Yet we still have tens of deep thinkers that post to every Google thread feeling the need to explain it to the rest of the population that's not as smart as we are.
whataboutism can be a useful tool to expose contradictions, double standards, and hypocrisy.
Whataboutism is nothing more than a universal tool rationalize bad behavior.
If I've done something wrong, address that issue with me. If you've done something wrong, I'll address it with you. Those two actions are orthogonal. One doesn't affect the other. One doesn't justify the other. Hypocrisy doesn't make bad behavior good. Correct yourself, and SEPARATELY, pursue correcting the action of others.
The favorite Whataboutism today in the US is "what about the Clintons" or "what about Obama". You know what? Rs you are in power now. They control the entire government including of course the justice dept. Go after the Clintons and Obama. Stop using them as an excuse. Put them in jail.
The US had a different batch of vaccines, dipshit,
And.... so? What are you trying to say? The CDC concluded no evidence by studying a populace that was not given the vaccine? Is that what you think?
In 2014, CDC published a study on the association between 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccines, 2010/2011 seasonal influenza vaccines, and narcolepsy. The analysis included more than 650,000 people who received the pandemic flu vaccine in 2009 and over 870,000 people who received the seasonal flu vaccine in 2010/2011. The study found that vaccination was not associated with an increased risk for narcolepsy.
False comparison. He knows his wife very well. You don't know Wikipedia or the people behind it at all.
My god you are trying hard.
I tell you that Apple Computer employees are secretly being drugged by the cafeteria food to make them more "compliant" with company policy. By all accounts you ought to be running to the local police and reporting this. Of course you don't, because I'm just some random guy with a story about Apple.
A little Occam's Razor goes a long way here. What's more likely... Wikipedia is run by a secret cabal of editors that distort facts. Or you tried to make an edit to an article and had it rejected, damaging your fragile psyche. This is a terrible injustice, but you can't even tell us the page in question, nor did you bother to capture any screen shots, or describe the changes that were rejected. Well, that's typical. Because if you provided that someone would be able to disprove your claims. Poof, there goes your FUD.
and yet believe without evidence that Wikipedia editing is a Virtuous System.
I don't believe either way. I *suspect* Wikipedia is mostly factual with some bias and has blatantly incorrect information in a smaller number of cases. I'm not even crying about it either, because I'm able to see the world as neither black or white. I guess I'm just special.
If you make a claim, it's up to you to back it it. It's not up to the rest of us to disprove it. For example, I could claim your spouse is a whore. You'd probably laugh at me unless I provided some evidence of it. You probably wouldn't feel compelled to get back to me with dates and times and itineraries proving that they are not a whore. See how that works?
You are wrong, careful sourced contributions ARE reverted, as AC stated:
Then offer some evidence. Don't be part of the current culture that just expects the world to believe something because it came out of your pie hole. Seriously, I know very little about this, and I'd like to know more, but just batting yes / no back and forth wastes bits.
Oh hi there troll. I can tell your level of conviction by the way you can't even associate an account here on/. with your posts. You must *really* believe in this stuff.
In response to the events in Europe, CDC reviewed data from the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) and found no indication of any association between U.S.-licensed H1N1 or seasonal influenza vaccine and narcolepsy.
In 2014, CDC published a study on the association between 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccines, 2010/2011 seasonal influenza vaccines, and narcolepsy. The analysis included more than 650,000 people who received the pandemic flu vaccine in 2009 and over 870,000 people who received the seasonal flu vaccine in 2010/2011. The study found that vaccination was not associated with an increased risk for narcolepsy.
CDC recommends influenza vaccination as the best way to protect from influenza disease and its complications. See CDC influenza vaccine
Why does any search engine need to modify it's results for other than ad money?
That's exactly what's going on. Google and Bing search are wholly supported by ad money. It's bad for business to have offensive results. Advertisers do not want their ads shown inline with offensive material. If that happens, you get folks claiming the advertiser supports the offensive material (which I guess they do, indirectly, by paying out to the platform that served the material).
why does Bing or Google care what their key word searches return?
See above.
Google and Bing are somehow tasked with controlling speech?
No, just their revenue. They'll do what's good for business.
If you say no, you get all the horrible ignorance, arrogance, racism, x-ism, etc. but you also get a true picture of reality in the net.
No. Example: non-batshit people aren't searching for "do vaccines cause..." at all. Hence the only history the search engine has for auto complete are the things the batshit people are searching for. The fact that a few batshit people searched for something doesn't make it the "reality in the net".
Not just geographical areas, I wonder if they try it out on multiple different types of streets in multiple different times of day.
Yes, after all nobody could have ever come up with the idea of testing a SDC on different types of road conditions. Google will be sending your bonus over immediately.
40 years ago there was no rap polluting every bit of popular culture it touches.
IKR? And 70 years ago, there was no rock and roll polluting every bit of popular culture it touches. And 120 years ago, there was no jazz polluting every bit of popular culture it touches.
If it came down to having to buy a movie @30 or cd @25 to see if I'll like it,
That's an interesting anecdote but, believe it or not there was a time when the internet didn't exist and you couldn't download movies or music to try them out. Yet, people still bought movies and music. They bought *more* movies and music than they do today.
The time of quality things being produced, is gone.
Common reality distortion. The way it works is that you remember the quality media you consumed when you were younger. It sticks with you, because... it's good. That gives you the impression there was less shit at that time. It's not true. The majority of music and movies has always been shit. But you do not remember the shit.
Even if the stream-ripping was blocked, these people have NO intention of buying the music legally.
Nobody is arguing that every single one of those people would have purchased the music. But seems like a big fat stretch to say that unlimited access to something for free doesn't affect someone's desire top spend money on it. It's just dishonest to make this claim to such an extreme.
Especially since many of them are children or teens with no money.
Teens and children have parents, friends, and relatives. They birthdays and Christmases.
Newsflash: The process of nominating and confirming Supreme Court Justices is made partisan by its very purpose. It is absurd to think that politics could ever be removed from the process.
You have to read the whole thread friend. I was responding to someone else claiming how awful it was that Ds tried to muck up the process. I gave one (of many) examples showing both sides playing the game. Draw your own conclusions.
To be a bit more honest, the Republicans refused to discuss Garland's nomination because of a supposed convention against nominating a new justice during the last year of a president's term.
Let me quote from the Wikipedia article again:
In an unprecedented move, Senate Republicans (under Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell) refused to consider Garland's nomination, holding "no hearings, no votes, no action whatsoever" on the nomination.[83][84] The refusal was highly controversial
That would seem to disagree with your assertion that this was just normal operating procedure, right?
They should have known that this was going to be a problem.
Right, based on the zero accidents. If you disagree, link to the cases of Waymo getting in accidents and / or killing people. Here'll do it for you. Here's the only one: https://www.usatoday.com/story...
But don't forget this:
The self-driving van was not in autonomous mode at the time of the crash, said a spokesperson for the Mesa Fire and Medical Department.
You are talking about testing this "saving of lives" with lives like we are monkeys in a lab.
No, you said that.
I'm sure you can understand that nothing is zero risk. So I guess you are trying to argue that SD cars are high risk and untested. Well, offer your evidence of that. If you can't (and yes, you can't) then you are just spreading FUD. If you are looking for people that scare easily about killer robots you are posting to the wrong website.
And if robots killing people on the battlefield is so controversial today
your whining about losing an election does not make it so
Go ahead and quote me where that happened. T won fair and square. Don't imagine I'm the boogeyman your talk show tells you about it doesn't do either of us any good.
No, Garland didn't get the job because the dominant political party chose not to confirm him.
By all accounts MG was an excellent choice, and it was blocked from even a vote by con partisan politics. It's not that they voted against him, they didn't even allow a vote. Read the wikipedia article. Note the word "unprecedented". By not allowing a vote, it allowed con senators to avoid going on the record as voting against him. It prevented honest senators from voting their conscious.
To suggest that cons haven't engaged in the same type of dirty tricks, and helped build the system that caused this, is dishonest.
Slashdot Mirror
if you're not paying for it somebody else is with ulterior motives
Except there're no ulterior motives. You know how Google makes money. Do you think the rest of us just can't grok it?
You are the product
Agreed. The consumer is a pretty important part of a capitalist economy. Personally, I'm going to save my outrage for other topics.
Yet we still have tens of deep thinkers that post to every Google thread feeling the need to explain it to the rest of the population that's not as smart as we are.
Which will come back to bite them, once the Russia scarecrow is all used up again, and they realize, that idiot TrumpObamaBush emptied the closet. ;)
Comrade, you've outdone yourself. Extra vodka serving tonight.
My only concern is that you'll change your mind and take over the world.
whataboutism can be a useful tool to expose contradictions, double standards, and hypocrisy.
Whataboutism is nothing more than a universal tool rationalize bad behavior.
If I've done something wrong, address that issue with me. If you've done something wrong, I'll address it with you. Those two actions are orthogonal. One doesn't affect the other. One doesn't justify the other. Hypocrisy doesn't make bad behavior good. Correct yourself, and SEPARATELY, pursue correcting the action of others.
The favorite Whataboutism today in the US is "what about the Clintons" or "what about Obama". You know what? Rs you are in power now. They control the entire government including of course the justice dept. Go after the Clintons and Obama. Stop using them as an excuse. Put them in jail.
That's the article I linked genius.
The US had a different batch of vaccines, dipshit,
And.... so? What are you trying to say? The CDC concluded no evidence by studying a populace that was not given the vaccine? Is that what you think?
In 2014, CDC published a study on the association between 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccines, 2010/2011 seasonal influenza vaccines, and narcolepsy. The analysis included more than 650,000 people who received the pandemic flu vaccine in 2009 and over 870,000 people who received the seasonal flu vaccine in 2010/2011. The study found that vaccination was not associated with an increased risk for narcolepsy.
Take a moment and read that.
False comparison. He knows his wife very well. You don't know Wikipedia or the people behind it at all.
My god you are trying hard.
I tell you that Apple Computer employees are secretly being drugged by the cafeteria food to make them more "compliant" with company policy. By all accounts you ought to be running to the local police and reporting this. Of course you don't, because I'm just some random guy with a story about Apple.
A little Occam's Razor goes a long way here. What's more likely... Wikipedia is run by a secret cabal of editors that distort facts. Or you tried to make an edit to an article and had it rejected, damaging your fragile psyche. This is a terrible injustice, but you can't even tell us the page in question, nor did you bother to capture any screen shots, or describe the changes that were rejected. Well, that's typical. Because if you provided that someone would be able to disprove your claims. Poof, there goes your FUD.
and yet believe without evidence that Wikipedia editing is a Virtuous System.
I don't believe either way. I *suspect* Wikipedia is mostly factual with some bias and has blatantly incorrect information in a smaller number of cases. I'm not even crying about it either, because I'm able to see the world as neither black or white. I guess I'm just special.
If you make a claim, it's up to you to back it it. It's not up to the rest of us to disprove it. For example, I could claim your spouse is a whore. You'd probably laugh at me unless I provided some evidence of it. You probably wouldn't feel compelled to get back to me with dates and times and itineraries proving that they are not a whore. See how that works?
You are wrong, careful sourced contributions ARE reverted, as AC stated:
Then offer some evidence. Don't be part of the current culture that just expects the world to believe something because it came out of your pie hole. Seriously, I know very little about this, and I'd like to know more, but just batting yes / no back and forth wastes bits.
Oh hi there troll. I can tell your level of conviction by the way you can't even associate an account here on /. with your posts. You must *really* believe in this stuff.
Uh oh, someone actually read those articles.
In response to the events in Europe, CDC reviewed data from the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) and found no indication of any association between U.S.-licensed H1N1 or seasonal influenza vaccine and narcolepsy.
In 2014, CDC published a study on the association between 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccines, 2010/2011 seasonal influenza vaccines, and narcolepsy. The analysis included more than 650,000 people who received the pandemic flu vaccine in 2009 and over 870,000 people who received the seasonal flu vaccine in 2010/2011. The study found that vaccination was not associated with an increased risk for narcolepsy.
CDC recommends influenza vaccination as the best way to protect from influenza disease and its complications. See CDC influenza vaccine
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesaf...
From that lil' old group known as the Center for Disease Control. But what do they know?
Why does any search engine need to modify it's results for other than ad money?
That's exactly what's going on. Google and Bing search are wholly supported by ad money. It's bad for business to have offensive results. Advertisers do not want their ads shown inline with offensive material. If that happens, you get folks claiming the advertiser supports the offensive material (which I guess they do, indirectly, by paying out to the platform that served the material).
why does Bing or Google care what their key word searches return?
See above.
Google and Bing are somehow tasked with controlling speech?
No, just their revenue. They'll do what's good for business.
As a test, I searched 'girls licking tits' on both Bing and Google. The results are indistinguishable. Porn, lots of porn.
As it should be.
If you say no, you get all the horrible ignorance, arrogance, racism, x-ism, etc. but you also get a true picture of reality in the net.
No. Example: non-batshit people aren't searching for "do vaccines cause..." at all. Hence the only history the search engine has for auto complete are the things the batshit people are searching for. The fact that a few batshit people searched for something doesn't make it the "reality in the net".
Not just geographical areas, I wonder if they try it out on multiple different types of streets in multiple different times of day.
Yes, after all nobody could have ever come up with the idea of testing a SDC on different types of road conditions. Google will be sending your bonus over immediately.
40 years ago there was no rap polluting every bit of popular culture it touches.
IKR? And 70 years ago, there was no rock and roll polluting every bit of popular culture it touches. And 120 years ago, there was no jazz polluting every bit of popular culture it touches.
See any pattern there?
If it came down to having to buy a movie @30 or cd @25 to see if I'll like it,
That's an interesting anecdote but, believe it or not there was a time when the internet didn't exist and you couldn't download movies or music to try them out. Yet, people still bought movies and music. They bought *more* movies and music than they do today.
The time of quality things being produced, is gone.
Common reality distortion. The way it works is that you remember the quality media you consumed when you were younger. It sticks with you, because... it's good. That gives you the impression there was less shit at that time. It's not true. The majority of music and movies has always been shit. But you do not remember the shit.
Even if the stream-ripping was blocked, these people have NO intention of buying the music legally.
Nobody is arguing that every single one of those people would have purchased the music. But seems like a big fat stretch to say that unlimited access to something for free doesn't affect someone's desire top spend money on it. It's just dishonest to make this claim to such an extreme.
Especially since many of them are children or teens with no money.
Teens and children have parents, friends, and relatives. They birthdays and Christmases.
Newsflash: The process of nominating and confirming Supreme Court Justices is made partisan by its very purpose. It is absurd to think that politics could ever be removed from the process.
You have to read the whole thread friend. I was responding to someone else claiming how awful it was that Ds tried to muck up the process. I gave one (of many) examples showing both sides playing the game. Draw your own conclusions.
To be a bit more honest, the Republicans refused to discuss Garland's nomination because of a supposed convention against nominating a new justice during the last year of a president's term.
Let me quote from the Wikipedia article again:
In an unprecedented move, Senate Republicans (under Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell) refused to consider Garland's nomination, holding "no hearings, no votes, no action whatsoever" on the nomination.[83][84] The refusal was highly controversial
That would seem to disagree with your assertion that this was just normal operating procedure, right?
They should have known that this was going to be a problem.
Right, based on the zero accidents. If you disagree, link to the cases of Waymo getting in accidents and / or killing people. Here'll do it for you. Here's the only one:
https://www.usatoday.com/story...
But don't forget this:
The self-driving van was not in autonomous mode at the time of the crash, said a spokesperson for the Mesa Fire and Medical Department.
Oh...
You are talking about testing this "saving of lives" with lives like we are monkeys in a lab.
No, you said that.
I'm sure you can understand that nothing is zero risk. So I guess you are trying to argue that SD cars are high risk and untested. Well, offer your evidence of that. If you can't (and yes, you can't) then you are just spreading FUD. If you are looking for people that scare easily about killer robots you are posting to the wrong website.
And if robots killing people on the battlefield is so controversial today
Yeah, good try, but we aren't talking about that.
your whining about losing an election does not make it so
Go ahead and quote me where that happened. T won fair and square. Don't imagine I'm the boogeyman your talk show tells you about it doesn't do either of us any good.
No, Garland didn't get the job because the dominant political party chose not to confirm him.
By all accounts MG was an excellent choice, and it was blocked from even a vote by con partisan politics. It's not that they voted against him, they didn't even allow a vote. Read the wikipedia article. Note the word "unprecedented". By not allowing a vote, it allowed con senators to avoid going on the record as voting against him. It prevented honest senators from voting their conscious.
To suggest that cons haven't engaged in the same type of dirty tricks, and helped build the system that caused this, is dishonest.
I'm suggesting that vandals will find them attractive targets because they're new and different, and vulnerable to a wide variety of attacks.
If only they'd been doing trials over the last 3 years. Then they'd have some idea if this was going to be a problem.