Not really. What's idiotic is the whiny privilege culture that people feel they're 'entitled' to demand a wage so much higher than elsewhere in the world.
No, what's idiotic is not banding together and getting everything you can. Corporations do, in fact corporations are such cooperative unions, so why should you settle for what scraps they're willing to give ?
And wages in third world are lower because the general price level is lower. An Indian spends less money on food than an American, so he can make do with lower wage. It is impossible to compete with price against someone who's costs are lower.
I've never held much truck with Unions, as either you're good enough at your job to write your own ticket anyway, or you're not,
You aren't. No one is. No matter how skilled you are, you simply aren't more productive enough than an unskilled laborer to justify letting you pull the shots. You simply like to think you are because that strokes your ego.
and you can kindly STFU and accept that you're just not that valuable.
Sure, you can. However, you could also band together with others and demand more. That, however, requires putting aside silly fantasies about your own excellency and basing your tactics on reality.
You can STFU and accept the place those with more power are willing to give to you, or you can acquire power yourself and demand a better one. Your choice.
I mean, every employee, in my opinion, has a right to vote with his feet.
Every employee also has a right to freely associate with others and cooperate with them. As usual, such cooperation yields more rewards than competition, and is therefore the rational thing to do.
Unionizing is the surest way to make sure your job gets out-sourced to China. If you don't believe me, ask the steel workers. We now ship ore to China, have them smelt it, and send it back to us, and all of this is still cheaper than paying union steel workers!
So put toll boots on the border and keep rising those tolls until it's cheaper to smelt the ore domestically. It is idiotic to let your industries be shipped to China to support the local dictatorship there when it's so easy to prevent.
Seriously, would you want voters that chose a candidate because "like, Muffy said that Candidate A was like, a total douchebag, because he like TOTALLY ignored her email about her cat, Fluffy...."
As opposed to voters who choose a candidate based on whether he's symbolized by an ass or an elephant ? Voting against someone because you think he's a douchebag would be a step up.
Umm... yes? If you are stupid enough to have sex in public and get photographed doing it, then you absolutely deserve any and all negative consequences you get. Behave well, and you have nothing to fear... behave like an idiot, then you will get treated like one. It's called personal responsibility, and it is a good thing.
If you advocate a system where any deviation from expectations is harshly punished, then you deserve to live in a society where everyone is too afraid to speak up, which makes it much easier for various totalitarian movements to gain power. Or do you perhaps think that people stop equating "personal responsibility" with "conformance" when it comes time to vote ?
And running around having unmarried sex with a bunch of people is irresponsible as well, condom or not. That's a great way to get an STD, cause a pregnancy, have your emotions ripped to shreds by some callous jerk who only wanted you for your body, etc.
Someone else behaving against your personal ethics is not irresponsible. Condoms stop both pregnancies and STDs.
And while that by itself is irresponsible enough for 18 year olds to be doing, doing it in a situation where it can be PHOTOGRAPHED clearly marks someone as a fool, utterly lacking in any wisdom.
You could be PHOTOGRAPHED anywhere. Lack of paranoia does not mean lack of wisdom; trusting someone you on hindsight shouldn't had does not indicate that either. And frankly, your underlying assumption that sex is shameful and thus needs to be hidden from other people is pretty sick. Not to mention your boundless arrogance in equating your personal opinions with wisdom.
Universities aspire to produce the great leaders of the next generation, and great leaders are those that have not just knowledge (read: SAT scores), but wisdom as well. And taking personal responsibility and leading a disciplined life are among the surest signs that someone has wisdom. Getting drunk all the time, breaking the law and running around having premarital sex are good signs that someone has none.
Leader is someone who leads. Someone who strives to conform to someone else's - such as yours - expectations is not a leader, but a follower. And again, breaking your moral code does not indicate lack of wisdom.
your favorite restaurant may be a great place, but Wikipedia can't afford to give an article to every single "great place" in the world
According to Wikipedia, Earth's land surface area is 148,940,000 square kilometres. A cheap hard disk nowadays holds about 500 gigabytes, or 500,000,000,000 bytes. This means that you could write an article 3 357 bytes long. That's thee thousand bytes per every last square kilometre of dry land in the world.
Wikipedia can include every single "great place" in the world. The deletionists simply don't want it to.
So why would you even start to write an article if you know beforehand that it will be deleted?
That's a good question. Why would anyone bother writing an article for Wikipedia in the current situation ?
The only thing Wikipedia has going for it is its sheer size. Deletionism is slowly but surely undermining that one and only strength, making Wikipedia less useful, and ultimately destroying it.
The 2 things are orthogonal to each other. DNSSEC insures that the site you go to is ACTUALLY the site you wanted to go to.
HTTPS just encrypts the traffic to/from that site once you get there.
Not true. HTTPS also includes a certificate-based indentifying system. Otherwise it would be pretty worthless, as nothing would stop a man in the middle from intercepting the initial contact attempt.
Welcome to real life. Particularly with onerous labor laws in a lot of states that make it damn near impossible to fire someone, employers need every resource available to them to separate the losers from potential employees. Thing is, people who are losers in their free time tend to be losers on the job, which gives your employer a vested interest in finding out.
In real life, if you need to work for a living, rather than live off the dividends of your investments, the chances are that you're a loser. Spending 8 hours a day in a cubicle toiling for someone else's benefit and then ensuring you do nothing that might offend them in your so-called free time is not a mark of a winner.
And speaking as a boss, I might do something like this just to test you to see if you have enough integrity to stand up for yourself. If you have a lot of counterculture / political stuff on your shirt sleeve, and you try to pretend to be someone else, I have NO respect for that.
If you have a *problem* with my lack of integrity, you can kiss my ass ! So, am I hired yet ?-)
But seriously, what does it matter what someone is really like, if they can behave well enough in the workplace ? Insisting that people be consistent in working and private life simply results in no one daring to speak out against the majority opinion in the latter, since being forced to repeat that while on job will make you unemployable, which in turn makes you bankrupt. That is not desirable.
Showing different faces to your boss and friends doesn't mean you lack integrity, it simply means that you balance between conflicting demands as best as you can. That is hardly deserving contempt.
However I have the feeling that we'll never get a widespread automated driving system before we get flying cars, at which point it'll be ten times easier to make them fully automated and avoid accidents.
You have it backwards. Flying cars - or rather flying personal transports - are quite possible with today's technology, but can't be put to widespread use before they have good automated controls. Humans simply aren't capable of handling 3-dimensional traffic jams; most of them probably wouldn't be able to handle even flying straight on otherwise empty skies.
Nice knife. Notice this sentence: "Added blade spine rasp for notching, filing, and thumb placement." So, even this "military knife" is advertized based on its utility value, rather than its killing power, which is never once mentioned in the page you linked.
Besides, I didn't claim that there are no pointy, sharp objects intended to be used as a weapon; just that claiming that they are, generally speaking, designed to kill people is ludicrous. Knifes are generic tools, and quite necessary in everyday life - have fun cutting meat without one. They are no more weapons than an office chair is a weapon; it sucks to have one thrown at you, but that's not what they are designed for.
You can kill someone with a pillow, but that doesn't mean that pillows are designed to kill.
BTW, do you really think that Nielsen owns a copyright on the list of TV stations available in the Toledo, Ohio area?
That depends on whether they have and are willing to burn more money than anyone who would dispute that claim, obviously.
Once upon a time, when our ancestors lived in the jungle, they had but one law: might makes right. Then someone got the brilliant idea of using everyone's combined might to enforce touchy-feely laws which allowed even the small and the weak to win against the powerful every now and then. And there was much cries of outrage and grinding of teeth amongst the poor powerful thus oppressed, until some of them learned that the weak are gullible. Thus did the powerful find a number of ideologies to trick the weak into thinking that the very systems which existed to protect them shackled them instead, and so was free-market capitalism born, and for a while the weak were again grinded underfoot.
But then the meek realized that they could unite and form unions to help themselves, and the teeth of the powerful were in poor shape again; but the mighty are not that without cause, so they once again managed to turn the arrogant stupidity of at least some of the weak against them. While all didn't fall into the trap, the most arrogant - those who thought themselves brillant - did, and thus did the IT workers grind 60-hour workweeks and spent their rare free moments ranting against unions which would put an end to the abuse, because each of them in their heart knew that they were the special one who was better than the others, and would be recognized as one of the mighty one day.
Meanwhile, the mighty found that the very legal system which had been built to restrain them had been corrupted and perverted to the point where it could be wielded as a weapon by them. Thus have we ended the abomination of government intervention in the affairs of the powerful and returned to the law of the jungle. Rejoice, libertarians and rayntards, for once again might makes right, just like you wanted !
Mod me down with all of your hatred, free market fundamentalists, but you'll still be peons for all of your life, and the more closely the society resembles your ideal, the heavier your chains that bind you will be.
You can with a car, too. In fact, especially if you don't know how. Let's ban cars!
Or maybe we could require anyone who wants to operate a car to pass some kind of test and medical exam first. Regulate drivers, with something like a driving license, or something ?
Don't be a hypocrite: Guns and knives are designed to kill people (before you start sneering about butter knives, pop guns, etc; just assume the words are defined sensibly as the lethal kind of offensive weapon). Say you want to carry them because you want to be able to kill people who annoy or frighten you.
I have never once in my life seen a knife that was designed to be a weapon. I have seen and own plenty which most certainly can be used as such, such as my meat cleaver. Of course, if I wanted to kill someone with a bladed weapon, I'd pick my axe, which should be able to split your skull just as easy as a log for my fireplace. And I regularly carry a sharp knife or scissors with pointed ends around with me, because I regularly find myself needing to cut things cleanly, or to simply clean the space below my fingernails.
Your assertion is ridiculous, and you are either a liar or an idiot to have made it.
I can easily see a need for this kind of stuff. Further, you have to assume that in a global pandemic situation that your own staff may be getting infected too. You need tools that you can use to manage large networks with only a small staff.
And once it has those tools, the ISP will kick out the now-unnecessary persons, and again only have the bare minimum personnel needed. A market-driven corporation will optimize for costs, not reliability. Having surplus capacity is necessary to handle crisis, but maintaining it costs money, so companies will try to have as little as they can get away with; this usually means cutting down on capacity until the resulting service outages have enough customers leave to become more costly than maintaining the remaining capacity.
This is one of the reasons why anything important can't be left to be directed by market forces. They optimize for cost with absolutely no regard for long-term effects or crises. Anything that must work reliably - power, communications, etc - must be regulated. Anything that isn't, will break down at the first sign of trouble.
And yes, that means that libertarianism is not workable in reality. The Invisible Hand is a simple automaton, it doesn't have Invisible Brains so it can't actually think about what it's doing, any more than the computer you're reading this on can. It cannot take into account things like needing to maintain domestic food production sufficient to feed the population so it won't starve in the case of an international crisis, or sizing the power grid so it can take one or two plants going down. It can't understand the long-term effects of outsourcing manufacturing to foreign countries; and it doesn't know or care about the devastating effects of monopolies.
Mod me down for speaking against your fantasies, Rayndians.
When hits per second exceeds some specific number, stop serving so many ads and images. Don't serve video. Serve text (news stories) and small images only. Switch to static HTML pages for the front page and major stories.
Or simply have two servers. One serves text (HTML and CSS), the other images, video and other fluff. That way the readers can read the stories, and the images load if they will. You could even share the image server between several newssites; they'll be the same content anyway. And you'd want your router to give absolute preference to the packets from the text server, so the images and videos can't clog the pipe.
And all the pages should be static HTML anyway, with the content management system simply automatically re-generating them as needed. Updates in a newssite happen relatively rarely compared to views, so it makes sense to optimize for the latter.
Coming to think of it... It would probably require server tweaking, but since we're talking about very small text files, it might be possible to keep the whole front page and every story in it memory mapped. Then you'd simply send them to the socket directly from there, without needing to open the file.
If he had asked for advice on increasing performance of his car, and someone said cars are obsolete, just take a train, he may have a similar reaction.
The poster wanted to get a text editor open as fast as possible. Explaining to him that not shutting the computer down in the first place but simply putting it into a sleep mode is faster than booting is a perfectly valid and reasonable response. After all, it helps him towards his underlying goal.
To take your analogy, it's like asking for ways to increase your car's power to be able to travel between two distant cities faster, and being told that there's a maglev going every fifteen minutes. It's a perfectly valid answer.
Copyright infringement, at best. I am getting tired of having to point this out to those who ether refuse to acknowledge the difference, or are simply too brainwashed to tell.
More importantly, calling things which aren't stealing stealing is slowly but surely making the concept meaningless, or at least not carrying the negative overtones it once did. That can and probably will have nasty consequences, when someone does the obvious conclusion that since downloading abandonware is OK, so is looting a store, since they are both stealing.
It's a bit like how the word "sex offender" is losing its meaning due to being used in every conceivable and inconceivable context: guy who pees in the bushes, guy who walks in the street naked, guy who rapes little girls... These are all "sex offenders" if caught, so the last nasty critter gets to hide behind the first two harmless ones. Not to mention the guy who was proven innocent in a court of law but is still kept in the registry...
Actually, 2008 is the year that the USA became a Socialist state and nationalized a big chunk of its economy. Most other things are minor compared to this.
I think that this comment perfectly demonstrates the problem. Warmongering, corruption, ever more absurdly draconian copyright laws, the slow decay of democracy, violations of human rights - all those are minor things compared to how closely the leaders of the country follow some particular economic ideology in the middle of an economic crisis. It's just insane.
Nothing matters as long as the Invisible Hand can work unhindered, come Hell or high water. It's the current western equivalent of Sharia law: absurd, and most people don't want it, but there's always a vocal minority which wants to pass it anyway.
Mathematically speaking that is incorrect. While the vertical and horizontal components have a continuous behavior (obviously not really continuous due to machine representation) the tabs act as a discrete element and could not be considered a dimension.
But there are hints in physics that space might be discrete too. That would make all dimensions non-continuous.
Why is it so horrible to have that stuff there? Seriously,I want to know.
Two reasons:
Having a page that Encyclopaedia Britannica wouldn't include makes the editors feel that Wikipedia is "less serious" than Encyclopaedia Britannica, and thus that they aren't "real" editors. Deleting such content makes them feel like they're doing something without actually going to the bother of contributing - and they are, just nothing useful.
"Some men just want to watch the world burn" - The Dark Knight
The stress of dealing with deletionist scum is why I made a principal decision to not contribute to Wikipedia anymore. What's the point, when the addition will likely be deleted or reverted because someone thinks it's not "notable" enough ? Congratulations, deletionists, you've won. Watch as more and more content slips past your fingers and moves to the alternative wikis.
Seriously, there is a good reason, Romans considered entertainers to be among the lowest class of citizens -- above only prostitutes...
There's this one bordello, can't remember its name, which is free to customers and generates its profits by selling videos of those encounters. What would the social position of those employees be ?
Slashdot Mirror
No, what's idiotic is not banding together and getting everything you can. Corporations do, in fact corporations are such cooperative unions, so why should you settle for what scraps they're willing to give ?
And wages in third world are lower because the general price level is lower. An Indian spends less money on food than an American, so he can make do with lower wage. It is impossible to compete with price against someone who's costs are lower.
You aren't. No one is. No matter how skilled you are, you simply aren't more productive enough than an unskilled laborer to justify letting you pull the shots. You simply like to think you are because that strokes your ego.
Sure, you can. However, you could also band together with others and demand more. That, however, requires putting aside silly fantasies about your own excellency and basing your tactics on reality.
You can STFU and accept the place those with more power are willing to give to you, or you can acquire power yourself and demand a better one. Your choice.
Every employee also has a right to freely associate with others and cooperate with them. As usual, such cooperation yields more rewards than competition, and is therefore the rational thing to do.
So put toll boots on the border and keep rising those tolls until it's cheaper to smelt the ore domestically. It is idiotic to let your industries be shipped to China to support the local dictatorship there when it's so easy to prevent.
As opposed to voters who choose a candidate based on whether he's symbolized by an ass or an elephant ? Voting against someone because you think he's a douchebag would be a step up.
If you advocate a system where any deviation from expectations is harshly punished, then you deserve to live in a society where everyone is too afraid to speak up, which makes it much easier for various totalitarian movements to gain power. Or do you perhaps think that people stop equating "personal responsibility" with "conformance" when it comes time to vote ?
Someone else behaving against your personal ethics is not irresponsible. Condoms stop both pregnancies and STDs.
You could be PHOTOGRAPHED anywhere. Lack of paranoia does not mean lack of wisdom; trusting someone you on hindsight shouldn't had does not indicate that either. And frankly, your underlying assumption that sex is shameful and thus needs to be hidden from other people is pretty sick. Not to mention your boundless arrogance in equating your personal opinions with wisdom.
Leader is someone who leads. Someone who strives to conform to someone else's - such as yours - expectations is not a leader, but a follower. And again, breaking your moral code does not indicate lack of wisdom.
According to Wikipedia, Earth's land surface area is 148,940,000 square kilometres. A cheap hard disk nowadays holds about 500 gigabytes, or 500,000,000,000 bytes. This means that you could write an article 3 357 bytes long. That's thee thousand bytes per every last square kilometre of dry land in the world.
Wikipedia can include every single "great place" in the world. The deletionists simply don't want it to.
That's a good question. Why would anyone bother writing an article for Wikipedia in the current situation ?
The only thing Wikipedia has going for it is its sheer size. Deletionism is slowly but surely undermining that one and only strength, making Wikipedia less useful, and ultimately destroying it.
Not true. HTTPS also includes a certificate-based indentifying system. Otherwise it would be pretty worthless, as nothing would stop a man in the middle from intercepting the initial contact attempt.
In real life, if you need to work for a living, rather than live off the dividends of your investments, the chances are that you're a loser. Spending 8 hours a day in a cubicle toiling for someone else's benefit and then ensuring you do nothing that might offend them in your so-called free time is not a mark of a winner.
If you have a *problem* with my lack of integrity, you can kiss my ass ! So, am I hired yet ?-)
But seriously, what does it matter what someone is really like, if they can behave well enough in the workplace ? Insisting that people be consistent in working and private life simply results in no one daring to speak out against the majority opinion in the latter, since being forced to repeat that while on job will make you unemployable, which in turn makes you bankrupt. That is not desirable.
Showing different faces to your boss and friends doesn't mean you lack integrity, it simply means that you balance between conflicting demands as best as you can. That is hardly deserving contempt.
Based on this thread, I'd say that those who have their applications passed on to the recycle bin are the lucky ones.
You have it backwards. Flying cars - or rather flying personal transports - are quite possible with today's technology, but can't be put to widespread use before they have good automated controls. Humans simply aren't capable of handling 3-dimensional traffic jams; most of them probably wouldn't be able to handle even flying straight on otherwise empty skies.
By definition, an automated system is a system with an AI in control of it. Of course it doesn't need to be a particularly fancy AI, but still...
Nice knife. Notice this sentence: "Added blade spine rasp for notching, filing, and thumb placement." So, even this "military knife" is advertized based on its utility value, rather than its killing power, which is never once mentioned in the page you linked.
Besides, I didn't claim that there are no pointy, sharp objects intended to be used as a weapon; just that claiming that they are, generally speaking, designed to kill people is ludicrous. Knifes are generic tools, and quite necessary in everyday life - have fun cutting meat without one. They are no more weapons than an office chair is a weapon; it sucks to have one thrown at you, but that's not what they are designed for.
You can kill someone with a pillow, but that doesn't mean that pillows are designed to kill.
That depends on whether they have and are willing to burn more money than anyone who would dispute that claim, obviously.
Once upon a time, when our ancestors lived in the jungle, they had but one law: might makes right. Then someone got the brilliant idea of using everyone's combined might to enforce touchy-feely laws which allowed even the small and the weak to win against the powerful every now and then. And there was much cries of outrage and grinding of teeth amongst the poor powerful thus oppressed, until some of them learned that the weak are gullible. Thus did the powerful find a number of ideologies to trick the weak into thinking that the very systems which existed to protect them shackled them instead, and so was free-market capitalism born, and for a while the weak were again grinded underfoot.
But then the meek realized that they could unite and form unions to help themselves, and the teeth of the powerful were in poor shape again; but the mighty are not that without cause, so they once again managed to turn the arrogant stupidity of at least some of the weak against them. While all didn't fall into the trap, the most arrogant - those who thought themselves brillant - did, and thus did the IT workers grind 60-hour workweeks and spent their rare free moments ranting against unions which would put an end to the abuse, because each of them in their heart knew that they were the special one who was better than the others, and would be recognized as one of the mighty one day.
Meanwhile, the mighty found that the very legal system which had been built to restrain them had been corrupted and perverted to the point where it could be wielded as a weapon by them. Thus have we ended the abomination of government intervention in the affairs of the powerful and returned to the law of the jungle. Rejoice, libertarians and rayntards, for once again might makes right, just like you wanted !
Mod me down with all of your hatred, free market fundamentalists, but you'll still be peons for all of your life, and the more closely the society resembles your ideal, the heavier your chains that bind you will be.
In Soviet Russia, guns control you !
Or maybe we could require anyone who wants to operate a car to pass some kind of test and medical exam first. Regulate drivers, with something like a driving license, or something ?
I have never once in my life seen a knife that was designed to be a weapon. I have seen and own plenty which most certainly can be used as such, such as my meat cleaver. Of course, if I wanted to kill someone with a bladed weapon, I'd pick my axe, which should be able to split your skull just as easy as a log for my fireplace. And I regularly carry a sharp knife or scissors with pointed ends around with me, because I regularly find myself needing to cut things cleanly, or to simply clean the space below my fingernails.
Your assertion is ridiculous, and you are either a liar or an idiot to have made it.
And once it has those tools, the ISP will kick out the now-unnecessary persons, and again only have the bare minimum personnel needed. A market-driven corporation will optimize for costs, not reliability. Having surplus capacity is necessary to handle crisis, but maintaining it costs money, so companies will try to have as little as they can get away with; this usually means cutting down on capacity until the resulting service outages have enough customers leave to become more costly than maintaining the remaining capacity.
This is one of the reasons why anything important can't be left to be directed by market forces. They optimize for cost with absolutely no regard for long-term effects or crises. Anything that must work reliably - power, communications, etc - must be regulated. Anything that isn't, will break down at the first sign of trouble.
And yes, that means that libertarianism is not workable in reality. The Invisible Hand is a simple automaton, it doesn't have Invisible Brains so it can't actually think about what it's doing, any more than the computer you're reading this on can. It cannot take into account things like needing to maintain domestic food production sufficient to feed the population so it won't starve in the case of an international crisis, or sizing the power grid so it can take one or two plants going down. It can't understand the long-term effects of outsourcing manufacturing to foreign countries; and it doesn't know or care about the devastating effects of monopolies.
Mod me down for speaking against your fantasies, Rayndians.
Or simply have two servers. One serves text (HTML and CSS), the other images, video and other fluff. That way the readers can read the stories, and the images load if they will. You could even share the image server between several newssites; they'll be the same content anyway. And you'd want your router to give absolute preference to the packets from the text server, so the images and videos can't clog the pipe.
And all the pages should be static HTML anyway, with the content management system simply automatically re-generating them as needed. Updates in a newssite happen relatively rarely compared to views, so it makes sense to optimize for the latter.
Coming to think of it... It would probably require server tweaking, but since we're talking about very small text files, it might be possible to keep the whole front page and every story in it memory mapped. Then you'd simply send them to the socket directly from there, without needing to open the file.
The poster wanted to get a text editor open as fast as possible. Explaining to him that not shutting the computer down in the first place but simply putting it into a sleep mode is faster than booting is a perfectly valid and reasonable response. After all, it helps him towards his underlying goal.
To take your analogy, it's like asking for ways to increase your car's power to be able to travel between two distant cities faster, and being told that there's a maglev going every fifteen minutes. It's a perfectly valid answer.
More importantly, calling things which aren't stealing stealing is slowly but surely making the concept meaningless, or at least not carrying the negative overtones it once did. That can and probably will have nasty consequences, when someone does the obvious conclusion that since downloading abandonware is OK, so is looting a store, since they are both stealing.
It's a bit like how the word "sex offender" is losing its meaning due to being used in every conceivable and inconceivable context: guy who pees in the bushes, guy who walks in the street naked, guy who rapes little girls... These are all "sex offenders" if caught, so the last nasty critter gets to hide behind the first two harmless ones. Not to mention the guy who was proven innocent in a court of law but is still kept in the registry...
I think that this comment perfectly demonstrates the problem. Warmongering, corruption, ever more absurdly draconian copyright laws, the slow decay of democracy, violations of human rights - all those are minor things compared to how closely the leaders of the country follow some particular economic ideology in the middle of an economic crisis. It's just insane.
Nothing matters as long as the Invisible Hand can work unhindered, come Hell or high water. It's the current western equivalent of Sharia law: absurd, and most people don't want it, but there's always a vocal minority which wants to pass it anyway.
But there are hints in physics that space might be discrete too. That would make all dimensions non-continuous.
Two reasons:
The stress of dealing with deletionist scum is why I made a principal decision to not contribute to Wikipedia anymore. What's the point, when the addition will likely be deleted or reverted because someone thinks it's not "notable" enough ? Congratulations, deletionists, you've won. Watch as more and more content slips past your fingers and moves to the alternative wikis.
There's this one bordello, can't remember its name, which is free to customers and generates its profits by selling videos of those encounters. What would the social position of those employees be ?