No, sorry, slashdot has gone web 3.0 bandwagon. We have a few months until it's all top-ten-lists in a mostly whitespace theme. The only hint of what slashdot was will be in the slightly green borders of some of the ads.
Well, I meant more explicit urges, as a direct response to the GPs personal observations. But yeah, I know the Kinsey scale, and my simplification was basically uncalled for.
I'm trying to figure out how your post relates to mine. I know it's gotta be my own failing, but the whole a,b,c lineup of points makes it looks like your contradicting points I gave, but I can't figure out how to match them.
I guess what I want is a lead to your list that summarizes it so I can understand it better.
Ad hoc hypothesis to overturn new information, in order to force a fit with preconceived notions, aren't valuable to science. That is to say, come up with an objective test or GTFO.
Sure, but it's not hard to cite the 10%ish homosexual population as a sign that even that preference is perhaps diminished by the things afforded by society.
It's hardly a surprise that since the world's biggest art revolution happened in the extraordinarily(perhaps even more than the middle ages or antiquity) patriarchal society of 1500s, it's not really a surprise that the biggest historical names associated with art are male and Italian.
I think it's entirely fair. The only difference between these two groups is the book they've chosen.
Nope, the difference, as can be seen throughout the world, is poverty. Cultures with a lot of poverty take an extreme approach to enforcing morality. Christians still execute gay people in Uganda. Turkey is a mostly Muslim country without these kinds of extreme civil rights abuses.
It took a lot of work and loss of life to chill the Christians down to a point where they are almost tolerable, but they have everything they need to become (again) what the Muslims are today.
Eh, it's still an extreme comparison. This is a person who is having their life ruined, suffering literal torture, and all for the sake of one interpretation of one book.
I don't think Christianity is an accurate understanding of the universe, and I don't think it's even close to an ideal approach to morality, but comparing people who are afraid of learning something to those who torture and imprison others on the basis of their religion isn't fair.
It came from middle-middle-middlemen. We've privatized the hell out of a lot of important tasks that the federal government does in the name of making them cheaper, but I think every single person in our industry can tell you that contractors are expensive as hell, and add nothing but immediacy.
So, we pay full time people in the government to review contract bids. Those contractors are specialists in winning government contracts, and do nothing other than hire sub-contractors. Those subcontractors hire actual employees, but only a trickle of the money they make goes to paying for the work. They take a huge overhead for legal, HR, actual overhead, and profits. The parent contractor takes a similar huge cut before passing things on to subcontractors.
We've already multiplied the actual costs by 10 or more, without having even brought "overruns", "missed requirements", and real QA into the picture.
"We" means the people of the U.S. not the individual who was in a position of high authority for a decade. Conveniently, in that time span, we also invaded their biggest regional political rival for reasons that were clearly bogus.
Now one doesn't need to necessarily level conspiracy theories here, but I feel no need to give a benefit of the doubt when it comes to that particular individual.
This feels like a precise regurgitation of my own position, only I also feel that advertisement as a whole is a tragedy of the commons problem that sabotage GDP for the individual advertiser's benefit.
I guess that second statement calls for some explanation. There is a nominal way you'd prefer to spend your money. If ads work(and clearly they do) then they spend capital(and labor) to change a person's spending preference from what they'd nominally enjoy. Economically, that's a decrease in utility, and thus rent-seeking.
Meh, I don't care. I'd rather put actual money towards the ad-blocker teams if there was an adblock/ad arms race than face ads I don't want to see. I'd also stop using sites that had ads that intrude on my life.
What other people want me to see will never be a determining factor in what I choose to see in life. I don't care if high expense sites die in the process. I don't care if paywalls crop up for content with actual value. I don't care if its tragedy of the commons or not. I didn't sign a deal that said I had to be exposed to ads, so I won't(and I wouldn't sign such a deal).
Slashdot Mirror
No, sorry, slashdot has gone web 3.0 bandwagon. We have a few months until it's all top-ten-lists in a mostly whitespace theme. The only hint of what slashdot was will be in the slightly green borders of some of the ads.
Well, I meant more explicit urges, as a direct response to the GPs personal observations. But yeah, I know the Kinsey scale, and my simplification was basically uncalled for.
It sure could be. My ad-hoc hypothesis is not the only plausible explanation, just the one that made the most sense to me.
Sometimes you don't want your family to hear what you have to say to an objective third party for your mental health, I guess?
I'm trying to figure out how your post relates to mine. I know it's gotta be my own failing, but the whole a,b,c lineup of points makes it looks like your contradicting points I gave, but I can't figure out how to match them.
I guess what I want is a lead to your list that summarizes it so I can understand it better.
Ad hoc hypothesis to overturn new information, in order to force a fit with preconceived notions, aren't valuable to science. That is to say, come up with an objective test or GTFO.
Well, it correlates extremely well, even within genders, to testosterone levels.
The 10% includes those who have bisexual urges, but identify as heterosexual.
Sure, but it's not hard to cite the 10%ish homosexual population as a sign that even that preference is perhaps diminished by the things afforded by society.
It's hardly a surprise that since the world's biggest art revolution happened in the extraordinarily(perhaps even more than the middle ages or antiquity) patriarchal society of 1500s, it's not really a surprise that the biggest historical names associated with art are male and Italian.
What interested me about his research was the evidence that sexual dimorphism in humans was substantially stronger in the paleolithic than today.
To me that adds credence to the notion that society has removed a lot of the need for distinguishing between genders. Which was neat.
Haha, you don't want to participate in culture in its exact form it exists right now, go live by yourself!
That's not an insight, it's lazy, and it ignores any institutional support that large middlemen get.
The subcontracting primes predominate because their only expertise is seizing the contracts.
And it never occurs to ask you what separates a Turkey from a Saudi Arabia?
I think it's entirely fair. The only difference between these two groups is the book they've chosen.
Nope, the difference, as can be seen throughout the world, is poverty. Cultures with a lot of poverty take an extreme approach to enforcing morality. Christians still execute gay people in Uganda. Turkey is a mostly Muslim country without these kinds of extreme civil rights abuses.
It took a lot of work and loss of life to chill the Christians down to a point where they are almost tolerable, but they have everything they need to become (again) what the Muslims are today.
And this is a brash and unsupported argument.
Eh, it's still an extreme comparison. This is a person who is having their life ruined, suffering literal torture, and all for the sake of one interpretation of one book.
I don't think Christianity is an accurate understanding of the universe, and I don't think it's even close to an ideal approach to morality, but comparing people who are afraid of learning something to those who torture and imprison others on the basis of their religion isn't fair.
Yes, we can all dream of a day when Oracle is just ashes on the ground, and a footnote in corporate history.
It came from middle-middle-middlemen. We've privatized the hell out of a lot of important tasks that the federal government does in the name of making them cheaper, but I think every single person in our industry can tell you that contractors are expensive as hell, and add nothing but immediacy.
So, we pay full time people in the government to review contract bids. Those contractors are specialists in winning government contracts, and do nothing other than hire sub-contractors. Those subcontractors hire actual employees, but only a trickle of the money they make goes to paying for the work. They take a huge overhead for legal, HR, actual overhead, and profits. The parent contractor takes a similar huge cut before passing things on to subcontractors.
We've already multiplied the actual costs by 10 or more, without having even brought "overruns", "missed requirements", and real QA into the picture.
"We" means the people of the U.S. not the individual who was in a position of high authority for a decade. Conveniently, in that time span, we also invaded their biggest regional political rival for reasons that were clearly bogus.
Now one doesn't need to necessarily level conspiracy theories here, but I feel no need to give a benefit of the doubt when it comes to that particular individual.
Because "the second it showed an ad" would be a second too much.
I also get that. I just find my own personal exposure to the ad to be a greater expense than the capital costs.
Ads are the start of the tragedy of the commons. No one benefits from the net presence of ads, but individuals benefit from their own ads.
On the other hand, what specific duty is set out that I have to see an ad to visit the site?
This feels like a precise regurgitation of my own position, only I also feel that advertisement as a whole is a tragedy of the commons problem that sabotage GDP for the individual advertiser's benefit.
I guess that second statement calls for some explanation. There is a nominal way you'd prefer to spend your money. If ads work(and clearly they do) then they spend capital(and labor) to change a person's spending preference from what they'd nominally enjoy. Economically, that's a decrease in utility, and thus rent-seeking.
Meh, I don't care. I'd rather put actual money towards the ad-blocker teams if there was an adblock/ad arms race than face ads I don't want to see. I'd also stop using sites that had ads that intrude on my life.
What other people want me to see will never be a determining factor in what I choose to see in life. I don't care if high expense sites die in the process. I don't care if paywalls crop up for content with actual value. I don't care if its tragedy of the commons or not. I didn't sign a deal that said I had to be exposed to ads, so I won't(and I wouldn't sign such a deal).