For how long will Americans blame FB for the rise of Trump?
The subject of the article is accurately summarized by the headline, and this isn't it.
The information systems that people use to process news have been rerouted through Facebook, and in the process, mostly broken and hidden from view ... The truth is that while many reporters knew some things that were going on on Facebook, no one knew everything that was going on on Facebook, not even Facebook.
With traditional (coal, gas, nuclear) electrical power generation, one unit of energy is delivered to your wall socket by dumping about two units of heat directly into the environment somewhere else.
It has little to do with intelligence. It has mostly to do with not having the first clue how to tell the difference between a legitimate attempt at dialog and ideologically-motivated rhetoric.
"Patriarchy is a model whose name alone..." is ad hominem. Tone policing ("...you're really going above and beyond with the contempt...") is ad hominem. In the sense that both shift focus to the speaker rather than the subject.
Pointing out that neither of those things are valid arguments is not ad hominem.
I haven't insulted you; pointing out that you're ignorant and inexperienced is giving you the benefit of the doubt. Those things are curable.
...there's a lot of history and context around the form of argument from patriarchy in spaces where men are discussing the issues that affect us.
There is not. This is a shortcoming born of inexperience and youth. Your context is too small, you're not perceiving things at any scale much beyond your own few personal experiences.
I have to say you're really going above and beyond with the contempt you add to it. What are you trying to accomplish, this way?
You pretend to be so reasonable, but this is tone policing, a logical fallacy, a thought-terminating cliche.
Your position is contemptible and no one owes you good manners over it. Do better. Step up your game. Make an actual argument to persuade me - to persuade anyone - that you actually have a clue what you're talking about.
Hearing the name doesn't make you an expert. The world isn't so systematic; history and context matter. There's quite a lot of study and learning to absorb if you're inclined, but this is a stunning demonstration of arrogance from ignorance, and I can't understand why anyone would want to demonstrate that. "Boi."
What a dreadful noise! I wonder if there's a good reason so much cold-war detritus is so ominous, so foreboding, and so nerve-wracking in its design, character and presence.
Maybe there are practical reasons in this case; maybe the sound is memorable, or recognizable even with marginal reception, etc.
Mint 18.2 ran like a champ on my work desktop. This is an older Dell XPS 8300. It has a 3.4GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 processor, 8GBs of RAM, and an AMD/ATI Radeon HD 5770 graphics card.
This fellow has a very different idea of what an "older" computer is than I do.
I don't see how this would work when the URL lists are full of regexps etc.
If you could make it work, you'd would wind up with some sort of source file of domains, parsed at build time to generate list of hashes that actually ship with your plugin. That source file would belong in a repo, and would still be DMCA-able in this way.
Also, this would make ad-blockers even more CPU intensive than they are.
We shouldn't have to pursue a technical solution. It's my computer, it's my internet connection. If I'm not allowed to control my own property, then the concept of property becomes meaningless.
...the top 20% of earners shoulder 84% of the tax burden of the federal government[1]. Where does that number need to be in order to silence the socialist rabble-rousers? 90%? 95%?
"Percent of income tax burden landing on top 20% of income earners" isn't a figure anyone is particularly interested in engineering or specifying for it's own sake. Where do you think it "should" be, and how can you justify it?
This is an emotional, not a rational appeal: "Won't someone think of the well-looked-after?"
The top 20% of earners earn more than half of the earned income that exists to be taxed. You could increase taxes on the rest quite a lot without actually collecting much.
Honestly I thought my household was in the top 20%. I was going to write that sometimes our financial situation feels tight, but that taxes aren't really the reason. But it turns out I was wrong; in 2015 we were probably third quintile. Should make it to fourth quintile this year.
I suspect a lot of people think they're higher on the ladder than they are. It's hard to percieve just how high the ladder goes.
The "Hollywood Ten" screenwriters who were blacklisted by the film industry (private employers making employment decisions!) were, in fact, members of the Communist Party USA...
Yes, but 1) that was just the tip of the iceberg labelled "McCarthyism," and 2) even at the time, the issue wasn't that they had joined a political party, the issue was what that party proposed to achieve.
In the case of the Google's manifesto, I don't see anyone upset that the author holds an unpopular opinion or that he publicized his unpopular opinion; it's the content of the opinion itself that's at issue.
Both McCarthy himself and the Googler in question here tried to harm other people's careers by spreading untruths in a self-aggrandizing way. That seems like the most natural parallel to me.
The question in my mind is: Does an opinion suddenly become a "thought crime" if expressing it publicly might get you fired from a non-governmental employer? The consequences don't include incarceration or even necessarily the end of a career. This is, in principle, "crime?" Really?
You've jumped straight into name calling without engaging that question.
Couldn't we characterize the manifesto scandal as, in part, an apalling lack of judgement? Should your response lend me (or anyone) any confidence in your judgement? Yet here you are, charging right in with a judgement call.
Consider the possibility that you have read the manifesto but you haven't understood the context. That other people, who claim to see something else there, really are seeing it, they're not making it up. Consider the possibility that some of them have had experiences you have not. That some of them are just smarter than you. That people who disagree with you aren't insane or lazy.
I don't know that much about McCarthyism but I think it's safe to guess that you know less. It was considered a witch hunt because nobody cared about facts or evidence, the spectacle was the point. Victims we're persecuted because they were juicy, suceptible targets, not because of anything they did or didn't do.
The situation we're discussing here is pretty different.
People are fired for exhibiting corrosive, counterproductive, or otherwise bad attitudes every day. Are they all victims of "textbook thoughtcrime punishment?"
I'm established now. I own a great company. I love my work and have happy customers and supportive people in my life. So I can see straight through the resentment for what it is...
It's likely enough the author is observing something real in at least some cases, but it's laughable to imagine that perspective and deep insights into the minds of others (i.e., empathy) comes with success and comfort. All evidence is that the opposite is true. It's not farfetched to suppose that he sometimes reads something else (like frustration) as resentment.
...at a certain point, the tech industry’s chemical suppliers were enlisting family members to pay for IEEE memberships to help vote down new environmental measures.
Nothing to see here, just the free market regulating itself. Good job!
"Micro-particles" might also be misleading. The article spells it out:
The pieces of plastic are not necessarily floating bottles, bags, and buoys, but teeny-tiny pieces of plastic resembling confetti, making them almost impossible to clean up.
The subject of the article is accurately summarized by the headline, and this isn't it.
The information systems that people use to process news have been rerouted through Facebook, and in the process, mostly broken and hidden from view ... The truth is that while many reporters knew some things that were going on on Facebook, no one knew everything that was going on on Facebook, not even Facebook.