Except that a decrease in Apple current sales doesn't affect Foxconn in the present. Foxconn already assembled and delivered the units and got paid for that work that Apple wanted. Apple cutting future production affects Foxconn. If one of their customers not doing well affects Foxconn so that they can't build a plant to manufacture products that customer doesn't buy anyway, I'd say that is more indicative of bad management at Foxconn.
For this particular plant, Foxconn was going to make displays; however, I do not think Apple does not get their iPhone displays from Foxconn. They use Samsung and LG from what I know. So Apple not doing well wouldn't mean much to this plant.
Who said it goes against MY opinion? Maybe I think that "Black Panther" is the BEST MOVIE OF ALL TIME.
You wrote: "No. The Rotten Tomatoes score is based on whoever gamed the system. My entire point is saying Netflix has "higher rated" films is useless, because the RT ratings are meaningless. I am not insulting people precious super hero movies. I liked Black Panther, but it isn't the BEST MOVIE OF ALL TIME like RT claims."
Why do you feel the need to lie about what you wrote when we can read it.
Do you think that? Does anyone? The point is the scoring is obviously gamed and useless.
Just because you don't like something doesn't meant it was gamed. Just because you don't understand how RT Ratings work doesn't mean it was gamed.
It has nothing to do with my opinion. My opinion doesn't matter.
Your opinion doesn't mean that everyone who has a different opinion must be gamed. You seem to whine about how no one listens to your opinion and then set up some bizarre conspiracy about another opinion must be somehow "gamed"
If you have examples of where Apple has done other times, provide them. In this specific case, there is no question that Facebook has violated multiple Terms of Services with Apple. From a different viewpoint, it also exposes Apple in terms of liability. What would you do if you had a customer that used your platform for potentially illegal activities?
You realize you do the math yourself right? Of all the reviews on RT, divide the positive reviews by all the reviews on Lady Bird. That's how they get their numbers. What you don't seem to understand or want to admit is that your opinion doesn't represent everyone.
Why are you disagreeing with a fact? According to how RT does their rating, Black Panther is the highest rated film. It involves basic math not rocket science. Black Panther has a higher percentage of positive reviews than most films. You can actually do the math yourself. That doesn't mean Black Panther is a masterpiece. Only you and him are arguing that it does. That's the strawman argument he was using.
That's a 10 year old phone with a dinky keyboard. If you want to program on that go ahead. As for programming as a thin client to a stronger machine, that's often necessary. Server code wouldn't work on my desktop despite having 4 or more cores.
Your subjective opinion just like his has nothing to do with the RT Rating and never has. You are arguing the same wrong point as him. The RT Rating is an aggregate of whether the general public and critics liked the film. It says nothing about whether the film is a masterpiece of cinema. It says nothing about the importance of the film. It say nothing about brilliance of the acting. It only says whether or not most people who reviewed the film liked it. You are the only trying to extrapolate that score into some
measure of superiority.
It depends if you also understand what a "percentage" means. Based on this response it doesn't seem that you do understand. You do realize you can do the exact same math as Rotten Tomatoes right? It's not exactly a hard science to divide.
No he isn't. He clearly wants to use "Best" as a strawman because his specific example of Black Panther isn't the "best" to him. Never mind that rating is not and has never meant what he wants it to mean. The RT score is a measure of general likability. It isn't a measure of subjective superiority.
"All lists are sorted by Adjusted Score" there is even a score. Frankly you just don't want to admit what is clear to everyone else: The rating doesn't mean what you are trying to make it mean. This is just a strawman argument over and over again.
I remember dreaming about a full computer that would fit in my pocket. Now, all you can get are toys/appliances that cannot be used to program themselves.
How would a computer that fits in your pocket have the UI for you to program it? I don't know about you but when I program something, I need a keyboard, mouse, and a full screen monitor. Also I tend not to program on the computer itself. I am generally writing programs for another system: server code, SQL code, web code, etc. that doesn't run on the machine itself.
Again read the website. It clearly says "Best" by their score which is a measure of general likability. It would be more technically correct to say "Highest Rated". But let's look at your other point: Higher RT rating == gamed because a movie that you don't think should be as highly rated must have been gamed. There is no other explanation according to your reality. Let's look at your example: Black Panther. It was generally liked by most people. But no, that's not true according to you. It must have been gamed even though the reality matches the score. It was well liked therefore it has a higher score. This isn't rocket science, man.
Did you look at your link? It says clearly: "All lists are sorted by Adjusted Score" There is a question mark right next to "Score" that tells very briefly how it came to this conclusion. If you click on "What is the Tomatometer", it tells you very clearly how they come up with the list. But let's look at the crux of your agument: RT posting their score of other people's opinion is invalid because it goes against YOUR opinion.
Only if you want to assert that your opinion of a film should exceed other people's opinion of a film in regard to a subjective opinion when the rating has nothing to do with that subjective opinion.
Again, the RT rating only shows how much a movie was generally liked. It offers no subjective opinion if a movie is "the best" which is what you are trying to making it out to be. Seems you want to apply a Strawman argument.
Maybe because you seem to mistake the Rotten Tomatoes rating (whether a movie is generally liked) with something far more subjective (whether a movie is the "best").
I've thought about it. What do you think "ratings" should mean? Rotten Tomatoes is clear what their ratings mean: it's an aggregate score of what the general public and movie critics have thought about a movie. Is it perfect? No. Does it have gaps? Yes. For example, most movies that been released in the last 20 years or so will have a rating. Older movies that predate the Internet era may not have a rating or a smaller set of opinions. Also the rating says nothing about the quality, importance, or brilliance of a movie. It only relays the general likability of a movie.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that a decrease in Apple current sales doesn't affect Foxconn in the present. Foxconn already assembled and delivered the units and got paid for that work that Apple wanted. Apple cutting future production affects Foxconn. If one of their customers not doing well affects Foxconn so that they can't build a plant to manufacture products that customer doesn't buy anyway, I'd say that is more indicative of bad management at Foxconn.
For this particular plant, Foxconn was going to make displays; however, I do not think Apple does not get their iPhone displays from Foxconn. They use Samsung and LG from what I know. So Apple not doing well wouldn't mean much to this plant.
Who said it goes against MY opinion? Maybe I think that "Black Panther" is the BEST MOVIE OF ALL TIME.
You wrote: "No. The Rotten Tomatoes score is based on whoever gamed the system. My entire point is saying Netflix has "higher rated" films is useless, because the RT ratings are meaningless. I am not insulting people precious super hero movies. I liked Black Panther, but it isn't the BEST MOVIE OF ALL TIME like RT claims."
Why do you feel the need to lie about what you wrote when we can read it.
Do you think that? Does anyone? The point is the scoring is obviously gamed and useless.
Just because you don't like something doesn't meant it was gamed. Just because you don't understand how RT Ratings work doesn't mean it was gamed.
It has nothing to do with my opinion. My opinion doesn't matter.
Your opinion doesn't mean that everyone who has a different opinion must be gamed. You seem to whine about how no one listens to your opinion and then set up some bizarre conspiracy about another opinion must be somehow "gamed"
The problem is that you are using "any reason" when everything about this story says Facebook violated an agreement they made with Apple.
If you have examples of where Apple has done other times, provide them. In this specific case, there is no question that Facebook has violated multiple Terms of Services with Apple. From a different viewpoint, it also exposes Apple in terms of liability. What would you do if you had a customer that used your platform for potentially illegal activities?
You realize you do the math yourself right? Of all the reviews on RT, divide the positive reviews by all the reviews on Lady Bird. That's how they get their numbers. What you don't seem to understand or want to admit is that your opinion doesn't represent everyone.
Why are you disagreeing with a fact? According to how RT does their rating, Black Panther is the highest rated film. It involves basic math not rocket science. Black Panther has a higher percentage of positive reviews than most films. You can actually do the math yourself. That doesn't mean Black Panther is a masterpiece. Only you and him are arguing that it does. That's the strawman argument he was using.
That's a 10 year old phone with a dinky keyboard. If you want to program on that go ahead. As for programming as a thin client to a stronger machine, that's often necessary. Server code wouldn't work on my desktop despite having 4 or more cores.
Your subjective opinion just like his has nothing to do with the RT Rating and never has. You are arguing the same wrong point as him. The RT Rating is an aggregate of whether the general public and critics liked the film. It says nothing about whether the film is a masterpiece of cinema. It says nothing about the importance of the film. It say nothing about brilliance of the acting. It only says whether or not most people who reviewed the film liked it. You are the only trying to extrapolate that score into some measure of superiority.
It depends if you also understand what a "percentage" means. Based on this response it doesn't seem that you do understand. You do realize you can do the exact same math as Rotten Tomatoes right? It's not exactly a hard science to divide.
No he isn't. He clearly wants to use "Best" as a strawman because his specific example of Black Panther isn't the "best" to him. Never mind that rating is not and has never meant what he wants it to mean. The RT score is a measure of general likability. It isn't a measure of subjective superiority.
"All lists are sorted by Adjusted Score" there is even a score. Frankly you just don't want to admit what is clear to everyone else: The rating doesn't mean what you are trying to make it mean. This is just a strawman argument over and over again.
I remember dreaming about a full computer that would fit in my pocket. Now, all you can get are toys/appliances that cannot be used to program themselves.
How would a computer that fits in your pocket have the UI for you to program it? I don't know about you but when I program something, I need a keyboard, mouse, and a full screen monitor. Also I tend not to program on the computer itself. I am generally writing programs for another system: server code, SQL code, web code, etc. that doesn't run on the machine itself.
Please read you own links.
Again read the website. It clearly says "Best" by their score which is a measure of general likability. It would be more technically correct to say "Highest Rated". But let's look at your other point: Higher RT rating == gamed because a movie that you don't think should be as highly rated must have been gamed. There is no other explanation according to your reality. Let's look at your example: Black Panther. It was generally liked by most people. But no, that's not true according to you. It must have been gamed even though the reality matches the score. It was well liked therefore it has a higher score. This isn't rocket science, man.
Again understand what the RT rating is because you don't seem to want to admit that it is a measure of likability not quality.
Did you look at your link? It says clearly: "All lists are sorted by Adjusted Score" There is a question mark right next to "Score" that tells very briefly how it came to this conclusion. If you click on "What is the Tomatometer", it tells you very clearly how they come up with the list. But let's look at the crux of your agument: RT posting their score of other people's opinion is invalid because it goes against YOUR opinion.
Only if you want to assert that your opinion of a film should exceed other people's opinion of a film in regard to a subjective opinion when the rating has nothing to do with that subjective opinion.
Higher RT rating == better liked film. It has nothing to do with "best". That is your lack of understanding. That is your strawman argument.
Again, the RT rating only shows how much a movie was generally liked. It offers no subjective opinion if a movie is "the best" which is what you are trying to making it out to be. Seems you want to apply a Strawman argument.
Maybe because you seem to mistake the Rotten Tomatoes rating (whether a movie is generally liked) with something far more subjective (whether a movie is the "best").
Just because you don't value the rating (and frankly misunderstand what the rating is) does not mean it is useless to other people.
I've thought about it. What do you think "ratings" should mean? Rotten Tomatoes is clear what their ratings mean: it's an aggregate score of what the general public and movie critics have thought about a movie. Is it perfect? No. Does it have gaps? Yes. For example, most movies that been released in the last 20 years or so will have a rating. Older movies that predate the Internet era may not have a rating or a smaller set of opinions. Also the rating says nothing about the quality, importance, or brilliance of a movie. It only relays the general likability of a movie.
You've posted no points with actual facts and keep asserting things without foundation.
So you admit you don't have any clue to how much NASA spends? That seems like the totality of your argument: you don't know but sure you are right.