A few years back, there was a new member on my team that had very recently transitioned from a QA role elsewhere in the company to a development role on my team. This new member was very outspoken and a little naive. In my opinion he was a bit out of his depth, which is understandable given that he was in a new role. However, this new member insisted on sharing his thoughts about absolutely everything during team meetings when a more prudent course for someone so new might have been to observe the process from a more reserved position for a while.
At one team meeting, our scrum master was sharing a workflow board from a remote location. He must have forgotten he was sharing his screen because during one of the outspoken new team member's interjections he opened up his email and starting writing a note to the boss. "I don't think XXXXX is a good fit for our team..." Everyone, including the greenhorn in question, saw him composing this message.
Somebody spoke up and told him aloud over the conference line that we could all see what he was typing. Awkward silence. Major faux pas. I'm sure the scrum master got a stern talking to after that meeting, and I don't think he was ever able to salvage his relationship with the new developer. The new guy left the company within months.
Both phrases are used in common parlance, and you aren't going to change that by shouting into the wind. Even Wikipedia acknowledges it goes by different names.
Chill out and embrace the fluid nature of language.
Users "weaponize" the dislike button? Seems to me that characterization is a tad overdramatic.
Using "like" and "dislike" is not turning out as pretty as you imagined it would? You've got the data, Google... perhaps you should study it and learn a thing or two about human nature.
Or, you could just redesign your feedback mechanism and stick your head in the sand by coming up with a way to completely sanitize user feedback. I bet your corporate buddies can't wait for that one.
I've never had a LinkedIn account and I've been gainfully employed at three tech companies over the last 8 years. For me it was never relevant.
LinkedIn became popular only after I had decided to quit Facebook and I was damn certain I didn't want to join another Facebook clone, even one masquerading as "career networking."
Props if you've managed to use LinkedIn to your advantage. I don't need it.
This is hucksterism, plain and simple.
The polygraph test was not created to be used as a lie detector, and it has never been reliable in that application.
This eye-scanner device appears to be little more than another round of bullshit: "Converus believes that emotional arousal manifests itself in telltale eye motions and behaviors when a person lies." Human beings are incredibly complex systems. Claiming the ability to detect what is in the mind of another human being based on some external cue, no matter how sophisticated the method, is blatantly disingenuous.
The issue here is that the device in question cannot possibly work to any reasonable standard of reliability. It is a scam, a dupe, and a fraud. Its use at all in any official capacity will be a travesty; a farcical perversion of honesty.
Dystopia is a world where so-called "justice" hinges on such a test.
"...stuff that matters."
It isn't a hit piece or a promo. The issue potentially affects all of us.
I'd say in most universes this post has a fine home here on Slashdot.
So, under this new legislation, nobody links to people who are looking to collect. These media companies who want to charge for links are essentially are cutting themselves off from their audience.
This changes nothing for the Internet as I have known it. It just tempts "content providers" to shoot themselves in the foot. I don't want their shit content anyway, so BAU continues for me...
The marketing by Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds, et. al. is of course aimed at getting new people into the habit. They are attempting to maintain their classic role as tobacco monopolists. They are also way behind the technology curve and are playing catch up to the innovators in the vaping market space who have developed these products as an alternative for smokers.
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Don't condemn smokers like me who have used this technology to quit cigarettes. Teen smoking has been a thing as long as smoking has been a thing. "Think of the children" is nothing but a mantra of tyrants.
Why is it that protecting kid's data is so much more damn important than protecting people's data in general? Reach the age of majority and suddenly everybody is just OK with corporations pillaging the hell out of your data?
That's not how it should work. Everyone's data should be legally protected.
OP's position seems perfectly philosophically valid to me. Why don't you refute his position rather than condescending on him without providing substance?
Responding in this manner makes you appear old and stupid, not wise.
This is incorrect--men do not create a big stink over the scenario you present. when was the last time you saw a highly visible lawsuit where a man demands money from his employer for doing "minimal work of questionable quality?"
No, in this scenario the man either works harder, finds a new job, or sucks it up and accepts his position*.
They will distort reality to entitle themselves to whatever the fuck they want, paint you misogynist, and then sue you in a case with worldwide visibility.
If you had never hired them in the first place, then you wouldn't owe them anything and you wouldn't have to deal with this shit.
Seriously... you want to be treated like an equal? Take your lumps like the rest of us and stop making a big fucking stink out of the fact that you are a woman.
"Public outcry?" More like "mainstream media narrative." Way to tip your hand there Mr. Author.
The mainstream narrative (not public outcry) here has been for censorship/alteration of Internet algorithms to prefer mainstream sources.
This seems an undesirable development to any but those mainstream sources themselves. (from big media's point of view:) "Alright Internet... we acknowledge that you have the people's eyeballs now. Let us use what thrall we still have over the people to convince them that we should be the only ones they can trust online."
Worse, the news these mainstream companies produce is largely "fake" too, with headlines ever-more tabloid-like, begging for views like clickbait links. Plus, they put a blatant political slant on everything. Hearst famously claimed "I make the news," and he was right. He had editorial sway over what people across the nation would discuss that day, based on what he decided to print.
This whole thing is utter rubbish--a dying mainstream media grasping for relevancy. I say let them die.
To this I can only respond one way: If you want vetted information, find a reputable journalistic source.
Don't expect to find your news via Google search results or Facebook shares. Those are not news organizations, nor do they purport to be.
Censorship is good, as long as only the "bad" stories are censored? Good luck keeping that pandora's box in check...
Use your head. If news seems fantastic and outrageous, it probably is. If news seems reasonable, remember that everyone has a limited perspective and the story has inevitably been told from some writer's or editor's point of view.
Informational noise has existed since people began sharing information. The Internet has made sharing information easier--that is all. There is quite literally nothing new to see here.
Crazy conspiracy theory? You must be a youngling. Do you not recall the US DOJ's investigation into Microsoft's anti-competitive practices?
"Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" was the internal language DOJ found Microsoft itself using to describe how it was abusing standards to push others out of its market space. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Microsoft can not be trusted to play with community toys without breaking them. They have proved this time and again--they will break the standards shamelessly and then refuse to inter-operate with the rest of the ecosystem.
Slashdot Mirror
April fools, motherfuckers!
A few years back, there was a new member on my team that had very recently transitioned from a QA role elsewhere in the company to a development role on my team. This new member was very outspoken and a little naive. In my opinion he was a bit out of his depth, which is understandable given that he was in a new role. However, this new member insisted on sharing his thoughts about absolutely everything during team meetings when a more prudent course for someone so new might have been to observe the process from a more reserved position for a while.
At one team meeting, our scrum master was sharing a workflow board from a remote location. He must have forgotten he was sharing his screen because during one of the outspoken new team member's interjections he opened up his email and starting writing a note to the boss. "I don't think XXXXX is a good fit for our team..." Everyone, including the greenhorn in question, saw him composing this message.
Somebody spoke up and told him aloud over the conference line that we could all see what he was typing. Awkward silence. Major faux pas. I'm sure the scrum master got a stern talking to after that meeting, and I don't think he was ever able to salvage his relationship with the new developer. The new guy left the company within months.
Both phrases are used in common parlance, and you aren't going to change that by shouting into the wind. Even Wikipedia acknowledges it goes by different names.
Chill out and embrace the fluid nature of language.
Users "weaponize" the dislike button? Seems to me that characterization is a tad overdramatic.
Using "like" and "dislike" is not turning out as pretty as you imagined it would? You've got the data, Google... perhaps you should study it and learn a thing or two about human nature.
Or, you could just redesign your feedback mechanism and stick your head in the sand by coming up with a way to completely sanitize user feedback. I bet your corporate buddies can't wait for that one.
...but "piracy" will always be a simple, affordable option.
I've never had a LinkedIn account and I've been gainfully employed at three tech companies over the last 8 years. For me it was never relevant.
LinkedIn became popular only after I had decided to quit Facebook and I was damn certain I didn't want to join another Facebook clone, even one masquerading as "career networking."
Props if you've managed to use LinkedIn to your advantage. I don't need it.
This is hucksterism, plain and simple. The polygraph test was not created to be used as a lie detector, and it has never been reliable in that application. This eye-scanner device appears to be little more than another round of bullshit: "Converus believes that emotional arousal manifests itself in telltale eye motions and behaviors when a person lies." Human beings are incredibly complex systems. Claiming the ability to detect what is in the mind of another human being based on some external cue, no matter how sophisticated the method, is blatantly disingenuous. The issue here is that the device in question cannot possibly work to any reasonable standard of reliability. It is a scam, a dupe, and a fraud. Its use at all in any official capacity will be a travesty; a farcical perversion of honesty. Dystopia is a world where so-called "justice" hinges on such a test.
"...stuff that matters." It isn't a hit piece or a promo. The issue potentially affects all of us. I'd say in most universes this post has a fine home here on Slashdot.
So, under this new legislation, nobody links to people who are looking to collect. These media companies who want to charge for links are essentially are cutting themselves off from their audience. This changes nothing for the Internet as I have known it. It just tempts "content providers" to shoot themselves in the foot. I don't want their shit content anyway, so BAU continues for me...
The marketing by Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds, et. al. is of course aimed at getting new people into the habit. They are attempting to maintain their classic role as tobacco monopolists. They are also way behind the technology curve and are playing catch up to the innovators in the vaping market space who have developed these products as an alternative for smokers.
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Don't condemn smokers like me who have used this technology to quit cigarettes. Teen smoking has been a thing as long as smoking has been a thing. "Think of the children" is nothing but a mantra of tyrants.
Why is it that protecting kid's data is so much more damn important than protecting people's data in general? Reach the age of majority and suddenly everybody is just OK with corporations pillaging the hell out of your data?
That's not how it should work. Everyone's data should be legally protected.
Their hardware is shitty too... I have owned two Razer products: a keyboard and a mouse. Both died within a year, the keyboard in only a few months.
Their products are marketed as high-end and they are not cheap. But they are seemingly built very cheap. I'm never buying Razer again.
My point is, nobody is gonna take council from one who condescends rather than instructing.
Fuck you. There is no substance hidden in that post. It is 100% condescension.
Who said anything about no government? OP only said that a currency free of government control is a good thing.
OP's position seems perfectly philosophically valid to me. Why don't you refute his position rather than condescending on him without providing substance?
Responding in this manner makes you appear old and stupid, not wise.
This is incorrect--men do not create a big stink over the scenario you present. when was the last time you saw a highly visible lawsuit where a man demands money from his employer for doing "minimal work of questionable quality?"
No, in this scenario the man either works harder, finds a new job, or sucks it up and accepts his position*.
* or goes on an office-wide shooting spree. YMMV
Came here to comment about this... grammar nazis can suck my dick, and they certainly don't belong on the main page.
They will distort reality to entitle themselves to whatever the fuck they want, paint you misogynist, and then sue you in a case with worldwide visibility.
If you had never hired them in the first place, then you wouldn't owe them anything and you wouldn't have to deal with this shit.
Seriously... you want to be treated like an equal? Take your lumps like the rest of us and stop making a big fucking stink out of the fact that you are a woman.
Came here to say this. Great law, wrong rationale.
"Public outcry?" More like "mainstream media narrative." Way to tip your hand there Mr. Author.
The mainstream narrative (not public outcry) here has been for censorship/alteration of Internet algorithms to prefer mainstream sources.
This seems an undesirable development to any but those mainstream sources themselves. (from big media's point of view:) "Alright Internet... we acknowledge that you have the people's eyeballs now. Let us use what thrall we still have over the people to convince them that we should be the only ones they can trust online."
Worse, the news these mainstream companies produce is largely "fake" too, with headlines ever-more tabloid-like, begging for views like clickbait links. Plus, they put a blatant political slant on everything. Hearst famously claimed "I make the news," and he was right. He had editorial sway over what people across the nation would discuss that day, based on what he decided to print.
This whole thing is utter rubbish--a dying mainstream media grasping for relevancy. I say let them die.
To this I can only respond one way: If you want vetted information, find a reputable journalistic source. Don't expect to find your news via Google search results or Facebook shares. Those are not news organizations, nor do they purport to be.
Censorship is good, as long as only the "bad" stories are censored? Good luck keeping that pandora's box in check...
Use your head. If news seems fantastic and outrageous, it probably is. If news seems reasonable, remember that everyone has a limited perspective and the story has inevitably been told from some writer's or editor's point of view.
Informational noise has existed since people began sharing information. The Internet has made sharing information easier--that is all. There is quite literally nothing new to see here.
Crazy conspiracy theory? You must be a youngling. Do you not recall the US DOJ's investigation into Microsoft's anti-competitive practices?
"Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" was the internal language DOJ found Microsoft itself using to describe how it was abusing standards to push others out of its market space.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Microsoft can not be trusted to play with community toys without breaking them. They have proved this time and again--they will break the standards shamelessly and then refuse to inter-operate with the rest of the ecosystem.
It's the new perpetual frontpage story!