Seriously, with all the dickery MS has pulled over the years with their phones, just how much of a glutton for punishment would you have to be to sign up for this? And how stupid would you have to be to expect anything but the worse?
So is the problem that one can't just sit back and stop working/innovating and expect to get paid? Because I'm OK with that. Let everyone copy my ideas, I'll just come up with more AND develop a reputation as a "Big Thinker" as a result ( ie: creating my own brand/value which I can then use elsewhere ).
Are you seriously suggesting that riding on the love hormones will cure cat/dog allergies?
That's not what I said, Ms Newman.
What I said is we don't know ourselves anywhere near as well as we like to pretend we do. So someone with a cat/dog might realize they'd rather be with an amazing person who has animal allergies ( than have animals ), but only if s|he were looking to find them first ( and visa/versa ). Or perhaps those animal owners are themselves allergic, and so have hypoallergenic animals.
You are artificially, and inappropriately, limiting your pool of potential matches through hard exclusions that you create based on ignorance.
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 is laughable, and demonstrates a severe lack of comprehension of interpersonal relationships, even the bare minimum self awareness.
We all like to believe we know ourselves inside and out, but the fact is we don't know shit. We're just kinda riding these chemical signals. Our bodies are this amazingly complex machine; we can't hope to know a 10th of what's going on, nevermind being fully cognizant of what we like. Your exclusionary list that you seem to fond of would only serve to deprive people of their choices, virtually guaranteeing misery except for those lucky few.
Not that these dating websites are any better. They're trying to nail down a chaos system that puts the weather system to shame. It's little more than snake oil.
Speaking of obvious, until you can definitely prove that "shenanigans" did not influence who was or is elected leader of one of the most powerful countries on the planet, you have no grounds to say that fake news isn't an issue.
That's not how it works at all. If you want to change the status quo, you have to prove your position ( that being that fake news has significant influence ). Of course, the more you research this the more you realize it's not necessarily "fake news" that has the media in an uproar, it's more along the lines of "not our brand of dog food" fake news. It's all fine and dandy when it's fox or cnn doing it, but some uncontrolled actor? Sharpen the pitchfork and pull out your torches!
Has it even been proven that "fake news" is really an issue? I saw the shenanigans that Russia got up to on facebook and have a hard time believing that influenced anyone to vote differently than they otherwise might have.
However, if we want to pretend to be a fair and equal society, then men should be entitled to the same procreation rights that women enjoy. So either we openly take the stance that men should be ultimately responsible for everyone's choices, or we afford them those rights.
I'm a fan of fiscal abortion being available to both parties, but more than that I advocate for women to be required to legally inform the father of any pending birth so that he might make an informed decision about his role as a father.
Note: I reserve the right for the woman to be the sole decision maker when it comes to getting an abortion. Biology isn't fair, and I respect that's a decision that should be left to the woman. However, after that I want men to have control over their own legal and fiscal destiny. Effectively the same rights that women now enjoy.
Equality does not mean "equal outcomes", it means "equal opportunities". Results should never be taken as confirmation of bias, but rather as a starting point to ask "Why?".
This situation is a great bite-sized example of the wage gap, which itself is explained largely through personal choice.
Actually, by law, it is ( at least in the united states ). Men have *NO* procreation rights, women are free to get abortions.
Of course, if you meant that they have a choice whether to have sex or not, sure; that much is true. However, women then have a superset of rights compared to men whether to have a child or not.
Actually, by law, it is ( at least in the united states ). Men have procreation rights, women are free to get abortions.
Of course, if you meant that they have a choice whether to have sex or not, sure; that much is true. However, women then have a superset of rights compared to men whether to have a child or not.
That's not what I recall, at all. Sure, the local computer shops were all pushing 95, but that's only because they wanted the business. Everyone else in small offices were sitting tight with what they had, in part because of how expensive things were back then.
No really, pull the other one, it's got bells on it.
If anyone is even more fucked up about innovation, it's MS. How many times and how many products have they launched to great fanfare, only for it to die on the vine a few years later?
Oh, "nicer". I love this argument, because it's so...naive. Look, even if we accepted that the dems play nicer ( I would posit that it's more you not paying as close attention, but regardless ), is "agreeableness" really something we want in a world leader?
We want rationality, fairness, strength. We do not want "nice"; at best it's a distraction, at worst it's manipulative.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, with all the dickery MS has pulled over the years with their phones, just how much of a glutton for punishment would you have to be to sign up for this? And how stupid would you have to be to expect anything but the worse?
Serious question; how do they plan on regulating it?
File this under "Old man yells at cloud".
So is the problem that one can't just sit back and stop working/innovating and expect to get paid? Because I'm OK with that. Let everyone copy my ideas, I'll just come up with more AND develop a reputation as a "Big Thinker" as a result ( ie: creating my own brand/value which I can then use elsewhere ).
How much do you want to bet that they were able to get a "solution" budgeted every year?
Ah memories. I loved my early 80s trash TV...and it was trash. Holy shit was it trash.
Still loved it.
Someone went and actually built a better idiot.
Are you seriously suggesting that riding on the love hormones will cure cat/dog allergies?
That's not what I said, Ms Newman.
What I said is we don't know ourselves anywhere near as well as we like to pretend we do. So someone with a cat/dog might realize they'd rather be with an amazing person who has animal allergies ( than have animals ), but only if s|he were looking to find them first ( and visa/versa ). Or perhaps those animal owners are themselves allergic, and so have hypoallergenic animals.
You are artificially, and inappropriately, limiting your pool of potential matches through hard exclusions that you create based on ignorance.
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 is laughable, and demonstrates a severe lack of comprehension of interpersonal relationships, even the bare minimum self awareness.
We all like to believe we know ourselves inside and out, but the fact is we don't know shit. We're just kinda riding these chemical signals. Our bodies are this amazingly complex machine; we can't hope to know a 10th of what's going on, nevermind being fully cognizant of what we like. Your exclusionary list that you seem to fond of would only serve to deprive people of their choices, virtually guaranteeing misery except for those lucky few.
Not that these dating websites are any better. They're trying to nail down a chaos system that puts the weather system to shame. It's little more than snake oil.
They aren't going anywhere, so what's the rush?
Given what passes for "journalism", that might be a bit of an optimistic assessment.
Speaking of obvious, until you can definitely prove that "shenanigans" did not influence who was or is elected leader of one of the most powerful countries on the planet, you have no grounds to say that fake news isn't an issue.
That's not how it works at all. If you want to change the status quo, you have to prove your position ( that being that fake news has significant influence ). Of course, the more you research this the more you realize it's not necessarily "fake news" that has the media in an uproar, it's more along the lines of "not our brand of dog food" fake news. It's all fine and dandy when it's fox or cnn doing it, but some uncontrolled actor? Sharpen the pitchfork and pull out your torches!
Turtles, all the way down.
Has it even been proven that "fake news" is really an issue? I saw the shenanigans that Russia got up to on facebook and have a hard time believing that influenced anyone to vote differently than they otherwise might have.
Biology isn't fair.
However, if we want to pretend to be a fair and equal society, then men should be entitled to the same procreation rights that women enjoy. So either we openly take the stance that men should be ultimately responsible for everyone's choices, or we afford them those rights.
You jest, but that concept is taboo among the more elite SJWs. Gender is a social construct, don't you know.
I'm a fan of fiscal abortion being available to both parties, but more than that I advocate for women to be required to legally inform the father of any pending birth so that he might make an informed decision about his role as a father.
Note: I reserve the right for the woman to be the sole decision maker when it comes to getting an abortion. Biology isn't fair, and I respect that's a decision that should be left to the woman. However, after that I want men to have control over their own legal and fiscal destiny. Effectively the same rights that women now enjoy.
Equality does not mean "equal outcomes", it means "equal opportunities". Results should never be taken as confirmation of bias, but rather as a starting point to ask "Why?".
This situation is a great bite-sized example of the wage gap, which itself is explained largely through personal choice.
Actually, by law, it is ( at least in the united states ). Men have *NO* procreation rights, women are free to get abortions.
Of course, if you meant that they have a choice whether to have sex or not, sure; that much is true. However, women then have a superset of rights compared to men whether to have a child or not.
See correction.
Actually, by law, it is ( at least in the united states ). Men have procreation rights, women are free to get abortions.
Of course, if you meant that they have a choice whether to have sex or not, sure; that much is true. However, women then have a superset of rights compared to men whether to have a child or not.
That's not what I recall, at all. Sure, the local computer shops were all pushing 95, but that's only because they wanted the business. Everyone else in small offices were sitting tight with what they had, in part because of how expensive things were back then.
I'm not defending anyone, I'm just saying MS is, if anything, worse than Google when it comes to "innovation".
Well, technically, Bing could.
No really, pull the other one, it's got bells on it.
If anyone is even more fucked up about innovation, it's MS. How many times and how many products have they launched to great fanfare, only for it to die on the vine a few years later?
Oh, "nicer". I love this argument, because it's so...naive. Look, even if we accepted that the dems play nicer ( I would posit that it's more you not paying as close attention, but regardless ), is "agreeableness" really something we want in a world leader?
We want rationality, fairness, strength. We do not want "nice"; at best it's a distraction, at worst it's manipulative.
"This is the closest the Clock has ever been to Doomsday, and as close as it was in 1953, at the height of the Cold War."
So they honestly feel as though the world is this close to nuclear war?
And?
Sadly, common sense and intelligence is a rare enough trait that it should be celebrated whenever and where ever it's found.
I hate all politicians, but I appreciate this particular one's stance on this particular issue.