Where in the article you linked to does it address privately-owned entities? Everything I read there (and I did go read it) talked about publicly- or government-owned spaces.
Just because one has a right to express one's opinion in this country doesn't mean that any corporation has the obligation to carry/post/air your opinion on the platform they own.
Simply dismissing others that may have a differing opinion is a bad way of having an intelligent discourse. They are actually making valid points about the probable intent of the original post and how it is being seen by some here.
What should be happening here, in my opinion, is a recognition that we need to think for ourselves and realize, when a link like the original is posted, that it is in fact a single data point and should not be taken out of context (or, made to serve a larger context that it doesn't actually belong to).
I agree - the intent was a half-truth without full context. That's what I mean when I said "The original article is an analysis of job cuts only, not an analysis of the overall health of the job market."
one was factual, the other (first chronologically) was sarcastic. Perhaps I was hasty in my first post, and a bit inappropriate. It is, in fact, a single data point that an intelligent individual will know doesn't tell the whole story.
It is very much like doing that. I'm saying that people should recognize it for being that, and realize that it is decidedly NOT a balanced analysis of the job market. I suppose I haven't been articulate enough to get that across.
What a lovely way of making assumptions about me. I DO see what's happening and I actually AGREE with you that the intent of the post was probably what you stated. But if one can't suggest that people learn to think for themselves and take analyses for exactly what they are and what they aren't, then perhaps Slashdot isn't the home of as many intelligent people as I thought.
You have no idea how much I may or may not know about reading and understanding economic reports. Don't make assumptions about me, and I'm not being passive-agressive. I'm advocating elevating the level of discussion and people making scientific and warranted conclusions based on mathematics.
I've been paying the same amount of attention to Slashdot as I always have.
I choose to look at statistics as just that - raw data. I'll form my own conclusions, thank you very much. As for anyone who wants to use raw statistical data to support their own confirmation bias, well, I guess they're unaware or misguided. If you look at my other comments on this thread, I think you'll see that I've tried to advocate taking the numbers for exactly what they are, and not an analysis of the overall health of the economy or of the job market.
If you choose to see it that way, so be it. I find absolutely NOTHING in the post itself or in the original link that indicates anything except a strict analysis of job cut/layoff numbers. Perhaps I'm expecting people to be able to actually read and understand reports more than I should.
Yes, some posters are misinterpreting (either through ignorance or willfully) the meaning of the report, but that isn't a reason to discount the report itself.
No, it's not contrary to the marketwatch report. The two reports are stating completely different things.
The marketwatch report is talking about the overall health of the economy and of the job market.
The axios article is ONLY talking about job cuts / layoffs. It's not even attempting to analyze net job growth/loss
The fact that some people (I'm not saying you, tatman, you actually seem to have a grip on it) can't tell the difference just means that they are incapable of reading an article/analysis and understanding it within the context of its own data.
This article is the definition of Fake News. It picks a random statistic out of context, ignoring that obviously layoffs would increase because millions of additional people have become employed.
There's also orders of magnitude more deaths now than 300 years ago. Your logic dictates that life is worse and it's easier to die, when the reality is that there's orders of magnitude more people who exist.
You are a sniveling fucking moron.
That's rich. The AC calling me a sniveling moron. If you had actually read the original article, you'd see that it is analysis of job cuts only, and not a comment on the overall health of the job market or of the economy. If you choose to read more into it than that, that's on you.
From an analysis perspective, you can, in fact, only look at jobs lost. The original article is comparing apples to apples - job cuts in 2018Q1 vs job cuts in other recent quarters. It's not making a comment on the total job market or even attempting to. It's simply an analysis of job cuts only.
It's more of a symptom of the modern workplace than any given industry. The only way this will stop happening is if people value themselves and don't put up with bad treatment, regardless of the industry.
In the immortal words of Danny Glover, "I'm getting too old for this s**t." I, for one, refuse to let any company create an unpleasant life for me. Make my work life unpleasant? Goodbye - I'll be moving to another job.
This is another short-sighted example of politicians saying "we've got to do something!", because they know if they take too long to do anything, they'll get voted out.
The fact of the matter is that this is unworkable in practice. With the amount of content being uploaded to these services, how much do you think it would cost the companies that run them to look at every single post and decide if it falls into this category? Astronomical amounts. Enough to eat all their profits and more.
What will happen is one of two things: either the companies will ignore it, and look at the fines as a cost of doing business, or they'll go out of business trying to absorb the costs of complying.
And before anyone suggests it, automated computer analysis of posts trying to decide if they fall into this category simply won't work. At the current state of the industry, computers and AI simply aren't good enough yet to catch all instances - so that means humans evaluating things, and that means a lot of cost.
I respectfully disagree. Even in the original example, the email used was not a gmail account. I haven't seen anything that indicates that this was "gmail-only".
If it could be asked for any email provider, then it means that FB is holding the password for at least a short amount of time and actually trying a login. There's no way that every email provider in the world developed and provided a direct link for this form to post to, and then provide a standardized response. They might have been able to get that from google, but certainly not from everyone. The only way this could work across all mail providers would be for FB to take the password entered, and attempt an SMTP, POP, or IMAP login. Which means that at least temporarily, FB had the password.
Slashdot Mirror
Where in the article you linked to does it address privately-owned entities? Everything I read there (and I did go read it) talked about publicly- or government-owned spaces.
here we go again.
Just because one has a right to express one's opinion in this country doesn't mean that any corporation has the obligation to carry/post/air your opinion on the platform they own.
That doesn't necessarily mean that he can't make a valid point.
Simply dismissing others that may have a differing opinion is a bad way of having an intelligent discourse. They are actually making valid points about the probable intent of the original post and how it is being seen by some here.
What should be happening here, in my opinion, is a recognition that we need to think for ourselves and realize, when a link like the original is posted, that it is in fact a single data point and should not be taken out of context (or, made to serve a larger context that it doesn't actually belong to).
I agree - the intent was a half-truth without full context. That's what I mean when I said "The original article is an analysis of job cuts only, not an analysis of the overall health of the job market."
To quote a response of mine above:
one was factual, the other (first chronologically) was sarcastic. Perhaps I was hasty in my first post, and a bit inappropriate. It is, in fact, a single data point that an intelligent individual will know doesn't tell the whole story.
It is very much like doing that. I'm saying that people should recognize it for being that, and realize that it is decidedly NOT a balanced analysis of the job market. I suppose I haven't been articulate enough to get that across.
The first was factual, the second (first chronologically) was sarcastic.
Perhaps I was hasty in my first post, and a bit inappropriate.
It is, in fact, a single data point that an intelligent individual will know doesn't tell the whole story.
What a lovely way of making assumptions about me. I DO see what's happening and I actually AGREE with you that the intent of the post was probably what you stated. But if one can't suggest that people learn to think for themselves and take analyses for exactly what they are and what they aren't, then perhaps Slashdot isn't the home of as many intelligent people as I thought.
So you're suggesting that nothing but tech news should ever be posted here?
You have no idea how much I may or may not know about reading and understanding economic reports. Don't make assumptions about me, and I'm not being passive-agressive. I'm advocating elevating the level of discussion and people making scientific and warranted conclusions based on mathematics.
I've been paying the same amount of attention to Slashdot as I always have.
I choose to look at statistics as just that - raw data. I'll form my own conclusions, thank you very much. As for anyone who wants to use raw statistical data to support their own confirmation bias, well, I guess they're unaware or misguided. If you look at my other comments on this thread, I think you'll see that I've tried to advocate taking the numbers for exactly what they are, and not an analysis of the overall health of the economy or of the job market.
Bulls**t. Learn to form your own context about things you read, and not use it for confirmation bias of your already-formed opinions.
If you choose to see it that way, so be it. I find absolutely NOTHING in the post itself or in the original link that indicates anything except a strict analysis of job cut/layoff numbers. Perhaps I'm expecting people to be able to actually read and understand reports more than I should.
Yes, some posters are misinterpreting (either through ignorance or willfully) the meaning of the report, but that isn't a reason to discount the report itself.
No, it's not contrary to the marketwatch report. The two reports are stating completely different things.
The marketwatch report is talking about the overall health of the economy and of the job market.
The axios article is ONLY talking about job cuts / layoffs. It's not even attempting to analyze net job growth/loss
The fact that some people (I'm not saying you, tatman, you actually seem to have a grip on it) can't tell the difference just means that they are incapable of reading an article/analysis and understanding it within the context of its own data.
We literally added almost 200,000 jobs in March.
This article is the definition of Fake News. It picks a random statistic out of context, ignoring that obviously layoffs would increase because millions of additional people have become employed.
There's also orders of magnitude more deaths now than 300 years ago. Your logic dictates that life is worse and it's easier to die, when the reality is that there's orders of magnitude more people who exist.
You are a sniveling fucking moron.
That's rich. The AC calling me a sniveling moron. If you had actually read the original article, you'd see that it is analysis of job cuts only, and not a comment on the overall health of the job market or of the economy. If you choose to read more into it than that, that's on you.
If you read the original article, it is an analysis solely of job cuts, and not of the overall health of the economy or of the job market.
In that regard, it is a completely valid analysis. Anything else anyone wants to read into it is on them.
Why on earth would that warrant a downgrade of the thread?
The original article is an analysis of job cuts only, not an analysis of the overall health of the job market.
From an analysis perspective, you can, in fact, only look at jobs lost. The original article is comparing apples to apples - job cuts in 2018Q1 vs job cuts in other recent quarters. It's not making a comment on the total job market or even attempting to. It's simply an analysis of job cuts only.
Hahahahahahaha. I enjoyed reading that. I guess whining is allowed in that super-secret third chamber of congress.
Tim, who are you going to believe? The President of the United States or some fake news from a firm in the staffing industry?
that our economy is 'setting records on virtually every front' and 'probably the best our country has ever done'!
It can be true of any company in any industry.
It's more of a symptom of the modern workplace than any given industry. The only way this will stop happening is if people value themselves and don't put up with bad treatment, regardless of the industry.
In the immortal words of Danny Glover, "I'm getting too old for this s**t." I, for one, refuse to let any company create an unpleasant life for me. Make my work life unpleasant? Goodbye - I'll be moving to another job.
This is another short-sighted example of politicians saying "we've got to do something!", because they know if they take too long to do anything, they'll get voted out.
The fact of the matter is that this is unworkable in practice. With the amount of content being uploaded to these services, how much do you think it would cost the companies that run them to look at every single post and decide if it falls into this category? Astronomical amounts. Enough to eat all their profits and more.
What will happen is one of two things: either the companies will ignore it, and look at the fines as a cost of doing business, or they'll go out of business trying to absorb the costs of complying.
And before anyone suggests it, automated computer analysis of posts trying to decide if they fall into this category simply won't work. At the current state of the industry, computers and AI simply aren't good enough yet to catch all instances - so that means humans evaluating things, and that means a lot of cost.
I respectfully disagree. Even in the original example, the email used was not a gmail account. I haven't seen anything that indicates that this was "gmail-only".
If it could be asked for any email provider, then it means that FB is holding the password for at least a short amount of time and actually trying a login. There's no way that every email provider in the world developed and provided a direct link for this form to post to, and then provide a standardized response. They might have been able to get that from google, but certainly not from everyone. The only way this could work across all mail providers would be for FB to take the password entered, and attempt an SMTP, POP, or IMAP login. Which means that at least temporarily, FB had the password.