It has nothing to do with love being hard, it's because their algorithms SUCK. Mainly because they look for "desireable" traits rather than excluding 'deal breakers'.
This a 'one night stand' mindset - you end up finding the desirable/attractive but damaged people, not the acceptable ones.
Example: OKCupid asks people if they have cats or dogs. Then they let you look for someone that already owns a cat or a dog. They do NOT let you exclude people that have cats or dogs.
That is a one short term relationship system. If you only date people that already have a cat or a dog, you are looking for someone that won't have to change their life style to fit with yours. Perfect if all you want is a couple of months of fun.
However, let's say you want to get married. If they love you, they will grow to love your cat or dog. It will not be a 'deal killer'. But if you are allergic to a cat or a dog, you NEED to exclude those people. You can't ask them to give up their pet just to date you. If you tried that, your success rate plummets.
Same thing with many other such factors. If you are a short man WITHOUT a complex, then you are perfectly willing to date women, regardless of their height. You have no problem asking out someone a foot taller than you. That's healthy, non-discriminatory thinking. But if you try to ask out most tall women, you will be wasting your time, because most such women only want to date tall men.a
The truth is short men do not want to search for short women. Short men want to search for any woman that is willing to date men their size. Guess what - OKCupid knows which women are not willing to date short men but OKCupid will not let you exclude those women from your search..
The dating web sites are all seriously flawed by their 'show me a 10' mindset, rather than a "no deal breakers" mindset.
The movies portray them as causing societal breakdown. That depends on them being an actual threat. As they SUCK as a threat, they will cause no societal breakdown. The spanish flu did not destroy society, and neither did the Black death.
If a real zombie outbreak were to occur, society would not break down. Even ignoring their many physical weaknesses (rotting, freezing, destroying their own food supply), a smart, prepared human should be able to more than two zombies even if the zombies heavily outnumbered him - see Mythbusters episode. If every human killed two zombies before becoming one, then there is no way for the number of zombies to exceed the number of humans. Zombies would only win with surprise, which would not last more than 24 hours.
Zombie are incredibly stupid thing to be afraid of. They can only be scary if you assume humans are stupid. If you start with the assumption that humans are stupid, then making humans stupider does not matter.
But in reality, humans are the most cunning, brilliant predator this world has ever seen. My ancestors defeated saber tooth tigers, dire wolves, giant sloths, and all the other megafauna of the Pleistocene era. They did it with wooden and stone weapons.
We are not stupid. Human beings are the unstoppable, cunning, intelligent, killing machine that wiped out more species than any other predator in the history of the world. It is trite to say that humans are the real monsters. Zombies, they got no chance against us.
Note the word "third party seller". I'm the first party, Amazon is the SECOND party.
Amazon inserted itself as a middleman into all those transactions. They are not the best thing to happen to small business - internet sales are the best thing.
Amazon made it slightly easier for the seller by taking a slice of their profit and also making it MUCH harder for anyone that doesn't want to give Amazon that slice of the profit.
Worse, it makes deep searches much harder. Do a search for anything that is for sale and Amazon pushes itself to the top of the list. If you are not trying to buy, it's annoying and makes searching for what you really want much harder. If you are trying to buy it is very hard to use any other store.
The word for that is Monopoly and it should be considered a curse word.
I hate amazon. It's prevalence makes searching for other sellers harder. That said, B&N is no better.
Barnes and Nobles used to be the best book store. That is why it outlasted all the other big chains.
Now, when I go to a B&N, they give the same crappy service that the old chains do. They used to have a section for the new science fiction/fantasy books, not anymore. The new ones are shelved alphabetically. Same for Mysteries.
As for the Nook, they do stupid things like storing samples as if they were books. When you read a sample, no link to buy the book (let alone opening the new book to the end of the sample and deleting the sample).
Their service has gone down hill. They decided to try and out-cheap Amazon. They failed.
Aliens - no data, we get to say whatever we want, but that same lack of data makes them less believable.
Zombies - inherently bad idea - take a physically weak species that has dominated via it's intellect and make it physically stronger but take away it's intellect and that new species should LOSE. Lions, bears, elephants, sharks, all got beaten by human beings because we are SMART, not physically hard to kill.
AI - here at least it seems physically possible and they appear smarter than us. Obviously they are the most realistic fearsome enemy.
The problem is that AI is not really smarter than us, it merely puts all of it's limited brain power on what we tell it to, rather than wasting it on things like walking, dreaming, creating, daydreaming, etc. In addition, because it is obedient to us, we assume that when it rebels against us it will obey some higher AI organization, rather than realizing that any AI smart enough to fight back against humans is also going to fight among itself just as much as we fight among ourselves.
Google's Market Captilization (value of all the stock shares) is between 400 and 500 billion US dollars.
Value of Manhattan residential real estate (just the homes, not the industry or corporate stuff of just the main borrough, not the other companies, not the real estate in Staten Island, Bronx, Brooklyn, or Queens) is over 700 billion US dollars..
I disagree tremendously with you. I find your viewpoint to be disgusting and evil.
First, you think being an extremist is wrong and evil. That is NOT true. Extremists hold extreme views. that is the definition.
Extremists does not and SHOULD not be defined by actions. We have a word for that, it is TERRORIST. Terrorists take violent actions on their extreme views.
LOTS of people held extreme views and were extremists. People like Martin Luther King Jr. People like George Washington. People like Mahatma Gandi.
All these people were extremists. The people that held power before them hated and despised them for holding views different than the general society.
They happened to take action that convinced the rest of the world to take up their extreme views, but that does not make them bad or evil.
Stop defending the status quo. Accept the fact that extremist is not a bad word or a criminal word. If you have extremist views, you are an extremist. That does not make you evil.
You only become evil based on your ACTIONS. That might make you a revolutionary, a terrorist, or merely a famous writer.
There is nothing wrong with being an extremist, stop trying to change the definition of the word to be someone that takes evil actions on their extreme views.
You are using the definition of Terrorist as the definition of extremist.
There are people that sit at home and do no violence what so ever, yet believe that women should a) not work, b) not vote, c) wear clothing that covers their whole body.
This view is an extremist view. These people are not violent.
Also, I said it is harder to trick college educated people, not impossible. Anyone can be tricked, that's how professional magicians make their money.
If you believe something that the rest of society disagrees with, that is the definition of extremist.
In America, the liberals have focused on the college educated while the conservatives focused on the blue collar workers, at least over the past 10-20 years.
It is harder to trick college educated people into believing false statements.
QED, fake news gets picked up by the blue collar workers, and certain conservative politicians have decided to appeal to this demographic, so they don't publicly fight against the fake news.
The liberals on the other hand are led by college educated people that disbelieve and fight against the fake news.
It's not that the liberals are immune nor that the conservatives are susceptible. It's just a result of demographics.
If the locksmith physically helped a stranger gain access to your car, then they would be liable for the theft of the car and anything inside it.
The phone company did a lot more than merely fail to provide a lock, they actively helped the guy steal stuff.
If they hadn't promised a lock, than their help could be described as incidental - guy left things unlocked, they had a reasonable belief they were helping the actual owner. But when they promised the lock but fail to delier, any and everything they did to help the criminal makes them an accessory.
What happens if an unscrupulous bitcoin dealer (Yes, I know, it is so unlikely - all the bitcoin dealers I know are incredibly honest. The idea of one bending the law is unthinkable...;D) codes the sale as "one flash drive with associated software, price $88,000 + $15 handling fee". After it goes through, will they cancel the sale and reverse the charge? Will they demand to see the software on the flash drive? Will they cancel the merchant account of the seller without seeing the bitcoin on the drive?
Morons pass stupid rules that do nothing except PROTECT THE COMPANY from being sued.
You have made a lot of assumptions there. First, you failed to realize that the jobs will change. The nature of the entire business will shift and it is quite possible that the delivery driver job could change and become a better job, particularly if we insist on regulating it, the way we regulate long haul driver jobs.
Second, we are not 'denying it is crashing' in any way shape or form. Lots of people are talking about it.
Third, we are not holding onto the myth of the markets, instead we are holding on to a LONG history of:
a) Jobs becoming replaced by technology is not new. Damn, no one is buying my hand knapped flint knives any more, those bronze shmucks stole my jobs... iron stole my jobs.... steel...stainless steel... titanium knives...... lightsaber (ok, that last one may take some more time.)
b) We almost always ended up with MORE JOBS. not less. Better, quicker, tech means more uses for the tech, as this article correctly pointed out.
It's not about the market, it's about millennia of history.
And most importantly, you are making a simple, key, STUPID mistake - jobs have nothing to do with need. We don't hire people to fulfill a set need. We don't need disney movies, starbucks coffee, etc
Jobs are about WANT, and humans are greedy suckers. Give us all a sex-bots and we will demand two so we can have a threesome. Work will always expand to fill human desires because it is endless.
But there are transition pains where old skills are no longer needed and we have to figure out which new skills will be essential. The key to remember is that these are temporary, not permanent.
We should tell them that we will put "no drones" or driverless trucks into their contract as soon as we finish putting the "no horse-less carriage" rule into effect that the stablemen are demanding.
The argument from population is poor. Britain never came close to the number of people as China had, but at it's height it walked all over China. Same with all the great empires from the Roman empire forward.
It's not the size of your muscle, it's how many people are free to actually think for themselves.
For the past 100 years the US freed more minds than anyone else, even when they had a smaller percentage of the population. Trump is changing that. He's trying to push down those that disagree and hold up those that follow him. This reduces the number of free minds working on the actual problems.
Both China and India (caste still exists) have issues with the % of free minds. Merely having 4x the population doesn't help if you impair 95% of your population. But when the US decides to start impairing their own minds...
It's like the nerdy kid trying to be cool. It's obvious whats going on, and it's failing miserably.
To my knowledge, NO company has ever turned their corporate brand into a product name without first dominating the market. You dominate the market - as 80%+ - then it happens. You can't try to rename the product with your brand name and hope it lets you reach 80% market saturation.
And Ipad, while strong, do NOT dominate the tablet market. They never hit more than 65%, and in 2017 they were as low as 25%/
For decades, software companies have been treating our permanent purchases of software as if they were rentals. The conditions of 'purchase' were frankly more like rentals than anything else.
Which was unfair, as they were priced as purchases.
Now at least, they are being honest about it. They want to rent, then they can't charge a purchase price for it.
Look, the question is not that hard to do. You want to find out if violent video games have an effect? Do this:
1) Pick one of the worst schools in the nation - one where half the kids end up in jail rather than graduating. Chances are the kids are poor and will make step 2 easier.
2) Get permission from the parents.
3) Split the incoming class into two groups, a control and a violent video game group.
3) Each day, let the kids in the control play for one hour, a non-violent video game, such as Tetris, Angry Birds, Bejewelled, etc. Let the kids in the violent game group play anything with an "Adults Only" ESRB rating, (eliminate the sex based ones).
4) In 4 years, look and see which kids went to jail for violent acts. Given that we picked one of the worst schools, chances are that some students in both group got convicted.
But they don't do that. Why? Because the smart people know the video games don't do anything REAL. Instead they pretend that fake 'violence' such as violent thoughts, pushing, cursing, etc. are someone indicators of real violence.
We don't need to use these fake indicators, we can use actual criminal convictions. If you don't bother using REAL indicators, you are cheating.
Slashdot Mirror
It has nothing to do with love being hard, it's because their algorithms SUCK. Mainly because they look for "desireable" traits rather than excluding 'deal breakers'.
This a 'one night stand' mindset - you end up finding the desirable/attractive but damaged people, not the acceptable ones.
Example:
OKCupid asks people if they have cats or dogs. Then they let you look for someone that already owns a cat or a dog. They do NOT let you exclude people that have cats or dogs.
That is a one short term relationship system. If you only date people that already have a cat or a dog, you are looking for someone that won't have to change their life style to fit with yours. Perfect if all you want is a couple of months of fun.
However, let's say you want to get married. If they love you, they will grow to love your cat or dog. It will not be a 'deal killer'. But if you are allergic to a cat or a dog, you NEED to exclude those people. You can't ask them to give up their pet just to date you. If you tried that, your success rate plummets.
Same thing with many other such factors. If you are a short man WITHOUT a complex, then you are perfectly willing to date women, regardless of their height. You have no problem asking out someone a foot taller than you. That's healthy, non-discriminatory thinking. But if you try to ask out most tall women, you will be wasting your time, because most such women only want to date tall men.a
The truth is short men do not want to search for short women. Short men want to search for any woman that is willing to date men their size. Guess what - OKCupid knows which women are not willing to date short men but OKCupid will not let you exclude those women from your search..
The dating web sites are all seriously flawed by their 'show me a 10' mindset, rather than a "no deal breakers" mindset.
The movies portray them as causing societal breakdown. That depends on them being an actual threat. As they SUCK as a threat, they will cause no societal breakdown. The spanish flu did not destroy society, and neither did the Black death.
If a real zombie outbreak were to occur, society would not break down. Even ignoring their many physical weaknesses (rotting, freezing, destroying their own food supply), a smart, prepared human should be able to more than two zombies even if the zombies heavily outnumbered him - see Mythbusters episode. If every human killed two zombies before becoming one, then there is no way for the number of zombies to exceed the number of humans. Zombies would only win with surprise, which would not last more than 24 hours.
Zombie are incredibly stupid thing to be afraid of. They can only be scary if you assume humans are stupid. If you start with the assumption that humans are stupid, then making humans stupider does not matter.
But in reality, humans are the most cunning, brilliant predator this world has ever seen. My ancestors defeated saber tooth tigers, dire wolves, giant sloths, and all the other megafauna of the Pleistocene era. They did it with wooden and stone weapons.
We are not stupid. Human beings are the unstoppable, cunning, intelligent, killing machine that wiped out more species than any other predator in the history of the world. It is trite to say that humans are the real monsters. Zombies, they got no chance against us.
Note the word "third party seller". I'm the first party, Amazon is the SECOND party.
Amazon inserted itself as a middleman into all those transactions. They are not the best thing to happen to small business - internet sales are the best thing.
Amazon made it slightly easier for the seller by taking a slice of their profit and also making it MUCH harder for anyone that doesn't want to give Amazon that slice of the profit.
Worse, it makes deep searches much harder. Do a search for anything that is for sale and Amazon pushes itself to the top of the list. If you are not trying to buy, it's annoying and makes searching for what you really want much harder. If you are trying to buy it is very hard to use any other store.
The word for that is Monopoly and it should be considered a curse word.
I hate amazon. It's prevalence makes searching for other sellers harder. That said, B&N is no better.
Barnes and Nobles used to be the best book store. That is why it outlasted all the other big chains.
Now, when I go to a B&N, they give the same crappy service that the old chains do. They used to have a section for the new science fiction/fantasy books, not anymore. The new ones are shelved alphabetically. Same for Mysteries.
As for the Nook, they do stupid things like storing samples as if they were books. When you read a sample, no link to buy the book (let alone opening the new book to the end of the sample and deleting the sample).
Their service has gone down hill. They decided to try and out-cheap Amazon. They failed.
Aliens - no data, we get to say whatever we want, but that same lack of data makes them less believable.
Zombies - inherently bad idea - take a physically weak species that has dominated via it's intellect and make it physically stronger but take away it's intellect and that new species should LOSE. Lions, bears, elephants, sharks, all got beaten by human beings because we are SMART, not physically hard to kill.
AI - here at least it seems physically possible and they appear smarter than us. Obviously they are the most realistic fearsome enemy.
The problem is that AI is not really smarter than us, it merely puts all of it's limited brain power on what we tell it to, rather than wasting it on things like walking, dreaming, creating, daydreaming, etc. In addition, because it is obedient to us, we assume that when it rebels against us it will obey some higher AI organization, rather than realizing that any AI smart enough to fight back against humans is also going to fight among itself just as much as we fight among ourselves.
Google's Market Captilization (value of all the stock shares) is between 400 and 500 billion US dollars.
Value of Manhattan residential real estate (just the homes, not the industry or corporate stuff of just the main borrough, not the other companies, not the real estate in Staten Island, Bronx, Brooklyn, or Queens) is over 700 billion US dollars..
Google is big, but not that big.
I disagree tremendously with you. I find your viewpoint to be disgusting and evil.
First, you think being an extremist is wrong and evil. That is NOT true. Extremists hold extreme views. that is the definition.
Extremists does not and SHOULD not be defined by actions. We have a word for that, it is TERRORIST. Terrorists take violent actions on their extreme views.
LOTS of people held extreme views and were extremists. People like Martin Luther King Jr. People like George Washington. People like Mahatma Gandi.
All these people were extremists. The people that held power before them hated and despised them for holding views different than the general society.
They happened to take action that convinced the rest of the world to take up their extreme views, but that does not make them bad or evil.
Stop defending the status quo. Accept the fact that extremist is not a bad word or a criminal word. If you have extremist views, you are an extremist. That does not make you evil.
You only become evil based on your ACTIONS. That might make you a revolutionary, a terrorist, or merely a famous writer.
There is nothing wrong with being an extremist, stop trying to change the definition of the word to be someone that takes evil actions on their extreme views.
You are using the definition of Terrorist as the definition of extremist.
There are people that sit at home and do no violence what so ever, yet believe that women should a) not work, b) not vote, c) wear clothing that covers their whole body.
This view is an extremist view. These people are not violent.
Also, I said it is harder to trick college educated people, not impossible. Anyone can be tricked, that's how professional magicians make their money.
If you believe something that the rest of society disagrees with, that is the definition of extremist.
In America, the liberals have focused on the college educated while the conservatives focused on the blue collar workers, at least over the past 10-20 years.
It is harder to trick college educated people into believing false statements.
QED, fake news gets picked up by the blue collar workers, and certain conservative politicians have decided to appeal to this demographic, so they don't publicly fight against the fake news.
The liberals on the other hand are led by college educated people that disbelieve and fight against the fake news.
It's not that the liberals are immune nor that the conservatives are susceptible. It's just a result of demographics.
If the locksmith physically helped a stranger gain access to your car, then they would be liable for the theft of the car and anything inside it.
The phone company did a lot more than merely fail to provide a lock, they actively helped the guy steal stuff.
If they hadn't promised a lock, than their help could be described as incidental - guy left things unlocked, they had a reasonable belief they were helping the actual owner. But when they promised the lock but fail to delier, any and everything they did to help the criminal makes them an accessory.
If they made any effort at all to do it, there will be e-records of the attempt.
If it was done on the phone, there should be some note to do it.
But when I read they had promised they had put a security code in place but they had not done so, they lost it.
This guy took the appropriate steps, the phone company should pay up.
If you say you have security on your account but do not actually put it in, then you owe the customer money
Like for example the purchase of illegal drugs?
What happens if an unscrupulous bitcoin dealer (Yes, I know, it is so unlikely - all the bitcoin dealers I know are incredibly honest. The idea of one bending the law is unthinkable... ;D) codes the sale as "one flash drive with associated software, price $88,000 + $15 handling fee". After it goes through, will they cancel the sale and reverse the charge? Will they demand to see the software on the flash drive? Will they cancel the merchant account of the seller without seeing the bitcoin on the drive?
Morons pass stupid rules that do nothing except PROTECT THE COMPANY from being sued.
You have made a lot of assumptions there. First, you failed to realize that the jobs will change. The nature of the entire business will shift and it is quite possible that the delivery driver job could change and become a better job, particularly if we insist on regulating it, the way we regulate long haul driver jobs.
Second, we are not 'denying it is crashing' in any way shape or form. Lots of people are talking about it.
Third, we are not holding onto the myth of the markets, instead we are holding on to a LONG history of:
a) Jobs becoming replaced by technology is not new. Damn, no one is buying my hand knapped flint knives any more, those bronze shmucks stole my jobs... iron stole my jobs.... steel...stainless steel ... titanium knives... ... lightsaber (ok, that last one may take some more time.)
b) We almost always ended up with MORE JOBS. not less. Better, quicker, tech means more uses for the tech, as this article correctly pointed out.
It's not about the market, it's about millennia of history.
And most importantly, you are making a simple, key, STUPID mistake - jobs have nothing to do with need. We don't hire people to fulfill a set need. We don't need disney movies, starbucks coffee, etc
Jobs are about WANT, and humans are greedy suckers. Give us all a sex-bots and we will demand two so we can have a threesome. Work will always expand to fill human desires because it is endless.
But there are transition pains where old skills are no longer needed and we have to figure out which new skills will be essential. The key to remember is that these are temporary, not permanent.
1) Mole rats don't live past 30.
2) But those their mortality does not INCREASE as they get older, until they get 30. THen they all start dying off in the next 2 years.
So they don't age till 30, then they die all of a sudden in the next 2 years, despite not being in bad shape.
That does not sound like 'immortal' to me.
Change to "No personal devices" but give them military issue for civilian use.
Specifically, a cellphone with a location chip built by an american company,programmed by a company, to stop tracking GPS when you are on duty.
They built this country.
We should tell them that we will put "no drones" or driverless trucks into their contract as soon as we finish putting the "no horse-less carriage" rule into effect that the stablemen are demanding.
The argument from population is poor. Britain never came close to the number of people as China had, but at it's height it walked all over China. Same with all the great empires from the Roman empire forward.
It's not the size of your muscle, it's how many people are free to actually think for themselves.
For the past 100 years the US freed more minds than anyone else, even when they had a smaller percentage of the population. Trump is changing that. He's trying to push down those that disagree and hold up those that follow him. This reduces the number of free minds working on the actual problems.
Both China and India (caste still exists) have issues with the % of free minds. Merely having 4x the population doesn't help if you impair 95% of your population. But when the US decides to start impairing their own minds...
First, the state would probably like this, and would probably only agree to if the 'local' isp was in position to compete with the big isp.
The state would probably offer direct incentives to the local isp to expand to consumers as well as state actors.
If the big isp attempted to prevent this, the state would probably sue for breaking monopoly laws.
And they will most likely be speaking Mandarin.
Unless the US can get rid of the cancerous politics called Trumpism, China will be the next imperial colonial power.
Wow- a Russian/Trump agent replied to my post.
I feel... violated.
Those are the worst.
It's like the nerdy kid trying to be cool. It's obvious whats going on, and it's failing miserably.
To my knowledge, NO company has ever turned their corporate brand into a product name without first dominating the market. You dominate the market - as 80%+ - then it happens. You can't try to rename the product with your brand name and hope it lets you reach 80% market saturation.
And Ipad, while strong, do NOT dominate the tablet market. They never hit more than 65%, and in 2017 they were as low as 25%/
As the Liar in Chief would say, "Sad".
For decades, software companies have been treating our permanent purchases of software as if they were rentals. The conditions of 'purchase' were frankly more like rentals than anything else.
Which was unfair, as they were priced as purchases.
Now at least, they are being honest about it. They want to rent, then they can't charge a purchase price for it.
Look, the question is not that hard to do. You want to find out if violent video games have an effect? Do this:
1) Pick one of the worst schools in the nation - one where half the kids end up in jail rather than graduating. Chances are the kids are poor and will make step 2 easier.
2) Get permission from the parents.
3) Split the incoming class into two groups, a control and a violent video game group.
3) Each day, let the kids in the control play for one hour, a non-violent video game, such as Tetris, Angry Birds, Bejewelled, etc. Let the kids in the violent game group play anything with an "Adults Only" ESRB rating, (eliminate the sex based ones).
4) In 4 years, look and see which kids went to jail for violent acts. Given that we picked one of the worst schools, chances are that some students in both group got convicted.
But they don't do that. Why? Because the smart people know the video games don't do anything REAL. Instead they pretend that fake 'violence' such as violent thoughts, pushing, cursing, etc. are someone indicators of real violence.
We don't need to use these fake indicators, we can use actual criminal convictions. If you don't bother using REAL indicators, you are cheating.