What do you mean? He published this posthumously. That's an amazing feat for someone who is dead, and if he can do that while dead, I don't see a reason to use past tense. Who knows what else he can do now that he's dead!
Hawking is so smart that I, for one, am not going to underestimate him.
Don't want to. More content == more views, more views == more revenue. Doesn't matter if it's made by a bot or viewed by a bot. As long as it's driving clicks and eyeballs, it's worth money.
Internet outrage is the current way we fuel the internet.
It's because so many people love to jump on bandwagons and repeat the same talking points.....People have started to act more like bots. Maybe deliberately in some cases, maybe unconsciously in others.....
The internet is magical because it allows the village idiot a microphone the same size as the smartest people in the village. And often the smart folks realize that there's no reason to get into a braying match with an ass.
That means you have a whole lot of people who aren't smart enough to contribute meaningfully, but who want to gain some of those sweet, sweet internet points. How do they do that? They make up for the lack of content with volume. How do they get that volume with a deficit in knowledge and skill? They echo what's already there. And what's there is often the contribution of fellow idiots.
The format of most social media (Facebook and Twitter especially) pushes people towards bot-like behavior.
Disqus, in particular, does this. My comments often get flagged as spam because they are long, comprehensive thoughts. Apparently their system thinks that's probably spam. Spam in dense paragraphs, with correct grammar and spelling most of the time, using fairly high-level vocabulary, without exterior links, or if there are some, to places that are common sites to look up factual information.
When website designers write algorithms that push people away from real discussion, it absolutely devolves into slapdash comments and assertions, which bots are great at.
But that's the point, right?
The more clicks, the more views, the more ads that get views, the more revenue you get. Someone spending 15 minutes reading a comment and writing a response generates one ad view. Someone spending 10 seconds reading a post and 10 seconds replying over those 15 minutes hits two orders of magnitude more ads.
And if it's a bot, it's a bot. They're driving views and responses too, and that's the point.
I'm not sure why you think Sony is the only developer putting out video games. Are you unfamiliar with the hundred or so other large developers? Or the thousands of small independent ones? The giant app market which is churning out games at a breakneck pace?
Seriously, I've not played a Sony game for a decade, and I am absolutely not hurting for gaming. Haven't even missed them, to be honest.
If we allow industry to drive the ship? I've got very bad news for you......
In Trump's new NAFTA he retained the legal structure for fossil fuel companies to sue local, state, and federal governments if they pass laws that hurt their business. (Most other companies which were allowed them in NAFTA are stripped out, which is at least some progress.) Go take a look at Investor-State Dispute Settlement Panels.
ISDS arbitration is needed because the potential for bias can be high in situations where a foreign investor is seeking to redress injury in a domestic court, especially against the government itself.
You know that sort of bias, where people don't want the environment they live in ruined and their world polluted, which prevents them from being able to see the wisdom in ensuring fossil fuel company profits.
I'm in a small upper-midwest city and I'm also seeing a surprising number of Teslas. In just the last couple of days I've seen two 3s, an S, and an X. The charcoal grey X really caught my eye.
For a company with no marketing, no leases, and which can't sell in this state, requiring a 2 hour drive out-of-state to pick up a car, that's not bad at all. I'll be looking at a Tesla in the next 2-3 years, I'm pretty sure.
You do know that there's enough data now to have reliable accident rates for the Tesla models, right? Or maybe you don't, because you wouldn't be incorrectly speculating on their accident rates if you did. Rei posted them up above if you're not interested in googling for them.
I think it will sort itself out, like many long ignored ills seem to do. In order to get society to change, you can't politely ask. There has to be upheaval, backlash, and casualties on all sides. People hate to change, and often, it's fear of consequences that forces them to finally do something different.
I think this Me Too overreach is temporary, as we redraw the boundaries of how to act with each other. While I didn't live through the 60s, I'm guessing that the civil rights movement was similarly not pleasant, even if you were white and on the right side of the issue. Boycotts, riots, sit-ins, and marches, there were likely also a lot of financial and social casualties of people who had done nothing wrong. But at the end of the day, we broke segregation, better equalized rights, and made a real leap forward in equality. I see the same thing happening now with Me Too. It's not a pleasant transition for anyone involved, but when we make social adjustments, it never is.
While in some respects it's not fair to be dredging up shit from decades past, at the same time, we can't just say, "tomorrow is when we start holding you accountable for being a shithead, you get a free pass for everything up until then." It sucks, but being afraid that what you've done in the past will catch up with you is a good motivator for being squeaky clean in the future. You know then that if someone comes after you, you can pull on some good character witnesses that can vouch that you're not like that now. And if it makes some men go back and preemptively apologize for their shit, that's awesome.
At the moment, I'm working with about 75% women. At first, I was indeed on a bit of eggshells around them. I didn't really joke, and kept my warped sense of humor to myself. But as we got to know each other better, they opened up, and I did. I payed attention to the signals, the body language, and observed when I was getting a little too close to the boundaries of what they are ok with. Putting in that effort has been worth it. We're damn friendly, go out for drinks sometimes, and I've gotten shitfaced with a couple of them in strange cities after work hours.
They're sort-of bros, but there are clear lines that I don't cross. When I made a joke that if one of their kids didn't get better that they could just make another one, and she pointed out that her husband was fixed, I did not push that joke further. I said, "Well, I guess you really need to take him to the doctor then.", and let it go. Because that's where I'm pretty sure the line is with her. Yes, that takes more mental energy than plowing forward until people are uncomfortable, but that's part and parcel of being a decent human being.
For a damn long time being a man got you a pass on being a decent human being. The more powerful you were, the more of a pass you got. My hope isn't that Me Too makes men scared shitless to even talk to women, but that they consider taking the temperature of their relationships and when they're in doubt, they ask. It's really not that hard to do.
Wish I had not commented to you above, and I had mod points to burn. This, 100%.
What's crazy is that the dems started to get so big that the republicans had to draw a hard line, and the only place they could think to do that was far to the right. 60 years ago that might have worked, but demographics have changed so much that they essentially painted themselves into a corner. It's crazy, but those you call the "Establishment Democrats" essentially stole the centrist republican platform, and the only place the republicans had to go was to crazy town.
Had republicans drawn the line on the other side of the "Establishment Democrats", that would likely have hurt the democrats far more. "We very much appreciate Schumer and Pelosi agreeing that our positions are the correct ones, and we look forward to working with them to implement this bill." Instead it's this flailing against anyone who's not a southern white christian, every anti-woman and anti-poor policy you can think of, giant corporate handouts, and a rapidly increasing debt and deficit. They're doing what they can to alienate 60% of the voters, and in the long-term, that's not a winning strategy.
First, censorship is by definition only done by the government. You can have no expectation that a private party will host, display, and promote your speech. That would actually be unconstitutional if they were required to.
Second, very few/. posts are deleted, and very few people are banned from posting here. Modding down is not the same as censorship. The content is still there for everyone to see if they want to see it. All that's been done is tag the content, with end users able to toggle visibility based on those tags.
I second R. It's more user-friendly than a lot of languages, and if you can write excel macros, you can probably learn to do a bit of R. Code it up for them with good comments, and teach them how to run it. If they're in any way competent, they'll use that script a bit then edit it and break it, and you can teach them a bit more.
To any rational reader, there is nothing resembling evidence in there. If you start from a position of confirming your biases, sure, it looks good. If that was prophetic, it would have actual details in it, and would point to a specific individual who could not be any other individual. It does not.
You have faith based on zero evidence. If you had evidence, you'd have a Nobel Prize. To date, nobody has produced evidence that god exists. If you can't do that, you don't have evidence for truth in religion.
Let's say we detect a space bound ICBM heading to the US, can't pinpoint the trajectory.
Yeah, 1) that doesn't happen, and 2) so we panic 325,000,000 people, of whom perhaps 3% at most might be directly impacted by this (Population of NYC) with a message that won't help and won't save them anyway?
When I said that the only uses are political shenanigans and mass panic, this is exactly what I was talking about. And the fact that you think the government could figure out we're under attack and send an appropriately crafted message in 10 minutes? That's hilarious. Are you five?
I think one of the roles of government should be protecting and defending its populace.
I do too.
This serves to further that goal.
The fact that you don't understand how useless this is, and how ripe for abuse it is really makes you sound like a child.
Alerts are good, and anyone who doesn't think so, just hates the guy at the top, and not what he is doing.
See, that's the sort of partisan blindness I was talking about. Doesn't matter if we have good reasons, you can't see them because of your cranial location.
We already have regional alerts. So what's the use-case of a national one that's not entirely covered already by a regional one? Name one thing that requires the ability to message everyone in Hawaii and Maine at the same time. One. Between social media and the news networks, anything affecting some small part of the country will be sufficiently covered for everyone else in a very timely fashion.
Nation-wide alerts are not good. Doesn't matter who is at the top. They're either going to be political bullshit or incite mass panic. Or be worthless because they come way too late or are for an event a thousand miles away that affects 0.1% of the population at most.
You are making a laughable claim that we all need a government spokesperson in our pocket to tell us stuff, and we're haters for not liking it and thinking we need it.
This alert plan was started under Obama, and it was stupid then, and it was finished up and tested under Trump, and it's stupid now. Doesn't have anything to do with the person at the top. It has everything to do with limited potential for use and unlimited potential for abuse.
And your plane example is hilarious, because this is SMS and most people still can't get/send SMSes while airborne.
The classic way to say that is, "What can be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence."
To have faith, you need to believe that something is true without having evidence for it being true. It's brutally unfair for someone to be allowed to make decisions that impact the lives of others when they base their decisions on something not grounded in reality nor evidence. Somehow in the US we've glamorized this and demonized the lack of it, and that, I believe, is the ultimate evil of the evangelical movement.
Slashdot Mirror
That's actually one of the things he said in his book. I assume he came back from the future to write that to let us know.
So if you have 80% battery and your friend's phone is about to die, you can put them on top of one another and yours can charge his.
No, no I can't. If he can't be trusted to keep his phone charged, he can't be trusted period. I'm not going to give him my precious life energy.
What do you mean? He published this posthumously. That's an amazing feat for someone who is dead, and if he can do that while dead, I don't see a reason to use past tense. Who knows what else he can do now that he's dead!
Hawking is so smart that I, for one, am not going to underestimate him.
Don't want to. More content == more views, more views == more revenue. Doesn't matter if it's made by a bot or viewed by a bot. As long as it's driving clicks and eyeballs, it's worth money.
Internet outrage is the current way we fuel the internet.
It's because so many people love to jump on bandwagons and repeat the same talking points.....People have started to act more like bots. Maybe deliberately in some cases, maybe unconsciously in others.....
The internet is magical because it allows the village idiot a microphone the same size as the smartest people in the village. And often the smart folks realize that there's no reason to get into a braying match with an ass.
That means you have a whole lot of people who aren't smart enough to contribute meaningfully, but who want to gain some of those sweet, sweet internet points. How do they do that? They make up for the lack of content with volume. How do they get that volume with a deficit in knowledge and skill? They echo what's already there. And what's there is often the contribution of fellow idiots.
The format of most social media (Facebook and Twitter especially) pushes people towards bot-like behavior.
Disqus, in particular, does this. My comments often get flagged as spam because they are long, comprehensive thoughts. Apparently their system thinks that's probably spam. Spam in dense paragraphs, with correct grammar and spelling most of the time, using fairly high-level vocabulary, without exterior links, or if there are some, to places that are common sites to look up factual information.
When website designers write algorithms that push people away from real discussion, it absolutely devolves into slapdash comments and assertions, which bots are great at.
But that's the point, right?
The more clicks, the more views, the more ads that get views, the more revenue you get. Someone spending 15 minutes reading a comment and writing a response generates one ad view. Someone spending 10 seconds reading a post and 10 seconds replying over those 15 minutes hits two orders of magnitude more ads.
And if it's a bot, it's a bot. They're driving views and responses too, and that's the point.
I'm not sure how to do that. It would be really helpful if someone made an app to do it for me.
I'm not sure why you think Sony is the only developer putting out video games. Are you unfamiliar with the hundred or so other large developers? Or the thousands of small independent ones? The giant app market which is churning out games at a breakneck pace?
Seriously, I've not played a Sony game for a decade, and I am absolutely not hurting for gaming. Haven't even missed them, to be honest.
If we allow industry to drive the ship? I've got very bad news for you......
In Trump's new NAFTA he retained the legal structure for fossil fuel companies to sue local, state, and federal governments if they pass laws that hurt their business. (Most other companies which were allowed them in NAFTA are stripped out, which is at least some progress.) Go take a look at Investor-State Dispute Settlement Panels.
ISDS arbitration is needed because the potential for bias can be high in situations where a foreign investor is seeking to redress injury in a domestic court, especially against the government itself.
You know that sort of bias, where people don't want the environment they live in ruined and their world polluted, which prevents them from being able to see the wisdom in ensuring fossil fuel company profits.
I'm in a small upper-midwest city and I'm also seeing a surprising number of Teslas. In just the last couple of days I've seen two 3s, an S, and an X. The charcoal grey X really caught my eye.
For a company with no marketing, no leases, and which can't sell in this state, requiring a 2 hour drive out-of-state to pick up a car, that's not bad at all. I'll be looking at a Tesla in the next 2-3 years, I'm pretty sure.
Boycotting Sony isn't much of an option.
Why not? I've been doing it for a decade or more now. Seems to be working fine for me.
You do know that there's enough data now to have reliable accident rates for the Tesla models, right? Or maybe you don't, because you wouldn't be incorrectly speculating on their accident rates if you did. Rei posted them up above if you're not interested in googling for them.
I think they're only safer if you're in them, not on them.
I think it will sort itself out, like many long ignored ills seem to do. In order to get society to change, you can't politely ask. There has to be upheaval, backlash, and casualties on all sides. People hate to change, and often, it's fear of consequences that forces them to finally do something different.
I think this Me Too overreach is temporary, as we redraw the boundaries of how to act with each other. While I didn't live through the 60s, I'm guessing that the civil rights movement was similarly not pleasant, even if you were white and on the right side of the issue. Boycotts, riots, sit-ins, and marches, there were likely also a lot of financial and social casualties of people who had done nothing wrong. But at the end of the day, we broke segregation, better equalized rights, and made a real leap forward in equality. I see the same thing happening now with Me Too. It's not a pleasant transition for anyone involved, but when we make social adjustments, it never is.
While in some respects it's not fair to be dredging up shit from decades past, at the same time, we can't just say, "tomorrow is when we start holding you accountable for being a shithead, you get a free pass for everything up until then." It sucks, but being afraid that what you've done in the past will catch up with you is a good motivator for being squeaky clean in the future. You know then that if someone comes after you, you can pull on some good character witnesses that can vouch that you're not like that now. And if it makes some men go back and preemptively apologize for their shit, that's awesome.
At the moment, I'm working with about 75% women. At first, I was indeed on a bit of eggshells around them. I didn't really joke, and kept my warped sense of humor to myself. But as we got to know each other better, they opened up, and I did. I payed attention to the signals, the body language, and observed when I was getting a little too close to the boundaries of what they are ok with. Putting in that effort has been worth it. We're damn friendly, go out for drinks sometimes, and I've gotten shitfaced with a couple of them in strange cities after work hours.
They're sort-of bros, but there are clear lines that I don't cross. When I made a joke that if one of their kids didn't get better that they could just make another one, and she pointed out that her husband was fixed, I did not push that joke further. I said, "Well, I guess you really need to take him to the doctor then.", and let it go. Because that's where I'm pretty sure the line is with her. Yes, that takes more mental energy than plowing forward until people are uncomfortable, but that's part and parcel of being a decent human being.
For a damn long time being a man got you a pass on being a decent human being. The more powerful you were, the more of a pass you got. My hope isn't that Me Too makes men scared shitless to even talk to women, but that they consider taking the temperature of their relationships and when they're in doubt, they ask. It's really not that hard to do.
What's even more interesting is that I don't have that option. I'm not sure why or how.
Wish I had not commented to you above, and I had mod points to burn. This, 100%.
What's crazy is that the dems started to get so big that the republicans had to draw a hard line, and the only place they could think to do that was far to the right. 60 years ago that might have worked, but demographics have changed so much that they essentially painted themselves into a corner. It's crazy, but those you call the "Establishment Democrats" essentially stole the centrist republican platform, and the only place the republicans had to go was to crazy town.
Had republicans drawn the line on the other side of the "Establishment Democrats", that would likely have hurt the democrats far more. "We very much appreciate Schumer and Pelosi agreeing that our positions are the correct ones, and we look forward to working with them to implement this bill." Instead it's this flailing against anyone who's not a southern white christian, every anti-woman and anti-poor policy you can think of, giant corporate handouts, and a rapidly increasing debt and deficit. They're doing what they can to alienate 60% of the voters, and in the long-term, that's not a winning strategy.
No, it is in no way censorship.
First, censorship is by definition only done by the government. You can have no expectation that a private party will host, display, and promote your speech. That would actually be unconstitutional if they were required to.
Second, very few /. posts are deleted, and very few people are banned from posting here. Modding down is not the same as censorship. The content is still there for everyone to see if they want to see it. All that's been done is tag the content, with end users able to toggle visibility based on those tags.
You may want to read up on what censorship is.
If you're seeing advertising, you're doing it wrong.
I second R. It's more user-friendly than a lot of languages, and if you can write excel macros, you can probably learn to do a bit of R. Code it up for them with good comments, and teach them how to run it. If they're in any way competent, they'll use that script a bit then edit it and break it, and you can teach them a bit more.
Your use case is not most consumers' use case.
To any rational reader, there is nothing resembling evidence in there. If you start from a position of confirming your biases, sure, it looks good. If that was prophetic, it would have actual details in it, and would point to a specific individual who could not be any other individual. It does not.
You have faith based on zero evidence. If you had evidence, you'd have a Nobel Prize. To date, nobody has produced evidence that god exists. If you can't do that, you don't have evidence for truth in religion.
Let's say we detect a space bound ICBM heading to the US, can't pinpoint the trajectory.
Yeah, 1) that doesn't happen, and 2) so we panic 325,000,000 people, of whom perhaps 3% at most might be directly impacted by this (Population of NYC) with a message that won't help and won't save them anyway?
When I said that the only uses are political shenanigans and mass panic, this is exactly what I was talking about. And the fact that you think the government could figure out we're under attack and send an appropriately crafted message in 10 minutes? That's hilarious. Are you five?
I think one of the roles of government should be protecting and defending its populace.
I do too.
This serves to further that goal.
The fact that you don't understand how useless this is, and how ripe for abuse it is really makes you sound like a child.
No. You just can't stand the guy at the top.
And yeah, you argue like one.
I guess we'll just have to keep an eye on the news coming out of Phoenix in the next year or so to find out! (Glad I don't live there......)
Alerts are good, and anyone who doesn't think so, just hates the guy at the top, and not what he is doing.
See, that's the sort of partisan blindness I was talking about. Doesn't matter if we have good reasons, you can't see them because of your cranial location.
We already have regional alerts. So what's the use-case of a national one that's not entirely covered already by a regional one? Name one thing that requires the ability to message everyone in Hawaii and Maine at the same time. One. Between social media and the news networks, anything affecting some small part of the country will be sufficiently covered for everyone else in a very timely fashion.
Nation-wide alerts are not good. Doesn't matter who is at the top. They're either going to be political bullshit or incite mass panic. Or be worthless because they come way too late or are for an event a thousand miles away that affects 0.1% of the population at most.
You are making a laughable claim that we all need a government spokesperson in our pocket to tell us stuff, and we're haters for not liking it and thinking we need it.
This alert plan was started under Obama, and it was stupid then, and it was finished up and tested under Trump, and it's stupid now. Doesn't have anything to do with the person at the top. It has everything to do with limited potential for use and unlimited potential for abuse.
And your plane example is hilarious, because this is SMS and most people still can't get/send SMSes while airborne.
The classic way to say that is, "What can be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence."
To have faith, you need to believe that something is true without having evidence for it being true. It's brutally unfair for someone to be allowed to make decisions that impact the lives of others when they base their decisions on something not grounded in reality nor evidence. Somehow in the US we've glamorized this and demonized the lack of it, and that, I believe, is the ultimate evil of the evangelical movement.