The thing is... lowering cost is a good thing for everyone. We do want to make things more efficiently and put people in less danger in manufacturing. The problem is that we expect people to support themselves with these jobs, and they're disappearing as robots can do the work of an assembly line much better than any person overall.
Honestly, I am a little surprised that an avowedly Communist country like China, is allowing this to happen. Mind you, not *that* surprised, this IS China after all, but still at least a little bit. I guess they really did take all the authoritarian parts of Communism and dropped everything that was even remotely redeeming about the idea.
No, Kings and Lords were a lot more honest than that at the beginning. They were warriors and warlords. Only later did they get on the pretense bandwagon about the Divine Right of Kings and that twaddle because civilization had rendered their services obsolete and they needed to justify their palaces, mistresses and gold-plated everything.
What you are seeing in this article is what is known as a rich dilettante, which is a fairly old trope as well. They're just getting more press now.
As overblown as the term has gotten, we actually haven't all been Millennials. Life was objectively different for those of us who grew up before that period.
Yes, they do share some of the characteristics that all young people have had, of course, but they have a somewhat different background and priorities.
As far as trash talking the young, that is both the right and duty of being an elder. Now, get off my lawn.
It is most likely a state of mind, but it would generally be informed by our structure. Mostly brain structure, but other senses would play a role too.
The consideration of a brain actually forming in this manner is potentially horrifying, though. Such a brain would have no external stimuli at all. Granted, it would not know what it is missing, but I believe the brain expects at least some low level input which it is unlikely to get as an internal growth in a distinct host organism.
While I grant that it is unlikely that a fully structured brain would develop unless it was the intended target, the process *is* being designed to grow fully functional organs. A lot depends, I suppose, on the method and the potential risk of unintended consequences.
I don't know. I think I'd prefer it if we could develop a process that could be a little more... precise about what we're getting out of it.
That's semantics. Yes, before we had a legal system or laws, we didn't call anything a crime. That doesn't mean it was ethical or moral then to do those things, it just meant that either the justice was meted out more directly, or injustice prevailed due to a simple inability to redress it.
I agree that concepts may need to be re-thought when technology provides new cases, but that doesn't mean that the concepts we've developed have no value just because they were innovated at some point in the past.
It can take awhile for a lower calorie diet to have an effect though. Your body will attempt to maintain an even weight. This will eventually change unless there is an external reason for that not happening. I've found that when I do lose weight, it is essential to track it over time, and it will take forever at times to show results. For the most part, on a serious diet, I can lose as little as one pound every two weeks, but in the end, as long as the overall trend is downward, the desired result is inevitable. The hard part is the plateaus and the occasional up ticks. You pretty much have to be a machine about it because while results can be drastic and immediate for some people, for others, it is glacial.
That said it is certainly possible to have an endocrine system that promotes the storage of fat to a certain percentage. That can be harder to overcome and you may need medical advice about weight loss in that situation.
The question is whether this can be a healthy weight for you to be at. This woman in the picture is 350 lbs, like you are, but I'd hazard to say that you probably have a much better frame for carrying that amount of weight than she does simply by dint of being male. Women can carry a lot of weight in certain parts, but if it is all over, it starts to become dangerous.
Speaking as someone who has lifted 350 lbs in a gym with safety equipment and a spotter, you are not going to toss anything weighing 350 lbs over your shoulder unless you're built. You'd probably have to be stronger than average to even move that with a fireman's carry. That's both heavy and the weight is not going to be well distributed.
Skydiving is an activity that can be dangerous, but if handled safely is a lot of fun. And you will walk away from it as healthy as you've ever been. More to the point, you only do it for a few minutes and even the most dedicated skydivers aren't doing it all day every day. The danger level is there, but it isn't constant.
Being obese has a risk level like repeatedly jumping out of a plane every single hour of every single day, with zero benefits to you. It doesn't even have being fun going for it. Yes, you can live with the extra weight for awhile, but eventually, it's going to shorten your life, and more importantly perhaps, it is going to reduce your standard of living.
Yes, it is important to be realistic about where you are, while at the same time realizing that you can always be more than that. If anything, that should be the message here. If someone is fat, then call a spade a spade, but remain supportive of their struggle to become healthier and also uphold their confidence that they are a person who, no matter what their weight is, is a good person. It's just that they are a good person with a disease they should fight, not just accept.
On the other hand, there's obese and there's perfect. No one is going to go from fat to Hollywood hot, and not even stars do that without a full staff and a lot of money. The goal should always what makes you healthier and more comfortable. Don't let "perfect" become the enemy of "good".
You need to keep yourself in a positive mood, but you can keep yourself in a positive mood while still understanding that you need to make progress on obesity.
Being obese has real issues like joint pain, stress, heart disease and diabetes. Even if rejection of beauty was not an issue, that would be enough to make anyone miserable.
I do think the shaming should stop, because these people are not bad people simply because they weigh more than is safe.
However, it should also not be encouraged, and there should be some understanding that, while I don't think you're a bad person for having a high weight, attraction is frequently based on an instinctive response to a particular visual image (especially for men).
It is true that standards of beauty change and that in earlier times, attractive women could weigh in at about 200 pounds, but 200 lbs in all the right places can be presented fairly well on a female frame. 350 lbs... not so much unless the woman is like seven feet tall.
I agree with how out of control the centralization is getting, but I'd ask them just what they think they are going to achieve by these actions? What is their plan? Is it a real plan or just some bullshit manifesto where a certain result is semi-religiously assumed to magically happen if they generate enough chaos?
There's a reason these governments have this power now, and unless there is something better that they can propose *and follow through on*, all they're doing is rolling the dice. It's one thing if the dice can only depict something equal to or better than the current situation, but the dice always have results which make things worse.
It is easier and more "direct" to effect change by throwing a bomb at someone. That's why there was an attraction to the "propaganda of the deed" at the turn of the 20th Century. Even though they're going to get themselves killed, they think they are going to start momentous things.
The thing is... they're right. The problem is that if they don't take the considered and deliberate path towards those goals, they will tip off momentous occurrences that they have no control over. And that means there could be death and destruction and mayhem... for absolutely nothing.
Look at the Bolsheviks. Lenin might have been upset that repression was still needed decades after he died to maintain the communist state, but he was the sort of person who would never have stepped away from that repression if he thought it was needed to meet his ultimate goal.
However, I imagine that Lenin would have been devastated to realize that after all of that, his goals utterly failed. Russia would have been better off if they'd just let the Provisional Government remain in control instead of insisting on bloody revolution and repression to bring about this ridiculous ideology of a Worker's State in a country that barely had industry at the time.
That's the problem I have with people who want to Occupy this or that, or who want to willy-nilly release government documents or hack things. They *will* have an impact. They could very easily cause pain and suffering while trying to overthrow the status quo. But what is absolutely unforgivable is that in all of that, they really have no way of turning that action into something that would achieve the goal of a better world. They're just acting out and hoping that the world is primed to teeter off of the status quo right into the place they want it to be.
And they're right, the status quo is a balancing act that can be disrupted. The problem is that they're so concerned with toppling the current world order that they have no way of influencing the future world order. There is always something worse than the status quo. That's not an argument to keep the status quo, but it is a damn good argument for those who would topple it to have a realistic plan that they are willing to sacrifice for. And sometimes that sacrifice has to be that they are willing to be the person who lived for their cause, rather than who died for their cause. In other words, someone who has a plan and is willing to do the dirty, and frustrating work of making it happen over a long period of time.
Is the world going to be a better place because you hacked the Catalan Police Union website? Perhaps it will be, but what is the goal of that action? How does it work to make the world a better place? We all know that cops can be bad. But we also know that we need cops. So if you're going to attack them on one side, you'd better explain how you're going to "fix" the police with this action. Without that, a hacktivist is just lighting fireworks to see what is going to happen. Some people like that, but don't pretend you're going to help the world out just by pissing people off or spreading around their documents.
The only right and proper response is, when the original video returns to YouTube, to DMCA the Fox video. It will likely last a microsecond due to Fox lawyers being all over it, but they deserve to have to deal with that shit.
At that point, though, if she's a career woman at 40, she now probably has the means to raise a kid and is probably a lot more secure with maintaining herself by herself. She's probably always wanted a child and now feels she doesn't need a man around to do it. Most women do not want to actually choose between a child and a career. They want both, but that can impact their ability to find and keep a mate.
I don't personally recommend that, because having two parents is always going to be better, and in a lot of communities, particularly the African American community, there has been a trend towards single mothers because there is a higher possibility of the father figure either not staying or having issues. The mothers do their best, but having another parent, especially a good male role model for boys, is important.
Oddly enough, many MtF transgender people tend to still like women. So they ended up going from what they would consider to be heterosexual to lesbian, although presumably even when they had male parts, they probably identified as lesbian.
Which now makes me look kind of odd at one of those men who loves to say, "I'm actually a lesbian too, I love women! Hur hur." One wonders if some of them actually think of themselves that way more than I thought.
Anyway, my rule of thumb in dealing with this is to treat people the way they want to be treated. And really, if I can't tell if some woman was born a male, I actually don't need to care, because for all practical purposes, it doesn't matter. In terms of the bathroom stuff, unless the person was a gorilla stuffed into a dress and then started leering under stalls in the ladies room, we already do have a laws against harassment and peeping toms. It shouldn't really matter if the "Tom" is identifying as a "Toni". I doubt most women would even notice if some girly looking trans went to the bathroom with them. And they're all in stalls anyway.
I should be clear, though, I do know women who have experienced peeping tom behavior in bathrooms before from men who would sneak in and run out, and I know that freaked them the hell out. So I have sympathy for their position where they feel unsafe, even if I recognize that the reality is that a trans isn't going to do that. I think some people are more upset about the abstract case of transpeople in bathrooms than they ever would be about the reality of it.
I don't think it is direct sexual blackmail. It is more like to have sex some females have to be in a certain emotionally close state which a certain ritual like watching her favorite show with her man allows her to get into.
Yeah, it can be a pain in the ass because as men, we generally don't have such a requirement. As long as we're feeling okay, and not completely tired out, things will progress along quickly. Women have emotional and instinctive behaviors which are meant to impede being more direct because they can end up on the short end of the stick with a pregnancy and they will have a higher chance of needing a certain level of security.
So, it probably doesn't help to think of it as blackmail, even though it feels that way. However, if you understand what makes her feel more secure, you may be able to substitute that annoying TV ritual with some other, more acceptable option.
Yes, it may well be comically missing the point to rate Teletubbies as trash that no adult could stand, but there are children's shows that benefit from an adult audience to some degree and adults can derive entertainment from them.
As long as the reviewers are clear that they are rating it with adult expectations, I don't think that's unfair, even if it is not really coming from the target demographic.
I have seen something that does make sense while reading the comments, oddly enough.
Women don't watch shows that cater specifically to men, on average. Of course, some women do, but many, many do not.
Men, however, do tend to have TV watching time with their significant others where you are expected to watch together. My wife isn't one of those who insist on that, but there have been times when I will end up in front of a show she's watching and end up watching it because I'm hanging out with her. I actually find some of them interesting, although many of them are indeed eye roll inducing.
So... there may well be some male trolling, but many of those males probably *DO* watch those shows. So, these ratings may seem odd, but could simply be the result of real viewers who do not have such a show as a first preference.
Nonetheless, they are totally legitimate reviewers. Yeah, they may be missing the point, but so what? People can rate video games as gory and misogynistic even if they aren't the target audience. I can say that a show on Lifetime has shitty writing, and it can be totally true in an objective sense, even if a female might overlook that because she derives some entertainment from the theme or the plot.
Yes, you would have to acknowledge that some of the viewers are captive to some degree but that's really only important when you want to use that information for a specific purpose. I doubt a woman-oriented show goes off the air because men didn't like it in a review, especially if someone is checking the sex of the reviewer. So what is the harm?
What would happen if you somehow forced your wife or girlfriend to play a video game that was extremely violent or somehow did not appeal to females in general. Do you think they would all resist writing reviews? I am not sure they would. But as legitimate players of those games... they earned their voice, especially if they played the whole thing just like some men had to watch Sex and the City in its entirety at TV time.
I think that the discrepancy is relatively easy to explain if you look at it that way. Men don't insist on TV viewing of "male-oriented" shows as "together-time", so there are a lot fewer disgruntled females who are actually viewing them.
Sometimes you can't just throw more money at profitable divisions to increase profits or even maintain momentum.
In retrospect, that product was badly managed and failed, but it is likely that your company does need to create more products to have something to go to when the profitable products cannot carry the load anymore, whether that is sooner or later. While there are some companies who have products that will withstand the test of time, they are few and far between.
With Theranos, the idea is good, the execution seems to have been completely fabricated. I do think that we need to do what we can to bring down the costs of testing, but such a goal is just as vulnerable to failure and fraud as any other. People who invested money may have wanted to be a little more careful, but at the same time, Theranos and Holmes are liable to be in deep shit here, and it is possible that the investors just assumed that even if it was mismanaged a little, that they wouldn't completely fake it because they would be found out fairly quickly. It turns out that, no, it certainly *is* possible for people to put themselves in a situation where they will fake something like this, even if it is relatively easy to debunk their claims.
I will be interested to hear the retrospective of this debacle and particularly the mindset that allowed Holmes to go down this path. Pride? Fear of being outed as someone who isn't the next Steve Jobs? Minions lying to her about reality? Investors forcing her to make claims too early?
For the most part, you're probably right. However, there may be some legal cases that turn on this data, and certainly someone who was potentially misdiagnosed in the past and is still alive, may want to make sure that all the data that they have on themselves is up to date. This may mean some people need to go back in and get re-tested for some things.
Agreed that most people don't really think about a blood test they did two years ago, but there are some important exceptions to that.
Yeah, especially seeing as these extortion attempts have no real way to ensure the payoff actually buys silence. There's no way to hand over the "originals" of the documents.
"Pay me 1 million dollars in Bitcoin equivalent, and I totally promise to not immediately turn around and release the data anyway. No really, I totally won't!"
Any real operative on the Romney side would probably stall for time while they try to get a strategy together for some spin, but they wouldn't believe that they "make it go away" with a payoff. They'd know that a payoff would only make their side look even more guilty when this "hacker hero" turns around and releases it because "he can no longer sit back and let Romney get away with his crimes".
By definition, you can't kill the top %0.1 by killing the incumbents, because they're replaced immediately by the next runners-up.
And even if you ignore my pedantic description of how percentages work, the fact is that killing of today's elites without ending the root causes of income disparity is only going to result in an endless cycle of killing rich people off.
Only... the new rich people won't be stupid enough to let you kill them they way their predecessors went.
However, I would love a big fat research grant to run a study whose conclusion is to pat myself on the back by stating something obvious. Therefore, I approve of this sort of study and wish to see more. I was also thinking of a study that shows that in progressive societies, females drive considerably better than those in say, Saudi Arabia. My conclusions and paper are already written, I just need some money and to collect a little bit of random data to make pretty graphs with to publish.
I was thinking that with enough grant money, I could even pay a few other social scientists a good wage and possibly even write some more papers which we would then secure grants in order to embellish with some graphs and tables based on actual data. I was thinking of writing my next paper on logic. "Tautologies: True or True?"
Define "better parent". Parenting skills probably don't hinge on whether a child is a math genius or not, but rather on the children being provided the opportunity to be functioning adults and to have the opportunity to excel at whatever they are interested in.
Slashdot Mirror
The thing is... lowering cost is a good thing for everyone. We do want to make things more efficiently and put people in less danger in manufacturing. The problem is that we expect people to support themselves with these jobs, and they're disappearing as robots can do the work of an assembly line much better than any person overall.
Honestly, I am a little surprised that an avowedly Communist country like China, is allowing this to happen. Mind you, not *that* surprised, this IS China after all, but still at least a little bit. I guess they really did take all the authoritarian parts of Communism and dropped everything that was even remotely redeeming about the idea.
No, Kings and Lords were a lot more honest than that at the beginning. They were warriors and warlords. Only later did they get on the pretense bandwagon about the Divine Right of Kings and that twaddle because civilization had rendered their services obsolete and they needed to justify their palaces, mistresses and gold-plated everything.
What you are seeing in this article is what is known as a rich dilettante, which is a fairly old trope as well. They're just getting more press now.
As overblown as the term has gotten, we actually haven't all been Millennials. Life was objectively different for those of us who grew up before that period.
Yes, they do share some of the characteristics that all young people have had, of course, but they have a somewhat different background and priorities.
As far as trash talking the young, that is both the right and duty of being an elder. Now, get off my lawn.
It is most likely a state of mind, but it would generally be informed by our structure. Mostly brain structure, but other senses would play a role too.
The consideration of a brain actually forming in this manner is potentially horrifying, though. Such a brain would have no external stimuli at all. Granted, it would not know what it is missing, but I believe the brain expects at least some low level input which it is unlikely to get as an internal growth in a distinct host organism.
While I grant that it is unlikely that a fully structured brain would develop unless it was the intended target, the process *is* being designed to grow fully functional organs. A lot depends, I suppose, on the method and the potential risk of unintended consequences.
I don't know. I think I'd prefer it if we could develop a process that could be a little more... precise about what we're getting out of it.
That's semantics. Yes, before we had a legal system or laws, we didn't call anything a crime. That doesn't mean it was ethical or moral then to do those things, it just meant that either the justice was meted out more directly, or injustice prevailed due to a simple inability to redress it.
I agree that concepts may need to be re-thought when technology provides new cases, but that doesn't mean that the concepts we've developed have no value just because they were innovated at some point in the past.
It can take awhile for a lower calorie diet to have an effect though. Your body will attempt to maintain an even weight. This will eventually change unless there is an external reason for that not happening. I've found that when I do lose weight, it is essential to track it over time, and it will take forever at times to show results. For the most part, on a serious diet, I can lose as little as one pound every two weeks, but in the end, as long as the overall trend is downward, the desired result is inevitable. The hard part is the plateaus and the occasional up ticks. You pretty much have to be a machine about it because while results can be drastic and immediate for some people, for others, it is glacial.
That said it is certainly possible to have an endocrine system that promotes the storage of fat to a certain percentage. That can be harder to overcome and you may need medical advice about weight loss in that situation.
The question is whether this can be a healthy weight for you to be at. This woman in the picture is 350 lbs, like you are, but I'd hazard to say that you probably have a much better frame for carrying that amount of weight than she does simply by dint of being male. Women can carry a lot of weight in certain parts, but if it is all over, it starts to become dangerous.
Speaking as someone who has lifted 350 lbs in a gym with safety equipment and a spotter, you are not going to toss anything weighing 350 lbs over your shoulder unless you're built. You'd probably have to be stronger than average to even move that with a fireman's carry. That's both heavy and the weight is not going to be well distributed.
Skydiving is an activity that can be dangerous, but if handled safely is a lot of fun. And you will walk away from it as healthy as you've ever been. More to the point, you only do it for a few minutes and even the most dedicated skydivers aren't doing it all day every day. The danger level is there, but it isn't constant.
Being obese has a risk level like repeatedly jumping out of a plane every single hour of every single day, with zero benefits to you. It doesn't even have being fun going for it. Yes, you can live with the extra weight for awhile, but eventually, it's going to shorten your life, and more importantly perhaps, it is going to reduce your standard of living.
Yes, it is important to be realistic about where you are, while at the same time realizing that you can always be more than that. If anything, that should be the message here. If someone is fat, then call a spade a spade, but remain supportive of their struggle to become healthier and also uphold their confidence that they are a person who, no matter what their weight is, is a good person. It's just that they are a good person with a disease they should fight, not just accept.
On the other hand, there's obese and there's perfect. No one is going to go from fat to Hollywood hot, and not even stars do that without a full staff and a lot of money. The goal should always what makes you healthier and more comfortable. Don't let "perfect" become the enemy of "good".
You need to keep yourself in a positive mood, but you can keep yourself in a positive mood while still understanding that you need to make progress on obesity.
Being obese has real issues like joint pain, stress, heart disease and diabetes. Even if rejection of beauty was not an issue, that would be enough to make anyone miserable.
I do think the shaming should stop, because these people are not bad people simply because they weigh more than is safe.
However, it should also not be encouraged, and there should be some understanding that, while I don't think you're a bad person for having a high weight, attraction is frequently based on an instinctive response to a particular visual image (especially for men).
It is true that standards of beauty change and that in earlier times, attractive women could weigh in at about 200 pounds, but 200 lbs in all the right places can be presented fairly well on a female frame. 350 lbs... not so much unless the woman is like seven feet tall.
I agree with how out of control the centralization is getting, but I'd ask them just what they think they are going to achieve by these actions? What is their plan? Is it a real plan or just some bullshit manifesto where a certain result is semi-religiously assumed to magically happen if they generate enough chaos?
There's a reason these governments have this power now, and unless there is something better that they can propose *and follow through on*, all they're doing is rolling the dice. It's one thing if the dice can only depict something equal to or better than the current situation, but the dice always have results which make things worse.
It is easier and more "direct" to effect change by throwing a bomb at someone. That's why there was an attraction to the "propaganda of the deed" at the turn of the 20th Century. Even though they're going to get themselves killed, they think they are going to start momentous things.
The thing is... they're right. The problem is that if they don't take the considered and deliberate path towards those goals, they will tip off momentous occurrences that they have no control over. And that means there could be death and destruction and mayhem... for absolutely nothing.
Look at the Bolsheviks. Lenin might have been upset that repression was still needed decades after he died to maintain the communist state, but he was the sort of person who would never have stepped away from that repression if he thought it was needed to meet his ultimate goal.
However, I imagine that Lenin would have been devastated to realize that after all of that, his goals utterly failed. Russia would have been better off if they'd just let the Provisional Government remain in control instead of insisting on bloody revolution and repression to bring about this ridiculous ideology of a Worker's State in a country that barely had industry at the time.
That's the problem I have with people who want to Occupy this or that, or who want to willy-nilly release government documents or hack things. They *will* have an impact. They could very easily cause pain and suffering while trying to overthrow the status quo. But what is absolutely unforgivable is that in all of that, they really have no way of turning that action into something that would achieve the goal of a better world. They're just acting out and hoping that the world is primed to teeter off of the status quo right into the place they want it to be.
And they're right, the status quo is a balancing act that can be disrupted. The problem is that they're so concerned with toppling the current world order that they have no way of influencing the future world order. There is always something worse than the status quo. That's not an argument to keep the status quo, but it is a damn good argument for those who would topple it to have a realistic plan that they are willing to sacrifice for. And sometimes that sacrifice has to be that they are willing to be the person who lived for their cause, rather than who died for their cause. In other words, someone who has a plan and is willing to do the dirty, and frustrating work of making it happen over a long period of time.
Is the world going to be a better place because you hacked the Catalan Police Union website? Perhaps it will be, but what is the goal of that action? How does it work to make the world a better place? We all know that cops can be bad. But we also know that we need cops. So if you're going to attack them on one side, you'd better explain how you're going to "fix" the police with this action. Without that, a hacktivist is just lighting fireworks to see what is going to happen. Some people like that, but don't pretend you're going to help the world out just by pissing people off or spreading around their documents.
The only right and proper response is, when the original video returns to YouTube, to DMCA the Fox video. It will likely last a microsecond due to Fox lawyers being all over it, but they deserve to have to deal with that shit.
At that point, though, if she's a career woman at 40, she now probably has the means to raise a kid and is probably a lot more secure with maintaining herself by herself. She's probably always wanted a child and now feels she doesn't need a man around to do it. Most women do not want to actually choose between a child and a career. They want both, but that can impact their ability to find and keep a mate.
I don't personally recommend that, because having two parents is always going to be better, and in a lot of communities, particularly the African American community, there has been a trend towards single mothers because there is a higher possibility of the father figure either not staying or having issues. The mothers do their best, but having another parent, especially a good male role model for boys, is important.
Oddly enough, many MtF transgender people tend to still like women. So they ended up going from what they would consider to be heterosexual to lesbian, although presumably even when they had male parts, they probably identified as lesbian.
Which now makes me look kind of odd at one of those men who loves to say, "I'm actually a lesbian too, I love women! Hur hur." One wonders if some of them actually think of themselves that way more than I thought.
Anyway, my rule of thumb in dealing with this is to treat people the way they want to be treated. And really, if I can't tell if some woman was born a male, I actually don't need to care, because for all practical purposes, it doesn't matter. In terms of the bathroom stuff, unless the person was a gorilla stuffed into a dress and then started leering under stalls in the ladies room, we already do have a laws against harassment and peeping toms. It shouldn't really matter if the "Tom" is identifying as a "Toni". I doubt most women would even notice if some girly looking trans went to the bathroom with them. And they're all in stalls anyway.
I should be clear, though, I do know women who have experienced peeping tom behavior in bathrooms before from men who would sneak in and run out, and I know that freaked them the hell out. So I have sympathy for their position where they feel unsafe, even if I recognize that the reality is that a trans isn't going to do that. I think some people are more upset about the abstract case of transpeople in bathrooms than they ever would be about the reality of it.
I don't think it is direct sexual blackmail. It is more like to have sex some females have to be in a certain emotionally close state which a certain ritual like watching her favorite show with her man allows her to get into.
Yeah, it can be a pain in the ass because as men, we generally don't have such a requirement. As long as we're feeling okay, and not completely tired out, things will progress along quickly. Women have emotional and instinctive behaviors which are meant to impede being more direct because they can end up on the short end of the stick with a pregnancy and they will have a higher chance of needing a certain level of security.
So, it probably doesn't help to think of it as blackmail, even though it feels that way. However, if you understand what makes her feel more secure, you may be able to substitute that annoying TV ritual with some other, more acceptable option.
Yes, it may well be comically missing the point to rate Teletubbies as trash that no adult could stand, but there are children's shows that benefit from an adult audience to some degree and adults can derive entertainment from them.
As long as the reviewers are clear that they are rating it with adult expectations, I don't think that's unfair, even if it is not really coming from the target demographic.
I have seen something that does make sense while reading the comments, oddly enough.
Women don't watch shows that cater specifically to men, on average. Of course, some women do, but many, many do not.
Men, however, do tend to have TV watching time with their significant others where you are expected to watch together. My wife isn't one of those who insist on that, but there have been times when I will end up in front of a show she's watching and end up watching it because I'm hanging out with her. I actually find some of them interesting, although many of them are indeed eye roll inducing.
So... there may well be some male trolling, but many of those males probably *DO* watch those shows. So, these ratings may seem odd, but could simply be the result of real viewers who do not have such a show as a first preference.
Nonetheless, they are totally legitimate reviewers. Yeah, they may be missing the point, but so what? People can rate video games as gory and misogynistic even if they aren't the target audience. I can say that a show on Lifetime has shitty writing, and it can be totally true in an objective sense, even if a female might overlook that because she derives some entertainment from the theme or the plot.
Yes, you would have to acknowledge that some of the viewers are captive to some degree but that's really only important when you want to use that information for a specific purpose. I doubt a woman-oriented show goes off the air because men didn't like it in a review, especially if someone is checking the sex of the reviewer. So what is the harm?
What would happen if you somehow forced your wife or girlfriend to play a video game that was extremely violent or somehow did not appeal to females in general. Do you think they would all resist writing reviews? I am not sure they would. But as legitimate players of those games... they earned their voice, especially if they played the whole thing just like some men had to watch Sex and the City in its entirety at TV time.
I think that the discrepancy is relatively easy to explain if you look at it that way. Men don't insist on TV viewing of "male-oriented" shows as "together-time", so there are a lot fewer disgruntled females who are actually viewing them.
Sometimes you can't just throw more money at profitable divisions to increase profits or even maintain momentum.
In retrospect, that product was badly managed and failed, but it is likely that your company does need to create more products to have something to go to when the profitable products cannot carry the load anymore, whether that is sooner or later. While there are some companies who have products that will withstand the test of time, they are few and far between.
With Theranos, the idea is good, the execution seems to have been completely fabricated. I do think that we need to do what we can to bring down the costs of testing, but such a goal is just as vulnerable to failure and fraud as any other. People who invested money may have wanted to be a little more careful, but at the same time, Theranos and Holmes are liable to be in deep shit here, and it is possible that the investors just assumed that even if it was mismanaged a little, that they wouldn't completely fake it because they would be found out fairly quickly. It turns out that, no, it certainly *is* possible for people to put themselves in a situation where they will fake something like this, even if it is relatively easy to debunk their claims.
I will be interested to hear the retrospective of this debacle and particularly the mindset that allowed Holmes to go down this path. Pride? Fear of being outed as someone who isn't the next Steve Jobs? Minions lying to her about reality? Investors forcing her to make claims too early?
For the most part, you're probably right. However, there may be some legal cases that turn on this data, and certainly someone who was potentially misdiagnosed in the past and is still alive, may want to make sure that all the data that they have on themselves is up to date. This may mean some people need to go back in and get re-tested for some things.
Agreed that most people don't really think about a blood test they did two years ago, but there are some important exceptions to that.
Yeah, especially seeing as these extortion attempts have no real way to ensure the payoff actually buys silence. There's no way to hand over the "originals" of the documents.
"Pay me 1 million dollars in Bitcoin equivalent, and I totally promise to not immediately turn around and release the data anyway. No really, I totally won't!"
Any real operative on the Romney side would probably stall for time while they try to get a strategy together for some spin, but they wouldn't believe that they "make it go away" with a payoff. They'd know that a payoff would only make their side look even more guilty when this "hacker hero" turns around and releases it because "he can no longer sit back and let Romney get away with his crimes".
Bravery and stupidity are not mutually exclusive, despite the fact that bravery has a much better connotation.
By definition, you can't kill the top %0.1 by killing the incumbents, because they're replaced immediately by the next runners-up.
And even if you ignore my pedantic description of how percentages work, the fact is that killing of today's elites without ending the root causes of income disparity is only going to result in an endless cycle of killing rich people off.
Only... the new rich people won't be stupid enough to let you kill them they way their predecessors went.
No. We really didn't.
However, I would love a big fat research grant to run a study whose conclusion is to pat myself on the back by stating something obvious. Therefore, I approve of this sort of study and wish to see more. I was also thinking of a study that shows that in progressive societies, females drive considerably better than those in say, Saudi Arabia. My conclusions and paper are already written, I just need some money and to collect a little bit of random data to make pretty graphs with to publish.
I was thinking that with enough grant money, I could even pay a few other social scientists a good wage and possibly even write some more papers which we would then secure grants in order to embellish with some graphs and tables based on actual data. I was thinking of writing my next paper on logic. "Tautologies: True or True?"
Define "better parent". Parenting skills probably don't hinge on whether a child is a math genius or not, but rather on the children being provided the opportunity to be functioning adults and to have the opportunity to excel at whatever they are interested in.