Reddit's management structure is toxic, heavy-handed, and one-sided. And I say this as a proud leftist.
Authoritarianism is not exclusive to the right wing. Left wingers can be equally authoritarian.
And a lot of the time, we forget this. We are so proud of our ideological purity that we squash those who disagree with us.
And as a direct result, they rejected us in the elections. Because we stopped being liberals and started being the Fairness Police.
Terrestrial radio uses frequency division AND geographic separation in order to provide communications ability to the users on this planet.
To tinker with the ionosphere would increase propagation even for those signals for which propagation beyond line of sight was not a significant concern. Not every user needs over-the-horizon signaling.
To a very large degree, we use the horizon effect for useful things- for one, it allows us to have multiple 100KW television transmitters all using the same channel all on the same continent.
Ionospheric changes will have negligible effect on the power needed to adequately cover a metropolitan area with signal, and may actually INCREASE the power needed to swamp a distant signal that's intruding spatially into another market.
I think the real problem is that there's a minimum required to not be homeless in most developed nations. There are ZERO apartments in most areas that would be described as "basic", having just a bedroom and a bathroom and a kitchenette.
We are therefore burdened with having to have middle-class income to even live within the law. Nobody builds basic, poverty-level housing anywhere. This means that while you work in a gas station or restaurant, or wherever you're underpaid or not employed within your primary career, you're shit out of luck. This affects college students whose parents do not contribute, or can't, and disproportionately affects teens who grew up in state care as orphans or wards of the state.
In those circumstances, when you turn 18, you're turned out onto the streets. If you make it, fine. If you don't, nobody cares.
Having a brother in law who grew up in state care and who is currently homeless, I am always surprised at the sheer number of homeless people who have similar circumstances, and cannot get out of it because to maintain a job, you have to have a place to live, and to have a place to live, you have to have maintained a job long enough for first and last month's rent, a security deposit, and you have to miraculously have a decent credit rating, somehow, after being homeless.
It's one of those things where there's a crack in society, and once you're in it, unless a miracle happens and someone offers you a place to stay for basically free, you'll never get out of it on your own.
You ask why we don't generate a video frame that's halfway between the current video frame and ONE THAT WILL HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE.
That is quite probably the stupidest question I've heard a nerd make.
Several emails sent through the server state in absolute terms that the reason to operate a private email server is to avoid Freedom Of Information Act compliance and other Federal requirements and data requests.
The entire purpose of that server was to avoid legal compliance and transparency. The reason she had her own server rather than a Gmail or Hotmail account is that Google or Microsoft could be subpoena'd and would comply and turn over records, but you can wipe or destroy a server that's completely under your control and utterly avoid recordkeeping for criminal or incriminating correspondence.
The Gros Michel banana is not extinct.
It just is rarely grown because it's vulnerable to a blight, and growing an entire field of it practically guarantees that you'll lose your crop.
It is grown in smaller crops to guard against this. You can get them, but not cheaply, and not at your store.
It's actually NVIDIA that doesn't have something in the 200 dollar price point that's even remotely new.
It's completely inappropriate to compare a 200 dollar card to a 325 to 350 dollar card. Most consumers don't buy 400 to 800 dollar cards. AMD knows VR cannot succeed without a mid-range mainstream card that is capable of VR, and without capability, people won't experience VR, and if they don't experience it, they won't demand better hardware, and AMD won't have business.
But-
If both vendors make VR capable cards at the 200 dollar price point, then there WILL be demand for VR, and after that, demand for even better hardware to run VR with, and then both AMD and NVIDIA make money.
Nobody demanded video games on computers until computers with video games capabilities hit an accessible price point, and VR is no different.
It is NVIDIA that decided to launch their 700 dollar card and 450 dollar card first, and delay the MAINSTREAM card. AMD instead launched the mainstream card FIRST, with the 400 dollar cards coming later.
The argument that companies would rather have nobody rather than pay more is ludicrous and is NEVER USED with any other commodity such as fuel or flour.
It exists purely to allow fiscal hegemonies to keep a vendor (us) from raising their prices.
If your employer could make do without you RIGHT NOW, you'd be out the door.
But there are certain times when you need someone's help in order for you to make money. And that's not going to change. There will always be times when the owner of a business needs a human being to do something for him. And what we have to decide on is whether it's gonna be that guy who pays the worker, or whether it's going to be the taxpayer.
Because starving potential thieves existing in large numbers is simply not an option, never has been. If 20 percent of your population falls into danger of starvation, your wealthy will be murdered and your government overthrown. No amount of Apache helicopters can fix a nation that has that kind of problem, and automation WILL bring us the potential for that level of problem. All that's required is a tiny dip in ambition among the investor class at this point.
Someone's going to be feeding the working people of this nation. I propose that it should be the employer.
First, Stone fails to imagine the possibility that his exposure to the workings of the NSA was a sanitized charade. Once the data is collected and stored, there is no limit to how many groups can make use of the data in its raw form.
Second, Stone fails to grasp the potential for such data. With this data, an incumbent and his cabinet can identify potential troublemakers, sort them by level of influence, and then simply selectively watch them until they break some obscure law, and prosecute it aggressively. Or even accuse them of having child pornography, since we already know that juries, the press and the public lose objectivity the minute the subject is raised, and the burden of proof goes right out the window. It allows the State to form an Enemies List, to know who dislikes what policy and how influential they are on social media or within their circle of activists.
From now on, we'll never be totally sure, when a politician or activist is prosecuted for something, that he was caught through the normal happenstance of law enforcement or whether he was expressly targeted because he opposes an incumbent or moneyed interests.
Look, if I apply for a job, the last thing I want them to know is personal data about me. If I played WoW, I would want to keep that private, because people are petty and opinionated, and the less they know about you, the less they don't like.
That's my reason for freaking out about it. The long term record-keeping quality of the internet means that anonymity keeps my opinions, my hobbies, and my interests separate from the database containing my real name. It's not that I'm ashamed of it, it's that I refuse to submit to the whims and prejudices of others.
That's because fundamentally we only have 1 group in power: People Who Want You To Do What They Say. We have no liberty, only lip-service to an ethereal concept we label "liberty". It's still possible for a majority of voters to vote to take away or prevent the granting of rights to people who do not conform to the majority's standard.
I'm straight, but the fact that people can vote to prevent gays from marrying means it's NOT a free country. We are instead oppressed by our leaders AND our peers instead of just our leaders.
Yeah, when Apple says they "require their suppliers to treat their employees with dignity and respect" is that written into the contract, or just something Apple says to the press when the factory boss goes and roughs up an employee?
I would bet that it's not in the contract.
Very true. Every person, religious or not, feels that certain things are untrue. Most Christians, Jews, and Muslims would agree that Ganesh is a fable. "Elephant-headed god, indeed!" they'd say. Then you tell them that you don't believe in their god, and they think you're a bigot.
I don't just "not believe", I actively disbelieve. There's a huge difference there, and many people need to be less mealy-mouthed and own up to their active disbelief and its difference from passive nonbelief.
To not believe is to not put faith in an assertion. To disbelieve is to think the assertion is very likely to be incorrect. A "not proven" verdict is different from "not guilty".
True that. I was raised Evangelical, it took a couple of slick-haired, slick talking ministers to convince me, at age 30, that it was all crap. I had gone through conflicts with my family regarding gay rights, the value of free choice and not theocratic rule, science vs. biblical literalism, but the ministers clinched it.
Everyone who serves one of these fake-smile, lie about how good your life is megachurches should realize they've destroyed my faith and I can never have it back. You see, even by choice, you can't will yourself to believe in something your brain thinks is complete crap.
Oh, believe me, faced with obliteration and the nothingness of actual death, I tried. It can't be done. I'm an Atheist, and even if I found a belief system I liked better, I couldn't just will myself to believe something just because I liked it better. Truth is ugly but at least it's real.
YMMV and if you've seen evidence for a god, it's logical for you to believe in one. I just haven't, so it's logical for me not to.
Only this time it was the newb who came in and fucked with everyone else. They asked him to stop it.
So, it's kind of analogous to the reverse of your example of the surfers.
There's a bit of a difference between surfing a wave and grabbing a person's avatar and throwing it to a squad of high level NPCs.
Neither is evil, but I don't think your analogy is analogous in the sense that you used it.
He's not wrong to play that way, he's wrong to think that the other players should tolerate it happily.
He shouldn't be banned unless he pisses off a LOT of people (game companies are in the business of selling fun, and if he makes their product suck, they'll sacrifice him to the fun gods and permaban him.)
I played COH for about 2 years. It's a decent MMO. Regardless of whether these social customs and the expectation to follow them are reasonable, they are the "law of the land".
He has his choice to play the game, they have their choice to play with him or not.
If he was simply TPing them into monsters, fair deal. If he was exploiting the map and TPing them into a STUCK condition near monsters, well, that's just evil cheating.
You wouldn't think a sociologist would need to do long term research to discover that intentionally and repeatedly breaking social customs leads to ostracism.
Yeah, I've been using ISO for a while and nobody seems to come back around with my records asking questions about it. It seems more intuitive even to those uninitiated.
Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person.
However, it WAS of public concern within the organization. It is necessary to communicate to employees the importance of following protocols put in place, and the consequences of failure to do so. It was not released publicly, but internally, right?
If I were photographed picking my nose, and the photo were made public, would that be a disclosure of private facts if the photograph was taken at my birthday party?
How about through my car window? In my front yard? We're not talking about a thing which is done in private- turning in an expense report is not an act which carries an expectation of privacy in the same manner that using a bathroom stall or going to your physician would have.
Well, the issue here then is privacy- do we have a right to privacy for such things? Not in current law that I am aware of. It is quite a different thing to say he was terminated for violation of policy than to say he stole money or double dipped. They stated their reason, not an allegation of his behavior. It is reasonable to assume that when a person says "I broke up with Helen because she was not faithful" means that the unfaithfulness is the opinion, not necessarily the fact. If the person had said "Helen was unfaithful to me. I broke up with her." , that's actually a very distinctly different statement. It's a subject-verb thing here. If they said they fired him for X, that's not a direct allegation. If they said he did X and was fired, that's an allegation.
Slashdot Mirror
Reddit's management structure is toxic, heavy-handed, and one-sided. And I say this as a proud leftist.
Authoritarianism is not exclusive to the right wing. Left wingers can be equally authoritarian.
And a lot of the time, we forget this. We are so proud of our ideological purity that we squash those who disagree with us.
And as a direct result, they rejected us in the elections. Because we stopped being liberals and started being the Fairness Police.
Terrestrial radio uses frequency division AND geographic separation in order to provide communications ability to the users on this planet. To tinker with the ionosphere would increase propagation even for those signals for which propagation beyond line of sight was not a significant concern. Not every user needs over-the-horizon signaling. To a very large degree, we use the horizon effect for useful things- for one, it allows us to have multiple 100KW television transmitters all using the same channel all on the same continent. Ionospheric changes will have negligible effect on the power needed to adequately cover a metropolitan area with signal, and may actually INCREASE the power needed to swamp a distant signal that's intruding spatially into another market.
I think the real problem is that there's a minimum required to not be homeless in most developed nations. There are ZERO apartments in most areas that would be described as "basic", having just a bedroom and a bathroom and a kitchenette. We are therefore burdened with having to have middle-class income to even live within the law. Nobody builds basic, poverty-level housing anywhere. This means that while you work in a gas station or restaurant, or wherever you're underpaid or not employed within your primary career, you're shit out of luck. This affects college students whose parents do not contribute, or can't, and disproportionately affects teens who grew up in state care as orphans or wards of the state. In those circumstances, when you turn 18, you're turned out onto the streets. If you make it, fine. If you don't, nobody cares. Having a brother in law who grew up in state care and who is currently homeless, I am always surprised at the sheer number of homeless people who have similar circumstances, and cannot get out of it because to maintain a job, you have to have a place to live, and to have a place to live, you have to have maintained a job long enough for first and last month's rent, a security deposit, and you have to miraculously have a decent credit rating, somehow, after being homeless. It's one of those things where there's a crack in society, and once you're in it, unless a miracle happens and someone offers you a place to stay for basically free, you'll never get out of it on your own.
You ask why we don't generate a video frame that's halfway between the current video frame and ONE THAT WILL HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE. That is quite probably the stupidest question I've heard a nerd make.
Several emails sent through the server state in absolute terms that the reason to operate a private email server is to avoid Freedom Of Information Act compliance and other Federal requirements and data requests. The entire purpose of that server was to avoid legal compliance and transparency. The reason she had her own server rather than a Gmail or Hotmail account is that Google or Microsoft could be subpoena'd and would comply and turn over records, but you can wipe or destroy a server that's completely under your control and utterly avoid recordkeeping for criminal or incriminating correspondence.
The Gros Michel banana is not extinct. It just is rarely grown because it's vulnerable to a blight, and growing an entire field of it practically guarantees that you'll lose your crop. It is grown in smaller crops to guard against this. You can get them, but not cheaply, and not at your store.
It's actually NVIDIA that doesn't have something in the 200 dollar price point that's even remotely new. It's completely inappropriate to compare a 200 dollar card to a 325 to 350 dollar card. Most consumers don't buy 400 to 800 dollar cards. AMD knows VR cannot succeed without a mid-range mainstream card that is capable of VR, and without capability, people won't experience VR, and if they don't experience it, they won't demand better hardware, and AMD won't have business. But- If both vendors make VR capable cards at the 200 dollar price point, then there WILL be demand for VR, and after that, demand for even better hardware to run VR with, and then both AMD and NVIDIA make money. Nobody demanded video games on computers until computers with video games capabilities hit an accessible price point, and VR is no different. It is NVIDIA that decided to launch their 700 dollar card and 450 dollar card first, and delay the MAINSTREAM card. AMD instead launched the mainstream card FIRST, with the 400 dollar cards coming later.
The argument that companies would rather have nobody rather than pay more is ludicrous and is NEVER USED with any other commodity such as fuel or flour. It exists purely to allow fiscal hegemonies to keep a vendor (us) from raising their prices. If your employer could make do without you RIGHT NOW, you'd be out the door. But there are certain times when you need someone's help in order for you to make money. And that's not going to change. There will always be times when the owner of a business needs a human being to do something for him. And what we have to decide on is whether it's gonna be that guy who pays the worker, or whether it's going to be the taxpayer.
Because starving potential thieves existing in large numbers is simply not an option, never has been. If 20 percent of your population falls into danger of starvation, your wealthy will be murdered and your government overthrown. No amount of Apache helicopters can fix a nation that has that kind of problem, and automation WILL bring us the potential for that level of problem. All that's required is a tiny dip in ambition among the investor class at this point.
Someone's going to be feeding the working people of this nation. I propose that it should be the employer.
First, Stone fails to imagine the possibility that his exposure to the workings of the NSA was a sanitized charade. Once the data is collected and stored, there is no limit to how many groups can make use of the data in its raw form.
Second, Stone fails to grasp the potential for such data. With this data, an incumbent and his cabinet can identify potential troublemakers, sort them by level of influence, and then simply selectively watch them until they break some obscure law, and prosecute it aggressively. Or even accuse them of having child pornography, since we already know that juries, the press and the public lose objectivity the minute the subject is raised, and the burden of proof goes right out the window. It allows the State to form an Enemies List, to know who dislikes what policy and how influential they are on social media or within their circle of activists.
From now on, we'll never be totally sure, when a politician or activist is prosecuted for something, that he was caught through the normal happenstance of law enforcement or whether he was expressly targeted because he opposes an incumbent or moneyed interests.
This, this, this. Unnecessary and rather unhelpful post because no upboats on /.
It's not ripe for abuse, it's "rife with abuse".
Look, if I apply for a job, the last thing I want them to know is personal data about me. If I played WoW, I would want to keep that private, because people are petty and opinionated, and the less they know about you, the less they don't like. That's my reason for freaking out about it. The long term record-keeping quality of the internet means that anonymity keeps my opinions, my hobbies, and my interests separate from the database containing my real name. It's not that I'm ashamed of it, it's that I refuse to submit to the whims and prejudices of others.
That's because fundamentally we only have 1 group in power:
People Who Want You To Do What They Say.
We have no liberty, only lip-service to an ethereal concept we label "liberty". It's still possible for a majority of voters to vote to take away or prevent the granting of rights to people who do not conform to the majority's standard. I'm straight, but the fact that people can vote to prevent gays from marrying means it's NOT a free country. We are instead oppressed by our leaders AND our peers instead of just our leaders.
If voting allowed us to change the world, we would not be permitted to do it.
Three words:
Kill
Your
Masters
Yeah, when Apple says they "require their suppliers to treat their employees with dignity and respect" is that written into the contract, or just something Apple says to the press when the factory boss goes and roughs up an employee? I would bet that it's not in the contract.
Very true. Every person, religious or not, feels that certain things are untrue. Most Christians, Jews, and Muslims would agree that Ganesh is a fable. "Elephant-headed god, indeed!" they'd say. Then you tell them that you don't believe in their god, and they think you're a bigot. I don't just "not believe", I actively disbelieve. There's a huge difference there, and many people need to be less mealy-mouthed and own up to their active disbelief and its difference from passive nonbelief. To not believe is to not put faith in an assertion. To disbelieve is to think the assertion is very likely to be incorrect. A "not proven" verdict is different from "not guilty".
True that. I was raised Evangelical, it took a couple of slick-haired, slick talking ministers to convince me, at age 30, that it was all crap. I had gone through conflicts with my family regarding gay rights, the value of free choice and not theocratic rule, science vs. biblical literalism, but the ministers clinched it. Everyone who serves one of these fake-smile, lie about how good your life is megachurches should realize they've destroyed my faith and I can never have it back. You see, even by choice, you can't will yourself to believe in something your brain thinks is complete crap. Oh, believe me, faced with obliteration and the nothingness of actual death, I tried. It can't be done. I'm an Atheist, and even if I found a belief system I liked better, I couldn't just will myself to believe something just because I liked it better. Truth is ugly but at least it's real. YMMV and if you've seen evidence for a god, it's logical for you to believe in one. I just haven't, so it's logical for me not to.
Only this time it was the newb who came in and fucked with everyone else. They asked him to stop it. So, it's kind of analogous to the reverse of your example of the surfers. There's a bit of a difference between surfing a wave and grabbing a person's avatar and throwing it to a squad of high level NPCs. Neither is evil, but I don't think your analogy is analogous in the sense that you used it.
He's not wrong to play that way, he's wrong to think that the other players should tolerate it happily. He shouldn't be banned unless he pisses off a LOT of people (game companies are in the business of selling fun, and if he makes their product suck, they'll sacrifice him to the fun gods and permaban him.)
I played COH for about 2 years. It's a decent MMO. Regardless of whether these social customs and the expectation to follow them are reasonable, they are the "law of the land". He has his choice to play the game, they have their choice to play with him or not. If he was simply TPing them into monsters, fair deal. If he was exploiting the map and TPing them into a STUCK condition near monsters, well, that's just evil cheating.
You wouldn't think a sociologist would need to do long term research to discover that intentionally and repeatedly breaking social customs leads to ostracism.
Yeah, I've been using ISO for a while and nobody seems to come back around with my records asking questions about it. It seems more intuitive even to those uninitiated.
Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person. However, it WAS of public concern within the organization. It is necessary to communicate to employees the importance of following protocols put in place, and the consequences of failure to do so. It was not released publicly, but internally, right? If I were photographed picking my nose, and the photo were made public, would that be a disclosure of private facts if the photograph was taken at my birthday party? How about through my car window? In my front yard? We're not talking about a thing which is done in private- turning in an expense report is not an act which carries an expectation of privacy in the same manner that using a bathroom stall or going to your physician would have.
Well, the issue here then is privacy- do we have a right to privacy for such things? Not in current law that I am aware of. It is quite a different thing to say he was terminated for violation of policy than to say he stole money or double dipped. They stated their reason, not an allegation of his behavior. It is reasonable to assume that when a person says "I broke up with Helen because she was not faithful" means that the unfaithfulness is the opinion, not necessarily the fact. If the person had said "Helen was unfaithful to me. I broke up with her." , that's actually a very distinctly different statement. It's a subject-verb thing here. If they said they fired him for X, that's not a direct allegation. If they said he did X and was fired, that's an allegation.