equality_1138

I can rephrase it then to they owned themselves in this case by being so damn gullible, thus further entrenched power given to the insurance industry.

The "libs" who lobbied for so-called universal healthcare? They further empowered these corporations and now they want to get rid of them. The libs owned themselves on this topic, obviously.

Ever done any work for a US health insurance company? You won't find many conservatives. You will find many "free lunch" advocates who spend half their day lobbying to protect their job and their industry. They are playing politics with your healthcare costs. How is that for nuance?

Could be the other way around. Failed leadership in the ruling class is promoting culture war and strife as a scapegoat. Quite easy to see the rise of race hate correlated with bank bailouts and occupy movement. Immigration won't fix the inequality problem, but could definitely fuel "partisanship"

I'm not mad at congress, I'm mad at the fools who keep voting for them.

I think when certain very talented creators get "demonetized" and they have a bad experience with customer service trying to understand why, and maybe suspect the criteria changed without they're knowing, it's relatively understandable to over-react and say their hard work was censored, even if knowing it doesn't meet the legal standard. I wouldn't let it bother you so much.

Fascinating. So do you think government is essentially doing a great job at protecting freedom and maintaining decentralized power structures? Or are they too busy building company towns?

Are you suggesting that our universities are teaching short-term thinking cowardice and greed? Or is it just certain programs? For a while I thought it was "STEM" programs that alluded most to easy-money themes in academia, with business schools teaching more of the long view and social responsibility of financing then managing a business.

you might find the clients or the brigading groups that were talked about above to be either in the right or in the wrong

This is implied in the fact that no details were given, so I just find it incredibly strange that anyone would consider it an "astute comment". I suppose you must be referencing others in the thread who think they (or Facebook) can simply request a few details and efficiently judge correctly right or wrong.

Sorry, just asking questions in a manner I thought was appropriate following your response with the words 'disastrous' and 'emphatic'. Honestly it's unclear how or whether you think this brigading issue should be handled. I see that you think Facebook's actions here should be "opposed as strongly as possible" but excluding use of our legal system(?)

Reminded me also of the Taguchi loss function. To paraphrase, quality is optimized when you manage the variation of a measurement in relation to its target value, instead of emphasizing the acceptable limits. It was seen as an improvement over the "goalpost" approach. And while you can say it really applies in manufacturing context, I think it should be considered more broadly for goal-oriented measurement and engineering in general.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taguchi_loss_function

Fredrick Taylor was the one who developed so-called management science and obsessive measurement, paving the way for Deming to popularize a more balanced or holistic approach, ie. akin to actual science.

The article mentions about selling kits, so it's pretty obvious that his videos would be at least partially motivated by commercial aspirations. Yes? I called the comment silly as it seemed to be saying "I not only disapprove of this entrepreneur's target market, he is also employing deceptive marketing tactics"

Try to understand that the economy is structured on a system of laws that facilitate the provision of jobs and goods/services by companies, while minimizing harm and maximizing fairness. Are you anti-regulation in general, or saying something more like Facebook is a special case that for some strange reason should keep hiding from legal scrutiny?

Are you singing praises of mob mentality and wanting to protect US democracy at the same time?

Exactly. I read this as a much broader critique of the scientific community. As YouTube is seen as a mass media company, it's not hard to accept their content decisions. He didn't fight it. I also believe any company that markets themselves as tech industry should not be this cagey about their relationship to science. It's an ethical question not a legal one. Jumping to the legal aspect seems like a big misunderstanding of the piece.

Also funny to question whether the guy is acting on financial incentives to promote his ideas. Of course he does.

Twitter makes its money as a marketing engine. Who can say what marketing is deemed intentionally deceptive? I'm not a Twitter user either but it seems to me an obvious question.

Actually it is a logical fallacy to interpret one's rejection of a proposed solution to be a rejection of the problem. I'm not arguing any specific case for it, but it does seem to be quite common and problematic in civil discourse.

And the "another problem" is to misunderstand the way that money influences PR statements from powerful entities (politicians or otherwise). This part isn't illogical but just ignorant/mis-educated about wealth and power.

Another problem is when so many people take a politician's words at face value. It simply doesn't work like that.

It could be that when someone doesn't trust your solution, you call them out for not believing in the problem. Logical fallacy.

Many would say our political economy is built on insatiable consumption, and is therefore incapable of cutting emissions to such a scale to materially impact climate change. It makes no sense to blame 'Republicans' and/or 'Christians' for not trusting every proposed solution to these massively complex problems.

Healthier way? This is wrong. First, to admit your goal is to crush your competitors is completely appropriate. That is the exact way the market is supposed to work. Thoughts about hiding this inherent part of any businesses strategy is, well, fine for lawyers, but essentially ignorant for engineers. Lawyers are not paid to make things, nor to develop your strategy. They are paid to manipulate laws and the truth. To write ethical issues off as lawyers just lawyering is a terrible way to approach business or technology.

"A bank doesn't need a full-time development team for example."

How else will all those SVP's at your bank justify their fat salaries? They NEED more minions. Same goes for VC ecosystem. Funny how everyone has a scapegoat or a solution to this supposed software quality problem, not quite understanding the underlying financial incentives. Easy money -> rotten management -> crappy design.

Not disagreeing whether the author hints at some bias with these choice of words, but to interpret this as "anti-capitalist" is absolutely over-the-top. In fact it shows a clear lack of understanding about markets.

feels like the article has some anti-capitalism undertones...

What a knee-jerk sensationalist review of the article. It makes a fair point about why some consumers like the stores, and others welcome its convenience. Is that some major controversy? In fact much of the article could be taken as positive (pro-capitalistic) review of their strategy, a case study in making lots of money the old fashioned way.

It looks like you are trying to trick your person about when you sent your message. Because of an introverted personality concern? Seems like a weird use of a timer to me.

Completely different issues, maybe. Notice that the major media outlets started pumping stories about racism right about the time of the occupy protests. This is how politically motivated segregation works in general - make the commoners fight each other instead of against their oppressors.

Here is a glaring example of debating semantics in hopes to discredit the actual meaning of something or attempt to kill the topic altogether. Appears to be a bad outcome from the rise of STEM worship.

This seems to be a very privileged position to have. That if you were taught strong ethics by parents and the right social network, then everyone can obviously/simply have the same?

A Gallop poll serves as your evidence for religion's impact on stability and peace? This is pie-in-the-sky cherry picked data, stylized as a scientific inquiry.