I didn't intend any manipulation of your statements. Any "problems" with rephrasing are purely unintentional, I assure you. I'm just not understanding your point. Your writing is not clear to me.
Tip: Arguing over "the other guy's" motivations is usually pointless, for motivates usually cannot be objectively verified with current medical technology: only speculated on.
TPP: never ratified; nothing really to "cancel". H1Bs: Changes just started to roll thru, too early to call. Illegal crossings: Estimates are about a 25% change, and may be temporary, as potential crossers may be "feeling it out". Some farmers are complaining it hurts their profits because they can't get enough farm laborers. Their business goes to forum farms. Paris climate deal: Name an existing specific actual change. "giving tax money to other countries": bogus. Regulations removed: Specific example having notable impact? Enforcing the law more consistently: Trump consistent? Yeah right.
Simply the number of people employed as a fraction of the total.
There are numerous problems with that also. For example, if the economy is bad and stocks go down, people who would otherwise retire may postpone retirement because their 401K's take a hit. The total % of working then is pushed up by this even if conditions are dire.
The age distribution also affects it. If a given population has a lot of retired people, then your rate goes down even if there's nothing wrong with the economy. It's not necessarily a "bad" thing.
Sorry, ain't no perfect metric. Personally, I'd use a conglomeration of metrics, but the weights given would be subject to heavy debate, and thus could be called subjective.
Secretary of State with a lot of questionable policy decisions
If you're talking about the emails, a good many politicians, including Republican, have made comparable snafu's. There should have been review grunts around her inspecting stuff better so she could focus on policy instead of technology.
As far as foreign policy decisions, it's probably one of the toughest parts of any DC job. The Middle East is Medusa's and Godzilla's possessed offspring.
I challenge you to identify one important decision she made as SS that a Republican or even Gary Johnson likely would NOT have made.
I agree she is not that skilled politically. But she is quite competent in terms of the "mechanics" and administration of decision making. For one, she doesn't have Trump's A.D.D.
Unnamed sources are and have been common in news. "Deep Throat" in the Nixon scandal was an unnamed source (and a key). The news org is usually confident enough in the source to publish the results. If the org calls wolf too many times, their reputation is damaged. The org is betting on their reputation when they do it.
CNN should get some kudos for withdrawing their quote after publishing it. They didn't have to. New info often comes up later; it's why it's called "news".
So if I find conservatives complaining about Fox, we are "even"? I'm not sure what your point or "rule" is.
And I'm not really defending CNN, only saying that focusing on JUST their sins is misleading and often hypocritical. It appears to be part of a bigger problem.
Your definition was unclear, and besides I'm talking about what people generally find creepy in the most general possible terms rather than a specific list of behaviours.
I'm not here to debate the general meaning of "creepy"; that's mostly off-topic. I tried to get clarity myself when I interviewed the mentioned ladies. To recap, there did not seem to be any "external" objective standard about what flirting-like behavior they liked and didn't like from a guy: it depended heavily on whether they personally liked the person presenting such activities. That explained the seeming contradiction of their potentially provocative fashion and their complaints about "creeps".
In their minds, the upside of the welcomed flirt-resembling behavior seemed to outweigh the downside of the UNwelcomed flirt-resembling behavior of those they didn't PERSONALLY like (AKA, "the creeps"). This "model" is consistent with the results of my interviews, and accurately mirrors their complaints and fashion choices. I don't claim it's definitive evidence, but does explain well the observations and conversations I had with them. If you have a better behavior model to explain these conversations and fashion choices, I'd like to see it.
Based on that model of their reasoning process, their behavior is morally hypocritical in my opinion. They CAN do something about most of the unwanted attention, but choose not to because they like the social upsides enough.
I hope that's clear now. If I make it any clearer, I'll have to charge you a technical documentation fee.
Sometimes incorrectly perhaps, but mostly sexual harassment is not merely about the genders of the participants. A boss being a dick is a dick. A [boss] propositioning an employee on day 1 is sexual harassment.
So there is more than one way to be an asshole. Furthermore, if a lady (or "target"?) happens to be attracted to the boss, she may enjoy the "propositioning" and not complain (or later complain for money alone due to greed). Thus, it's not the mere act by itself that determines if she is "bothered" by the activity.
It worked for eight years for Sean Hannity. Until a few months ago, it was a daily ritual for him to mention the 90 million Americans who weren't working in Obama's America.
The DJIA took a big jump as soon as the election was over... Due mainly the belief the business climate and economy would improve...
But it was slumping the few months leading up to the election. One interpretation is that Wall Street was spooked by the uncertainty. When the election was over, the future was clearer again and they resumed the same longer-term pattern. If you ignore this pre/post dip/bump pattern, it's still more or less the same curve. (Switch to the 10-year view.)
I do agree that owners on average are more optimistic under Republican rule because GOP favors big owners. But how that affects the so called 99% is open to the typical "culture wars" economic debates related to "trickle down", which I won't reinvent here.
The same conservatives who complain about CNN's shenanigans have ignored similar crap from Fox News.
Cable news in general is crap: their MO is to get the audience frothed up so that they come back for more froth. That's how they can sell more ad eyeballs. They all should be spanked.
Telecoms on average have been ranking 2nd worse in customer satisfaction, behind airlines. This is strong evidence that merging has reduced competition. And I can personally vouch for telecom suckage, as a consumer. When you are right up there with screaming babies and lost luggage, something bigly is wrong.
Not this issue again. There are multiple ways to measure "unemployment", and each are imperfect for different reasons. Part of the problem is that "unemployed" can be a grey area. Lets say Bob is recently retired. He would take up a job if it paid really well or piqued his interest, but Bob otherwise is happy with retirement and is not actively looking. A house wife* may view the job market similarly. Is that "unemployed"?
The metric typically used by the press has been a de-facto standard yardstick for decades, for good or bad.
Pundits often complain about it based on their bias or desired audience influence angle. There are other published metrics of "unemployment", as a nearby message lists, and pundits often switch to one of these others when it suits them.
If a pundit plays such games without explaining the difference and trade-offs, you know they are either biased, manipulative, or clueless. Granted, just because a pundit bungles one issue doesn't mean they bungle everything, but this one is a yellow flag.
* There's probably a PC way to say it. "Non-paid domestic worker?"
You just can't accept that America is better under Trump.
The GDP numbers are basically the same as they were under O, and the unemployment changes are consistent with a general longer-term trend that has been in place since roughly around 2013. Same with the stock market.
Further, T hasn't signed any legislation or Executive Order that would have notable impact on the economy either way. In short, he hasn't change enough to matter. The economy is on cruse control.
It's only a political issue because he has been bragging about the economy "under" him. I gotta call BS on that one.
Your other replies are not clear, so I'm skipping a counter reply.
I was defining creepy as intentionally violating boundaries.
Well, that probably does NOT match the definition used by the women I interviewed (described earlier).
Everybody enjoys attention from people they like, and everyone dislikes attention from people that creep them the fuck out. Stop pretending this is somehow a gendered issue.
That might be true, but if the tension is between a male and a female, it's often classified as "sexual harassment". If a "jerky" guy is bothering another guy, it doesn't (yet) have some special societal category. It's merely "being a jerk".
In one case one office guy kept proselytizing his damn religion to me. If I complained to HR about him, he'd probably just get a simple warning. Usually not so with "sexual" encroachment claims: there would be a bigass investigation.
Well, I can see the logic: Given two choices, A and B, each with different trade-offs, but in which case the net benefits are roughly EQUAL, then go with the choice that's the least gov't interference.
But generally conservatives claim the net benefits are clearly less for hikes. They don't make the above argument much, other than an indirect one such as "the more power the gov't has, the more things go wrong in general."
They exaggerate this in my opinion. For one, gov't is fractured such that growth in Part X doesn't necessarily have much impact on Part Y. After all, a common complaint about gov't is that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. It's not One Big Killer Commie Blob like the right paints it.
In my experience, typically business-to-business data like this is sent in bulk. The major networks probably have hundreds of current shows and several thousands of vintage shows, let alone gazillion potential movie titles and one-off specials. Nobody will want to hand key each one.
An automated process is probably set up to send over something like a CSV or XML data file via FTP or similar for each reporting period.
They could have a show registration step of some kind to make sure anything in the list is valid (such as an existing show), but often that's not done to cut (initial) costs and/or simplify things for the data supplier, who may not want to adapt their own systems to fit the receiver's system (data conventions).
Even if a "tight" system was set up, there are often ways around it, such mis-classifying a TV show as a movie to bypass the existing-show validation rule. When caught, they can just say they accidentally selected the wrong category in their GUI. Automation can only go so far in preventing riff-raff. GIGO can still affect the tightest of systems.
Human spot-checking of data will probably always be needed if you want to catch such tricks. Perhaps AI can help point out suspicious patterns, but building and tuning AI tools may cost more than old fashion eyeball spot-checking.
One is either very brave, very naive, or suicidal to run against, or even speak up against Putin. He's pure liquid KGB. Russia is a democracy in name only.
[TFA:] Nielsen issued the following statement to CNET:
"With participation and input from clients, Nielsen maintains a rigorous set of policy guidelines for how network clients can and should receive program and commercial ratings credit for their programming. Nielsen takes these Policy Guidelines very seriously and if we find a network working in contrast to this agreed-upon policy, we address the issue in a direct fashion as a way to maintain fairness and balance over all of our clients and the industry as a whole. We have many touch points with clients throughout the season to ensure guidelines are being adhered to."
That's a PHB non-response response if I've ever seen one. It says nothing concrete and doesn't explain the cause. It sounds like it's from a canned excuse template. "Microsoft Alibi for Azure"? And what is a "touch point"? That's either a new-fangled biz buzzword, or a way to get sued for harassment.
How about a more honest statement: "We got cost-cutting-happy and slacked on data inspection. We apologize and will shape up and spend more on data validation like we should have from the start."
You'll almost never hear that from a corporation. Would that kind of response really hit their stock harder than the first? I would think honesty would be more effective with stock-holders/purchasers. But egos get in the way and instead they produce flavorless fluff responses.
To be fair, if they admit fault, lawsuits would be easier because the judge/jury has a direct written confession. Without it, they can confuse the court, for example, by claiming the Flux Capacitor, built by a far-off vendor, was at fault.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't intend any manipulation of your statements. Any "problems" with rephrasing are purely unintentional, I assure you. I'm just not understanding your point. Your writing is not clear to me.
Tip: Arguing over "the other guy's" motivations is usually pointless, for motivates usually cannot be objectively verified with current medical technology: only speculated on.
Re: "Their business goes to forum farms."
Sorry, should be foreign farms.
TPP: never ratified; nothing really to "cancel".
H1Bs: Changes just started to roll thru, too early to call.
Illegal crossings: Estimates are about a 25% change, and may be temporary, as potential crossers may be "feeling it out". Some farmers are complaining it hurts their profits because they can't get enough farm laborers. Their business goes to forum farms.
Paris climate deal: Name an existing specific actual change.
"giving tax money to other countries": bogus.
Regulations removed: Specific example having notable impact?
Enforcing the law more consistently: Trump consistent? Yeah right.
There are numerous problems with that also. For example, if the economy is bad and stocks go down, people who would otherwise retire may postpone retirement because their 401K's take a hit. The total % of working then is pushed up by this even if conditions are dire.
The age distribution also affects it. If a given population has a lot of retired people, then your rate goes down even if there's nothing wrong with the economy. It's not necessarily a "bad" thing.
Sorry, ain't no perfect metric. Personally, I'd use a conglomeration of metrics, but the weights given would be subject to heavy debate, and thus could be called subjective.
If you're talking about the emails, a good many politicians, including Republican, have made comparable snafu's. There should have been review grunts around her inspecting stuff better so she could focus on policy instead of technology.
As far as foreign policy decisions, it's probably one of the toughest parts of any DC job. The Middle East is Medusa's and Godzilla's possessed offspring.
I challenge you to identify one important decision she made as SS that a Republican or even Gary Johnson likely would NOT have made.
I agree she is not that skilled politically. But she is quite competent in terms of the "mechanics" and administration of decision making. For one, she doesn't have Trump's A.D.D.
Unnamed sources are and have been common in news. "Deep Throat" in the Nixon scandal was an unnamed source (and a key). The news org is usually confident enough in the source to publish the results. If the org calls wolf too many times, their reputation is damaged. The org is betting on their reputation when they do it.
CNN should get some kudos for withdrawing their quote after publishing it. They didn't have to. New info often comes up later; it's why it's called "news".
So if I find conservatives complaining about Fox, we are "even"? I'm not sure what your point or "rule" is.
And I'm not really defending CNN, only saying that focusing on JUST their sins is misleading and often hypocritical. It appears to be part of a bigger problem.
I'm not here to debate the general meaning of "creepy"; that's mostly off-topic. I tried to get clarity myself when I interviewed the mentioned ladies. To recap, there did not seem to be any "external" objective standard about what flirting-like behavior they liked and didn't like from a guy: it depended heavily on whether they personally liked the person presenting such activities. That explained the seeming contradiction of their potentially provocative fashion and their complaints about "creeps".
In their minds, the upside of the welcomed flirt-resembling behavior seemed to outweigh the downside of the UNwelcomed flirt-resembling behavior of those they didn't PERSONALLY like (AKA, "the creeps"). This "model" is consistent with the results of my interviews, and accurately mirrors their complaints and fashion choices. I don't claim it's definitive evidence, but does explain well the observations and conversations I had with them. If you have a better behavior model to explain these conversations and fashion choices, I'd like to see it.
Based on that model of their reasoning process, their behavior is morally hypocritical in my opinion. They CAN do something about most of the unwanted attention, but choose not to because they like the social upsides enough.
I hope that's clear now. If I make it any clearer, I'll have to charge you a technical documentation fee.
So there is more than one way to be an asshole. Furthermore, if a lady (or "target"?) happens to be attracted to the boss, she may enjoy the "propositioning" and not complain (or later complain for money alone due to greed). Thus, it's not the mere act by itself that determines if she is "bothered" by the activity.
Now it's 90,000,001 per Bill O'Reilly.
But it was slumping the few months leading up to the election. One interpretation is that Wall Street was spooked by the uncertainty. When the election was over, the future was clearer again and they resumed the same longer-term pattern. If you ignore this pre/post dip/bump pattern, it's still more or less the same curve. (Switch to the 10-year view.)
I do agree that owners on average are more optimistic under Republican rule because GOP favors big owners. But how that affects the so called 99% is open to the typical "culture wars" economic debates related to "trickle down", which I won't reinvent here.
The same conservatives who complain about CNN's shenanigans have ignored similar crap from Fox News.
Cable news in general is crap: their MO is to get the audience frothed up so that they come back for more froth. That's how they can sell more ad eyeballs. They all should be spanked.
Telecoms on average have been ranking 2nd worse in customer satisfaction, behind airlines. This is strong evidence that merging has reduced competition. And I can personally vouch for telecom suckage, as a consumer. When you are right up there with screaming babies and lost luggage, something bigly is wrong.
Sig: "Trolling is an art"
In the way WWE is "art".
Not this issue again. There are multiple ways to measure "unemployment", and each are imperfect for different reasons. Part of the problem is that "unemployed" can be a grey area. Lets say Bob is recently retired. He would take up a job if it paid really well or piqued his interest, but Bob otherwise is happy with retirement and is not actively looking. A house wife* may view the job market similarly. Is that "unemployed"?
The metric typically used by the press has been a de-facto standard yardstick for decades, for good or bad.
Pundits often complain about it based on their bias or desired audience influence angle. There are other published metrics of "unemployment", as a nearby message lists, and pundits often switch to one of these others when it suits them.
If a pundit plays such games without explaining the difference and trade-offs, you know they are either biased, manipulative, or clueless. Granted, just because a pundit bungles one issue doesn't mean they bungle everything, but this one is a yellow flag.
* There's probably a PC way to say it. "Non-paid domestic worker?"
The GDP numbers are basically the same as they were under O, and the unemployment changes are consistent with a general longer-term trend that has been in place since roughly around 2013. Same with the stock market.
Further, T hasn't signed any legislation or Executive Order that would have notable impact on the economy either way. In short, he hasn't change enough to matter. The economy is on cruse control.
It's only a political issue because he has been bragging about the economy "under" him. I gotta call BS on that one.
Correction, I believe it's supposed to be "Imagine if Slashdot were like that..."
Your other replies are not clear, so I'm skipping a counter reply.
Well, that probably does NOT match the definition used by the women I interviewed (described earlier).
That might be true, but if the tension is between a male and a female, it's often classified as "sexual harassment". If a "jerky" guy is bothering another guy, it doesn't (yet) have some special societal category. It's merely "being a jerk".
In one case one office guy kept proselytizing his damn religion to me. If I complained to HR about him, he'd probably just get a simple warning. Usually not so with "sexual" encroachment claims: there would be a bigass investigation.
Well, I can see the logic: Given two choices, A and B, each with different trade-offs, but in which case the net benefits are roughly EQUAL, then go with the choice that's the least gov't interference.
But generally conservatives claim the net benefits are clearly less for hikes. They don't make the above argument much, other than an indirect one such as "the more power the gov't has, the more things go wrong in general."
They exaggerate this in my opinion. For one, gov't is fractured such that growth in Part X doesn't necessarily have much impact on Part Y. After all, a common complaint about gov't is that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. It's not One Big Killer Commie Blob like the right paints it.
"ZeroDrive"
In my experience, typically business-to-business data like this is sent in bulk. The major networks probably have hundreds of current shows and several thousands of vintage shows, let alone gazillion potential movie titles and one-off specials. Nobody will want to hand key each one.
An automated process is probably set up to send over something like a CSV or XML data file via FTP or similar for each reporting period.
They could have a show registration step of some kind to make sure anything in the list is valid (such as an existing show), but often that's not done to cut (initial) costs and/or simplify things for the data supplier, who may not want to adapt their own systems to fit the receiver's system (data conventions).
Even if a "tight" system was set up, there are often ways around it, such mis-classifying a TV show as a movie to bypass the existing-show validation rule. When caught, they can just say they accidentally selected the wrong category in their GUI. Automation can only go so far in preventing riff-raff. GIGO can still affect the tightest of systems.
Human spot-checking of data will probably always be needed if you want to catch such tricks. Perhaps AI can help point out suspicious patterns, but building and tuning AI tools may cost more than old fashion eyeball spot-checking.
Chess-hater!
And don't forget about Smurfication.
One is either very brave, very naive, or suicidal to run against, or even speak up against Putin. He's pure liquid KGB. Russia is a democracy in name only.
That's a PHB non-response response if I've ever seen one. It says nothing concrete and doesn't explain the cause. It sounds like it's from a canned excuse template. "Microsoft Alibi for Azure"? And what is a "touch point"? That's either a new-fangled biz buzzword, or a way to get sued for harassment.
How about a more honest statement: "We got cost-cutting-happy and slacked on data inspection. We apologize and will shape up and spend more on data validation like we should have from the start."
You'll almost never hear that from a corporation. Would that kind of response really hit their stock harder than the first? I would think honesty would be more effective with stock-holders/purchasers. But egos get in the way and instead they produce flavorless fluff responses.
To be fair, if they admit fault, lawsuits would be easier because the judge/jury has a direct written confession. Without it, they can confuse the court, for example, by claiming the Flux Capacitor, built by a far-off vendor, was at fault.
Imagine if Slashdot was like that, producing duplicate story entries. We'd think terribly of them and defect.
Faik Nuwz, so sad