cybersnowflake

"1) Reasons why you are getting down voted. A comment talking about being down voted (which is amusing considering your username)."

nah dude you can downvote me a million times. I'm just asking politely why I'm and other people I see just stating unpopular opinions are being flagged, which is a more serious measure I hoped would be reserved for things a bit less subjective than 'immaturity'. But if it isn't nbd, I just hope to clarify things so everybody knows from now on. I mean its not like theres clear completely nonvague objective rules and spelled out consequences carved in stone in the easiest to find places.

"This is enough to get a down vote in my book. 2) An immature post. There are numerous signs, including the LOL at the end, that it's immature. 3) Fairly insulting to people who come here. 4)"

I've never personally insulted anyone here....as far as I remember. If you mean indirectly than well thats so subjective everybody here indirectly insults someone all the time.

"Your original comment is constantly begging the question. The reality is, you aren't interested in a discussion."

Not true, I am happy to engage anyone who wants to debate me. Like now, my history is open book for you to freely browse, show me something in it clearly refutes this, it actually stands as a clear testament to the opposite. If I am wrong on the hard facts I will acquiese. If you think its pointless well isn't all/most discussion on threads like these pointless?

" 5) "I'm just stating an unpopular opinion without any trolling, spam, or personal attacks" No, you aren't "just stating an unpopular opinion" if this keeps happening to you. If this happens to you constantly, it's because you are wrong. Your opinion of your comments is wrong for the community."

speaking of dismissing arguments.

Thats the funny thing. You're basically erasing the Spanish language with the nongendered approach of English by using the term.

okay I understand people downvoting me because they don't like what I say but I wish I'd at least get an explanation why I'm constantly being flagged if I'm just stating an unpopular opinion without any trolling, spam, or personal attacks (against other commentators. People here regularly attack article subjects so I assume thats okay).

Oh they definitely downvote you simply for closed questions.Which you'd know if you regularly used the site or didn't assume that I was unfamiliar with it. Also the bans might be temporary but the demerits last for years at least. I know because I have ones from 2016. Of course most of what you and I are might say about actual policy isn't certain since its all hidden. The mark of bad moderation policy is hidden/vague policy but the overwhelming practice in most places including here.

Yes you do. Among other things. Its one of the things that counts toward your 'demerit' score. Or at least it certainly appears to. Theres people who haven't done anything but ask a couple 'stupid questions' that were answered before that were modded. Of course their moderation policy is so opaque only the admin could tell you exactly what happened.Or maybe not since they seen keen to adapt the 'Google approach' of having their bots take over sight unseen.

Maybe stop banhammering newbies simply because you think their question about obscure arcane algorithm #44462 is too similar to an even more arcane question 10 years ago about algorithm #783429 and its immediately obvious to a regular with a pH.D in quantum statistics.

The only major support site I'm aware of with a 'stupid questions' punishment policy. Which isn't a bad thing in and of itself except its implemented in such a draconian and nontransparent way. Demerits never seem to expire, even after years of no 'stupid' posts and theres no explanation where they come from.

The bizarre thing is even with this and newbies banned left and right it seems the admin is on another planet running some other website as all they want to talk about is social justice and how evil heteronormative SO users somehow can psychically tell who is a woman or minority and supposedly harassing them to epidemic proportions but nobody somehow ever sees this.

Maybe get a handle on a few real basic problems before you start crowing about your geewhiz new bot.

The productivity is higher because you have one of the highest concentrations in the world of big companies at the top of the field employing the best people and most resources. Not rocket science.

This has nothing to do with people that think they deserve to work there (which I frankly don't get what the big deal is, you're not a teenager scoping out the best colleges anymore) but obviously the marketplace disagrees.

There is a ton of need for skilled blue collar jobs and there are plenty of well paying ones available. More than jobs for ethnic studies majors. This is not opinion this is fact.

Why do people NEED to work in san francisco/LA? You may think you're contributing something valuable being a barista or adjunct ethnic studies professor in the Bay Area but if you can't survive there maybe the others don't agree. Move to a house bigger than a shoebox with less traffic, less filth, and less crazy politicians, and lower costs. Whats the hangup? I don't understand these people who watched pirates of silicon valley and now they have to live in a shack on location.

"There just isn't an option for everyone to move away from the bay area and still have work."

>>>>>>>>

If you can't afford to live in a box in San Jose, obviously staying isn't an option either.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"Take your "I've got mine so screw everyone else" attitude out of the bay area, we don't have room here for people with so little empathy for their neighbors."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Oh I don't live in the Bay Area. Theres an entire nation outside of San Francisco, large parts of which are better than the bay area in every objective fashion other than this weird cult obsession with having to live in the poop filled streets of Silicon Valley.

"The fewer Republicans" et al

You having problems reading your past posts? You just basically said evil Republicans are blocking common sense housing solutions and indicated the solution is an even greater proportion of Democrats but then said that a Democrat blocked it and their numbers don't matter.

So you blame republicans and want even more Democratic control of the Legislature than they already have.

Ummmm...you do realize the Dems hold supermajorities in both houses right? Do republicans have psychic powers they're using to control the Dems now?

Also

2. Realize that not everybody in the world needs to or should live in the Bay Area/Hollywood.

3. Don't pass statewide laws catering primarily to the group of people aspiring to do so.

Yeah, thats why we're seeing oodles of houses now that the Democrats practically control all of california. Are you trying to argue that the current one party rule is a good thing?

The market's too high, lets implement market controls to keep prices at the market.

Yep, everybody and their mother that I went to school with aspired to become a doctor. There should be absolutely no shortage. Getting to more reasonable numbers doesn't seem like it would worsen the already abysmal quality we're getting now with sleepwalking insanely overworked physicians.

People, happily do things like honor a holiday made by a man who sticks women's toes into vices, Think OJ is an innocent victim of systematic racism, and freely do business with some of the most repressive regimes. Just a few months back some of the same talking heads acting all high and mighty now were whining how Drumpf was hurting business with China. The same china which massacred a bunch of people in fairly recent events as tiananman square and memoryholed it to the point where even most americans aren't aware of it.

If people regularly overlook stuff like this without any shame, maybe possibly getting a massage seems pretty easy to overlook as well especially if you're getting a fat stack of cash.

Maybe the damage will randomly improve the political articles and knock down some of the fiefdoms for a change. Couldn't get much worse...

If you can consistently wake up at 430AM in a standard workday and just carve out 5 hours of freetime in addition to the time others have you're either a savant, an inhuman monster who doesn't need sleep, or your job probably doesn't require you to do that much. Either way I'm not going to take your advice too seriously when it comes to universality.

Accepting that actively managed funds are better than passive index funds is basically acceptance of the classical mentality that there are people who can consistently predict and beat the market and that you can make money by picking the 'right guy'.

I assumed most knowledgeable investors abandoned that philosophy in the 80s/90s

Seems a bit backward to me. Why should we care so much more about kid's privacy than adult privacy? Are you really more concerned that people know about your Barney the Magical Dinosaur addiction at 8 than your sordid affair at 32? Would you much rather keep secret that you walked back and forth from kindergarten everyday than your employers confidential design files?

Adults and teens have secrets, kids relatively speaking for the most part don't, at least not ones worth protecting through strenuous tech laws. Okay okay, I get that we don't want them vulnerable to be manipulated into stealing their parents money. And Google is as always scrum. But the general laser focus on kids when we should be concentrating on everybody seems just like another think of the children hysteria.

What other job can you think of where you can work as much as you want, anytime you want? Need a break? Click a button anytime you feel like it. Take as long or as little time as you wish. Want more work? Click a button anytime you feel like it. No timecards to punch. No boss breathing down your ass for being late. Its freedom on a level beyond practically any other major job category you can think of. What more could you ask for?

Sure you're probably not going to be raising a whole family with a white picket fence on Uber alone. They NEVER claimed you could AFAIK. Its never been portrayed as anything more than supplemental income. PROTIP: Uber is a job for the bored college student looking for a little extra spending money not the main means of survival for a struggling single mother of 10 kids. If you're at the point where you're relying on CA to force Uber to pay you more so you can put food on the table or get kidney surgery you're doing it wrong and you have far bigger problems than a company that has done you no wrong other than existing and not paying very much.

Now we're going to destroy this unique business model forever because of the greed of the taxis and people who can't understand that not every single job on earth is meant to earn you a solid middle class income.

The only people who honestly think there are a shortage of stem workers are those who aren't in stem.

The ancient Greeks and Romans to a lesser extent institutionalized what would probably be called pedophilia\statutory rape\exploitation today. Pop historians ignore the usual age/power dynamics and use the fact that they were homosexual relationships to argue for a mythical golden age where people supposedly had the exact same gender politics as 21st century San Fransicians before those rotten Christians came around and spoiled everything, then they accuse the earlier generation of historians that ignored this area of revisionism.

Thats pretty odd to specify Electors who would vote then. Could have just said tally up the votes into EC votes and then the same man in a funny wig would still be dispatched to report in. Seems a pretty stupid convoluted way to go about it if what you're saying is correct

If you want the will of the People you certainly wouldn't give Hillary the election. You do realize she only captured a small minority of the entire voting age population right? and even less people really wanted her there for her own sake.

What would happen if you rally all the assorted fringe groups that are currently dispersing their votes and unite them with all the mainstream voters who are holding their nose as well as all the couch potato nonvoters and came up with a candidate a truly comprehensive electorate would really end up picking?

You'd probably throw both Drumpf and Hillary out and put in (another) Hollywood megastar or some charismatic Bible thumper.

There was very little if any grousing about the EC compared to today (there was actually some speculation that Trump might win the popular and lose the EC) and each side agreed to the rules ahead of time.

Whining about it now is kinda like crying that you lost a game of Chess even though you took the most pieces.

Whats the point of having actual human electors if they can't be faithless? Couldn't the Founding Fathers just say tally up the electoral votes if a mechanical transition from popular to electoral votes was desired?