If it was released on "International Women's Day" it's news to me. The trailers were the trailers of a normal movie.
It most certainly was a feminist film though, in the sense that any film depicting women outside their traditional gender role can be considered feminist. And that's a good thing! Variety is the spice of life.
Why didn't Wonder Woman get this mob treatment? Because The Horde didn't have their act together I guess. But they are on top of things now. They are there to make sure I know that I should be super offended, as a white male. The very same tactics they are sick of other groups using. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, I guess.
We must be really bored to find drama where it isn't.
I think the real difference is people who enjoy music vs people who listen to it. If you just listen you don't care what the song is or who its by as long as there's another one after. Speaking of data loss though, how long is streaming service x going to be available and what happens when it shuts down?
You're implying that streamers "don't care what the song is" which is silly. Amazon Music (especially the "Unlimited" variety) works like this: You dial up an artist, a song, *or an album*. You have instant access to everything. The "radio" flavor of listening is only one of many options.
The monthly fee is minuscule in comparison to the time and monetary investment that goes into creating a prepper's hoard of physical CDs. When Amazon goes belly up and I lose access to all my music I'll be the first to congratulate you on your foresight as I casually switch to a competing service.
The cost of replacing shingles should probably be factored into the overall cost of the panels - which are coming down in price year over year.
But who replaces only *some* shingles? If you're getting your roof re-done they're going to swap out all the shingles, even if some were protected by a solar panel. (Right?)
You are correct that it is an aesthetic choice, and based on anecdotal evidence, namely peoples' reaction to the Hobbit movies, the overwhelming opinion seems to be that it is aesthetically bad. At least, in that context.
I think it comes down to that very tricky subject of taste. A shirt can look great on a rack and terrible on a person. Or it can look great on a person but terrible when paired with the wrong pants. Unless you ask someone else who totally disagrees! So it is with high frame rates. Maybe there are movies where people will enjoy the effect, maybe not. But, because it is an aesthetic choice, it is wrong to assume high frame rates are objectively better for movies.
As for the cause, I think you're making an assumption by supposing that our preferences were caused by training. Maybe, maybe not. Only one way to find out: fire up the time machine so we can do some A/B testing with some turn of the century folks!
Maybe they realize power users are stuck with the product regardless and are focusing on luring and retaining the next generation of users. You may complain about Excel changing things around, but it probably pales in comparison to switching to a competing product altogether, if in fact a suitable replacement even exists.
I agree about menu jumbling being annoying. Some of the changes in Office products are welcome though. The format painter is nice. The style selector is also great. With the style classes assigned you can restyle the entire document with the click of a button. Your level of frustration all depends on what you're doing with the product. If you've been using the product to do more or less the same type of work for 30 years then yeah, change is going to be pointless and frustrating.
"Dallas" (the area) has acceptable traffic. I'm glad they didn't pick here though. When Toyota showed up, real estate prices jumped by 50%. That'd be great if it didn't mean our property taxes did the same thing.
I get the feeling they are definitely not going to do a "Mac Mode" after seeing how things turned out for Microsoft. Apple will just make iOS more and more competent until there's no need for Mac OS anymore.
Unfortunately, I think a strike would only worsen this problem. If management didn't already think domestic workers were vital, they especially wouldn't if the domestic workers started causing problems.
Google, Facebook, and Twitter currently enjoy legal protections against copyright infringement, defamation of character, and other kinds of legal issues because they claim that they are just redistribution information with no editorial control. Obviously, that is a sham.
The solution is simple: remove legal protection from these companies and hold them responsible for anything that appears on their web sites.
That's a heck of a double edged sword there. Small sites would never get their comment systems off the ground. Most wouldn't be able to handle even one lawsuit. It's a great way to make sure no one ever speaks their mind on the internet. The only sites hosting user content would be the behemoths who have a pile of cash for paid moderators, advanced algorithms, and all the world's lawyers. Sounds like a nightmare.
Breaking up monopolies only works if the government routinely intervenes in business acquisitions to avoid new monopolies from forming.
35 years later we're still better off than we were. Seems like it "worked" to me. Even if it entirely goes back to what it was, it was a good run. Just repeat the process.
Now someone tell me why we shouldn't break up the banks.
Slashdot's moderation system is the primary reason I still visit. A cap on the upward moderation leaves more comments on equal footing. And no fixed moderator means no boogeyman. When you take the moderation out of the hands of the few you still end up with (mostly) thoughtful discussion, and the conversation is more likely to reflect the views of the users rather than the overlords. I occasionally see contradicting viewpoints sitting at 5.
The interface probably holds it back a bit. That's necessary for Slashdot, whose users have no desire for a change, but if this moderation system were transported elsewhere it would be one opportunity for improvement.
I think I understand their motivation. I have a suspicion that web ads, even to this day, are valued at a fraction of what print, TV, and radio ads are valued at, despite there being much better data on their effectiveness. And I also suspect that a huge part of this value gap is due to "bad" ads hurting the perception of the audience and of the people buying ad space. Bad ads also drive end users to install ad blockers, which dump all ads into the toilet without regard for quality.
So if Google can improve the overall ad quality across the internet, they A) reduce the consumer push for ad blockers, and B) increase the perception of web ads, thus driving up value. Both of these drive up revenue.
The Hillary thing was just a nudge, taking advantage of confirmation bias. The real damage to her was done back when Bill was first elected. The Republican media has had it out for Hillary ever since. Source: consumed a lot of it myself back in the day.
The problem is that software makes it so easy it entices people without real skills to write. This is similar to when laser printers and WYSIWYG editors first came on the scene, and suddenly everyone was a typographer and a graphic artist. *shudder*
I'd say that's not the problem at all. What you're describing as bad music is clearly considered *good* by enough people that the music becomes popular. If you're right about the music being objectively bad (big if), that would imply that peoples' *tastes* are to blame, not the tools.
My own opinion is that loop-based software enticing people "without real skills" to write is a *good thing*. How do you expect people to develop skills without practicing them? You sound like you want them to learn *your* way, and you're not happy that there is a new avenue. This is an elitist attitude. While software advancements lead to more bad music they also lead to more *good* music. I wonder how many excellent musicians never would have become interested in music creation were it not for this new software?
It's not selfish. This is the chosen business model of the store. You want someone to buy your clothes online instead of walking into a brick & mortar store? Fine, you better be good with returns, because trying things on is part of the clothes shopping process. I'm not advocating abuse, but liberal return policies are part of the core value proposition for these stores, and are the only reason people consider buying clothes online.
and everyone else have to pay higher prices.
Since when is that the litmus test for buying decisions? You know what makes people pay higher prices? Me not shopping at the store at all.
I don't view the iPhone X as experimental. My personal theory is that they wanted to be working on a no-bezel phone to stay competitive, but weren't exactly sure when it would be ready due to the uncharted waters of new parts (custom OLED, face scanner). So they had one group developing the iPhone 8 and another developing the iPhone X. And wouldn't you know it, the X was ready to go around the same time as the 8. So we get both.
I never minded ads on major TV networks. Still don't. I think that's why I still see internet ads as having potential. They're better than they were in the days of the Xcam, but in a lot of cases the sleaze factor is as high as ever. And video streaming services keep showing me the same ad over and over. (Really?) Maybe one day they'll get it right.
I'll tell you what I don't miss: That short-lived fad around the turn of the millennium where every niche site tried to sell you on "premium" services with content behind a paywall. So many site owners whining about not being able to pay the bills. I'll take an ad over that any day. To those small site owners from back in that day: The internet is not your own personal gold mine. It's not the end of the world if people don't want to pay you to read your articles. It just means you need to get a day job like everyone else.
Slashdot Mirror
I choose mosquitoes.
If it was released on "International Women's Day" it's news to me. The trailers were the trailers of a normal movie.
It most certainly was a feminist film though, in the sense that any film depicting women outside their traditional gender role can be considered feminist. And that's a good thing! Variety is the spice of life.
Why didn't Wonder Woman get this mob treatment? Because The Horde didn't have their act together I guess. But they are on top of things now. They are there to make sure I know that I should be super offended, as a white male. The very same tactics they are sick of other groups using. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, I guess.
We must be really bored to find drama where it isn't.
It worked for arcades in the '90s!
You're implying that streamers "don't care what the song is" which is silly. Amazon Music (especially the "Unlimited" variety) works like this: You dial up an artist, a song, *or an album*. You have instant access to everything. The "radio" flavor of listening is only one of many options.
The monthly fee is minuscule in comparison to the time and monetary investment that goes into creating a prepper's hoard of physical CDs. When Amazon goes belly up and I lose access to all my music I'll be the first to congratulate you on your foresight as I casually switch to a competing service.
Is that a typo? Because that only covers 12.5 people, which doesn't sound newsworthy.
I assume it's $125,000,000?
How are the horror stories any less anecdotal?
But who replaces only *some* shingles? If you're getting your roof re-done they're going to swap out all the shingles, even if some were protected by a solar panel. (Right?)
You are correct that it is an aesthetic choice, and based on anecdotal evidence, namely peoples' reaction to the Hobbit movies, the overwhelming opinion seems to be that it is aesthetically bad. At least, in that context.
I think it comes down to that very tricky subject of taste. A shirt can look great on a rack and terrible on a person. Or it can look great on a person but terrible when paired with the wrong pants. Unless you ask someone else who totally disagrees! So it is with high frame rates. Maybe there are movies where people will enjoy the effect, maybe not. But, because it is an aesthetic choice, it is wrong to assume high frame rates are objectively better for movies.
As for the cause, I think you're making an assumption by supposing that our preferences were caused by training. Maybe, maybe not. Only one way to find out: fire up the time machine so we can do some A/B testing with some turn of the century folks!
Maybe they realize power users are stuck with the product regardless and are focusing on luring and retaining the next generation of users. You may complain about Excel changing things around, but it probably pales in comparison to switching to a competing product altogether, if in fact a suitable replacement even exists.
I agree about menu jumbling being annoying. Some of the changes in Office products are welcome though. The format painter is nice. The style selector is also great. With the style classes assigned you can restyle the entire document with the click of a button. Your level of frustration all depends on what you're doing with the product. If you've been using the product to do more or less the same type of work for 30 years then yeah, change is going to be pointless and frustrating.
"Dallas" (the area) has acceptable traffic. I'm glad they didn't pick here though. When Toyota showed up, real estate prices jumped by 50%. That'd be great if it didn't mean our property taxes did the same thing.
I get the feeling they are definitely not going to do a "Mac Mode" after seeing how things turned out for Microsoft. Apple will just make iOS more and more competent until there's no need for Mac OS anymore.
Unfortunately, I think a strike would only worsen this problem. If management didn't already think domestic workers were vital, they especially wouldn't if the domestic workers started causing problems.
That's a heck of a double edged sword there. Small sites would never get their comment systems off the ground. Most wouldn't be able to handle even one lawsuit. It's a great way to make sure no one ever speaks their mind on the internet. The only sites hosting user content would be the behemoths who have a pile of cash for paid moderators, advanced algorithms, and all the world's lawyers. Sounds like a nightmare.
35 years later we're still better off than we were. Seems like it "worked" to me. Even if it entirely goes back to what it was, it was a good run. Just repeat the process.
Now someone tell me why we shouldn't break up the banks.
Slashdot's moderation system is the primary reason I still visit. A cap on the upward moderation leaves more comments on equal footing. And no fixed moderator means no boogeyman. When you take the moderation out of the hands of the few you still end up with (mostly) thoughtful discussion, and the conversation is more likely to reflect the views of the users rather than the overlords. I occasionally see contradicting viewpoints sitting at 5.
The interface probably holds it back a bit. That's necessary for Slashdot, whose users have no desire for a change, but if this moderation system were transported elsewhere it would be one opportunity for improvement.
I think I understand their motivation. I have a suspicion that web ads, even to this day, are valued at a fraction of what print, TV, and radio ads are valued at, despite there being much better data on their effectiveness. And I also suspect that a huge part of this value gap is due to "bad" ads hurting the perception of the audience and of the people buying ad space. Bad ads also drive end users to install ad blockers, which dump all ads into the toilet without regard for quality.
So if Google can improve the overall ad quality across the internet, they A) reduce the consumer push for ad blockers, and B) increase the perception of web ads, thus driving up value. Both of these drive up revenue.
The Hillary thing was just a nudge, taking advantage of confirmation bias. The real damage to her was done back when Bill was first elected. The Republican media has had it out for Hillary ever since. Source: consumed a lot of it myself back in the day.
I'd say that's not the problem at all. What you're describing as bad music is clearly considered *good* by enough people that the music becomes popular. If you're right about the music being objectively bad (big if), that would imply that peoples' *tastes* are to blame, not the tools.
My own opinion is that loop-based software enticing people "without real skills" to write is a *good thing*. How do you expect people to develop skills without practicing them? You sound like you want them to learn *your* way, and you're not happy that there is a new avenue. This is an elitist attitude. While software advancements lead to more bad music they also lead to more *good* music. I wonder how many excellent musicians never would have become interested in music creation were it not for this new software?
This sounds analogous to the anti-NN rationalization. Irony.
One more way for me to filter out bad potential employers.
Are they going to call it Google Play Music?
It's not selfish. This is the chosen business model of the store. You want someone to buy your clothes online instead of walking into a brick & mortar store? Fine, you better be good with returns, because trying things on is part of the clothes shopping process. I'm not advocating abuse, but liberal return policies are part of the core value proposition for these stores, and are the only reason people consider buying clothes online.
Since when is that the litmus test for buying decisions? You know what makes people pay higher prices? Me not shopping at the store at all.
I don't view the iPhone X as experimental. My personal theory is that they wanted to be working on a no-bezel phone to stay competitive, but weren't exactly sure when it would be ready due to the uncharted waters of new parts (custom OLED, face scanner). So they had one group developing the iPhone 8 and another developing the iPhone X. And wouldn't you know it, the X was ready to go around the same time as the 8. So we get both.
Yeah, now imagine if it didn't have that protective tube and just zoomed people through the sky! That would be risky.
I never minded ads on major TV networks. Still don't. I think that's why I still see internet ads as having potential. They're better than they were in the days of the Xcam, but in a lot of cases the sleaze factor is as high as ever. And video streaming services keep showing me the same ad over and over. (Really?) Maybe one day they'll get it right.
I'll tell you what I don't miss: That short-lived fad around the turn of the millennium where every niche site tried to sell you on "premium" services with content behind a paywall. So many site owners whining about not being able to pay the bills. I'll take an ad over that any day. To those small site owners from back in that day: The internet is not your own personal gold mine. It's not the end of the world if people don't want to pay you to read your articles. It just means you need to get a day job like everyone else.