That only helps for a device that can show PDFs themselves, not a bluetooth speaker. For a Kindle, sure, as long as it's incredibly obvious how to find it.
(I'm mostly commenting to undo a moderation mistake, though.)
Charities. Hobbies. Family. Chores/upkeep. Travel. Political involvement.
How silly you are. Or do you think the only reason that cities don't have to deal with roving gangs of retirees is because they're all old? If that's not a concern of yours, what do geriatrics have that "working-age" folks don't? Do people turn into misanthropes on their days off?
Perhaps the issue is that you are conflating "work" with "gainful employment"? All those things I mentioned certainly require work but rarely get a financial return.
drinking, gambling, playing games
You forgot to mention smoking weed when repeating your list of vices.
Specifically, let’s look at all the workers who are simply left out of the analysis. By the UW team’s own admission, nearly 40 percent of the city’s low-wage workforce is excluded from the data: workers at multisite employers like Nordstrom, Starbucks, or even restaurants with a few locations like Dick’s. Even worse, any time a worker left a job with a single-site employer for one with a chain, that was treated as a “lost job” that was blamed on the minimum wage — and that likely happened a lot since the minimum wage was higher for those large employers.
Similarly, every time an employer raised its pay above $19 per hour — like Jimmy John’s did — it was counted not as a better job, but as a low-wage job lost as a result of the minimum wage.
That's an op-ed, of course, and not a study correcting perceived defects and presented in opposition. But that might not be necessary, per a Fortune Op-ed counterpoint:
It also stands in contrast to a massive trove of actually credible studies showing that raising the minimum wage is a boon for working class families and the communities they live in.
For instance, a team led by Michael Reich, an economics professor at University of California-Berkeley, looked at the impact of the Seattle wage increase on the food industry over the same period and found that wages did in fact go up for restaurant workers, and that employment wasn’t affected. These findings were, they claim, “in line with the lion’s share of results in previous credible minimum wage studies.” [...] Employers see big benefits, too. Workers stay on the job longer, reducing turnover and training costs. They’re also significantly more productive, according to researchers studying wage increases in the United Kingdom.
The op-ed continues with studies/references for other aspects of the increased min wage.
I served in the military, the discord and majority personality traits I encountered made me completely lose my faith in humanity. Anyone who thinks the US military will be an opposing force to a fascist federal government is a fool. I have absolutely no delusion that the majority of armed forces members would throw down their weapons and refuse to fight fellow Americans, nevermind joining any possible resistance. I don't expect those who refuse to even be a noticeable minority.
But don't take my word for it, just ask Kent State.
For all accounts it seems the police would be even more gung-ho about stomping down any revolt, especially if they get to choose their targets.
Wouldn't requirements like this--promise of some sort of future, demonstrable action in order to allow a current one--be good for an escrow-type setup? An approximate cost and timeline of the project is defined as part of the agreement for it, the promisor puts that amount into the escrow account, things move ahead. As the promisor makes and shows progress, they can remove funds from the escrow to cover those costs. If the project is satisfactorily completed, promisor gets anything left in the escrow account including any interest it may have earned. If the escrow account goes dry and the promisor does not complete the project as agreed, fine come into pay.
Should the promisor fail their duty, the government in question uses the funds to implement the action themselves (insomuch as the funds will actually allow) in addition to risk of the merger being revoked.
Puts an extra stick to the company to keep up their agreement.
I wish Slashdot would create a politics spin-off. I know there's politics.slashdot, but I think it would be better off as a separate sister site. Same credentials, separate karma (akin to StackOverflow).
Both sites can run the same article, but the/. one would focus on any tech components and Slashpol (Polidot. Slashpoli. dashdot?) would be about societal implications/mud-slinging. As an example, take an article about the possibility of raising the minimum fuel economy:/. would ideally discuss the merits of the proposed standard vs. current (CO2 delta, feasibility, exemptions) while Slashpol would discuss the political motivations and fling mud at each other.
Slashpol can still have the math, but any mud-slinging on/. should be marked Offtopic.
these communication methods often seem really inefficient
Depends on the urgency required by the situation. Can it wait a day or more? Then an e-mail is more efficient because the recipient can respond as their schedule allows, which lets them focus uninterrupted on other projects. An e-mail is also easily copied to other people to keep them in the loop even if they don't have to take action or be directly involved.
I, personally, far prefer e-mail to in-person or phone communication: For whatever reason it takes me a bit longer than most people to understand language (written or spoken), and in the last few years I've started slurring/swapping words on occasion (I should probably get an MRI or something, but, hey, American healthcare.) E-mail lets me re-read the message to digest it. E-mail gives me a short research window to make sure I understand the problem. I can give a much better, succinct response via e-mail than in person. I work weird hours so e-mail means I can look at non-urgent problems immediately upon starting work. I have mild social anxiety so talking to people out of the blue can disrupt my mindset for a short time.
For urgent matters, absolutely call. For anything else, e-mail is the best way.
Youtube would have died years ago if not for the creators who used it. It wasn't some charity for ideas, it was a business for hosting videos. The ad revenue for YouTube was generated by those who watched the creators on that platform. It only makes sense to give them a cut to keep the platform growing and them creating.
It's a symbiosis. But Youtube is finding another host to feed off of (big music labels and mainstream channels) and seem to be leaving those creators behind.
But discovery becomes extremely more complicated without it. On a service like Youtube, which uses "AI" to recommend videos, it's easier to be discovered by someone who already watches similar videos. How many widely-viewed sites dedicated to a single creator are there right now? (Excluding porn.) There have been a few Flash ones in the past (e.g. Homestar Runner) but I'm not aware of any video ones now. Speaking of Flash, even for that there were sites like Newgrounds.
Viewers lose a large convenience factor because a single-creator website likely won't facilitate multi-platform viewing (mobile, television, etc.)
Constant changes to the platform’s algorithm, unhealthy obsessions with remaining relevant in a rapidly growing field and social media pressures are making it almost impossible for top creators to continue creating at the pace both the platform and audience want — and that can have a detrimental effect on the very ecosystem they belong to. [...] There are also growing demonetization concerns running rampant throughout the community. [...] Not knowing how YouTube’s monetization system works, while also battling fears of videos being suppressed and less frequent uploads hindering their careers, are major anxieties. And like most anxieties that go untreated, they build up to a breaking point. [...] YouTube offers no clear support system for creators
You are correct that their burnout is self-induced to a large degree, and this would likely not change with a simple platform switch. But working too long and appealing fans are one thing that can be viewed rather directly, Youtube's shenanigans are a large contributor to that burnout while also being hidden in shadow. My short thesis was that this change in Content ID, coupled with other problems about Youtube's ecosystem, will only exasperate burnout.
Haven't heard of BitChute before, thanks!. I'll keep an eye on it, though as someone who is nonplussed by the "SJW" I'm not sure how much content I like would move there (though it's mostly gaming channels, so maybe.)
I can't find an article about this and it doesn't seem to be mentioned in the Polygon article, but the Content ID system that Youtube uses to flag copyright violations is apparently going to have significant changes this month. This is per Matthew Patrick (MatPat/The Game Theory)--who is basically as close to the company as someone can be without working there--in a recent livestream of theirs.
Other long-running issues he address in that same 15-ish minutes are Youtube tools being confusing, a severe lack of response from Youtube support (and conflicting responses, even when that person has better access than xXxStoneddGamer567xXx), and he's talked in the past about how Youtube extremely over-reacts to controversies. Their "solutions" rarely take care of the original issue and instead punish a significant number of other creators.
Youtube has been relying on critical mass for years now.
In the last few years Youtube has increasingly been courting "mainstream" outlets, including launching their Youtube TV service, and these outlets have pushed original creators more to the sidelines. While MatPat doesn't explain what these Content ID changes will be, my expectation is that the system will become far, far less lenient toward infringements real, imagined, or claimed (thanks, DMCA!). If so, there will likely be a "purge" of creators.
If that is the case, I'm hoping that some company can step up to with a video-focused service that caters to smaller creators (or creator groups.) Vimeo might be able to branch into this, but their current (apparent) focus on completely-original content (and content not too far removed from television or film festivals) makes me think this is unlikely. Twitch's focus on live-streaming really limits content, and the platform serves gaming and some creative setups only which will make it a non-starter for people looking to move. Vine could make a comeback, striking while the iron is hot. Outside of those two I simply don't know of any other alternatives, either established or up-and-coming. Most of my video consumption these days comes from small creators, and I would really hate to lose this kind of access to what they create.
Maybe PornHub could take a stab at it, they've taken many interesting actions already. (Snowplowing, alerting users about tracking by their country, etc.)
They have a lot of the same brand products as everywhere else.
They have the same brand name, but not the same brand products. Wal-mart explicitly encourages brands to make lower-quality versions to sell at their stores for a lower price, capitalizing on the brand name recognition:
The Wal-Mart vice president responded with strategy and argument. Snapper is the sort of high-quality nameplate, like Levi Strauss, that Wal-Mart hopes can ultimately make it more Target-like. He suggested that Snapper find a lower-cost contract manufacturer. He suggested producing a separate, lesser-quality line with the Snapper nameplate just for Wal-Mart. Just like Levi did.
Let's say Wal-mart offers a $500 Sony 55" 4K HDR LCD Display[1] and Target has a Sony model with the exact same features, even the same model number range (but a 5002 instead of Wal-mart's 5001) for $550. If Sony made that 5001 as an inferior version for Wal-mart, depending on the corners cut it might last half as long as the 5002 (usage and environment being the same.) So with Target you spend $550 over 2y years, but with Wal-mart you spend $500+replacement cost over that same 2y period.
Now, that article is over a decade old, so it's possible that Wal-mart has changed their ways since then. But I'm going to need a good [citation required] to believe that.
Some of the other stuff you mention, like school supplies and other consumables, can be had at the dollar store for the same quality and unit price (or even less than Wal-mart).
[1] Likely not a real product; name, size, attributes chosen at random
You prioritize tackling the problem which has the greatest emotional impact (i.e. in proportion to news coverage), rather than the problem which will yield the greatest numerical decrease for the smallest expenditure.
Consider the Snowball method for paying debt. From a financial aspect this is a bad idea, and debt with the highest APR should be tackled first instead of debts with the lowest balance (when not the same.) From a psychological aspect this is a wonderful idea: people feel overwhelmed by the far larger number so paying off the smaller one feels easier and, once it is paid off, the feedback of success makes it easier to tackle the next smallest one, etc. Eventually there's only the largest debt left, and since all of the others are paid off the person can put more money into that debt as well. This "snowballing" makes it more likely that the average person will actually pay off all of their debt than if they tried to use the better ("stacked") method (per research referenced in that Wiki page.)
Should we put most resources towards fixing the largest aspect of a problem first? Absolutely. But that is, unfortunately, not how humanity works.
Home ownership has been overpromoted for decades in this country, and the reality of it is finally sinking in (not necessarily for this kid, but for our country in general). We have multiple cable networks that are still effectively acting as marketing outfits for realtors, hyping home ownership as an investment 24x7.
I'm about half-way through All the Devils Are Here: The Hidden History of the Financial Crisis which focuses on history of subprime mortgages and mortgage derivatives the lead up to the 2008 recession. The book paints an astoundingly complex economic arrangement (it helpfully includes a glossary I have to refer to once or twice a chapter because I forgot what a term meant) that exploded due about 65/35 to pure greed and lack of full risk assessment.
Heavy emphasis in early chapters is placed on how much home ownership is pushed by the government, and by many companies happy to make a buck assisting that. The sheer religious fervor over home ownership (especially as part of the ambiguous "American Dream") has always struck me as stupid, and seeing it help that bubble grow just makes the whole concept even worse.
Except that "Oh" is a common (American) way to say zero when saying a number by individual digit. Think 404 (Four-oh-four); at least, I've never heard anyone say "four-zero-four". So if Duplex is trying to imitate speech patterns, it's proper for it to say the number that way in at least some circumstances.
(When I was in BCT there were more than a few moments of drill sergeants yelling at a recruit "What fucking number does 'Oh' come after?")
Trump has damaged America's credibility, but honestly, we're largely trading on Trumps credibility right now, not "America's"
I think this happened for W. Bush as well, though to a far lesser extent because he wasn't as invested in "the cyber". Then we elected Obama and the world thought "eyyy they're moving in the right direction again", we earned back a shred of trust, and Bush was considered an outlier.
But then Trump is elected, and that's lost again. Even if we were to elect someone good to the office in 2020, why should the world react the same way? Unless our political system goes through major (positive) upheaval, there's every possibility that our fucked-up system will elect another porcelain despot the next go-around. The disgust likely lies with Trump, but the distrust is entirely in America now.
People who are active on the site are rewarded and allowed more power and thus able to be even more active. This would be fine if their actions were always positive and valuable. But really any activity even stupid actions or early enforcement of site policy to the detriment of closing the topic is rewarded.
This is the primary problem with SO, and any other sites that use aggregate scoring to grant privileges that affect other users.
Due to the nature of the internet, and the people who use it, as you state there are people who have more time than brains and can just brute-force a system. Make enough comments or responses of non-useless regard, get upvotes on some of them, and quantity becomes quality. Someone who has spent a few months doing that on SO can have a middling reputation; if both this person and Donald E. Knuth (newly registered, using the same standard process) responded to a question, the brute-force person would likely get more attention to their answer.
This is why I've always preferred/.'s moderation system to any other I've encountered: there are extreme limits to how high or low a post may be rated, so outside of a rating war moderators are encouraged to spread their influence around to other responses once that limit has been achieved. A standard user who is here for ten years cannot have any higher privileges (karma bonus etc.) than another who has been here one year. If SO used a similar setup, where there were limits on scores or a person's reputation was more closely related to their average helpfulness instead of weighted aggregate, abuses that you and others have relayed here might not be as prevalent.
I assume you understand that those actions enable administrative headaches and decreases your nominal income, and have decided this outcome is worth more than the time required to change the process. The PHBs see that the IT department has the software and supplies it needs to work, and if they're able to acquire those then the procurement process must be fine. (Also the total dollar requests from IT is slightly lower than anticipated so they can probably shave a few bucks from budgeting in that area come next year.)
Squeaky wheel gets the grease, but if there's no squeaking no one bothers to look at the rotting/rusting spoke.
Where is the money going? Have you been able to get any details? I realize it would take a bit of time investment, but have you contacted any city/county government accounting/financial department and asked? Or written an elected official and see if they could shed some light?
If your city is large enough, you may have a convenient GAO-like non-profit that could supply you with the details.
I've not been bothered enough by my tax deductions to do research myself, but if I actually made useful amounts of money and felt that the taxes were being squandered I would look into it a bit (or at least think really hard about doing so.)
Anyone who has worked in a sewing shop or in any other mostly female work environment (nursing, beauty parlors, etc) will tell you how untrue that is.
Oh? Interesting, I must have an outlier workplace. I work in a small accounting firm that is 85% women, including the co-owners. The listening and collaboration is, at worst, the same as male-majority work environments I've had and if there's any of the toxicity you mention it's being well-hidden from me for some reason.
Peculiarly, this was also the case when I worked for a non-profit that was well over 90% women and had three times the staff of my current workplace.
How lucky I must be! To miss all of these problems you bring to light (that at least a few moderators have apparently also experienced) multiple times means I am truly blessed.
How? I read about a lot of bullshit problems with various state's implementations, handling of their primaries and caucuses, and outright lies like chair-throwing. Clinton, her campaign, and the DNC certainly have a lot to answer for (and as yet have largely not.) But I haven't read anything that gives evidence of "full-on" rigging. If you're talking about super-delegates, which are a really stupid thing, even without them Clinton still solidly won. We can argue about things like psychological effects and preferences, but I think we waste time on conspiracies.
And I say all of this as someone firmly in the "Bernie woulda won" camp (but it's just as pointless to waste time on such what-ifs, rather than focusing on fixing the problems that potentially stopped him from doing so.)
People only voted for her because (D) behind her name
I had lots of Democrat friends who made it clear why they voted for her; their positions weren't wrong, I felt that there were better reasons to vote for Sanders. You might recall the DNC primary race started with three "true" Democrats and one dark-horse, so in early voting it wasn't like people had to choose only between a Democrat and Democrat-alike. Even given three "(D)" options, people overwhelmingly chose Clinton amongst those three.
Slashdot Mirror
That only helps for a device that can show PDFs themselves, not a bluetooth speaker. For a Kindle, sure, as long as it's incredibly obvious how to find it.
(I'm mostly commenting to undo a moderation mistake, though.)
Charities. Hobbies. Family. Chores/upkeep. Travel. Political involvement.
How silly you are. Or do you think the only reason that cities don't have to deal with roving gangs of retirees is because they're all old? If that's not a concern of yours, what do geriatrics have that "working-age" folks don't? Do people turn into misanthropes on their days off?
Perhaps the issue is that you are conflating "work" with "gainful employment"? All those things I mentioned certainly require work but rarely get a financial return.
You forgot to mention smoking weed when repeating your list of vices.
Is that not the same as saying poverty should be maintained in order to create profitability?
Maybe not. A Seattle Times Op-ed counterpoint brings up issues with the study that seem worth considering:
That's an op-ed, of course, and not a study correcting perceived defects and presented in opposition. But that might not be necessary, per a Fortune Op-ed counterpoint:
The op-ed continues with studies/references for other aspects of the increased min wage.
Simplify it further:
Engineering is how.
Humanities is why.
(Anthropology is when.)
Burning mod points to comment.
I served in the military, the discord and majority personality traits I encountered made me completely lose my faith in humanity. Anyone who thinks the US military will be an opposing force to a fascist federal government is a fool. I have absolutely no delusion that the majority of armed forces members would throw down their weapons and refuse to fight fellow Americans, nevermind joining any possible resistance. I don't expect those who refuse to even be a noticeable minority.
But don't take my word for it, just ask Kent State.
For all accounts it seems the police would be even more gung-ho about stomping down any revolt, especially if they get to choose their targets.
Wouldn't requirements like this--promise of some sort of future, demonstrable action in order to allow a current one--be good for an escrow-type setup? An approximate cost and timeline of the project is defined as part of the agreement for it, the promisor puts that amount into the escrow account, things move ahead. As the promisor makes and shows progress, they can remove funds from the escrow to cover those costs. If the project is satisfactorily completed, promisor gets anything left in the escrow account including any interest it may have earned. If the escrow account goes dry and the promisor does not complete the project as agreed, fine come into pay.
Should the promisor fail their duty, the government in question uses the funds to implement the action themselves (insomuch as the funds will actually allow) in addition to risk of the merger being revoked.
Puts an extra stick to the company to keep up their agreement.
Especially right now because it's difficult to find someone to pilot that fuck.
I wish Slashdot would create a politics spin-off. I know there's politics.slashdot, but I think it would be better off as a separate sister site. Same credentials, separate karma (akin to StackOverflow).
Both sites can run the same article, but the /. one would focus on any tech components and Slashpol (Polidot. Slashpoli. dashdot?) would be about societal implications/mud-slinging. As an example, take an article about the possibility of raising the minimum fuel economy: /. would ideally discuss the merits of the proposed standard vs. current (CO2 delta, feasibility, exemptions) while Slashpol would discuss the political motivations and fling mud at each other.
Slashpol can still have the math, but any mud-slinging on /. should be marked Offtopic.
Depends on the urgency required by the situation. Can it wait a day or more? Then an e-mail is more efficient because the recipient can respond as their schedule allows, which lets them focus uninterrupted on other projects. An e-mail is also easily copied to other people to keep them in the loop even if they don't have to take action or be directly involved.
I, personally, far prefer e-mail to in-person or phone communication: For whatever reason it takes me a bit longer than most people to understand language (written or spoken), and in the last few years I've started slurring/swapping words on occasion (I should probably get an MRI or something, but, hey, American healthcare.) E-mail lets me re-read the message to digest it. E-mail gives me a short research window to make sure I understand the problem. I can give a much better, succinct response via e-mail than in person. I work weird hours so e-mail means I can look at non-urgent problems immediately upon starting work. I have mild social anxiety so talking to people out of the blue can disrupt my mindset for a short time.
For urgent matters, absolutely call. For anything else, e-mail is the best way.
Youtube would have died years ago if not for the creators who used it. It wasn't some charity for ideas, it was a business for hosting videos. The ad revenue for YouTube was generated by those who watched the creators on that platform. It only makes sense to give them a cut to keep the platform growing and them creating.
It's a symbiosis. But Youtube is finding another host to feed off of (big music labels and mainstream channels) and seem to be leaving those creators behind.
But discovery becomes extremely more complicated without it. On a service like Youtube, which uses "AI" to recommend videos, it's easier to be discovered by someone who already watches similar videos. How many widely-viewed sites dedicated to a single creator are there right now? (Excluding porn.) There have been a few Flash ones in the past (e.g. Homestar Runner) but I'm not aware of any video ones now. Speaking of Flash, even for that there were sites like Newgrounds.
Viewers lose a large convenience factor because a single-creator website likely won't facilitate multi-platform viewing (mobile, television, etc.)
From The Fine Article:
You are correct that their burnout is self-induced to a large degree, and this would likely not change with a simple platform switch. But working too long and appealing fans are one thing that can be viewed rather directly, Youtube's shenanigans are a large contributor to that burnout while also being hidden in shadow. My short thesis was that this change in Content ID, coupled with other problems about Youtube's ecosystem, will only exasperate burnout.
Haven't heard of BitChute before, thanks!. I'll keep an eye on it, though as someone who is nonplussed by the "SJW" I'm not sure how much content I like would move there (though it's mostly gaming channels, so maybe.)
I can't find an article about this and it doesn't seem to be mentioned in the Polygon article, but the Content ID system that Youtube uses to flag copyright violations is apparently going to have significant changes this month. This is per Matthew Patrick (MatPat/The Game Theory)--who is basically as close to the company as someone can be without working there--in a recent livestream of theirs.
Other long-running issues he address in that same 15-ish minutes are Youtube tools being confusing, a severe lack of response from Youtube support (and conflicting responses, even when that person has better access than xXxStoneddGamer567xXx), and he's talked in the past about how Youtube extremely over-reacts to controversies. Their "solutions" rarely take care of the original issue and instead punish a significant number of other creators.
Youtube has been relying on critical mass for years now.
In the last few years Youtube has increasingly been courting "mainstream" outlets, including launching their Youtube TV service, and these outlets have pushed original creators more to the sidelines. While MatPat doesn't explain what these Content ID changes will be, my expectation is that the system will become far, far less lenient toward infringements real, imagined, or claimed (thanks, DMCA!). If so, there will likely be a "purge" of creators.
If that is the case, I'm hoping that some company can step up to with a video-focused service that caters to smaller creators (or creator groups.) Vimeo might be able to branch into this, but their current (apparent) focus on completely-original content (and content not too far removed from television or film festivals) makes me think this is unlikely. Twitch's focus on live-streaming really limits content, and the platform serves gaming and some creative setups only which will make it a non-starter for people looking to move. Vine could make a comeback, striking while the iron is hot. Outside of those two I simply don't know of any other alternatives, either established or up-and-coming. Most of my video consumption these days comes from small creators, and I would really hate to lose this kind of access to what they create.
Maybe PornHub could take a stab at it, they've taken many interesting actions already. (Snowplowing, alerting users about tracking by their country, etc.)
They have the same brand name, but not the same brand products. Wal-mart explicitly encourages brands to make lower-quality versions to sell at their stores for a lower price, capitalizing on the brand name recognition:
Let's say Wal-mart offers a $500 Sony 55" 4K HDR LCD Display[1] and Target has a Sony model with the exact same features, even the same model number range (but a 5002 instead of Wal-mart's 5001) for $550. If Sony made that 5001 as an inferior version for Wal-mart, depending on the corners cut it might last half as long as the 5002 (usage and environment being the same.) So with Target you spend $550 over 2y years, but with Wal-mart you spend $500+replacement cost over that same 2y period.
Now, that article is over a decade old, so it's possible that Wal-mart has changed their ways since then. But I'm going to need a good [citation required] to believe that.
Some of the other stuff you mention, like school supplies and other consumables, can be had at the dollar store for the same quality and unit price (or even less than Wal-mart).
[1] Likely not a real product; name, size, attributes chosen at random
Consider the Snowball method for paying debt. From a financial aspect this is a bad idea, and debt with the highest APR should be tackled first instead of debts with the lowest balance (when not the same.) From a psychological aspect this is a wonderful idea: people feel overwhelmed by the far larger number so paying off the smaller one feels easier and, once it is paid off, the feedback of success makes it easier to tackle the next smallest one, etc. Eventually there's only the largest debt left, and since all of the others are paid off the person can put more money into that debt as well. This "snowballing" makes it more likely that the average person will actually pay off all of their debt than if they tried to use the better ("stacked") method (per research referenced in that Wiki page.)
Should we put most resources towards fixing the largest aspect of a problem first? Absolutely. But that is, unfortunately, not how humanity works.
I'm about half-way through All the Devils Are Here: The Hidden History of the Financial Crisis which focuses on history of subprime mortgages and mortgage derivatives the lead up to the 2008 recession. The book paints an astoundingly complex economic arrangement (it helpfully includes a glossary I have to refer to once or twice a chapter because I forgot what a term meant) that exploded due about 65/35 to pure greed and lack of full risk assessment.
Heavy emphasis in early chapters is placed on how much home ownership is pushed by the government, and by many companies happy to make a buck assisting that. The sheer religious fervor over home ownership (especially as part of the ambiguous "American Dream") has always struck me as stupid, and seeing it help that bubble grow just makes the whole concept even worse.
Except that "Oh" is a common (American) way to say zero when saying a number by individual digit. Think 404 (Four-oh-four); at least, I've never heard anyone say "four-zero-four". So if Duplex is trying to imitate speech patterns, it's proper for it to say the number that way in at least some circumstances.
(When I was in BCT there were more than a few moments of drill sergeants yelling at a recruit "What fucking number does 'Oh' come after?")
I think this happened for W. Bush as well, though to a far lesser extent because he wasn't as invested in "the cyber". Then we elected Obama and the world thought "eyyy they're moving in the right direction again", we earned back a shred of trust, and Bush was considered an outlier.
But then Trump is elected, and that's lost again. Even if we were to elect someone good to the office in 2020, why should the world react the same way? Unless our political system goes through major (positive) upheaval, there's every possibility that our fucked-up system will elect another porcelain despot the next go-around. The disgust likely lies with Trump, but the distrust is entirely in America now.
This is the primary problem with SO, and any other sites that use aggregate scoring to grant privileges that affect other users.
Due to the nature of the internet, and the people who use it, as you state there are people who have more time than brains and can just brute-force a system. Make enough comments or responses of non-useless regard, get upvotes on some of them, and quantity becomes quality. Someone who has spent a few months doing that on SO can have a middling reputation; if both this person and Donald E. Knuth (newly registered, using the same standard process) responded to a question, the brute-force person would likely get more attention to their answer.
This is why I've always preferred /.'s moderation system to any other I've encountered: there are extreme limits to how high or low a post may be rated, so outside of a rating war moderators are encouraged to spread their influence around to other responses once that limit has been achieved. A standard user who is here for ten years cannot have any higher privileges (karma bonus etc.) than another who has been here one year. If SO used a similar setup, where there were limits on scores or a person's reputation was more closely related to their average helpfulness instead of weighted aggregate, abuses that you and others have relayed here might not be as prevalent.
I assume you understand that those actions enable administrative headaches and decreases your nominal income, and have decided this outcome is worth more than the time required to change the process. The PHBs see that the IT department has the software and supplies it needs to work, and if they're able to acquire those then the procurement process must be fine. (Also the total dollar requests from IT is slightly lower than anticipated so they can probably shave a few bucks from budgeting in that area come next year.)
Squeaky wheel gets the grease, but if there's no squeaking no one bothers to look at the rotting/rusting spoke.
Where is the money going? Have you been able to get any details? I realize it would take a bit of time investment, but have you contacted any city/county government accounting/financial department and asked? Or written an elected official and see if they could shed some light?
If your city is large enough, you may have a convenient GAO-like non-profit that could supply you with the details.
I've not been bothered enough by my tax deductions to do research myself, but if I actually made useful amounts of money and felt that the taxes were being squandered I would look into it a bit (or at least think really hard about doing so.)
Oh? Interesting, I must have an outlier workplace. I work in a small accounting firm that is 85% women, including the co-owners. The listening and collaboration is, at worst, the same as male-majority work environments I've had and if there's any of the toxicity you mention it's being well-hidden from me for some reason.
Peculiarly, this was also the case when I worked for a non-profit that was well over 90% women and had three times the staff of my current workplace.
How lucky I must be! To miss all of these problems you bring to light (that at least a few moderators have apparently also experienced) multiple times means I am truly blessed.
How? I read about a lot of bullshit problems with various state's implementations, handling of their primaries and caucuses, and outright lies like chair-throwing. Clinton, her campaign, and the DNC certainly have a lot to answer for (and as yet have largely not.) But I haven't read anything that gives evidence of "full-on" rigging. If you're talking about super-delegates, which are a really stupid thing, even without them Clinton still solidly won. We can argue about things like psychological effects and preferences, but I think we waste time on conspiracies.
And I say all of this as someone firmly in the "Bernie woulda won" camp (but it's just as pointless to waste time on such what-ifs, rather than focusing on fixing the problems that potentially stopped him from doing so.)
I had lots of Democrat friends who made it clear why they voted for her; their positions weren't wrong, I felt that there were better reasons to vote for Sanders. You might recall the DNC primary race started with three "true" Democrats and one dark-horse, so in early voting it wasn't like people had to choose only between a Democrat and Democrat-alike. Even given three "(D)" options, people overwhelmingly chose Clinton amongst those three.