The idea that old appliances lasted longer is something of a myth.
I partly agree with you: there's a clear case of selection bias going on. On the other hand stuff then was much, much more expensive as well and processes were not nearly as good so it was necessary to make them both overbuild and repairable to last any time at all.
If your modern appliance only lasts 1/4 as long it's still substantialy cheaper over all and probably does a much better job as well.
This is the first good thing I have ever known to come out of the EU
Then you're wilfully ignorant. The EU has done tons of good things, the fact that you've manged to avoid remembering any says a lot more about you than the EU.
I have never seen or met a straight man attracted to a woman because of her handbag. As for shoes, well, apparently 20% of men have a foot fetish, so maybe, but they don't care about the brand name.
No one says "OMG that handbag HAVE MY BABIES NOW!!!111111!1". On the other hand people of both genders are very often attracted to people who take care of their appearance.
Take the same person. In one incarnation she has lank, greasy hair unwashed for a bit too long, ill-fitting, tatty clothes (with food stains!) which hide her figure and carrying a ratty hold-all looking like it was scavanged from a dumpster.
Same person goes and gets cleaned up. Now is well turned out with a good haircut, decent, well cut clothes which show off that person's arse and (if female) a bag which complements the outfit.
Which version of that person are you going to look twice at? The one with the nice bag of course. We like nice looking people which has a decent correlation with people who take care of their appearance since that makes such a large difference.
And that means we like people dressed well in the style we happen to like. The nice bag is inseperable from that.
A kilt is an absolutely delightful item of clothing. It's not quite as nice in the summer as the thin skimpy things women wear, but it's a lot better than pants.
Indeed, but it's pretty rare to see one in the wild, at least round these parts.
Men's clothes are strongly driven by tradition. I think of fashion as something that changes regularly. Men the world over generally mimic a particular style of British dress: shirt and pants, jacket because it's always raining, and something around your neck to keep you warm.
I disagre. There are both longer term and shorter term changes. For example look how business wear has changed from shirt and tie to business casual or less. And the vanishing of hats. The meteoric rise of jeans + T shirts. The regularly changing fashion around those (from baggy to skinny and back again and dark er to lighter and back again). The rise and fall of various brands. And so on.
Except that this one explains the past better than the present.
No, it explans nothing at all. You claimed men liked to have both hands free and women didn't because of genetics or something which explains pockets and yet pokets as we know them mostly date from about the 17th century in Europe.
That there are skeletal differences between the genders isn't controversial.
Perhaps you're projecting, since that claim doesn't appear there.
No I'm not because yes it does:
Why are women's pockets to small, because in reality [women] are fashion victims, gullible idiots who can be readily manipulated by modern marketing methods.
I'm pretty sure that "But some men are buying impractical trucks!" definitely counts as whataboutism.
It would if that's what I said but I didn't say that. That sounds superficially similar to what I had said and shares many of he same words, but means something rather different.
He's claiming women are gullible idiots because of fashion choices. I'm claiming he's misogynist because he's singling somen out for something which is in fact universal. I then gave an example.
Whataboutism is raising questions to muddy the issue or deflect. I wasn't raising questions, I was pointing out it was wrong by giving examples of the wrongness.
And apparently I'm not the only one with that opinion.
Well done you! You know Alex Jones managed to find people who share his opinions about gay frogs. I'm sure that means he's right too.
My SWAG is that men have a genetic instinct for keeping both hands free to aid in survival, while women are more accustomed to carrying something on their arm.
I love the evolutionary just-so stories how they so neatly explain the exact status quo right now, not e.g. a few hundred years ago.
It's just that the topic of the submission is pockets, not trucks this time.
The topic moved on from pockets, to the GGP basically saying women are shit to people calling him out to people defending him. And you appear to be defending his claim that women are shit.
No it isn't. You clearly have no idea what that even means.
You didn't actually refute anything that I said.
Yes I did. Not only are you too thick to understand whataboutism, you're not bright enough to even read a few simple lines of text.
You posted about how you believe that "telling it like it is is misogyny",, because you believed the GGP was "telling it like it is". I posted a coherent argument about how the GGP was misgyistic because he singed out women for something that seems to be entirely gender neutral.
GGP siad this:
"Why are women's pockets to small, because in reality they are fashion victims, gullible idiots who can be readily manipulated by modern marketing methods."
That is blatantly misogynistic woman-hating. You are defending what he said, so you are a blatantly misogynistic woman hater too.
If men's clothing were truly about function and not form them in hot weather men world wear dresses made of burlap and covered in pockets. Somehow you never see this. In fact somehow you very rarely see a man in a dress or skirt despite how much more comfortable they apparently are in hot weather.
Men's clothes are also strongly driven by fashion, you just don't recognise it because you think it's natural the way it is.
Telling it like you believe it is--if what you believe is misogynistic--is misogynistic.
I like the claim that men aren't also gullible led by marketing and never buy things for looks rather than utility. No man ever bought an expensive, macho truck for his daily commute to the office. None at all. And no marketing ever influences purchases by persuading men they are more manly because they have some vehicle, aftershave or running shoe. And those campaigns never worked ever.
Never happened, only weak feeemales do that kind of thing.
Every responsible low carb diet makes it perfectly clear that one should not eat much protein. For one thing, your body will use it to make carbohydrates.
A bit. When there are insufficient carbs in your diet, some of the protein can be eventually converted to glucose, but not all amino acids can take that pathway. Either way your body pretty much only makes the glucose you need since it's a rather slow and inefficient process compared to direct ingestion of carbs.
Well, I would make whatever algorithms being used transparent - obviously trivial stuff like keyword abuse recognition,
Oh I see s you'd censor stuff you, personally find unacceptable. Now we get to the heard of the matter.
and other metadata analysis that would indicate SEO abuse
Right so you'd avoid SEO abuse by um analysing data and metadata. That's basically saying you'd avoid SEO abuse by doing something about it which is not even slightly a proposal as to how.
however, I wouldn't allow for point of view discrimination.
So you'd take your unbiased algorithms and then tweak them so they up-rated content that would otherwise have been down rated. That's censoring the other side.
You also haven't said how your magical open algorithm would actually work and be robust to SEO abuse and spam. All you have as a plan for doing something known to be very hard is "I'll do it!".
The problem here is that the Overton window keeps getting thinner and thinner, and pushed further and further to the left.
lol
no.
So, you don't have a problem with returning an Alex Jones rant, when you search for "gay amphibians"?
How is his rant relevant to a search on anphibians? If I want to find about about homosexuality in various branches of tetrapoda, I don't want to be deluged with weird ranty and utterly wrong "opinion pieces" from idiots playing politics.
Or returning a wattsupwiththat.com article when searching for "global warming"?
Well I geneally want my searches to provide useful information, so why would I want it to persistently return utterly uselsss junk?
I have no objection to being given utterly useless junk if I searched for it. But why would I want useless, irrelevant search results when I'm after information.
Or autocompleting "hillary clinton is...married to a rapist" if that is in fact the most common completion?
Google don't claim to and have never claimed to provide anything relating to a raw feed of what people in the world happen to be typing right now. It's also not censorship to not provide something while making no claims about providing it.
My fear here is that we've gone beyond "someone searches for amphibians and gets Alex Jones", and gone into "someone searches for abortion and only gets pro-choice views".
We haven't. I just searched for "abortion". I got, in order:
The NHS
The british pregnancy advisory service (a charity--pro choice), with a page listing the various medical abortion procedures and how thye work, which seems to be much more of a factual page than political one.
A news article.
A another page from the charity above listing the drgus used in some of the various pills.
A sidebar map.
The wikipedia page.
The webpage for the closest abortion clinic based on google's creepy geolocation.
I agree, though with the recent revelations about recycling, it seems to be a losing battle, and that we need a different method of dealing with waste products. I remember years ago hearing about a guy who invented a "refinery" of sorts to recycle ALL refuse in garbage dumps. So instead of all this extra work we do to recycle, it all goes into the dump, then gets ground up and "recycled" on an industrial scale at one location.
I suspect the problem was he didn't actually invent it, IOW it didn't work.
In Southwark, we have the waste management facility (fun visit for a nerd on an open day). It takes in the mixed recycling collected in the borough (residents need to separate waste into compostable, recyclable and rubbish with no finer gradation) and sorts it into glass, paper, plastic, aluminium, steel and rubbish mostly automatically.
The machines get it to abut 97%, then a relatively small number of hand sorters pick out the rest getting it to about 99.5%.
These sorting machines exist now and are operational on a city scale. I'm sure if someone had something better, they'd switch over.
No it wasn't. It was long in the tooth and seriously in need of replacement, but when Apple junked it they did do without a viable replacement. I remember the first gen circa 2000. Obsolete kind of implies something has replaced it but nothing had.
USB sticks didn't exist. CD writers were expensive, CD-Rs were expensive and unreliable (due to crappy CD-ROM drives on many computers), zip disks were somwhat popular but by n means universal and the internet was not widespread.
The only thing you could rely on everyone having was a 3.5" floppy drive. Except for hapless iMac users of course.
You can assume anything you like. Or, you can assume that I checked out after the utter crushing inanity of your first suggestion, something you quietly seem to have dropped.
So go on do tell, how do you think one could make a search engine which is utterly "unbiased" and yet not prone to the trivial gaming of the sort that was rampant in the late '90s.
I don't believe a sltuin exits of any sort that would satisfy you. So, I believe you are complaining that the world is not some abstract sort of ideal which is a fairly useless complaint.
I'm not sure if anything would count as censorship by your definition, other than "well, censorship is when something I personally like is restricted".
I see you've moved on from crusingly inane statements to simply inventing a viewpoint for me and attacking it. Welp, everyone's gotta have a hobby I guess.
Is there any content that you find distasteful, offensive, misguided, or otherwise incorrect that you *wouldn't* censor?
Just about everything. But then again I don't consider not returning an Alex Jones rant about turning frogs gay when one searches for "anphibians" to be censorship.
History has shown constant changes over time, often moving in cycles. We are currently in an interglacial. I know there are a lot of research funds and grant dollars riding on getting people to panic over this stuff, but please just stop.
I love how blatantly stupid, biased bullshit gets modded as "informative", presumably because it matches peoples "worldview".
How about just having a content neutral algorithm that does a text search without any manual tweaking of the results
Are you fucking kidding me?
This is how search engines worked before google and it was bloody terrible because porn sites just dumped the entire dictionary into every page so they appeared on every search. The only way to make it work was to manually enter huge lists of AND NOT filters, and even then it was pretty useless. And that was when the web was maybe 0.1% of its current size.
There are lots of ways of providing a search engine without being censorious.
Only if you have a stupid definition of "censor" that doesn't match anything else. And even then only if you studiously ignore history.
They do realize that google regularly censors results in America, right?
Not in a conventional meaning of the word, no.
Any urgent moral or ethical issues with say, blacklisting Alex Jones? Down ranking alt-right sites? Artificially manipulating auto-completes to prefer one political party?
The front page contains what, 20 items? How do you propose that google or indeed anyone present you with 20 items only from your search terms without as call it "censoring".
They have to weight some things more highly than others in order to produce an ordering. And if people are actually searching for information, the Alex Jones and alt right sites are not useful. If you search for those though you will get them.
not so great for foods that need to be picked and chosen, like fruits/veggies/meats/fish.
It's way better than you might expect. I don't often get fresh stuff from supermarket deliveries but I've done s a number of times and always been pleasantly surprised.
At least in the UK anyway where there's very stiff competition for supermarkey delieveries. They have clearly figured that selecting the mankiest crap for the onlie shoppers is not a god way toget repeat custo m.
There are already rumors Apple is developing a desktop version of their iPhone ARM processors, which have larger dies and much better performance than nearly every other ARM implementation..
I expect they can succeed without too much trouble. What the mobile ARMs lack which the desktop CPUs have is wide, fast memory busses and large caches with wide, fast internal busses. Those things suck power though.
right so when you start using the piss for someone using a phone keyboard, we both know you have conceded the argument. Thanks for playing, see you next argument.
Slashdot Mirror
The idea that old appliances lasted longer is something of a myth.
I partly agree with you: there's a clear case of selection bias going on. On the other hand stuff then was much, much more expensive as well and processes were not nearly as good so it was necessary to make them both overbuild and repairable to last any time at all.
If your modern appliance only lasts 1/4 as long it's still substantialy cheaper over all and probably does a much better job as well.
This is the first good thing I have ever known to come out of the EU
Then you're wilfully ignorant. The EU has done tons of good things, the fact that you've manged to avoid remembering any says a lot more about you than the EU.
I have never seen or met a straight man attracted to a woman because of her handbag. As for shoes, well, apparently 20% of men have a foot fetish, so maybe, but they don't care about the brand name.
No one says "OMG that handbag HAVE MY BABIES NOW!!!111111!1". On the other hand people of both genders are very often attracted to people who take care of their appearance.
Take the same person. In one incarnation she has lank, greasy hair unwashed for a bit too long, ill-fitting, tatty clothes (with food stains!) which hide her figure and carrying a ratty hold-all looking like it was scavanged from a dumpster.
Same person goes and gets cleaned up. Now is well turned out with a good haircut, decent, well cut clothes which show off that person's arse and (if female) a bag which complements the outfit.
Which version of that person are you going to look twice at? The one with the nice bag of course. We like nice looking people which has a decent correlation with people who take care of their appearance since that makes such a large difference.
And that means we like people dressed well in the style we happen to like. The nice bag is inseperable from that.
A kilt is an absolutely delightful item of clothing. It's not quite as nice in the summer as the thin skimpy things women wear, but it's a lot better than pants.
Indeed, but it's pretty rare to see one in the wild, at least round these parts.
Men's clothes are strongly driven by tradition. I think of fashion as something that changes regularly. Men the world over generally mimic a particular style of British dress: shirt and pants, jacket because it's always raining, and something around your neck to keep you warm.
I disagre. There are both longer term and shorter term changes. For example look how business wear has changed from shirt and tie to business casual or less. And the vanishing of hats. The meteoric rise of jeans + T shirts. The regularly changing fashion around those (from baggy to skinny and back again and dark er to lighter and back again). The rise and fall of various brands. And so on.
Except that this one explains the past better than the present.
No, it explans nothing at all. You claimed men liked to have both hands free and women didn't because of genetics or something which explains pockets and yet pokets as we know them mostly date from about the 17th century in Europe.
That there are skeletal differences between the genders isn't controversial.
I don't dispute that.
Perhaps you're projecting, since that claim doesn't appear there.
No I'm not because yes it does:
I'm pretty sure that "But some men are buying impractical trucks!" definitely counts as whataboutism.
It would if that's what I said but I didn't say that. That sounds superficially similar to what I had said and shares many of he same words, but means something rather different.
He's claiming women are gullible idiots because of fashion choices. I'm claiming he's misogynist because he's singling somen out for something which is in fact universal. I then gave an example.
Whataboutism is raising questions to muddy the issue or deflect. I wasn't raising questions, I was pointing out it was wrong by giving examples of the wrongness.
And apparently I'm not the only one with that opinion.
Well done you! You know Alex Jones managed to find people who share his opinions about gay frogs. I'm sure that means he's right too.
My SWAG is that men have a genetic instinct for keeping both hands free to aid in survival, while women are more accustomed to carrying something on their arm.
I love the evolutionary just-so stories how they so neatly explain the exact status quo right now, not e.g. a few hundred years ago.
Nope. Men don't care about bling.
Aaaaaaahahahahahahahahaha!
Yeahno.
No sensible man is going to be attracted to a woman because she has an LV bag.
Ah no "sensible" man now. Not no man. And where "sensible" is defined precisely as you wish it to be defined which is having no fashion sense.
And it isn't if it isn't.
Spoiler alert: it was.
It's just that the topic of the submission is pockets, not trucks this time.
The topic moved on from pockets, to the GGP basically saying women are shit to people calling him out to people defending him. And you appear to be defending his claim that women are shit.
Whataboutism doesn't cut it.
You clearly have no idea what whataboutism is.
That's whataboutism
No it isn't. You clearly have no idea what that even means.
You didn't actually refute anything that I said.
Yes I did. Not only are you too thick to understand whataboutism, you're not bright enough to even read a few simple lines of text.
You posted about how you believe that "telling it like it is is misogyny",, because you believed the GGP was "telling it like it is". I posted a coherent argument about how the GGP was misgyistic because he singed out women for something that seems to be entirely gender neutral.
GGP siad this:
"Why are women's pockets to small, because in reality they are fashion victims, gullible idiots who can be readily manipulated by modern marketing methods."
That is blatantly misogynistic woman-hating. You are defending what he said, so you are a blatantly misogynistic woman hater too.
If men's clothing were truly about function and not form them in hot weather men world wear dresses made of burlap and covered in pockets. Somehow you never see this. In fact somehow you very rarely see a man in a dress or skirt despite how much more comfortable they apparently are in hot weather.
Men's clothes are also strongly driven by fashion, you just don't recognise it because you think it's natural the way it is.
Telling it like you believe it is--if what you believe is misogynistic--is misogynistic.
I like the claim that men aren't also gullible led by marketing and never buy things for looks rather than utility. No man ever bought an expensive, macho truck for his daily commute to the office. None at all. And no marketing ever influences purchases by persuading men they are more manly because they have some vehicle, aftershave or running shoe. And those campaigns never worked ever.
Never happened, only weak feeemales do that kind of thing.
Every responsible low carb diet makes it perfectly clear that one should not eat much protein. For one thing, your body will use it to make carbohydrates.
A bit. When there are insufficient carbs in your diet, some of the protein can be eventually converted to glucose, but not all amino acids can take that pathway. Either way your body pretty much only makes the glucose you need since it's a rather slow and inefficient process compared to direct ingestion of carbs.
No potatoes. No rice. No bread. No pasta
So the main downside of this diet is you live longer.
Well, I would make whatever algorithms being used transparent - obviously trivial stuff like keyword abuse recognition,
Oh I see s you'd censor stuff you, personally find unacceptable. Now we get to the heard of the matter.
and other metadata analysis that would indicate SEO abuse
Right so you'd avoid SEO abuse by um analysing data and metadata. That's basically saying you'd avoid SEO abuse by doing something about it which is not even slightly a proposal as to how.
however, I wouldn't allow for point of view discrimination.
So you'd take your unbiased algorithms and then tweak them so they up-rated content that would otherwise have been down rated. That's censoring the other side.
You also haven't said how your magical open algorithm would actually work and be robust to SEO abuse and spam. All you have as a plan for doing something known to be very hard is "I'll do it!".
The problem here is that the Overton window keeps getting thinner and thinner, and pushed further and further to the left.
lol
no.
So, you don't have a problem with returning an Alex Jones rant, when you search for "gay amphibians"?
How is his rant relevant to a search on anphibians? If I want to find about about homosexuality in various branches of tetrapoda, I don't want to be deluged with weird ranty and utterly wrong "opinion pieces" from idiots playing politics.
Or returning a wattsupwiththat.com article when searching for "global warming"?
Well I geneally want my searches to provide useful information, so why would I want it to persistently return utterly uselsss junk?
I have no objection to being given utterly useless junk if I searched for it. But why would I want useless, irrelevant search results when I'm after information.
Or autocompleting "hillary clinton is...married to a rapist" if that is in fact the most common completion?
Google don't claim to and have never claimed to provide anything relating to a raw feed of what people in the world happen to be typing right now. It's also not censorship to not provide something while making no claims about providing it.
My fear here is that we've gone beyond "someone searches for amphibians and gets Alex Jones", and gone into "someone searches for abortion and only gets pro-choice views".
We haven't. I just searched for "abortion". I got, in order:
The NHS
The british pregnancy advisory service (a charity--pro choice), with a page listing the various medical abortion procedures and how thye work, which seems to be much more of a factual page than political one.
A news article.
A another page from the charity above listing the drgus used in some of the various pills.
A sidebar map.
The wikipedia page.
The webpage for the closest abortion clinic based on google's creepy geolocation.
Two more news articles.
Another nearby clinic.
nuclear power (which doesn't work well when the water heats up a lot)
This is true of any thermal power plant. But when it happens to a nuclear one, people panic and run aronud in circles with their hair on fire.
I agree, though with the recent revelations about recycling, it seems to be a losing battle, and that we need a different method of dealing with waste products. I remember years ago hearing about a guy who invented a "refinery" of sorts to recycle ALL refuse in garbage dumps. So instead of all this extra work we do to recycle, it all goes into the dump, then gets ground up and "recycled" on an industrial scale at one location.
I suspect the problem was he didn't actually invent it, IOW it didn't work.
In Southwark, we have the waste management facility (fun visit for a nerd on an open day). It takes in the mixed recycling collected in the borough (residents need to separate waste into compostable, recyclable and rubbish with no finer gradation) and sorts it into glass, paper, plastic, aluminium, steel and rubbish mostly automatically.
The machines get it to abut 97%, then a relatively small number of hand sorters pick out the rest getting it to about 99.5%.
These sorting machines exist now and are operational on a city scale. I'm sure if someone had something better, they'd switch over.
The floppy disk was obsolete.
No it wasn't. It was long in the tooth and seriously in need of replacement, but when Apple junked it they did do without a viable replacement. I remember the first gen circa 2000. Obsolete kind of implies something has replaced it but nothing had.
USB sticks didn't exist. CD writers were expensive, CD-Rs were expensive and unreliable (due to crappy CD-ROM drives on many computers), zip disks were somwhat popular but by n means universal and the internet was not widespread.
The only thing you could rely on everyone having was a 3.5" floppy drive. Except for hapless iMac users of course.
Can I assume you agree with the third one?
You can assume anything you like. Or, you can assume that I checked out after the utter crushing inanity of your first suggestion, something you quietly seem to have dropped.
So go on do tell, how do you think one could make a search engine which is utterly "unbiased" and yet not prone to the trivial gaming of the sort that was rampant in the late '90s.
I don't believe a sltuin exits of any sort that would satisfy you. So, I believe you are complaining that the world is not some abstract sort of ideal which is a fairly useless complaint.
I'm not sure if anything would count as censorship by your definition, other than "well, censorship is when something I personally like is restricted".
I see you've moved on from crusingly inane statements to simply inventing a viewpoint for me and attacking it. Welp, everyone's gotta have a hobby I guess.
Is there any content that you find distasteful, offensive, misguided, or otherwise incorrect that you *wouldn't* censor?
Just about everything. But then again I don't consider not returning an Alex Jones rant about turning frogs gay when one searches for "anphibians" to be censorship.
History has shown constant changes over time, often moving in cycles. We are currently in an interglacial. I know there are a lot of research funds and grant dollars riding on getting people to panic over this stuff, but please just stop.
I love how blatantly stupid, biased bullshit gets modded as "informative", presumably because it matches peoples "worldview".
How about just having a content neutral algorithm that does a text search without any manual tweaking of the results
Are you fucking kidding me?
This is how search engines worked before google and it was bloody terrible because porn sites just dumped the entire dictionary into every page so they appeared on every search. The only way to make it work was to manually enter huge lists of AND NOT filters, and even then it was pretty useless. And that was when the web was maybe 0.1% of its current size.
There are lots of ways of providing a search engine without being censorious.
Only if you have a stupid definition of "censor" that doesn't match anything else. And even then only if you studiously ignore history.
They do realize that google regularly censors results in America, right?
Not in a conventional meaning of the word, no.
Any urgent moral or ethical issues with say, blacklisting Alex Jones? Down ranking alt-right sites? Artificially manipulating auto-completes to prefer one political party?
The front page contains what, 20 items? How do you propose that google or indeed anyone present you with 20 items only from your search terms without as call it "censoring".
They have to weight some things more highly than others in order to produce an ordering. And if people are actually searching for information, the Alex Jones and alt right sites are not useful. If you search for those though you will get them.
not so great for foods that need to be picked and chosen, like fruits/veggies/meats/fish.
It's way better than you might expect. I don't often get fresh stuff from supermarket deliveries but I've done s a number of times and always been pleasantly surprised.
At least in the UK anyway where there's very stiff competition for supermarkey delieveries. They have clearly figured that selecting the mankiest crap for the onlie shoppers is not a god way toget repeat custo m.
There are already rumors Apple is developing a desktop version of their iPhone ARM processors, which have larger dies and much better performance than nearly every other ARM implementation..
I expect they can succeed without too much trouble. What the mobile ARMs lack which the desktop CPUs have is wide, fast memory busses and large caches with wide, fast internal busses. Those things suck power though.
right so when you start using the piss for someone using a phone keyboard, we both know you have conceded the argument. Thanks for playing, see you next argument.