This is why I fully support completely anonymised CV reviews. No names, no gender markers, no race or age revelations. What has this person done, what can they offer to the team/company.
Of course, women lose out from this approach, but hey, people with names deemed 'black' gain, so it balances.
Really? You know that he didn't apply for some of the training that's only available to women, or to "people of color" and get told he was the wrong race or sex to participate?
You know he didn't get passed over for promotion because he's the wrong sex or race?
You know anything at about this fucking situation?
How the fuck does that help when someone changes a sign with a 30 limit on it to read 80 in a pedestrian zone? When someone sticks a cover over a Give Way sign causing the car to think it has right of way? When a No Entry sign gets changed to look like a One Way sign?
All of those are a specific size, shape, colour and have writing or images on them. It wouldn't be misclassification, it would still be wrong.
I don't like speed bumps either, and they are an annoyance, but if I lived in London I might feel differently.
Maybe, if you don't own a car.
If you do own one they damage your suspension, make your exhaust fall off and cause great annoyance.
If you live near to one then they add a lot to traffic noise, especially if I'm driving over them - I'll brake late, then halfway over start to accelerate to keep my average speed at a sensible level. Don't like the racing engine, tell the council to remove the fucking car breakers.
Just use normal hearing aids. Take the batteries out.
To be fair, mine have automatic gain control, so they already snuff out excessive noise. I'd wear them far more often if they were more comfortable for that alone.
Wouldn't it be easier/cheaper to broadcast the signal instead of beaming it?
No, why waste all that energy broadcasting when you can just beam it?
Or is this another case of how language usage like grammar, spelling, and meaning, doesn't matter online, and they just said "beaming" because it sounds better than the truth?
I don't understand why so many people seem to feel this is a bad thing.
"There are other opinions available - here they are" seems an exceedingly mature response, especially if it includes less subjective viewpoints.
Even the 'equal weight to anti-vaxxers' argument can be negated somewhat if the preponderance of evidence (as expressed through related articles) offers a counterpoint.
This approach actually lets Facebook avoid having to determine what is, or isn't, fake news. Thing posted has controversy around it? Here are articles offering an alternative view, and/or articulating the controversy.
This could be abused, sure. Because it's from Facebook it's likely to be abused too. But it's sure as fuck better than "We don't like what you posted, it's deleted. You're banned. The police will be around in 15 minutes"
While the second sentence allows a level of ambiguity that many readers may not even spot, when taken in context of the first sentence it becomes very clear and any ambiguity can only result from deliberate misinterpretation.
I work for a company. My employment contract is with them. I provide intellect and effort, they provide cold hard cash and a nice warm office on a cold day.
If my colleagues want to fuck over their entire career and vote in a union, that's fine. Their choice, they can make it.
In many US states the problem is that the union can then extort me by demanding money or making me lose my job. Guess how I feel about extortion.
In the UK I've worked for a company that insisted on collective bargaining with the union. As a non-unionised employee I got fucked over because the union unsurprisingly had no fucking intent whatsoever of looking after any of the employees, let alone those sensible enough not to give it actual cash.
So fuck unions. Fuck their shitty pathetic selfish corruption and fuck anybody that tries to tell me they're a good thing.
Problem is, I can join a unionised company, be just flat out fucking better than any other cunt in there, and the union would demand I get paid fuck all because I'm new and haven't been there fifteen years.
Fuck that. Seniority rules are for lazy worthless shits incapable of competing on merit.
you're competing against a company that doesn't need to be profitable
It doesn't need to be, but it is (and has been for a couple of years). It can choose not to be, but that isn't because its retail operations aren't profitable, it'd be because they chose to invest instead. It's not just profitable, it's generating substantial positive cash flows.
So you're competing against a company that's very commercially successful, and that's hard in itself. It doesn't mean they're loss-leading or trying to undercut you out of business, it means they're really compressed their own costs and optimised the living fuck out of their supply line. You can do that too, it's just going to take you a while.
Took Jeff Bezos 20 years, and good luck convincing me you're better at running a company than he is.
The thing is, this is also how Amazon behaves. I've seldom needed to request a refund from Amazon (maybe one in thirty items?) but every time I have, it's been instant and unchallenged. They even cover the postage on the return.
They're not the only retailer offering a sensible online experience. I had a minor issue with a year old keyboard, raised a ticket with the manufacturer, they told me to destroy the old keyboard (and send them photographic evidence) then sent me a shiny new one. It was cheaper for them than return/repair/resend.
This is far easier for large retailers than small ones, as a single return of a high value item wont break Amazon but could put a small retailer under. Under UK law though the return must be honoured anyway, so it's not Amazon causing the problem, it's the operating environment and a business risk small sellers should be managing.
Allowing the background to be in focus would not have reduced the quality of the picture
No. It would have fucking ruined the picture.
You can choose to dislike the picture but that doesn't invalidate it, it doesn't stop it being a good picture and it sure as fuck doesn't mean it has reduced quality.
It has significantly higher quality because it's very intentionally helping the viewer focus on the subject: The girl, and her bubbles.
The background isn't the subject. The background is, erm, background. The background has no detail because it's not important, because it's a distraction, because it would detract from the subject of the picture.
This isn't "noise", this is very explicit and well executed intent. It's a clear tool available to photographers. You're talking nonsense. I can even prove it:
Example of the second: Oath of the Horatii Those ladies in the background certainly are not necessary.
Yes, they are. They're part of the story the artist is conveying. But lets look past the ladies, at the actual background.
Oh. We can't. It's been blacked out, with artificially strong shadow used to hide any detail at all. Why, you could almost describe it as blurred.
Oh look. Your very fucking example of what you're looking for matches exactly the artistic approach given in the photograph you're deriding.
Self awareness courses are available, you should look for one local to you.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. It's bloody fantastic.
This is why I fully support completely anonymised CV reviews. No names, no gender markers, no race or age revelations. What has this person done, what can they offer to the team/company.
Of course, women lose out from this approach, but hey, people with names deemed 'black' gain, so it balances.
Really? You know that he didn't apply for some of the training that's only available to women, or to "people of color" and get told he was the wrong race or sex to participate?
You know he didn't get passed over for promotion because he's the wrong sex or race?
You know anything at about this fucking situation?
Kinda weird that all the pro-discrimination types just assumed he had a PhD then, ain't it?
You know, like the previous poster
I'm sorry, I read the previous post and I'm not sure why you feel the poster is "pro-discrimination"?
How the fuck does that help when someone changes a sign with a 30 limit on it to read 80 in a pedestrian zone?
When someone sticks a cover over a Give Way sign causing the car to think it has right of way?
When a No Entry sign gets changed to look like a One Way sign?
All of those are a specific size, shape, colour and have writing or images on them. It wouldn't be misclassification, it would still be wrong.
If you turned the tables and put USA's nuclear capability in the hands of NK, the USA would have been nuked already.
NK have the ability to level Seoul in less than a day without even crossing the border or using nuclear weapons.
Somehow that hasn't happened.
Why the fuck are you so paranoid that they would attack the US?
It's already there. Just mark them as foes, tell the site to act as though foes had -1 moderation and filter out the -1s.
Wait? You think that because they don't want you having anal sex they must want you to die from anal sex?
I think you have problems, and I'm not talking here about anal sex.
I don't like speed bumps either, and they are an annoyance, but if I lived in London I might feel differently.
Maybe, if you don't own a car.
If you do own one they damage your suspension, make your exhaust fall off and cause great annoyance.
If you live near to one then they add a lot to traffic noise, especially if I'm driving over them - I'll brake late, then halfway over start to accelerate to keep my average speed at a sensible level. Don't like the racing engine, tell the council to remove the fucking car breakers.
It's the french fries + gravy. This just doesn't work for me. I need proper chips, and I need them crispy.
Unless it's a chip butty, but even there you'll not be adding gravy.
Just use normal hearing aids. Take the batteries out.
To be fair, mine have automatic gain control, so they already snuff out excessive noise. I'd wear them far more often if they were more comfortable for that alone.
Wouldn't it be easier/cheaper to broadcast the signal instead of beaming it?
No, why waste all that energy broadcasting when you can just beam it?
Or is this another case of how language usage like grammar, spelling, and meaning, doesn't matter online, and they just said "beaming" because it sounds better than the truth?
No, it's because this usage predates your shitty miserable life:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Just researched poutine. I can see why it hasn't achieved international acceptance.
I don't think it can remotely compete with poached eggs on beans on toast.
I don't understand why so many people seem to feel this is a bad thing.
"There are other opinions available - here they are" seems an exceedingly mature response, especially if it includes less subjective viewpoints.
Even the 'equal weight to anti-vaxxers' argument can be negated somewhat if the preponderance of evidence (as expressed through related articles) offers a counterpoint.
This approach actually lets Facebook avoid having to determine what is, or isn't, fake news. Thing posted has controversy around it? Here are articles offering an alternative view, and/or articulating the controversy.
This could be abused, sure. Because it's from Facebook it's likely to be abused too. But it's sure as fuck better than "We don't like what you posted, it's deleted. You're banned. The police will be around in 15 minutes"
Well, I was being generous about it.
Professional unions don't demand seniority. They demand competence and professionalism.
Trade unions demand idiocy and fuck over everybody. They fight against competence and professionalism.
It's pretty clear that the people who are most hostile to unions are the people who understand them least.
You must be in a genocidal fucking war against them then.
While the second sentence allows a level of ambiguity that many readers may not even spot, when taken in context of the first sentence it becomes very clear and any ambiguity can only result from deliberate misinterpretation.
I work for a company. My employment contract is with them. I provide intellect and effort, they provide cold hard cash and a nice warm office on a cold day.
If my colleagues want to fuck over their entire career and vote in a union, that's fine. Their choice, they can make it.
In many US states the problem is that the union can then extort me by demanding money or making me lose my job. Guess how I feel about extortion.
In the UK I've worked for a company that insisted on collective bargaining with the union. As a non-unionised employee I got fucked over because the union unsurprisingly had no fucking intent whatsoever of looking after any of the employees, let alone those sensible enough not to give it actual cash.
So fuck unions. Fuck their shitty pathetic selfish corruption and fuck anybody that tries to tell me they're a good thing.
They seek seniority rules, benefits guarantees
Problem is, I can join a unionised company, be just flat out fucking better than any other cunt in there, and the union would demand I get paid fuck all because I'm new and haven't been there fifteen years.
Fuck that. Seniority rules are for lazy worthless shits incapable of competing on merit.
you're competing against a company that doesn't need to be profitable
It doesn't need to be, but it is (and has been for a couple of years).
It can choose not to be, but that isn't because its retail operations aren't profitable, it'd be because they chose to invest instead.
It's not just profitable, it's generating substantial positive cash flows.
So you're competing against a company that's very commercially successful, and that's hard in itself. It doesn't mean they're loss-leading or trying to undercut you out of business, it means they're really compressed their own costs and optimised the living fuck out of their supply line. You can do that too, it's just going to take you a while.
Took Jeff Bezos 20 years, and good luck convincing me you're better at running a company than he is.
I have. It went on for so long that I had to threaten legal action.
The thing is, this is also how Amazon behaves. I've seldom needed to request a refund from Amazon (maybe one in thirty items?) but every time I have, it's been instant and unchallenged. They even cover the postage on the return.
They're not the only retailer offering a sensible online experience. I had a minor issue with a year old keyboard, raised a ticket with the manufacturer, they told me to destroy the old keyboard (and send them photographic evidence) then sent me a shiny new one. It was cheaper for them than return/repair/resend.
This is far easier for large retailers than small ones, as a single return of a high value item wont break Amazon but could put a small retailer under. Under UK law though the return must be honoured anyway, so it's not Amazon causing the problem, it's the operating environment and a business risk small sellers should be managing.
What if the .co.uk one doesn't have the item I want? .com version sells it for half the price? .de version can get it to me three weeks sooner?
The
The
Amazon competes with itself as well as the other online retailers.
After the first year you should've been telling them to fuck off and stop harassing you.
Allowing the background to be in focus would not have reduced the quality of the picture
No. It would have fucking ruined the picture.
You can choose to dislike the picture but that doesn't invalidate it, it doesn't stop it being a good picture and it sure as fuck doesn't mean it has reduced quality.
It has significantly higher quality because it's very intentionally helping the viewer focus on the subject: The girl, and her bubbles.
The background isn't the subject. The background is, erm, background. The background has no detail because it's not important, because it's a distraction, because it would detract from the subject of the picture.
This isn't "noise", this is very explicit and well executed intent. It's a clear tool available to photographers. You're talking nonsense. I can even prove it:
Example of the second: Oath of the Horatii Those ladies in the background certainly are not necessary.
Yes, they are. They're part of the story the artist is conveying. But lets look past the ladies, at the actual background.
Oh. We can't. It's been blacked out, with artificially strong shadow used to hide any detail at all. Why, you could almost describe it as blurred.
Oh look. Your very fucking example of what you're looking for matches exactly the artistic approach given in the photograph you're deriding.
Self awareness courses are available, you should look for one local to you.