that puts up multiple search boxes would look ugly and amateurish - they wouldn't get much traffic anyway.
Because you bought into the identity politics. It's hard not to - it's pretty pervasive in our culture, and there's a lot of shaming for dissent.
Where is 'over here'? From your username, are you talking about a moon of Jupiter?
> affirmative action in those professions in order to get more men to sign up
Affirmative action is usually about giving selection (hiring, admission, etc.) preference to a certain group. Getting more people of a certain group to apply is something I can get behind. The fittest individual in the pool should be selected regardless of race, creed, gender, etc.
> It is too bad, you see reports of inequality with different groups as an attack on the white male.
These reports blame men, claiming, like this article, that certain differences are proof of a patriarchy. These reports don't usually talk about male vs. female suicide rates, or imprisonment rates, or the lack of male nurses or teachers, or the lack of female bricklayers or coal miners, or about men falling behind in higher education. That's why these reports are an attack on men - they are not about creating a better society, they just complain that women are behind men in a few cherry picked areas, and they blame men for this.
I'm all for helping disadvantaged people, regardless of gender. Maybe that could be based on socioeconomic status?
> For some reason people find it difficult to see people who look differently them them as equals and be able to treat them as such.
That's exactly what articles like this are doing - feminists wanting women to be treated preferentially. All people should be treated as individuals. Group identity should be immaterial.
Not common sense to me at all. The 'reviews' were the want-to-see score with comments. Here are the opinions before this internet site was cleansed with money:
https://web.archive.org/web/20...
The 'reviews' were the want-to-see score with comments. Here are the opinions before this internet site was cleansed with money:
https://web.archive.org/web/20...
The Rotten Tomatoes feature was a poll asking if you wanted to see the movie, with text explanations. So it was a test of public sentiment probably largely based on pre-release publicity, including trailers. The commenters did some first-hand knowledge of what they saw and were intending to do.
I read the comments while they were still up, and a lot of the negative ones focused on Brie Larson saying she didn't care what 40 year old white men thought about some movie. Not the brightest move to alienate a big portion of your audience, but luckily for the movie there's a lot of money to help cover up the controversy.
You can view the actual reasons.
There are a number of them giving Brie Larson's rant on the diversity of movie critics as their reason:
> I do not need a 40-year-old white dude to tell me what didn’t work for him about ‘A Wrinkle In Time.'
How are the paths you take through a tv show even personal information? What harm could possibly come to someone if this information was leaked?
Aren't the rights to the moon's resources still up in the air? I haven't looked very closely at the space treaties out there, and who has agreed to what, but I thought the general idea was that no one could claim ownership of the moon. Looks like we need a war. USA! USA!
The relationship is much more symbiotic than parasitical; Google News pulled out of Spain at the end of 2014 for a similar link tax, and the publishers floundered:
https://www.zdnet.com/article/...
[the] 'substitution effect' is very small in comparison to the 'market expansion effect' that aggregators cause.
> AI and big data have the potential to break that. There's still markers left over from the places you worked, how long, the types of apps you've worked on ,etc.
Couldn't anyone competent enough to do an interview figure that out, too? I'd think actual people going through resumes would be more prejudiced than an AI, and programming in a filter for age would be blatantly against the law.
Amazon actually had a similar problem. In their case, the "women's" keyword counted against candidates. I don't see this as an insurmountable issue; as AI improves, it should actually be able to filter for the better candidates, regardless of gender, age, race, etc., and it won't need to take shortcuts, like assuming everyone in a zip code isn't a good fit.
The employees use the schools, roads, and other tax-buying goods and services, and the employees pay taxes. Google, at least in the US, also pays employment tax for its employees. Why should jurisdictions where Google doesn't even have a presence take Google's money?
I'm proud of the work I do and what I create, and I'm proud of the US work ethic.
The people that built Google and made it great, so great that people in France who work 35 hours per week can't compete with it, deserve to reap the benefits.
Google's customers are the ad buyers, and costs are passed along to them. When costs rise, they buy fewer ads, and the business doesn't do as well, so the taxes are also paid by the owners. As an owner of Google stock, France is taxing me.
> they are doing something about it
Yes, they're working 35 hour weeks with 8 weeks of vacation; they're taxing the US instead of working.
Yes, how dare they pay people for work at a price those people accept. Or did I miss the part where this was forced labor?
It's pretty simple. If the news sites don't want Google to index their content, they should specify that in their robots.txt files. If they want their content indexed by Google, they should allow that in their robots.txt files. It's easy:
User-agent: Google
Disallow: /
These sites are getting free indexing from Google, and Google is directing traffic their way.
I'd argue that each individual site gets more value out of Google than the other way around, so if anything, Google should be charging the news sites.
That'd be great if Russia used a whistleblower defense here.
I'm surprised the DNC wants to keep airing their dirty laundry.
> Google has gotten far too evil ...
I've been seeing comments like this a lot recently, but how exactly are they evil? They're still delivering lots of great products that millions use everyday for free (with advertising).
Maybe privacy violations? I've never felt violated, I freely use their services and expect them to collect info on me.
China? That's tricky - the government has issues, but can you really dismiss such a huge part of the world's population? Is providing more censored search tools for China making anyone worse off?
Working for the US government on image recognition? The jury in my head is out on this one.
The feminist complaints about hurt feelings? I do have a problem with this one, because Google is so willing to throw their hard-working male employees under the sjw bus.
With Google's contributions to technology and sustainability, I see them, on the whole, as a force for good in the world.
The left is taking pains to force others to be what they consider decent human beings. I don't agree with James Damore's rant, but getting someone fired for having a different point of view and making a reasoned argument in an appropriate forum is reprehensible. We don't know what Andy Rubin actually did (outside the office, in his own time, with someone who wasn't working for him, in a consensual relationship), but the left exploded when the NYT told them to. I believe in being a decent human being, which to me includes not proscribing the actions of others (unless they cause real and immediate harm).
I don't want the left's nanny state. I want to live and work with freedom of thought, expression, and action.
> This makes me suspect we need a law...
Exactly, we need a nanny state to control our thoughts and actions. What could go wrong?
Libertarianism is about liberty, which is the complete opposite of the state creating laws to control individuals' behavior (that doesn't _directly_ harm others). That's why Google is creating these policies - because the state says they're responsible for sexual harassment by their employees. Here's a quote about this:
https://www.quora.com/What-is-...
> Consider the sexual harassment which continually occurs between a secretary and a boss . . . while objectionable to many women, [it] is not a coercive action. It is rather part of a package deal in which the secretary agrees to all aspects of the job when she agrees to accept the job, and especially when she agrees to keep the job. The office is, after all, private property. The secretary does not have to remain if the ‘coercion’ is objectionable.
> they are big, sociopathic lumbering expressions of greed and brutality.
I'd say this is true when any group of people gets above 10 or so, once there are enough people that you need a system to keep the group running, so people can just blame the system. Good luck trying to run a planet with 7 billion people without having these problems.
> young people these days don't seem to understand how mega corporations work.
They do what's in their own best interest, to create money and power for their owners/executives/boards. If they lose business when they appear evil, it's in their best interest to not look evil. If their businesses do better with happy, productive employees, then they'll coddle the crap out of their employees.
Bernie thinks Amazon is underpaying workers, and he's fighting for social justice - he's not doing this for Trump.
https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/...
> In one video, titled "Get Amazon Off of Corporate Welfare," he highlighted that CEO Jeff Bezos is the world's richest person and earns $260 million a day, while many of his workers are on food stamps.