iamdave

In the Google case, I find objections to suppressing information from the citizenry at the behest of government forces.

In the Alex Jones case, I also find objections to harassing...well anyone who isn't themselves trying to agitate and disturb (don't start no s--- there wont be no s--- kind of thinking).

So I posit this question: why is one weightier than the other in how we view and analyze them, again? Being as dispassionate as possible, I fall back to my prior statement: taken at face value it seems like the major differences here boil down to scale. Project Dragonfly casts a wide net over the question of accessing information, whereas the banishment of Jones is more localized and pointed.

Taken in whole with everything else you just said, are you suggesting (even if I'm not sure if I necessarily agree this is something that should reach the level of the DoJ) that Twitter gets this treatment as a precedent setting maneuver to push the others into getting in line?

If, as you say Facebook has an 'entrenched monopoly[...]over communication', why in your opinion should the DOJ go after the company you've also argued has up to a 5th the size of Facebook's reach and influence? Bigger fish, frying pan, etc, if you catch my drift.

Google working on project Dragonfly, a service that-according to the article: 'would blacklist phrases like “human rights,” “student protest,” and “Nobel Prize.”'

People are (rightly) bothered by this.

Facebook and Twitter tell Alex Jones to pound sand.

People argue "Private corporations don't have to give anyone a platform".

I'm not here to promote the idea that the members of the first group are automatically members of the second, some overlap could probably be found...probably.

Why does the first get so much coverage and ultimately ending up in The Intercept with an inferred tone of apoplectic disappointment-and in some cases-anger towards Google, but coverage of the latter seems to be glee, jubilation and almost schadenfreude?

Note that I'm not making any sort of value judgments about Alex Jones' politics or statements, suggesting that I agree with his views, or that even that he may be right about gay frogs (this really shouldn't have to be said, it should be painfully obvious but I'm covering my ass out of trained habit: unless one explicitly says "I am not supporting this person", someone will come out of the woodwork and make the association because it's easier to debate). I'm pointing to actions of corporations and our responses to them: between the two things here, I'm hard pressed to find a difference beyond a matter of scale between what Google is doing and what Facebook and Twitter have already done.

I had the same thought coming into this thread-what a great time to be in the market for a new machine. I welcome this competition, I want AMD to get better in the CPU game, but will gladly scavenge the spoils of this.

If the statement reads as confusing to you, because it lacks any meaningful pointers to identify who it's talking about congratulations on being a rational nuanced thinker..

If it makes perfect sense on the other hand...you've probably been drinking too much "everyone else is wrong but me and people who think like me kool-aid"

This is my problem with the people who think it's not a "both sides" issue or that both sides dont have serious issues that makes people want to have nothing to do with their affiliations. Not that they disagree with my personal critiques of the left; but that they are typically so married to their party it is functionally impossible for them to find any fault or willingess to critique their side for the better when it's absolutey called for and necessary. Instead it's a matter of"YOU tell ME what wrong with the party and I'll tell you why you're wrong".

They will turn right around and blame "the other" or explain every failing of their opponents with vigor, with a straight face and not a single hint of irony or self-awareness for things like straight ticket voting or blind partisan loyalty

If you ignore the baggage in your ranks, you be signaled to everyone else it's fine for them to do the same.

Betteridge's law of Internet Comments in action.

tl;dr - Pilots may not engage in action(s) that constitute a 'threat', nebulously defined, but the AG may engage in action(s) in response, more expressly defined.

At least that's how I've initially read the proposed changes to this Reauthorization bill.

Edit: fwiw, I think we're both in agreement, however the ends-that the proposal does not go far enough to detail the actions of operators.

Well no, 'threat' is not being defined by the Sec/AG at a later time, it's right there. Where I will concede to your point is that in the context of unmanned aerial flight, actions by the pilot that satisfy the above are not well enumerated or defined-but I'm only partially through reading the text of the bill.

Mostly because as as a remote pilot, I have a feeling the proposals may be much less onerous than we're being lead to believe by Bloomberg here and what hobbyist groups are complaining about.

Stated as a Licensed Part 107 operator. I think everyone should be required to undergo some kind of training, with tiers for educational, hobbyist, and commercial. I learned a lot more in those classes than just how to fly a Phantom DJI and found the regulatory knowledge alone to be HIGHLY insightful.

With absolutely no way to vet, verify or validate anyone who proclaims to be the expert they say they are outside of asking, and hoping what you get isn't a complete fabrication.

I can dig this, it absolutely is. It's definitely supplemental (emphasis critical).

Why?

This is a legitimate, but deeply opinionated "why". You employing me and me working for you is a business transaction. Why should I care about your mission beyond giving enough 'care' to produce great work that helps you run your business, run it well, so much that you'll want to keep the relationship going, but maybe provides me with some learning opportunities and skills that if we part ways, I don't starve looking for the next opportunity.

That's it.

I don't care about whatever your mission was when you started the company, I don't care how you think you're saving the world by creating another conference call platform. In my 22 year career I have deeply truly cared about one company that employed me. One. And even then, it was still a transaction: we need your skills, I have those skills, let's trade and do good work together. That's all I need to 'care' about, IMO it's all the employer needs to 'care' about.

Caveat Lector:

---

Maybe I'm jaded looking at a tech industry that doesn't seem to have a damn clue what it's doing when it comes to hiring, disaffected by all of these bullshit job requirements that are as far removed from reality as Earth is from one of Jupiter's moons, and offended by these job interviews that feel less like conversations and more like I'm trying to outwit a power hungry DM during a game of Dungeons and Dragons.

I will be very disappointed if this comes to light, and the only integration we're left with is Apple Music.

Probably not likely, but probably not improbable either.

I'm an absolute nerd for sports stats, and have a friend that moved out of the finance/BI world in the hospitality sector and landed herself an impressive gig at ESPN-of all things, as a stats editor.

It seems a relevant jaunt (because all I know of her profession is that she's an incredible mathematician) but the gap seems wide just from a perspective of domain knowledge; she openly states not caring at all for sports but the new job location puts her close to family.

My question is: is Data Science so applied that one can make that kind of jump domains easily? This gal is one of the smartest people I know but the more I look into what it is you folks do, the more I am simultaneously intimidated yet interested in the field.

Payroll analysts

Granted I'm looking at this from a perspective of plurality versus absolute speech but speech is certainly one of the (many) ingredients in this philosophical recipe.

I suppose at surface level they would be seen as one in the same but unpacked there may be critical distinctions.

I'm willing to concede this may be splitting hairs but I hope that answers your question. Thanks for showing up to ask!

https://rendertoken.com/