What Youtube should be doing is encouraging people to seek out the different, the bizarre, the intransigent evangelists and propaganda to further prepare themselves to interact with the ever increasing diversity of America.
Youtube isn't a person. It isn't a government entity. It isn't a prophet, or a teacher. The only thing it does is optimize for profit. Saying it should do this or that for the betterment of society is like saying a squirrel should see a psychiatrist. Don't expect Youtube to be anything other than what keeps people watching the longest and causes the least friction in society.
Thats a bunch of BS. The tax payers can afford to fund 5 billion dollars. Hell its a rounding error for most federal projects.
I wonder why the wall didn't get funded when Trump had both houses in his back pocket. Hmmm. What could it be?
Trump doesn't want the wall. What he wants is to further polarize his base. He wants to be able to say "I tried to give to safety but they voted against it". Polarization is great for politicians. They can get away with anything because whatever terrible thing they do, it's better than the other side.
The wife name matching a terrorist name, and having to spend hours in a detention room in a Canadian airport happened to me.
That's terrible and I'm sorry.
But as humans, we're able to differentiate between systemic problems and isolated incidents. If the above happens once a month, over the millions and millions of people flying, I'm not worried about it. My changes of being hit by a bus are much larger. If it happens 10 times a day, then let's talk.
Moderate groups are not the answer, because a moderate group will often just be some combination of both, but their views can be so strict that harm can happen as well.
I don't think you understand what it means to be moderate. It doesn't picking picking extreme ideas from one side or the other. It means ideas that are compromises that actually may have a chance of being accepted by both sides. E.g.,
You can be for immigration control, but also for amnesty for current undocumented Americans. You can be pro-choice, but only for very early terms. You can be anti-racist, but still acknowledge even a racists group's right to free speech.
This is where almost all Americans live. In the middle.
Of course, this is not what politicians want. They want us all to be fanatics, so we vote with them regardless of their actions.
And that's without errors. With errors, your wife name will match that on a known (male!) terrorist, and you will spend three ours in a detention room abroad, or your house will match the location of a stolen item, you will be placed at the scene of a crime in the next state, and what not. Bounty hunters have already broken into the wrong person's house...
Yeah, I'm going to worry about that when it happens.
I do use portable phones, lots of different ones. If I needed to call someone right now, I would ask one of you, "Could you please make a call for me?" If I am on a bus and it is late and I need to tell somebody that I am going to arrive late, there is always some other passenger in the bus who will make a call for me or send a text for me. Practically speaking, it is not that hard.
So he depend on other people forfeiting their privacy so he doesn't have to forfeit his. Seems like a philosophy that can work for everyone. Oh wait...
So you lay off 7% last year, then grow 30% (according to Mr. Musk's email), then lay off 7% again?
This isn't a RIF, it's a mass firing in disguise. This is typical behavior for large companies. They do a "reduction in force" and let go of all of their dead weight. It's easier on them because there're fewer legal complications. Firing someone is hard. To avoid legal issues you need to meticulously document an employee's problems and work with them to correct it through multiple stages.
And it's definitely better PR for the company.
Perhaps a little more care should be paid to not hiring more people than your business can support.
Peoples' attitude toward their employment change. They become disinterested and not effective. And it's impossible to hire with perfect accuracy. Sometimes you just end up with people that aren't right for the position.
^^^ Exactly. Consumers got what they asked for. The problem is consumers thought they'd take their $100 bill and divide by 100 and be able to choose channels at $1 a pop (or something like that). Who would have known that having each provider build their own independent streaming service would increase costs to the consumer?
"Greed" is a term applied to humans, not corporations. Corporations exist to maximize profits. "Corporate greed" is redundant.
Look at it from their point of view. Netflix used to have a tech advantage. When it started massive-scale streaming was a hard problem and companies like Disney couldn't or didn't want to go it alone. That's not longer the case. There are dozens of premium streaming services that offer as good of an experience as Netflix.
Disney's (for example) value lies almost entirely in its IP. They've obviously made a calculation that it's cheaper to put up their own streaming service and not give a cut to Netflix. "The good of the consumer" to them means everyone should subscribe to their premium service.
Of course Netflix sees the writing on the wall which is why they are going nuts producing original content. Their destiny lies largely in the hands of IP holder's willingness to keep licensing their content. Would you pay $12.99 a month for Netflix original content only? Interesting their stock is doing so well. This is why I'm not an investor I guess.
Agreed! That would be REALLY nice Quality of Life improvement. You are spot on about watching history being "locked" to an account. This isn't fucking rocket science -- just some basic computer science.
I can't imagine caring about anything less than the viewing history of my Netflix account.
Because people don't like terms of service that say they can be charged thousands of dollars a month if their account gets hacked. Such things make real bad PR when they happen.
Because they want to charge per person, not per stream. Like most services their model capacity planning expects much less than 100% account utilization. If you shared you account with 5 people that coordinated to a single stream at a time, but with ~100% utilization overall, that'd be a "loss" for them.
He tried to remove the program from his phone, but the chatter proved true -- it was undeletable. He found only an option to "disable," and he wasn't sure what that meant.
When apps are installed via the system image (shipped with the phone) they can't be deleted, because that would mean modifying a signed, read-only disk partition.
Android instead has the ability to disable these apps. That means they will never run, won't show in the launcher, and won't use any data storage (beyond what the original app image uses of the read-only partition, which can't be used for anything else anyway, except pre-installing a different app).
Most everything that offers broadband to your home comes with TV service bundled. And it actually costs more to not get the TV service. I can't understand how these services expect to compete. The Koolaide is delicious, but asking people to pay $30 / month for something they already have?
Sidenote: I installed Life360, an Android location and overall helpful app for my (now-ex) girlfriend so we could easily locate each other. I talked to her beforehand
Needing to know each others' location at any time is at least one of the contributing problems.
Slashdot Mirror
What Youtube should be doing is encouraging people to seek out the different, the bizarre, the intransigent evangelists and propaganda to further prepare themselves to interact with the ever increasing diversity of America.
Youtube isn't a person. It isn't a government entity. It isn't a prophet, or a teacher. The only thing it does is optimize for profit. Saying it should do this or that for the betterment of society is like saying a squirrel should see a psychiatrist. Don't expect Youtube to be anything other than what keeps people watching the longest and causes the least friction in society.
And it's not like YouTube doesn't have a track record of bias.
Yes, their bias is profit. If they are excluding content, it's because doing so makes them more $.
Which overlord(s) will determine for the algorithm what is considered "unsavory"?
Google? As they own every aspect of what is Youtube, they can do what they like. If you don't like that, use another service. Vote with your eyeballs.
Thats a bunch of BS. The tax payers can afford to fund 5 billion dollars. Hell its a rounding error for most federal projects.
I wonder why the wall didn't get funded when Trump had both houses in his back pocket. Hmmm. What could it be?
Trump doesn't want the wall. What he wants is to further polarize his base. He wants to be able to say "I tried to give to safety but they voted against it". Polarization is great for politicians. They can get away with anything because whatever terrible thing they do, it's better than the other side.
The wife name matching a terrorist name, and having to spend hours in a detention room in a Canadian airport happened to me.
That's terrible and I'm sorry.
But as humans, we're able to differentiate between systemic problems and isolated incidents. If the above happens once a month, over the millions and millions of people flying, I'm not worried about it. My changes of being hit by a bus are much larger. If it happens 10 times a day, then let's talk.
Moderate groups are not the answer, because a moderate group will often just be some combination of both, but their views can be so strict that harm can happen as well.
I don't think you understand what it means to be moderate. It doesn't picking picking extreme ideas from one side or the other. It means ideas that are compromises that actually may have a chance of being accepted by both sides. E.g.,
You can be for immigration control, but also for amnesty for current undocumented Americans.
You can be pro-choice, but only for very early terms.
You can be anti-racist, but still acknowledge even a racists group's right to free speech.
This is where almost all Americans live. In the middle.
Of course, this is not what politicians want. They want us all to be fanatics, so we vote with them regardless of their actions.
Libertarians are the classical liberals. American 'liberals' are socialist authoritarians.
Feels good to lump people into categories doesn't it? Makes things easier to understand.
And that's without errors. With errors, your wife name will match that on a known (male!) terrorist, and you will spend three ours in a detention room abroad, or your house will match the location of a stolen item, you will be placed at the scene of a crime in the next state, and what not. Bounty hunters have already broken into the wrong person's house...
Yeah, I'm going to worry about that when it happens.
I do use portable phones, lots of different ones. If I needed to call someone right now, I would ask one of you, "Could you please make a call for me?" If I am on a bus and it is late and I need to tell somebody that I am going to arrive late, there is always some other passenger in the bus who will make a call for me or send a text for me. Practically speaking, it is not that hard.
So he depend on other people forfeiting their privacy so he doesn't have to forfeit his. Seems like a philosophy that can work for everyone. Oh wait...
Makes you wish there wasn't an agency that could just override states wishes, right?
Like all the states that sued to get rid of NN. Oh wait, there weren't any.
So you lay off 7% last year, then grow 30% (according to Mr. Musk's email), then lay off 7% again?
This isn't a RIF, it's a mass firing in disguise. This is typical behavior for large companies. They do a "reduction in force" and let go of all of their dead weight. It's easier on them because there're fewer legal complications. Firing someone is hard. To avoid legal issues you need to meticulously document an employee's problems and work with them to correct it through multiple stages.
And it's definitely better PR for the company.
Perhaps a little more care should be paid to not hiring more people than your business can support.
Peoples' attitude toward their employment change. They become disinterested and not effective. And it's impossible to hire with perfect accuracy. Sometimes you just end up with people that aren't right for the position.
If you want something to be so, then legislate it.
California is trying, but the the justice dept. is suing them to prevent it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...
The correct action is to impeach Ajit just on the Taunt video alone
He is appointed, not elected. You'll have to impeach the guy that appointed him.
Now Trump is able to use that same power to get rid of everything put into place without an actual law.
That's weird. I wonder why the FCC is suing CA it prevent it from passing a law re-instating NN.
Otherwise it seems pretty clear it's entirely up to the FCC.
Agreed. The correct solution is to elect a president that you trust to appoint an FCC head that isn't in telecom's back pocket.
As for today, we got what we voted for. Wait out the term and then do something about it.
This is actually in effect A La Carte.
^^^ Exactly. Consumers got what they asked for. The problem is consumers thought they'd take their $100 bill and divide by 100 and be able to choose channels at $1 a pop (or something like that). Who would have known that having each provider build their own independent streaming service would increase costs to the consumer?
Any greed-powered system is broken.
"Greed" is a term applied to humans, not corporations. Corporations exist to maximize profits. "Corporate greed" is redundant.
Look at it from their point of view. Netflix used to have a tech advantage. When it started massive-scale streaming was a hard problem and companies like Disney couldn't or didn't want to go it alone. That's not longer the case. There are dozens of premium streaming services that offer as good of an experience as Netflix.
Disney's (for example) value lies almost entirely in its IP. They've obviously made a calculation that it's cheaper to put up their own streaming service and not give a cut to Netflix. "The good of the consumer" to them means everyone should subscribe to their premium service.
Of course Netflix sees the writing on the wall which is why they are going nuts producing original content. Their destiny lies largely in the hands of IP holder's willingness to keep licensing their content. Would you pay $12.99 a month for Netflix original content only? Interesting their stock is doing so well. This is why I'm not an investor I guess.
Agreed! That would be REALLY nice Quality of Life improvement. You are spot on about watching history being "locked" to an account. This isn't fucking rocket science -- just some basic computer science.
I can't imagine caring about anything less than the viewing history of my Netflix account.
Just charge per stream.
Because people don't like terms of service that say they can be charged thousands of dollars a month if their account gets hacked. Such things make real bad PR when they happen.
Because they want to charge per person, not per stream. Like most services their model capacity planning expects much less than 100% account utilization. If you shared you account with 5 people that coordinated to a single stream at a time, but with ~100% utilization overall, that'd be a "loss" for them.
The letter no doubt was done in hopes BB would be frightened and take it down
When you have lawyers on staff they have to do something with their time.
He tried to remove the program from his phone, but the chatter proved true -- it was undeletable. He found only an option to "disable," and he wasn't sure what that meant.
When apps are installed via the system image (shipped with the phone) they can't be deleted, because that would mean modifying a signed, read-only disk partition.
Android instead has the ability to disable these apps. That means they will never run, won't show in the launcher, and won't use any data storage (beyond what the original app image uses of the read-only partition, which can't be used for anything else anyway, except pre-installing a different app).
You know what else you can do? You make make a search for bacon return data about eggs, or make a search for Obama return results only from fox.com.
Fascinating.
Most everything that offers broadband to your home comes with TV service bundled. And it actually costs more to not get the TV service. I can't understand how these services expect to compete. The Koolaide is delicious, but asking people to pay $30 / month for something they already have?
Your theories about hackers using high-tech crime and the dark web to steal your 500$ TV are only making the OP's point.
Sidenote: I installed Life360, an Android location and overall helpful app for my (now-ex) girlfriend so we could easily locate each other. I talked to her beforehand
Needing to know each others' location at any time is at least one of the contributing problems.