I disagree that "language is fluid" because while it's kinda true in a very specific way, it really, really isn't true in most other considerations. Changes to language happen, but it doesn't mean they should be adopted into permanence. In fact, here are a bunch of words that have been invented or whose definitions are in flux because some people want to control others:
Mansplaining: Defined as the the condescending explanation of a concept from a man/male to a woman/female. This word was intentionally created to shame men from taking authoritative and informed positions when women are near regardless of the intent of the of the men. A term for this type of condescension already exists (patronizing), but it's traditionally used gender-neutrally and thus isn't easily weaponized.
Racism: Defined in the belief of racial inferiority/superiority between any combination of races, this word has been recently been permuted in popular subcultures to refer to any action that affect any person/situation where race is a characteristic regardless if race is a factor. As a result, people guilty of previously minor infringements of common ethic are frequently accused of heinous racism... and then turn around and see anti-racism movements as extremists thereby increasing their probably of adopting genuinely racist beliefs.
Milk: Milk is defined as mammalian lactation and the basis for supporting infant life. It's full of fats and nutrients. Soy and almond producers like to call their product derivations "milk" because it deceptively associates these non-animal products with similar nutrition and chemical function.
Fake News: Originally based exemplified by satirical news organizations like The Onion, "fake news" was used to described news reports that were intentionally created to temporarily deceive. Consider it akin to fake fruit on a table. The apple would look tasty until you took a closer look. It was never intended to actually be consumed as part of a diet. Today, the term "fake news" no longer means "satire", but instead alludes to media lies and political propaganda.
These are all fairly significant changes in vocabulary and those changes (fluid language) are still in flux. We don't know how permanent the changes are, but we do not have to accept the changes just because they have occurred (non-fluid language). The use of "milk" in a more scientific manner is one example of re-centering language for the sake of clarity.
Customer service. I've rarely had an issue with Sprint, but whenever I've sent in some feedback, they've given me a month of free service. When there has been an issue, they've found a solution AND checked up with the results. Example: I moved to a new area last year. Plenty of AT&T and Verizon coverage but very lacking in Sprint coverage in my home. I asked if they have plans to expand. They said they didn't, but were looking for people to test out a new program. This is the program: https://www.cnet.com/news/spri...
Totally free microcell (and travel battery to keep). Perfect reception for 30,000 sq ft.
Great points, but do not conflate inaction with trust. Americans are taught to be distrustful, but they also absorb defeatism socially (more on this later) and are taught apathy is socially admirable... even enlightened.
Currently, you can have the easiest life if you simply surrender to the idea that all these different organizations are going to acquire our data by some means. You won't have to mess with privacy settings, read EULAs, change what software you keep installed according to changes in TOCs or software interoperability, or pay attention to what changes are happening in the legislative realm. You just accept it and move on. A LOT of people want to live like this. Hell, *I* want to live like this, but I can't because I don't have the time/money/legal representation to correct major infringements upon the various aspects of my privacy. I have to prevent/avoid these issues because mitigation is expensive.
And then there's defeatism. Examples:
It doesn't matter how you vote, "they" are going to choose whoever they want. Same as it ever was. It is what it is. They don't care about you. If a thief REALLY wants to steal your bike/car/etc., there's nothing you can do about it. It's only getting worse.
So, as much as Americans harbor major distrust for powerful people/organizations, they'd rather not fight the power and they'll justify that languor with defeatism. It's why social media's ability to connect people doesn't actually create revolution or change any more than any other form of digital communication. All it does is give people the impression that lazily typing some posts (slacktivism) is enough to exhibit action to their peers, but when such actions are proven ineffective, they resort to defeatism.
So let's bring my theory altogether:
Small business makes product that people like. Americans use product. Small business becomes powerful corporation. Americans begin to distrust powerful corporation. Powerful corporation shown to misuse personal data. American slacktivists voice anger, but then something goes viral and the attention switches the majority of slackvisits' attention. When there is insufficient change to quell the still-stewing outrage, Americans blame a conspiracy of money/politics/illuminati and cease efforts. Americans do not actually stop using product because it makes their lives easy/comfortable/entertaining and there is no equivalent product to which they can switch. Powerful corporation continues business as usual.
Thus, my response to the article's topic is, "If you're concerned about Americans' distrust of your company, keep calm and move on." My statement to my fellow Americans is, "If you don't like something, taken real action. Facebook can't have your private information if you don't have a Facebook account. Protect yourself at the very least and then find a movement to regulate this shit. Then take some time out of your day to write some letters/emails to the people who can implement said regulations. If the movement fails... TRY AGAIN."
Parent Quote: "On the other hand we can be an incredibly brave and adventurous people too if properly motivated."
This is absolutely correct. That's because being resolute about one particular topic is very easy for a large group of people. People in American rally together pretty well when there is a single, named enemy. The support to topple Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan was high. The resolve to kick out Britain was strong. The support to eliminate Al-Qaeda in the aftermath of 9/11 was pretty strong. But when the target is nebulous (Terrorism, Communism, Extremism, etc.), Americans' BS detector goes off and we split our distrust between the named enemy and the politicians we're taught are stupid, incompetent, and biased toward corruption. When Americans are told that Facebook is using their data inappropriately, that conflicts with their experience of Facebook making them happy and lazy, so they don't take real action.
Americans are a fearful people. We're literally taught to be fearful from childhood. Who in America hasn't had these sentiments slammed into their faces at some point in life?
All politicians want to be tyrants. All neighbors are potential molesters. All automobile drivers are blind and malicious. Anyone will step on you to get ahead. We're constantly at risk of invasion, attack, or harm otherwise. Everybody wants what we want and they're willing to take it by force.
Of COURSE Americans distrust massive rich corporations that have a plausible desire to exploit them. We've been told to expect it. And in some scenarios (oddly enough like the Facebook and Microsoft ones), we shouldn't actually trust the companies. Given that it is one of our most important principals to be secure in our person and papers (aka - personal information) and these companies are in prime place to access that personal information, we have to continually ensure that the tentative trust of customer/vendor is sufficiently earned.
But never be surprised when Americans distrust a powerful person or organization. It's literally in our upbringing.
Don't be surprised. Don't be outraged. It's very simple. If you want ZERO tolerance for specific words and you want immediate action, then you're going to get false positives. Zero tolerance is implemented to prevent tragedies.
"No, you may not bring your loaded pistol on this plane." "You have murdered 300 people, you're going to prison for life. The State may just kill you."
But there are things that seem extreme to people with no rational worldly context. Words, of all things, do not need zero tolerance measures. If someone were to post/say/yell "Indian Savages" in any venue, no tragic circumstances would occur. Same with the N*word. No tragic circumstances would occur. At worst, some people get angry and/or offended. In those cases, simply responding to peoples' reports of a bad post is sufficient.
I would care, but I'm not so money-laden that I don't cover my phone in a case anyway. Get me slim, grippy orange case and I'll be happy... but I don't need my phone to be orange if I'm just going to cover it.
There's a lot of rage about this being a news post on Slashdot. I kinda understand because a color scheme isn't typically impressive, but when it's Microsoft or Apple responding to the assertion that their super-white motifs are blindingly bright and need to be toned down, I consider it significant.
When I saw the image, I was at least moderately excited. I prefer a dark background instead of a flashlight being shoved in my face. I only wish I could do the same with the entire MS Office suite.
Kinda, but not "just like" the stock market. While the market is obviously flawed, it's not completely based on asserted and unrecognized value of an product's hypothetical potential to do something important in the future. That's cryptocurrency. People invested in cryptocurrency because other people invested in cryptocurrency. Very few believe it's the immediate future of financial transactions, but they know the value's going up and they're not going to miss out!
On the other hand, the majority of the stocks traded are of appropriate value to each other. And while irrationally high investment into the stock market in general can irrationally inflate all stocks ("a rising tide raises all ships"), there are some genuinely over-valued stocks that are more akin to cryptocurrency. Tesla and Uber, for example, have massive values (noting that Uber's not publicly traded) for having never turned a profit. People (investors, venture capitalists), however keep pumping in money because others are pumping in money and there is hope/expectation that they will both become dominantly profitable Soon(tm).
So, if you have companies that have shown consistent profits at 20% above what they "should" be and the market as a whole drops because of sudden loss of confidence (general bubble burst, major political event), those companies will maintain similar relative values to others (... the tide goes out). Over-valued stocks and things with no rational value (cryptocurrencies) will drop much more than the rest of the market because their investor make-up is significantly more saturated with short-term and opportunist investors who are much more likely to sell off at the drop of a hat.
I watch stuff on Netflix. A lot. It's easily my biggest bandwidth hog. But my problem is that I don't watch that many new things simply because it's only gotten more and more difficult to find things I know I want to watch. That doesn't mean there's less content that I would likely enjoy. I mean that compared to when Netflix started its streaming service, it's only gotten consistently more difficult to search for films and series based on my self-determined tastes.
You used to be able to search by language, sub/dub, year made, genre, sub-genre, star-rating, and a few other things. If nothing came up, then you'd adjust your parameters.
Today, you can search by... title? You can still search by genre, but they made it more difficult than it used to be (or needs to be).
It's as if maybe... just maybe... they would rather market or steer you toward specific products... products they may have made certain guarantees that X number of people would watch and thus Y amount of guaranteed revenue could be paid to license-holders.
These electric scooters are regulated under California Vehicle Code 21220 - 21235. Like bicycle riders in the stats of California, every person operating a motorized scooter upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle, except those provisions which, by their very nature, can have no application. Motorized scooters are also allowed in all bicycle infrastructure unless forbidden by local authorities.
In California, motorized scooters are NOT allowed on sidewalks. This makes sense because they have a maximum legal speed of 25mph. Their riders are also required to wear helmets and to be licensed to drive an automobile.
Pocket bikes, segways, etc. are all devices defined and governed separately from bicycles and motorized scooters.
You could turn it around on them. Start broadcasting genuinely factual tidbits with meme-worthy inspirational backgrounds.
[Insert hazy sunrise] "The vast majority of stock investors are equally likely to lose money on an investment as they are to make money. On the other hand, investing in 'index funds' is like investing in the general growth of a market sector and is significantly more predictable in its success."
[Insert cat hanging from branch] "Gravity is technically still a 'theory' because while we can predict gravity's effect on objects, we can't explain exactly why it happens. It could be the exchange of a tiny particle (a "graviton"), it could be because of the way things "vibrate". We just don't know for sure yet."
[Insert beautiful feast] "All the best studies have shown that fad diets don't do much for the long-term fitness of the vast majority of people who try them. While they may see significant body changes in the short run, they typically require too much change from one's comfort level to keep one's progress for more than 6 months. What's the best way to drop pounds and feel better? Reduce your sweets intake, cook your own food, and move around more."
In my opinion, the issue became palpable in the 1990s with the beginning of the consumer internet age, the massive expansion of telecommunications powers, and the beginnings of the anti-public education campaign. The truth is that the vast majority of people in American have no clue how these businesses work or how their tech works. And they're OK with it because they like what their tech gives them AND they actually like complaining about it. Everyone wants an easy life of luxurious rebellion.
"Yes, I want to be able to say three words to my handheld device and for that device to tell me exactly how to get home... but I HATE that this corporation knows where I live! They have too much power!"
Thus, I can't be surprised when told that people love their Facebook and Twitter with one tongue and speak conspiracy with another. We keep teaching people be exactly like this.
Instagram is how young people communicate, Facebook is how us older people communicate. Killing Instagram today, could mean today's kids when they get into the market and want to communicate with business contacts will probably be split up across many competing services.
Let's not over-inflate Instagram or Facebook as general "communication". It's how people chat about less-important things. Yes, some conversations have significant value, but neither platform is built to facilitate thoughtful conversation and thus it doesn't happen to the extent people like to think it does.
If Facebook and Instagram were to die, people would find another place to chat. Communication would continue on, unabated, via email, phone, forums, in-person conversation, and the like.
17 automated form emails over nine days does not amount to merciless harassment. It's not even an annoyance or inconvenience if you just mark it as SPAM.
Gmail is good. Ugly, but good. I personally use automatic Primary/Social/Promotions/Update/Forums tags as well as the SPAM filter, but that's about it. They work 99.9% of the time for me and that's plenty good enough. I read Primary first, then off to Update, Forums, Promotions, and then Social. I delete almost all my file/tag my Update emails (digital receipts, etc.), I read Forum updates, delete currently irrelevant Promotions and skim the ones relevant to me right now, and skim Social. For me, it's convenient.
But that's all I want. I don't like anyone messing with this order because what efficient for me is routine. Had I started out with more "smart" features, I may have been able to get used to it, but this is communication. Mass communication with the need to process multiple discussions in very short amount of time. Don't try to figure out how my brain works. I've spent over 30 years figuring it out and I've got it dialed in right where it's useful.
Also, "Smart replies" read as "quips" and obviously canned. Reminding me that I received an email 2 days ago? I don't need to be reminded that there aren't enough hours in the day to complete all correspondence. Sorting the read-order of my emails by purported levels of importance? Sounds like an opportunity to game the algorithm and artificially elevate one's emails.
Housing speculation has absolutely screwed up the cost of living for any job center and thus a company's profitability standards are at odds with being able to pay people enough to work their jobs. As a result, people need to commute farther than in the past, those transportation systems get over-burdened, and then we all pay higher taxes for freeway widening which never actually improves one's commute. It just allows more people to have the same slow commute.
It all still comes down to property policy. Investors went NUTS banking on the profitability of housing from the 1990s through 2007. They made a lot of money so when the smoke cleared and homes started bottoming out, they invested again. And it's not just corporate investors, it's private investors who probably don't even consider themselves "investors". The trend of "buy, appreciate, move, and then rent-out" is now a private home finance staple. In fact, there are so many companies out there now to HELP you become a land lord, it seems like you'd be crazy not to do it. "I got mine."
And we're in another housing bubble. A colleague of mine recently retired and is downsizing from his 3b/2ba home to a 2b/2ba condo. He and his wife just sold for $70,000 over asking... all in cash.
It's not a wage problem, it's a housing speculation problem. If we want to solve the problem, the main problem areas the states where this is a bigger issue NEED to make big change... likely by increasing property taxes on non-owner-occupied single family homes. Then the cost of housing will drop and THEN you'll see demand for a more rational minimum wage increase... because right now the $15 minimum wage doesn't prop anyone up but landlords.
You have to remember that it has always been a political tactic of those seeking to gain power to convince people that things are worse than ever and they're only getting worse. With modern communication giving a platform to all dissenters, one would tend to assume that such a mass of people saying the same thing over and over would be correct.
Yes, the gap between the rich and not-rich is widening and has been widening for the last 40 years, but the poorest are still living better than the poorest did 40 years ago. On the whole, the quality of life for the vast majority of people in American has gone way up, but a some people are doing even better.
Where I think the activists don't really really fail is describing the effective class contract between the mega-rich and the less-well-off.
"We work unpreferable jobs with little job satisfaction so you can get rich. All we ask for in return is a livable wage so that we do not go hungry, we can afford safe housing, and so that our towns can afford good infrastructure and schools."
Were they able to consistently describe such a contract, they would then be able to say, "Since the 1970s, the rich have strayed from this agreement. It is time they return."
I both appreciate and hate these types of laws. I work in an industry where it's my job to help the State of California attain the goals set forth by 2006 California Assembly Bill 32 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Solutions_Act_of_2006). The crux of the bill is that the State (in the form of its own agencies and in the form of all businesses/organizations with 500+ employees) has to go back to 1990 levels of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Note that it's not "per capita"... it's raw emissions.
In 1990, California had 29.81 million residents. In 2017, it had 39.54 million. In other words, we have to have made enough efficiencies by 2020 so that 39.54 million emit no more GHG than 29.81 million.
Oddly enough, it's the fringe groups that typically prevent the grey-area creep of the trendy over-restriction of rights.
Examples: The KKK and American Nazis help to preserve the freedom of speech - From the ACLU Website: "The ACLU is frequently asked to explain its defense of certain people or groups—particularly controversial and unpopular entities such as the American Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, and the Nation of Islam. We do not defend them because we agree with them; rather, we defend their right to free expression and free assembly." By protecting these fringe groups' right to free speech, we ensure that less controversial speech doesn't become labeled as "fringe" with the simple change of political control.
The NRA's Zealotry ensures you continue to retain the right to own a pump shotgun. Ya, I despise who absolutely callous they seem and I don't think we should be allowed to own anything more than bolt/lever/pump action long guns and handguns with more than 6- or 7-round capacity, but I do recognize that group of absolute nutballs do serve a purpose.
Genuine American socialists seem to have no clue about economics let alone how to market their philosophy to anyone, but their part in the origin of workers' unions make modern life livable even for those who aren't part of a union./examples
So, I'm not surprised in the slightest that a major player in the adult industry (STILL a taboo industry in the public due to old ideas of sexual shame) is taking steps to preserve the rights of people to get their self-love on with the assistance of remotely viewable consenting adults.
That Ford line is semi-correct. Ford will not invest in next generations of traditional Ford sedans for North America. Over the next few years, the Ford car portfolio the Mustang and the all-new Focus Active crossover. They still expect to move similar volumes of non-truck vehicles, but they think they can convince everyone to buy one of various trims from two different platforms.
While the parent post you quoted takes the idea a bit far, I'll answer your question ("why does the government need to step in to stop stupid investors from being separated from their money?"):
Because people in need have been taught that those who are certified to know more than them can be trusted to make good decisions. If someone is told that the guy handling your retirement portfolio/pension actually knows what he's doing and is making decisions best for you (a fiduciary), then that person sure as hell should not be allowed to legally separate "stupid investors from being separated from their money". Because they wouldn't be "stupid". They'd be rationally trusting. One should be able to trust one's official financial representative.
People don't know the exact number of federal laws not because there are so many that they can't be counted, but because of the way American laws are written. They're not all (a) "It is violation of the vehicle code to exceed posted speed limits." Many of them are (b) "It is a violation of the vehicle code to exceed posted speed limits, pass unsafely, and drive blind-folded except under the follow 18 circumstances."
Does (b) count as one law or many?
Additionally there is a massive amount of law that is specific to standards ("All automobile headlights must illuminate the road at least X feet ahead of the driver...") or give permissions for a single action to occur ("For the fiscal year 2018-2019, webservers will not be eligible for depreciation.").
It's all very complex simply because life is complex and people would prefer to make it easier for themselves by screwing people over. So, in lieu of having massively atrocious fear campaigns of bloody punishment, every harmful action is made illegal and then comes with its own designated punishment.
Slashdot Mirror
I disagree that "language is fluid" because while it's kinda true in a very specific way, it really, really isn't true in most other considerations. Changes to language happen, but it doesn't mean they should be adopted into permanence. In fact, here are a bunch of words that have been invented or whose definitions are in flux because some people want to control others:
Mansplaining: Defined as the the condescending explanation of a concept from a man/male to a woman/female. This word was intentionally created to shame men from taking authoritative and informed positions when women are near regardless of the intent of the of the men. A term for this type of condescension already exists (patronizing), but it's traditionally used gender-neutrally and thus isn't easily weaponized.
Racism: Defined in the belief of racial inferiority/superiority between any combination of races, this word has been recently been permuted in popular subcultures to refer to any action that affect any person/situation where race is a characteristic regardless if race is a factor. As a result, people guilty of previously minor infringements of common ethic are frequently accused of heinous racism... and then turn around and see anti-racism movements as extremists thereby increasing their probably of adopting genuinely racist beliefs.
Milk: Milk is defined as mammalian lactation and the basis for supporting infant life. It's full of fats and nutrients. Soy and almond producers like to call their product derivations "milk" because it deceptively associates these non-animal products with similar nutrition and chemical function.
Fake News: Originally based exemplified by satirical news organizations like The Onion, "fake news" was used to described news reports that were intentionally created to temporarily deceive. Consider it akin to fake fruit on a table. The apple would look tasty until you took a closer look. It was never intended to actually be consumed as part of a diet. Today, the term "fake news" no longer means "satire", but instead alludes to media lies and political propaganda.
These are all fairly significant changes in vocabulary and those changes (fluid language) are still in flux. We don't know how permanent the changes are, but we do not have to accept the changes just because they have occurred (non-fluid language). The use of "milk" in a more scientific manner is one example of re-centering language for the sake of clarity.
Customer service. I've rarely had an issue with Sprint, but whenever I've sent in some feedback, they've given me a month of free service. When there has been an issue, they've found a solution AND checked up with the results. Example: I moved to a new area last year. Plenty of AT&T and Verizon coverage but very lacking in Sprint coverage in my home. I asked if they have plans to expand. They said they didn't, but were looking for people to test out a new program. This is the program: https://www.cnet.com/news/spri...
Totally free microcell (and travel battery to keep). Perfect reception for 30,000 sq ft.
Great points, but do not conflate inaction with trust. Americans are taught to be distrustful, but they also absorb defeatism socially (more on this later) and are taught apathy is socially admirable... even enlightened.
Currently, you can have the easiest life if you simply surrender to the idea that all these different organizations are going to acquire our data by some means. You won't have to mess with privacy settings, read EULAs, change what software you keep installed according to changes in TOCs or software interoperability, or pay attention to what changes are happening in the legislative realm. You just accept it and move on. A LOT of people want to live like this. Hell, *I* want to live like this, but I can't because I don't have the time/money/legal representation to correct major infringements upon the various aspects of my privacy. I have to prevent/avoid these issues because mitigation is expensive.
And then there's defeatism. Examples:
It doesn't matter how you vote, "they" are going to choose whoever they want.
Same as it ever was.
It is what it is.
They don't care about you.
If a thief REALLY wants to steal your bike/car/etc., there's nothing you can do about it.
It's only getting worse.
So, as much as Americans harbor major distrust for powerful people/organizations, they'd rather not fight the power and they'll justify that languor with defeatism. It's why social media's ability to connect people doesn't actually create revolution or change any more than any other form of digital communication. All it does is give people the impression that lazily typing some posts (slacktivism) is enough to exhibit action to their peers, but when such actions are proven ineffective, they resort to defeatism.
So let's bring my theory altogether:
Small business makes product that people like.
Americans use product.
Small business becomes powerful corporation.
Americans begin to distrust powerful corporation.
Powerful corporation shown to misuse personal data.
American slacktivists voice anger, but then something goes viral and the attention switches the majority of slackvisits' attention.
When there is insufficient change to quell the still-stewing outrage, Americans blame a conspiracy of money/politics/illuminati and cease efforts.
Americans do not actually stop using product because it makes their lives easy/comfortable/entertaining and there is no equivalent product to which they can switch.
Powerful corporation continues business as usual.
Thus, my response to the article's topic is, "If you're concerned about Americans' distrust of your company, keep calm and move on." My statement to my fellow Americans is, "If you don't like something, taken real action. Facebook can't have your private information if you don't have a Facebook account. Protect yourself at the very least and then find a movement to regulate this shit. Then take some time out of your day to write some letters/emails to the people who can implement said regulations. If the movement fails... TRY AGAIN."
Parent Quote: "On the other hand we can be an incredibly brave and adventurous people too if properly motivated."
This is absolutely correct. That's because being resolute about one particular topic is very easy for a large group of people. People in American rally together pretty well when there is a single, named enemy. The support to topple Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan was high. The resolve to kick out Britain was strong. The support to eliminate Al-Qaeda in the aftermath of 9/11 was pretty strong. But when the target is nebulous (Terrorism, Communism, Extremism, etc.), Americans' BS detector goes off and we split our distrust between the named enemy and the politicians we're taught are stupid, incompetent, and biased toward corruption. When Americans are told that Facebook is using their data inappropriately, that conflicts with their experience of Facebook making them happy and lazy, so they don't take real action.
In short, if you can approp
Americans are a fearful people. We're literally taught to be fearful from childhood. Who in America hasn't had these sentiments slammed into their faces at some point in life?
All politicians want to be tyrants.
All neighbors are potential molesters.
All automobile drivers are blind and malicious.
Anyone will step on you to get ahead.
We're constantly at risk of invasion, attack, or harm otherwise.
Everybody wants what we want and they're willing to take it by force.
Of COURSE Americans distrust massive rich corporations that have a plausible desire to exploit them. We've been told to expect it. And in some scenarios (oddly enough like the Facebook and Microsoft ones), we shouldn't actually trust the companies. Given that it is one of our most important principals to be secure in our person and papers (aka - personal information) and these companies are in prime place to access that personal information, we have to continually ensure that the tentative trust of customer/vendor is sufficiently earned.
But never be surprised when Americans distrust a powerful person or organization. It's literally in our upbringing.
Don't be surprised. Don't be outraged. It's very simple. If you want ZERO tolerance for specific words and you want immediate action, then you're going to get false positives. Zero tolerance is implemented to prevent tragedies.
"No, you may not bring your loaded pistol on this plane."
"You have murdered 300 people, you're going to prison for life. The State may just kill you."
But there are things that seem extreme to people with no rational worldly context. Words, of all things, do not need zero tolerance measures. If someone were to post/say/yell "Indian Savages" in any venue, no tragic circumstances would occur. Same with the N*word. No tragic circumstances would occur. At worst, some people get angry and/or offended. In those cases, simply responding to peoples' reports of a bad post is sufficient.
I would care, but I'm not so money-laden that I don't cover my phone in a case anyway. Get me slim, grippy orange case and I'll be happy... but I don't need my phone to be orange if I'm just going to cover it.
There's a lot of rage about this being a news post on Slashdot. I kinda understand because a color scheme isn't typically impressive, but when it's Microsoft or Apple responding to the assertion that their super-white motifs are blindingly bright and need to be toned down, I consider it significant.
When I saw the image, I was at least moderately excited. I prefer a dark background instead of a flashlight being shoved in my face. I only wish I could do the same with the entire MS Office suite.
Kinda, but not "just like" the stock market. While the market is obviously flawed, it's not completely based on asserted and unrecognized value of an product's hypothetical potential to do something important in the future. That's cryptocurrency. People invested in cryptocurrency because other people invested in cryptocurrency. Very few believe it's the immediate future of financial transactions, but they know the value's going up and they're not going to miss out!
On the other hand, the majority of the stocks traded are of appropriate value to each other. And while irrationally high investment into the stock market in general can irrationally inflate all stocks ("a rising tide raises all ships"), there are some genuinely over-valued stocks that are more akin to cryptocurrency. Tesla and Uber, for example, have massive values (noting that Uber's not publicly traded) for having never turned a profit. People (investors, venture capitalists), however keep pumping in money because others are pumping in money and there is hope/expectation that they will both become dominantly profitable Soon(tm).
So, if you have companies that have shown consistent profits at 20% above what they "should" be and the market as a whole drops because of sudden loss of confidence (general bubble burst, major political event), those companies will maintain similar relative values to others (... the tide goes out). Over-valued stocks and things with no rational value (cryptocurrencies) will drop much more than the rest of the market because their investor make-up is significantly more saturated with short-term and opportunist investors who are much more likely to sell off at the drop of a hat.
https://pcpartpicker.com/trend...
That's what I'm watching to track prices. It doesn't look like anything has gone down to pre-July 2017 prices. It's better now, but not appropriate.
I watch stuff on Netflix. A lot. It's easily my biggest bandwidth hog. But my problem is that I don't watch that many new things simply because it's only gotten more and more difficult to find things I know I want to watch. That doesn't mean there's less content that I would likely enjoy. I mean that compared to when Netflix started its streaming service, it's only gotten consistently more difficult to search for films and series based on my self-determined tastes.
You used to be able to search by language, sub/dub, year made, genre, sub-genre, star-rating, and a few other things. If nothing came up, then you'd adjust your parameters.
Today, you can search by... title? You can still search by genre, but they made it more difficult than it used to be (or needs to be).
It's as if maybe... just maybe... they would rather market or steer you toward specific products... products they may have made certain guarantees that X number of people would watch and thus Y amount of guaranteed revenue could be paid to license-holders.
These electric scooters are regulated under California Vehicle Code 21220 - 21235. Like bicycle riders in the stats of California, every person operating a motorized scooter upon a highway has all the rights and is subject to all the provisions applicable to the driver of a vehicle, except those provisions which, by their very nature, can have no application. Motorized scooters are also allowed in all bicycle infrastructure unless forbidden by local authorities.
In California, motorized scooters are NOT allowed on sidewalks. This makes sense because they have a maximum legal speed of 25mph. Their riders are also required to wear helmets and to be licensed to drive an automobile.
Pocket bikes, segways, etc. are all devices defined and governed separately from bicycles and motorized scooters.
... Are you a nerd God wizard?
You could turn it around on them. Start broadcasting genuinely factual tidbits with meme-worthy inspirational backgrounds.
[Insert hazy sunrise]
"The vast majority of stock investors are equally likely to lose money on an investment as they are to make money. On the other hand, investing in 'index funds' is like investing in the general growth of a market sector and is significantly more predictable in its success."
[Insert cat hanging from branch]
"Gravity is technically still a 'theory' because while we can predict gravity's effect on objects, we can't explain exactly why it happens. It could be the exchange of a tiny particle (a "graviton"), it could be because of the way things "vibrate". We just don't know for sure yet."
[Insert beautiful feast]
"All the best studies have shown that fad diets don't do much for the long-term fitness of the vast majority of people who try them. While they may see significant body changes in the short run, they typically require too much change from one's comfort level to keep one's progress for more than 6 months. What's the best way to drop pounds and feel better? Reduce your sweets intake, cook your own food, and move around more."
In my opinion, the issue became palpable in the 1990s with the beginning of the consumer internet age, the massive expansion of telecommunications powers, and the beginnings of the anti-public education campaign. The truth is that the vast majority of people in American have no clue how these businesses work or how their tech works. And they're OK with it because they like what their tech gives them AND they actually like complaining about it. Everyone wants an easy life of luxurious rebellion.
"Yes, I want to be able to say three words to my handheld device and for that device to tell me exactly how to get home... but I HATE that this corporation knows where I live! They have too much power!"
Thus, I can't be surprised when told that people love their Facebook and Twitter with one tongue and speak conspiracy with another. We keep teaching people be exactly like this.
Instagram is how young people communicate, Facebook is how us older people communicate. Killing Instagram today, could mean today's kids when they get into the market and want to communicate with business contacts will probably be split up across many competing services.
Let's not over-inflate Instagram or Facebook as general "communication". It's how people chat about less-important things. Yes, some conversations have significant value, but neither platform is built to facilitate thoughtful conversation and thus it doesn't happen to the extent people like to think it does.
If Facebook and Instagram were to die, people would find another place to chat. Communication would continue on, unabated, via email, phone, forums, in-person conversation, and the like.
17 automated form emails over nine days does not amount to merciless harassment. It's not even an annoyance or inconvenience if you just mark it as SPAM.
This is a non-issue jumping on a bandwagon.
Gmail is good. Ugly, but good. I personally use automatic Primary/Social/Promotions/Update/Forums tags as well as the SPAM filter, but that's about it. They work 99.9% of the time for me and that's plenty good enough. I read Primary first, then off to Update, Forums, Promotions, and then Social. I delete almost all my file/tag my Update emails (digital receipts, etc.), I read Forum updates, delete currently irrelevant Promotions and skim the ones relevant to me right now, and skim Social. For me, it's convenient.
But that's all I want. I don't like anyone messing with this order because what efficient for me is routine. Had I started out with more "smart" features, I may have been able to get used to it, but this is communication. Mass communication with the need to process multiple discussions in very short amount of time. Don't try to figure out how my brain works. I've spent over 30 years figuring it out and I've got it dialed in right where it's useful.
Also, "Smart replies" read as "quips" and obviously canned. Reminding me that I received an email 2 days ago? I don't need to be reminded that there aren't enough hours in the day to complete all correspondence. Sorting the read-order of my emails by purported levels of importance? Sounds like an opportunity to game the algorithm and artificially elevate one's emails.
Housing speculation has absolutely screwed up the cost of living for any job center and thus a company's profitability standards are at odds with being able to pay people enough to work their jobs. As a result, people need to commute farther than in the past, those transportation systems get over-burdened, and then we all pay higher taxes for freeway widening which never actually improves one's commute. It just allows more people to have the same slow commute.
It all still comes down to property policy. Investors went NUTS banking on the profitability of housing from the 1990s through 2007. They made a lot of money so when the smoke cleared and homes started bottoming out, they invested again. And it's not just corporate investors, it's private investors who probably don't even consider themselves "investors". The trend of "buy, appreciate, move, and then rent-out" is now a private home finance staple. In fact, there are so many companies out there now to HELP you become a land lord, it seems like you'd be crazy not to do it. "I got mine."
And we're in another housing bubble. A colleague of mine recently retired and is downsizing from his 3b/2ba home to a 2b/2ba condo. He and his wife just sold for $70,000 over asking... all in cash.
It's not a wage problem, it's a housing speculation problem. If we want to solve the problem, the main problem areas the states where this is a bigger issue NEED to make big change... likely by increasing property taxes on non-owner-occupied single family homes. Then the cost of housing will drop and THEN you'll see demand for a more rational minimum wage increase... because right now the $15 minimum wage doesn't prop anyone up but landlords.
You have to remember that it has always been a political tactic of those seeking to gain power to convince people that things are worse than ever and they're only getting worse. With modern communication giving a platform to all dissenters, one would tend to assume that such a mass of people saying the same thing over and over would be correct.
Yes, the gap between the rich and not-rich is widening and has been widening for the last 40 years, but the poorest are still living better than the poorest did 40 years ago. On the whole, the quality of life for the vast majority of people in American has gone way up, but a some people are doing even better.
Where I think the activists don't really really fail is describing the effective class contract between the mega-rich and the less-well-off.
"We work unpreferable jobs with little job satisfaction so you can get rich. All we ask for in return is a livable wage so that we do not go hungry, we can afford safe housing, and so that our towns can afford good infrastructure and schools."
Were they able to consistently describe such a contract, they would then be able to say, "Since the 1970s, the rich have strayed from this agreement. It is time they return."
I both appreciate and hate these types of laws. I work in an industry where it's my job to help the State of California attain the goals set forth by 2006 California Assembly Bill 32 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Solutions_Act_of_2006). The crux of the bill is that the State (in the form of its own agencies and in the form of all businesses/organizations with 500+ employees) has to go back to 1990 levels of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Note that it's not "per capita"... it's raw emissions.
In 1990, California had 29.81 million residents. In 2017, it had 39.54 million. In other words, we have to have made enough efficiencies by 2020 so that 39.54 million emit no more GHG than 29.81 million.
I know nothing about this stuff. Is it not actually a box, but a bottle? Is it the box that a fake TV comes in? Why would someone buy either of those?
Is it a device that allows you to watch "fake TV broadcasting"? What's so fake about it? Is it just a gif of channels being switched?
Oddly enough, it's the fringe groups that typically prevent the grey-area creep of the trendy over-restriction of rights.
Examples:
The KKK and American Nazis help to preserve the freedom of speech - From the ACLU Website: "The ACLU is frequently asked to explain its defense of certain people or groups—particularly controversial and unpopular entities such as the American Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, and the Nation of Islam. We do not defend them because we agree with them; rather, we defend their right to free expression and free assembly." By protecting these fringe groups' right to free speech, we ensure that less controversial speech doesn't become labeled as "fringe" with the simple change of political control.
The NRA's Zealotry ensures you continue to retain the right to own a pump shotgun. Ya, I despise who absolutely callous they seem and I don't think we should be allowed to own anything more than bolt/lever/pump action long guns and handguns with more than 6- or 7-round capacity, but I do recognize that group of absolute nutballs do serve a purpose.
Genuine American socialists seem to have no clue about economics let alone how to market their philosophy to anyone, but their part in the origin of workers' unions make modern life livable even for those who aren't part of a union. /examples
So, I'm not surprised in the slightest that a major player in the adult industry (STILL a taboo industry in the public due to old ideas of sexual shame) is taking steps to preserve the rights of people to get their self-love on with the assistance of remotely viewable consenting adults.
That Ford line is semi-correct. Ford will not invest in next generations of traditional Ford sedans for North America. Over the next few years, the Ford car portfolio the Mustang and the all-new Focus Active crossover. They still expect to move similar volumes of non-truck vehicles, but they think they can convince everyone to buy one of various trims from two different platforms.
While the parent post you quoted takes the idea a bit far, I'll answer your question ("why does the government need to step in to stop stupid investors from being separated from their money?"):
Because people in need have been taught that those who are certified to know more than them can be trusted to make good decisions. If someone is told that the guy handling your retirement portfolio/pension actually knows what he's doing and is making decisions best for you (a fiduciary), then that person sure as hell should not be allowed to legally separate "stupid investors from being separated from their money". Because they wouldn't be "stupid". They'd be rationally trusting. One should be able to trust one's official financial representative.
People don't know the exact number of federal laws not because there are so many that they can't be counted, but because of the way American laws are written. They're not all (a) "It is violation of the vehicle code to exceed posted speed limits." Many of them are (b) "It is a violation of the vehicle code to exceed posted speed limits, pass unsafely, and drive blind-folded except under the follow 18 circumstances."
Does (b) count as one law or many?
Additionally there is a massive amount of law that is specific to standards ("All automobile headlights must illuminate the road at least X feet ahead of the driver...") or give permissions for a single action to occur ("For the fiscal year 2018-2019, webservers will not be eligible for depreciation.").
It's all very complex simply because life is complex and people would prefer to make it easier for themselves by screwing people over. So, in lieu of having massively atrocious fear campaigns of bloody punishment, every harmful action is made illegal and then comes with its own designated punishment.