0. ALL posts on/. are created with moderation no lower than 0. That's the logic. So anyone seeing offensive posts before they are moderated down is triggered, and harmed, and has a grievance to be addressed. It can never be undone.
1. The overwhelming majority of extensive, deliberate hateful speech is, in fact, merely trolling, a joke that is only lost on the extremes. The overwhelming majority or/.ers recognize these for what they are and a) ignore them, as they are insincere and deliberately provocative for no other reason and b) avoid anything more than moderation to deny the authors any further encouragement, recognition and reward.
2. Hate speech is the term du jour for the Left to denounce the Right, for anything. As such, while the EU has fewer protections for free speech, the EU is hurtling down the path of censorship, and while ostensibly for the sake of hurt feelings, it is in fact backlash against what is now becoming a global backlash against the left, centralized control, financial manipulation, and socialist expansion. Whether you think these things are real, or correct, or to be opposed will be useful in understanding your beliefs and actions.
More reason to rebel against the EU, distance America from Europe (we began this in the 1700s, and for good reason, read any history lately?), and forge ahead not on a new course but on the course that set America apart and above.
Under the heading of "well, at least the garage didn't burn down"/
No, it was merely left without a roof. The house, a total loss. 7 years later, the house is rebuilt, but smaller, less wonderful, because there was less left to do with. The garage has a roof, but still smells, and is emptier, since the second car was forgone to pay for the house repairs. And the new mortgage is more than the old one. Insurance didn't pay off like it was promised to.
And all this because the neighbors built bonfires with no concern for the wind or sparks. A wind that miraculously spared some of their houses, the ones that could afford yuge yards, but built the bonfires on your property. Why would they risk being burnt? What kind of business model is that?
On, come on, let's get a serious economics discussion started.
Labor Underutilization.
Opportunity costs.
The difference between more people working and fewer people working.
The impact of government assistance v. government subsidies.
Bring it on! Since I read The Wealth of Nations I've been spoiling to be schooled on modern economics and why Truman disdained them so. We are often disappointed when we learn how things actually work.
Thanks for the comment. Looking at Dog-Cow's profile and history, I friended Dog-Cow. Worth it, hope Dog-Cow accepts me.
And why do I keep referring to Dog-Cow as Dog-Cow? I don't yet understand Dog-Cow's gender identity well enough to use any pronoun. I may never, but that's my problem. Dog-Cow either knows, or doesn't, and that's not my problem.
No, I agree that Twitter has the right to decide how their services are used. Pretending free speech is defended by banning users who violate some terms of service is unfortunate, but Twitter cannot claim to be a forum where free speech is guaranteed. It is not, cannot be.
Being free to go elsewhere to post your speech, no matter how offensive, that is free speech. Being held to account for your speech goes along with the freedom to say whatever. You are not unaccountable. Just free. ish.
"once he becomes president, his popularity is going to decline, we all know that, I think"
It's not about his popularity. It's about the popularity of the topic, and no matter what Trump does, even now, the Twitterverse explodes with commentary and all manner of expression.
His failure is good for Twitter. His success is good for Twitter.
Unless they actually censor his tweets. Then some of their users will follow him where he goes to post.
Yeah, this is gonna be great. Way past time for one of the Internet giants to fall. You think Twitter is unbeatable?
And I'm betting you have to accept the definition of the aggrieved party. And they can, surprisingly easily, convince most anyone that most anything can be defined, by them, as offensive, threatening, or insulting.
And that's the end of speech.
No, Twitter, you can do this and become irrelevant, but you cannot do it and retain significant credibility. Which is already at risk.
Reddit is well into this, being capricious in censorship, even editing speech rather than deleting it. And Reddit is reaping the rewards of this, being left either with a user base that is offensive to so many and appealing only to an insular group insufficient to support the service, or driving reasonable users away as they realize nothing on the site can be trusted.
I encourage Twitter, though. Finish the job. Kill your service. Suicide.
"The Christians mostly co-opted alcohol consumption into their religious practices because it was already culturally endemic"
Wine and strong drink are well documented in the Christian Bible, and from times long before Christianity came to be. Some Hebrew sects rejected alcohol also, most notable manifested in Samson, a Nazarite at birth. Even his mother abstained after visitation by an angel.
Alcohol was an issue for Jews well before Christ, and well before Israel even.
For all the declarations of understanding Christianity sufficiently to discredit it, few can even get the plain stories straight. C'mon, man.
Buddhism rejects the concept of self or soul, but does teach that rebirth occurs, which is a difficult concept to consider - rebirth, but no continuity. So what is reborn?
But the vijñna, or commonly called in the west your consciousness, is the basis of rebirth, not a soul, but a continuum of existence. And so skirts the question of soul v existence.
All of which, to atheists, is 'magic', and dismissed.
SO, stop reading cereal boxes, and at least pick up a systematic theology text and conduct a minimal study. Or not, and harp from the back benches, a sport cherished here.
Imagine, if you will, driving for 8 hours a day. Average speed is truly no better than 25 MPH, probably 10MPH. So miles per workday could be 80-200.
Assume 25MPG, your fuel cost (around here you can buy gas for $1.899 if you are paying attention) is $6-$15.
Excellent. Let's be generous, use NYC Uber rates of $3 plus $0.40 per minute plus $2.15 per mile. Assume generously that your rides are 4 miles long, taking 20 minutes, and you get average fares of $3+$9.60+$8.60=$21.20. You can do 12 rides a day. Math.
12x$21.20=254.40. $31.80/hr. But the effective commission is 28-40%. Let's say 28% to be generous. $22.90/hr. Minus fuel, $22.15/hr if all is to the driver's benefit.
But we know Uber cannot give you continuous rides, and it's doubtful you can get a 4 mile fare and drive just 4 miles to another fare immediately. I would bet you cannot do half this.
And if you know just a little bit about scheduling transportation, 50% utilization is pretty hard to get. Hope for 30%. Your wages drop to $6.60/hr maybe, worst case. Ugh.
And it is just not a bit money business. Sorry, you should look into transporting something more valuable than people. Like blood, legal papers, or other assets. The market for moving people is every bit as tough, but dragging blood from doctors offices to labs might pay more.
You could also get into the ADA transport business, but your cargo is sometimes difficult to deal with, and you sometimes depend on shady business partners.
Since you opened up this topic, Uber drivers as 'meat robots' is exactly what minimum-wage workers are, generally.
Since Uber drivers need only have the minimal skills necessary to successfully navigate passage from one place to another, and make the investment in vehicle, fuel, licensing, and insurance, their contribution, while apparently substantial, is in fact a plentiful commodity. Lots of drivers, lots of cars, lots of potential Uber contractors.
Uber also competes, and does the marketing, booking, reputation management, and payment. Nontrivial efforts.
And if drivers would like 'a fair days pay for my hard work', their complaint devolves into one I've had in my life often - my work is harder than the pay easily justifies.
My solutions? 0. Find another opportunity, or 1. Suck it up and take what I can get.
Do I recommend the same choices to Uber drivers unhappy with their pay? Kind of.Try striking first. See if that works. Be prepared to go without.
Reading these Apocalyptic Total Destruction stories is amusing. The theory that winning the overarching conflict by destroying them, all the innocents, and yourself is, of course, entirely self-defeating. But to claim that even dictatorial Communists would actually build a weapon to destroy Earth stretches credulity.
Oh, wait. This is just a micro plot for a sad, miserable short story, truncated from the original planned novel when you ran out of words.
Slashdot Mirror
0. ALL posts on /. are created with moderation no lower than 0. That's the logic. So anyone seeing offensive posts before they are moderated down is triggered, and harmed, and has a grievance to be addressed. It can never be undone.
1. The overwhelming majority of extensive, deliberate hateful speech is, in fact, merely trolling, a joke that is only lost on the extremes. The overwhelming majority or /.ers recognize these for what they are and a) ignore them, as they are insincere and deliberately provocative for no other reason and b) avoid anything more than moderation to deny the authors any further encouragement, recognition and reward.
2. Hate speech is the term du jour for the Left to denounce the Right, for anything. As such, while the EU has fewer protections for free speech, the EU is hurtling down the path of censorship, and while ostensibly for the sake of hurt feelings, it is in fact backlash against what is now becoming a global backlash against the left, centralized control, financial manipulation, and socialist expansion. Whether you think these things are real, or correct, or to be opposed will be useful in understanding your beliefs and actions.
More reason to rebel against the EU, distance America from Europe (we began this in the 1700s, and for good reason, read any history lately?), and forge ahead not on a new course but on the course that set America apart and above.
Under the heading of "well, at least the garage didn't burn down"/
No, it was merely left without a roof. The house, a total loss. 7 years later, the house is rebuilt, but smaller, less wonderful, because there was less left to do with. The garage has a roof, but still smells, and is emptier, since the second car was forgone to pay for the house repairs. And the new mortgage is more than the old one. Insurance didn't pay off like it was promised to.
And all this because the neighbors built bonfires with no concern for the wind or sparks. A wind that miraculously spared some of their houses, the ones that could afford yuge yards, but built the bonfires on your property. Why would they risk being burnt? What kind of business model is that?
On, come on, let's get a serious economics discussion started.
Labor Underutilization.
Opportunity costs.
The difference between more people working and fewer people working.
The impact of government assistance v. government subsidies.
Bring it on! Since I read The Wealth of Nations I've been spoiling to be schooled on modern economics and why Truman disdained them so. We are often disappointed when we learn how things actually work.
I remember when the cursor in X11 would lag pathetically.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
Either, my friend.
Greed is accused of many ills, but prosperity is also a common result. Despicable? Maybe. Financially unprofitable? Well, that's a result, perhaps.
Thanks for the comment. Looking at Dog-Cow's profile and history, I friended Dog-Cow. Worth it, hope Dog-Cow accepts me.
And why do I keep referring to Dog-Cow as Dog-Cow? I don't yet understand Dog-Cow's gender identity well enough to use any pronoun. I may never, but that's my problem. Dog-Cow either knows, or doesn't, and that's not my problem.
So I'll type a few extra characters. Feh.
Thanks again.
Keep it coming.
No, I agree that Twitter has the right to decide how their services are used. Pretending free speech is defended by banning users who violate some terms of service is unfortunate, but Twitter cannot claim to be a forum where free speech is guaranteed. It is not, cannot be.
Being free to go elsewhere to post your speech, no matter how offensive, that is free speech. Being held to account for your speech goes along with the freedom to say whatever. You are not unaccountable. Just free. ish.
That's funny. Ban users, not speech.
Thank you for the clarification, Comrade. I understand entirely now.
You got it half right.
Guess which half enables you to eat regularly.
"once he becomes president, his popularity is going to decline, we all know that, I think"
It's not about his popularity. It's about the popularity of the topic, and no matter what Trump does, even now, the Twitterverse explodes with commentary and all manner of expression.
His failure is good for Twitter. His success is good for Twitter.
Unless they actually censor his tweets. Then some of their users will follow him where he goes to post.
Yeah, this is gonna be great. Way past time for one of the Internet giants to fall. You think Twitter is unbeatable?
...and define it in objective terms.
And I'm betting you have to accept the definition of the aggrieved party. And they can, surprisingly easily, convince most anyone that most anything can be defined, by them, as offensive, threatening, or insulting.
And that's the end of speech.
No, Twitter, you can do this and become irrelevant, but you cannot do it and retain significant credibility. Which is already at risk.
Reddit is well into this, being capricious in censorship, even editing speech rather than deleting it. And Reddit is reaping the rewards of this, being left either with a user base that is offensive to so many and appealing only to an insular group insufficient to support the service, or driving reasonable users away as they realize nothing on the site can be trusted.
I encourage Twitter, though. Finish the job. Kill your service. Suicide.
Salmon also exhibit religious euphoria
Or something like that.
The pain of socialism?
"The Christians mostly co-opted alcohol consumption into their religious practices because it was already culturally endemic"
Wine and strong drink are well documented in the Christian Bible, and from times long before Christianity came to be. Some Hebrew sects rejected alcohol also, most notable manifested in Samson, a Nazarite at birth. Even his mother abstained after visitation by an angel.
Alcohol was an issue for Jews well before Christ, and well before Israel even.
For all the declarations of understanding Christianity sufficiently to discredit it, few can even get the plain stories straight. C'mon, man.
Buddhism rejects the concept of self or soul, but does teach that rebirth occurs, which is a difficult concept to consider - rebirth, but no continuity. So what is reborn?
But the vijñna, or commonly called in the west your consciousness, is the basis of rebirth, not a soul, but a continuum of existence. And so skirts the question of soul v existence.
All of which, to atheists, is 'magic', and dismissed.
SO, stop reading cereal boxes, and at least pick up a systematic theology text and conduct a minimal study. Or not, and harp from the back benches, a sport cherished here.
You've treated them like employees. Change the rules.
How many full-time Uber drivers are there?
Imagine, if you will, driving for 8 hours a day. Average speed is truly no better than 25 MPH, probably 10MPH. So miles per workday could be 80-200.
Assume 25MPG, your fuel cost (around here you can buy gas for $1.899 if you are paying attention) is $6-$15.
Excellent. Let's be generous, use NYC Uber rates of $3 plus $0.40 per minute plus $2.15 per mile. Assume generously that your rides are 4 miles long, taking 20 minutes, and you get average fares of $3+$9.60+$8.60=$21.20. You can do 12 rides a day. Math.
12x$21.20=254.40. $31.80/hr. But the effective commission is 28-40%. Let's say 28% to be generous. $22.90/hr. Minus fuel, $22.15/hr if all is to the driver's benefit.
But we know Uber cannot give you continuous rides, and it's doubtful you can get a 4 mile fare and drive just 4 miles to another fare immediately. I would bet you cannot do half this.
And if you know just a little bit about scheduling transportation, 50% utilization is pretty hard to get. Hope for 30%. Your wages drop to $6.60/hr maybe, worst case. Ugh.
And it is just not a bit money business. Sorry, you should look into transporting something more valuable than people. Like blood, legal papers, or other assets. The market for moving people is every bit as tough, but dragging blood from doctors offices to labs might pay more.
You could also get into the ADA transport business, but your cargo is sometimes difficult to deal with, and you sometimes depend on shady business partners.
It's just not that easy.
Since you opened up this topic, Uber drivers as 'meat robots' is exactly what minimum-wage workers are, generally.
Since Uber drivers need only have the minimal skills necessary to successfully navigate passage from one place to another, and make the investment in vehicle, fuel, licensing, and insurance, their contribution, while apparently substantial, is in fact a plentiful commodity. Lots of drivers, lots of cars, lots of potential Uber contractors.
Uber also competes, and does the marketing, booking, reputation management, and payment. Nontrivial efforts.
And if drivers would like 'a fair days pay for my hard work', their complaint devolves into one I've had in my life often - my work is harder than the pay easily justifies.
My solutions? 0. Find another opportunity, or 1. Suck it up and take what I can get.
Do I recommend the same choices to Uber drivers unhappy with their pay? Kind of.Try striking first. See if that works. Be prepared to go without.
To be fair, it may be possible to use X-Rays to transmit terabyte-speed data.
That's fast. Data. Bandwidth. More Bandwidth!
Wait, I thought Light was EM radiation. So confusing. Are X-Rays light, or EM, or is light EM, or when does EM no longer qualify as Light?
Or is this all String Theory?
Reading these Apocalyptic Total Destruction stories is amusing. The theory that winning the overarching conflict by destroying them, all the innocents, and yourself is, of course, entirely self-defeating. But to claim that even dictatorial Communists would actually build a weapon to destroy Earth stretches credulity.
Oh, wait. This is just a micro plot for a sad, miserable short story, truncated from the original planned novel when you ran out of words.
Dammit, I fell for that again. I hate that.
Let's just repeal the 17th Amendment.
"The problem with your statement is it ignores "winner take all" in the EC"
No, the Electoral College honors states' rights to decide their Electors as they wish, proportional or winner-take-all, or some combination.
When you describe the Electoral College this way, it is a mirror to the Legislative Branch. And that works.
When we see serious cries for a unicameral Legislature, then we'll be in mortal danger of the City-State revolution, and the failure of our Union.
An excellent argument for Federalism. Which we would not get from any Democrat candidate in the current climate.
And very, very few Republican candidates, one of which won.