I suspect you were so focused on your too-clever jab (pro tip: Milwaukee local channel Fox6 != Fox News) that you skimmed over the very first line of your article:
This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.
If Keeper wins this, they'll win because of misstatements/overstatements in Goodin's initial article that he significantly walked back multiple times, as laid out in Keeper's complaint. The research prompting Goodin's and other similar articles was not the issue.
Read the article. The "industry" wanted this to be a Net Neutrality issue so that the lawsuit would be preempted by the FCC's rollback of same. I'm not sure you really thought that one through.
Their strategy was to neglect network upgrades so that they could hold the feet of content providers over the flames until they gave in and paid. This did result in the literal "Spectrum-TWC promised reliable access to online content that it knew it could not deliver to subscribers." However, it is also clearly a net neutrality issue as well.
I have to say this is the first time I've heard someone seriously suggest that Net Neutrality forces an ISP to pay for enough external bandwidth to guarantee that all subscribers can simultaneously saturate their pipes with external content. I'm not sure you really thought that one through either.
As explained in the complaint, there are two primary allegations:
1. That "Spectrum-TWC promised Internet speeds that it knew it could not deliver to subscribers." 2. That "Spectrum-TWC promised reliable access to online content that it knew it could not deliver to subscribers."
The specific legal theories are fraudulent misrepresentation, deceptive business practices, and false advertising.
It's completely unsurprising that the judge would conclude Net Neutrality or the lack thereof has no bearing on this case.
No, go read the actual indictment. It's very clear that the charges indicate help for Donald Trump only.
You might try actually reading it yourself. Paragraph 43, part of Count One of the indictment, very clearly says they also supported Bernie:
They engaged in operations primarily intended to communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, to denigrate other candidates such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald Trump. * * * Specialists were instructed to post content that focused on “politics in the USA” and to “use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump—we support them).”
Since you can make good use of the display areas left and right of the notch you get more usable display area this way compared to leaving empty a strip on the top or bottom of the front just to put the camera there.
What's so hard to understand about this?
It's not an issue of understanding. A lot of people (myself included) simply think a notched screen looks stupid.
You know what's missing from that exquisitely curated list?
A closing sentence at the end of each item that says (1) the situation was not resolved prior to Net Neutrality; and (2) it WAS resolved (and by the FCC, mind you) following the institution of Net Neutrality.
I can't imagine why they didn't fill in those details.
Sarcasm doth not become you. Your cut-and-paste spray of links (the ones that aren't paywalled -- did you read them yourself?) all give different supposed EPS forecasts that TLSA "beat," which should have set off a big alarm bell in your head about their subjectivity. I posted a year's worth of statistics from NASDAQ showing they've missed expectations every quarter for the past year, and today's stock performance is utterly consistent with that and utterly inconsistent with your hypothesis. I note you touched neither point.
The fact is, that Tesla lost LESS than what the markets had been expecting for some time.
Cite? This graph shows earnings per share consistently more negative than forecasts for at least the past year. As a cross-check, TSLA dropped nearly 9% the day after its earnings call.
How is it that Apple's shitty battery technology can lose 20% of its capability over 2 years while my Tesla manages to maintain its range and performance?
For starters, because you very likely don't charge and discharge your Tesla battery nearly as (a) often, (b) quickly, and (c) deeply as does the typical iPhone user. It's primarily the frequency and character of charge/discharge cycles that degrade the performance of Li-ion batteries, not so much the time on the calendar.
Can we can the # of times that pro-Trump and pro-Hillary videos actually ran and unique views by person?
First people would have to agree on which videos are pro-Trump, which are pro-Hillary, and which are neither. I doubt you would make it past that step given that both sides are going to be inclined to bucket borderline videos in a way favorable to them, and both sides would well understand the bucketing fundamentally drives the conclusion.
How is NJ going to enforce this? Are they going to investigate complains from everyone and investigate every time someone's net access slows down?
I've been asking the same question about how the FCC was practically supposed to enforce NN for a long time. This doesn't seem conceptually different other than creating a lot of interesting cross-border questions about what part of an ISP's network is really slowing the traffic down.
If they guy was kept in a job he was seriously unsuited for, fire the supervisor or whoever made the personnel decision. There had to be a way to shuffle him off to other duties somewhere.
Ok, so hang on. The employee shouldn't be fired for repeated incompetence, but the supervisor should be fired for repeated forbearance?
On a side note, if the only option for an employer with a dud employee is to "shuffle him off to other duties somewhere" (presumably to limit the potential damage he can do), that will make employers much more reluctant to take chances hiring people who don't have a demonstrably stellar record. I doubt that's what you really want.
Firing the guy who made the mistake accomplishes little, except to make people more reluctant to issue actual warnings.
And by the same logic, firing the supervisor for giving an incompetent employee another chance will make supervisors more reluctant to give incompetent employees another chance, and they'll just let the incompetent employee go the first time. Again, I doubt that's what you really want.
It's not Elon's responsibility what you do with a flame thrower after you buy it.
Right, setting aside the promotional video that shows him holding one assault-rifle style and running toward the frickin cameraman with it flaming, tagged with "Don’t do this. Also, I want to be clear that a flamethrower is a super terrible idea. Definitely don’t buy one. Unless you like fun." This kind of mixed message doesn't even give him clear grounds to mount the (terrible under the best of circumstances) "just kidding" legal defense down the road.
I am very comfortable that any lawyer he might have ran this by would have told him he's taking on more potential liability with this than he's getting in revenue. My guess is that he's in such a cash crunch right now he can't afford to care.
Never worries 'bout his line. Or a doggone thing, He's just a bang beat, bell ringing Big haul, great go, neck-or-nothing, rip roarin' Every time a bull's eye salesman That's Professor Elon Musk, Elon Musk I don't know how he does it but he lives like a king And he dallies and he gathers and he plucks and he shines And when the man dances certainly, boys, what else? The piper pays him!
Actually, keeping him in place led to 10 years of covering up errors -- and the reward for their forbearance was to finally hit the perfect storm where nobody was able to cover up for his incompetence in time.
Yes, people need to be fired when it's clear they're both ineffective and unable to change that. The alternative is what you see right here. They're supremely lucky nobody got seriously hurt/killed over this.
The entire island was running around in terror with nowhere to go for over half an hour before these schlocks finally managed to say "oops, just kidding." Would you require actual blood to be spilled or someone to actually die over the mass panic before you consider it to be "real damage"?
I'm endlessly thankful to know that 40 government employees have been working for who knows how long trying to track down a person who, if alive, would now be in their 80s, and/or an amount of money dwarfed by the amount of resources wasted doing so.
Apparently we don't have enough real problems that actually matter to people in this day and age for them to try to solve. And the fact that we keep paying them to work nonsense trophy cases like this tells me there's way too much money splashing around in the system.
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect you were so focused on your too-clever jab (pro tip: Milwaukee local channel Fox6 != Fox News) that you skimmed over the very first line of your article:
This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.
Had you read on a bit more, you would have observed that the rankings in your article were based on 2015 statistics. Chicago's murder rate went up 65% in 2016, representing 22% of the country-wide increase in murders. That spiked it into the top 10 with bedfellows like New Orleans and Detroit.
If Keeper wins this, they'll win because of misstatements/overstatements in Goodin's initial article that he significantly walked back multiple times, as laid out in Keeper's complaint. The research prompting Goodin's and other similar articles was not the issue.
things are much more complicated than scientists previously believed
No doubt. And that will continue to be the case for the foreseeable future.
Isn't that a bit nitty, Jim?
Industry shill?
Read the article. The "industry" wanted this to be a Net Neutrality issue so that the lawsuit would be preempted by the FCC's rollback of same. I'm not sure you really thought that one through.
Their strategy was to neglect network upgrades so that they could hold the feet of content providers over the flames until they gave in and paid. This did result in the literal "Spectrum-TWC promised reliable access to online content that it knew it could not deliver to subscribers." However, it is also clearly a net neutrality issue as well.
I have to say this is the first time I've heard someone seriously suggest that Net Neutrality forces an ISP to pay for enough external bandwidth to guarantee that all subscribers can simultaneously saturate their pipes with external content. I'm not sure you really thought that one through either.
$16???? for a 150 page book?
The cover price for the original 1979 edition of HHG was $6.95. That's well over $20 in today's dollars.
As explained in the complaint, there are two primary allegations:
1. That "Spectrum-TWC promised Internet speeds that it knew it could not deliver to subscribers."
2. That "Spectrum-TWC promised reliable access to online content that it knew it could not deliver to subscribers."
The specific legal theories are fraudulent misrepresentation, deceptive business practices, and false advertising.
It's completely unsurprising that the judge would conclude Net Neutrality or the lack thereof has no bearing on this case.
No, go read the actual indictment. It's very clear that the charges indicate help for Donald Trump only.
You might try actually reading it yourself. Paragraph 43, part of Count One of the indictment, very clearly says they also supported Bernie:
They engaged in operations primarily intended to communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, to denigrate other candidates such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald Trump.
* * *
Specialists were instructed to post content that focused on “politics in the USA” and to “use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump—we support them).”
Since you can make good use of the display areas left and right of the notch you get more usable display area this way compared to leaving empty a strip on the top or bottom of the front just to put the camera there.
What's so hard to understand about this?
It's not an issue of understanding. A lot of people (myself included) simply think a notched screen looks stupid.
You know what's missing from that exquisitely curated list?
A closing sentence at the end of each item that says (1) the situation was not resolved prior to Net Neutrality; and (2) it WAS resolved (and by the FCC, mind you) following the institution of Net Neutrality.
I can't imagine why they didn't fill in those details.
Sarcasm doth not become you. Your cut-and-paste spray of links (the ones that aren't paywalled -- did you read them yourself?) all give different supposed EPS forecasts that TLSA "beat," which should have set off a big alarm bell in your head about their subjectivity. I posted a year's worth of statistics from NASDAQ showing they've missed expectations every quarter for the past year, and today's stock performance is utterly consistent with that and utterly inconsistent with your hypothesis. I note you touched neither point.
I had no need to hear the quarterly results after I saw this video.
It was crystal clear that he's burning through the cash he has hand over fist and is losing the confidence of the investors who could give him more.
The fact is, that Tesla lost LESS than what the markets had been expecting for some time.
Cite? This graph shows earnings per share consistently more negative than forecasts for at least the past year. As a cross-check, TSLA dropped nearly 9% the day after its earnings call.
How is it that Apple's shitty battery technology can lose 20% of its capability over 2 years while my Tesla manages to maintain its range and performance?
For starters, because you very likely don't charge and discharge your Tesla battery nearly as (a) often, (b) quickly, and (c) deeply as does the typical iPhone user. It's primarily the frequency and character of charge/discharge cycles that degrade the performance of Li-ion batteries, not so much the time on the calendar.
Can we can the # of times that pro-Trump and pro-Hillary videos actually ran and unique views by person?
First people would have to agree on which videos are pro-Trump, which are pro-Hillary, and which are neither. I doubt you would make it past that step given that both sides are going to be inclined to bucket borderline videos in a way favorable to them, and both sides would well understand the bucketing fundamentally drives the conclusion.
How is NJ going to enforce this? Are they going to investigate complains from everyone and investigate every time someone's net access slows down?
I've been asking the same question about how the FCC was practically supposed to enforce NN for a long time. This doesn't seem conceptually different other than creating a lot of interesting cross-border questions about what part of an ISP's network is really slowing the traffic down.
If they guy was kept in a job he was seriously unsuited for, fire the supervisor or whoever made the personnel decision. There had to be a way to shuffle him off to other duties somewhere.
Ok, so hang on. The employee shouldn't be fired for repeated incompetence, but the supervisor should be fired for repeated forbearance?
On a side note, if the only option for an employer with a dud employee is to "shuffle him off to other duties somewhere" (presumably to limit the potential damage he can do), that will make employers much more reluctant to take chances hiring people who don't have a demonstrably stellar record. I doubt that's what you really want.
Firing the guy who made the mistake accomplishes little, except to make people more reluctant to issue actual warnings.
And by the same logic, firing the supervisor for giving an incompetent employee another chance will make supervisors more reluctant to give incompetent employees another chance, and they'll just let the incompetent employee go the first time. Again, I doubt that's what you really want.
Next time, likely less than 1% will take it seriously.
I take it then you agree real damage was done.
It's not Elon's responsibility what you do with a flame thrower after you buy it.
Right, setting aside the promotional video that shows him holding one assault-rifle style and running toward the frickin cameraman with it flaming, tagged with "Don’t do this. Also, I want to be clear that a flamethrower is a super terrible idea. Definitely don’t buy one. Unless you like fun." This kind of mixed message doesn't even give him clear grounds to mount the (terrible under the best of circumstances) "just kidding" legal defense down the road.
I am very comfortable that any lawyer he might have ran this by would have told him he's taking on more potential liability with this than he's getting in revenue. My guess is that he's in such a cash crunch right now he can't afford to care.
Never worries 'bout his line.
Or a doggone thing, He's just a bang beat, bell ringing
Big haul, great go, neck-or-nothing, rip roarin'
Every time a bull's eye salesman
That's Professor Elon Musk, Elon Musk
I don't know how he does it but he lives like a king
And he dallies and he gathers and he plucks and he shines
And when the man dances certainly, boys, what else?
The piper pays him!
Apologies to Meredith Wilson.
Actually, keeping him in place led to 10 years of covering up errors -- and the reward for their forbearance was to finally hit the perfect storm where nobody was able to cover up for his incompetence in time.
Yes, people need to be fired when it's clear they're both ineffective and unable to change that. The alternative is what you see right here. They're supremely lucky nobody got seriously hurt/killed over this.
I don't think the State of Hawaii said anything about the employee.
Drilling down from TFA, it appears the FCC and DoD were the ones that did.
In fact, this article says, "[t]he state has not identified the worker."
but it's not like any real damage was done
The entire island was running around in terror with nowhere to go for over half an hour before these schlocks finally managed to say "oops, just kidding." Would you require actual blood to be spilled or someone to actually die over the mass panic before you consider it to be "real damage"?
Yeah, clearly needed more coffee.
I'm endlessly thankful to know that 40 government employees have been working for who knows how long trying to track down a person who, if alive, would now be in their 80s, and/or an amount of money dwarfed by the amount of resources wasted doing so.
Apparently we don't have enough real problems that actually matter to people in this day and age for them to try to solve. And the fact that we keep paying them to work nonsense trophy cases like this tells me there's way too much money splashing around in the system.