Alphabet didn't break itself apart. It reorganized. There is a big difference. Standard Oil was broken apart into different companies.
228 karma · joined February 13, 2018
I'm the complete opposite. I've gone from being a subscriber to the economist, nytimes, npr, etc and accepting them as gospel to seeing them for agenda pushing institutions.
> but I suspect "willingness to pay for good information" is a pretty strong correlate of wealth worldwide.
I think you are missing the point. The wealthy don't read the economist. The wealthy hire the people to write in the economist.
Ultimately, social media is ( or at least has been ) the "people's" propaganda. The economist/etc are the wealthy elite's propaganda. It looks like the elite want to take over social media and make it part of their message platform as well.
That's not much of an argument considering the CLR and the JVM are written in C.
Reddit has turned into a crazy echo chamber - a crazy echo chamber that is in line with BBC's goals.
Then what is? What were you referring to when you wrote "worst year yet"?
> If your agency's sales drop by 20%, it doesn't console you to know that the industry overall is much bigger than it was in 2000.
You didn't mention a particular agency. You mentioned digital ads in 2018. So that's what I responded to. Of course there are going to be winners and losers within any industry.
Hard to take someone seriously when they talk like that. Also it's hard to take the publication seriously when they write nonsense like that. It sounds like local car company or mattress company advertising. "These prices are so low that it will have you screaming!".
> Is 2018 going to be the worst year yet for digital ads?
Worst year yet? Digital advertising has been growing by at least double digits for the last 10 years.
It surpassed TV ad spending last year.
https://www.recode.net/2017/12/4/16733460/2017-digital-ad-sp...
Digital ad spending is going to increase. It's where the young people are.
It might dip as the corporate elite try to control social media, but for it to have the "worst year yet", digital ad spending would have to drop by 99.99% of last year's spending to get to 2000s level spending. We already surpassed that the first week of january.
You misread what I wrote. My point was when it is proven that a false rape accusation is made, people turn the focus to how the proven false rape accusation hurt other women, not how it hurt the man who was falsely accused.
People say that false rape accusations are bad because it makes it harder for actual rape victims to be believe. What people should be saying is false rape accusations are bad because it hurts the falsely accused.
> Weird as it is for you to bring it up that way.
No. It's weird you misinterpreted a fairly straightforward point I was making.
> But female dominated positions aren't "diversified" because it's one of the few places where a woman actually gets a shot at a job.
One of the few places? This is hilarious. You are doing exactly what I said. You are spinning discrimination against men into victimization of women.
> I'm a male and it's easy for me to see what toxic masculinity looks like.
I'm sure you are.
> Misogyny, homophobia, violence, and other forms of oppression are all traits men overwhelmingly exhibit more than women.
That sounds very sexist. What's the difference between you and sexists decades ago saying women's "toxic femininity" needed to be "cured" with hysterectomies?
> If women acted like this we would label it and talk about it
There are just as many misogynous, homophobic, violent and "other forms of oppression" women out there.
It's so funny. I bet you are the first one to talk about how there are no differences between men and women right? We are pretty much the same. Right? And yet you claim that men are "toxic".
One example is false rape accusations. People say false rape accusations are bad because it makes it that harder for women who have been raped to be believed. No mention of men whose lives are destroyed by false rape accusations. Even when it's women lying about rape, the focus is on other women and how it harms them. Never about the males who are languishing in prison or have their lives destroyed by false accusations.
Another example is female dominated professions. The media seems to be obsessed with "diversifying" male dominated professions like engineering/software development. But nobody talks about diversifying female dominated professions. 77% of public school teachers in the US are female. This is a government job. Shouldn't the media be focusing on the lack of diversity in education? To put this in perspective, google ( a focus of the media's crusade for "diversity" ) is 69% male and 31% female.
And then there is nonsense like "toxic" masculinity. Can you imagine if people talked about "toxic" femininity? They'd be branded a bigot and attacked mercilessly.
Also, read more and write more. You can only get better by doing more.
Also, if it is intimidating to do a whole project from scratch, break it down into parts and tackle those first.
Small successes in the beginning can be the boost you need to finish the project.
This is why I canceled my subscription to the NYTimes and stop following the news so much. Everything is an epidemic. Everything is going to end the world.
Are there people with problems of loneliness? Sure. Is it an epidemic? Of course not.
Just like the tide pod epidemic last month. Next come, it'll be another epidemic.
And the easiest way to spot lazy media is see if the title is a headline.
"Will your kids' candy be safe this halloween?"
"Did aliens build the pyramids?"
In my opinion, the only real epidemic in modern times is people wasting time reading useless media.
This information could be a tremendous help in the study of history especially for regions and times where written history isn't readily available. It can provide some history to "pre-history". Where our ancestors came from, where they went and even perhaps why.
Who says this? Just because he is harsh, abrupt and straightforward doesn't necessarily mean he is toxic. And even if he was, nobody is forcing anyone to work with "toxic" linus. If you think Linus is toxic then don't use his kernel, don't use his software and don't read his rants.
Everything is toxic nowadays. Everyone cries about everything being toxic. If you don't praise every mediocrity or give a trophy to everyone who didn't win, you are toxic.
If only we had more "toxic" people like linus instead of people who whine about toxicity imagine what the world would be like.
Who defines what is a hate group? So if saudi arabia labels atheist groups as hate groups, should social media ban atheists? If china labels democracy groups as hate groups, should social media ban democracy groups?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16506887
What about political groups who hate trump? Should they be banned from social media? What about socialists who hate capitalism? When russia labeled lgbt groups as hate groups, you agree with them banning lgbt groups from social media?
> If your political ideology is hate, then you should expect to be increasingly ostracized and driven away into the shadows.
Wouldn't you want to shine the light on hate groups? Isn't that the last thing you want to do? To push hate groups into the shadows where they can fester?
What happened to liberalism? It's something every college student learned about when I went to school. Free speech and why it is fundamental to defend "hate speech" or ideology/speech you find offensive or disgusting in order to protect free speech. It's philosophy 101. Is logic and philosophy no longer taught in schools anymore? This is basic stuff.
This is a major issue/concern in advanced theoretical physics. Is it really physics if you can't experiment or is it just mathematics?
The foundation of science is falsiability within the scientific method. It's the core tenet.
90% of the time everyone here seems to support censorship and control over social media. Then the story is about china and everyone is against it.
And even greater opportunity cost is the lack of in-depth knowledge of your own language.
Language isn't just grammar rules. It also has cultural/regional/historical/etc.
You can learn a few languages and be somewhat proficient at all of them or you can have expert level grasp of the language - where you can discuss philosophical, historical, economic, cultural, etc topics.
Not to mention, jokes, puns along with culture-specific references.
Personally, I wish the education system ( in the US ) focused on english, latin and ancient greek for K-12. I don't think you can fully understand english without understanding a bit of latin and even ancient greek.
Censorship is just limiting/preventing speech. It can be by government, private organizations or even individuals. Governments can censor. Companies can censor. Your parents can censor.
Historically, since governments have been the most powerful institutions and our focus was primarily on preventing government censorship.
Censorship by private organizations and private individuals is legal ( including self-censorship ). Censorship by government is generally illegal in the US.
But that doesn't mean twitter can't censor. They can and they do censor. It's just that it is legal and their right to censor.
Hope that clears up any confusion on censorship.
But here's a thought, as corporations get more and more powerful ( even more powerful than many governments around the world ), should we as a society think about protecting citizens from corporate censorship?
What's "asian values".
> But I don't share the hope of my liberal friends - give them ten years, [and there will be] another Tiananmen Square demonstration
It's been 30 years since tiannamen square demonstrations. There won't be another tiannamen square unless there is economic issues within china. And the same applies not just to china or "asia", but everywhere. Economic stress is what drives protests and societal chaos.
> no, the marriage between capitalism and democracy is over.
When was there ever any marriage between capitalism and democracy? One isn't linked with the other. Democracy precedes capitalism by millenia. You can have democracy and no capitalism. You can have capitalism and no democracy. You can have both or neither.
The quote appears to say a lot but says nothing. It makes a host of false assumptions and runs with it.
HSBC was created in hong kong by the british to launder opium money after the Opium Wars.
""The Hongkong and Shanghai Bank" was founded by Scotsman Sir Thomas Sutherland in the then British colony of Hong Kong on 3 March 1865, and in Shanghai a month later, benefiting from the start of trading into China, including opium trading"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HSBC
Old habits die hard.
Surprised the other excuse ( "won't you please think of the children" ) wasn't used.
Can't wait for the next wave of censorship. ISPs banning twitter, news and pornography to increase "health and civility".
The promise of open and free internet is quickly turning into a nightmare of censored social media.
Is anyone else concerned that twitter and social media are now openly stating that they will manipulate content/people to fit their agenda?
If it was china doing this, HN and the media would be attacking it from every angle possible. Strangely, the same type of behavior in the US is supported by these same people.
Yes. That was my point.
> That’s only a tax advantage if you get options in a worthless company that later becomes valuable.
What? Since 2010, most large companies had their stock prices double, triple or even more.
> For public companies, you can reap this advantage yourself by buying and holding their stock using your cash compensation.
Except you don't get all your salary upfront.
21 million out of 350 million is a very insignificant number.
Also, that number is grouping chinese, japanese and koreans with indians, pakistanis and bangladeshis.
Do you think chinese and indians are the same race?
5% isn't a lot. And it's 5% only because indians, pakistanis, bengalis, etc are classified as asian along with chinese, japanese, koreans, etc. In other words, "asian" population is inflated. So it's a lot less than 5%.
> It's over 16 million people.
16 million out of nearly 350 million isn't much.
> I don't see how you can keep making this argument with a straight face.
Because it's a fact. And as I said, up until the 1970s, the asian population in the US was pretty much 0%. Asians were banned from immigrating to the US.
> We must have wildly differing opinions of what constitutes statistical significance.
We do. But you also have wildly differing opinions with every statistician.
As I said in the other comment, as the asian population in the US grows, statisticians will pay more attention to them. Although the "out"-marriage rates of asians ( particularly asian women ) might prevent increasing asian population. But who knows.