HN user
Seems like you have a reason to be defensive, throwaway account. I'm suspicious of any billionaire who buys a newspaper, for reasons I've been arguing in this thread - the very real potential for bad behavior.
That's the evidence you've presented against my assertion, as neither of us would know the real answer. My links above could be perceived as control because a predominantly left wing paper is defensive of a company who runs afoul of a popular left wing issue, trust busting. It's as much about what isn't talked about as what's on the front page.
To quote you from higher in the thread, "But it seems to be in their long term interest to have a fair, balanced political system and liberal society as we have now in the US." Is buying a news paper to promote that idea not a form of activism?
To me, saying "Bezos doesn't influence Wapo's output" is like saying, "Oculus will remain an independent entity inside Facebook." Not something I'm inclined to believe. Why should one believe that the billionaire (and new richest man in the world) at the helm of a major monopoly isn't influencing WaPo's content?
Activism. I'm curious why downvoters think their acquisitions aren't a form of activism. For instance, their coverage of an Amazon monopoly is very sparse, even given the recent Democratic economic policy statements which mention monopolies frequently. Billionaires wanting to control the press isn't exactly a shocking idea. Is buying a newspaper and controlling their output more or less offensive than Theil's funding the Gawker suit?
1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/11/11/at-th...
2. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
3. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/amazon-isnt-technica...
4. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/01/30/amazo...
5. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/is-amazon-getting-to...
I don't think we as a society or even humanity ever shared a vision.
.... seriously? The American Dream.
Island, by Huxley
"Will Farnaby is a cynical journalist shipwrecked on the fictional island of Pala, a Buddhist paradise where modern science and technology is embraced only insofar as it can improve medicine and nutrition, not for industrialization; drugs are used for enlightenment, not for pacification; and the evils of corporatism are unknown."
"The final novel from Aldous Huxley, Island is a provocative counterpoint to his worldwide classic Brave New World, in which a flourishing, ideal society located on a remote Pacific island attracts the envy of the outside world."
A basic primer is linked below for you. I'm sure you'll have wonderful, super duper insightful, and super smart commentary on it. Looking forward to it!
It's not an idea that's worth taking seriously, like everything else from Marx.
It's a made up phrase that's being aggressively astroturfed on misc. parts of the net. reddit.com/r/latestagecapitalism
There are, example: http://charliebarnhart.com/
Man, this sentiment is so disturbing. Is this something people find desirable?
(I work at an EMS provider)
Yes, that tends to be how startups come off - even the "sophisticated" ones. They tend to have minimal knowledge of the steps necessary to turn their prototype into a mass produced thing: DFM/DFF, supply chain management, identifying/negotiating with component/bare board suppliers, etc. Generally speaking, they need lots of hand holding through the entire process, and that makes it take way longer for everyone.
The nature of stateside electronics manufacturing doesn't help startups much in that regard, in that shops are kinda either set up for NPI and rapid prototyping or not. Sierra Circuits is good for that, but idk how well they'd fit with a startup budget. Beyond that, the low-complexity nature of most IoT products means they're more cost effectively manufactured in China, as most US shops focus on low to mid volume runs of high complexity boards, as opposed to high volume low complexity runs. Figuring out how to manufacture in China can be a big obstacle for any company, especially smaller ones.
That also implies that people desire fear and that fear is produced with industrial efficiency.
Or, that what people consume and what they desire aren't always the same things.
Is that why the reality of 2016 election results was such a surprise?
Hugo with a theme like docdock is pretty neat (http://gohugo.io/ & http://docdock.netlify.com/)
Eh whatever, the way they act is neutering the left for years to come and they don't even see it. It's pretty funny to watch at this point. Don't worry 2018 will be great!!! Referendum!!!
I didn't complain about anything, I provided links when someone asked why Snopes is perceived as liberally biased. I get why that's confusing for you though. That's why I included the 3rd link, which addresses, and confirms, the points discussed there from a source that's more palatable to the left.
It's pretty funny really, your comment is indicative of what people perceive as bias. If Carlson's site is somehow off limits for discussion, does that mean that editorials by Maddow, Morning Joe & Mika, Anderson Cooper, etc, are all worthless due to their bias? Or are only right wing sources ok to completely write off?
1. Fact-Checking Snopes: Website’s Political ‘Fact-Checker’ Is Just A Failed Liberal Blogger: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/17/fact-checking-snopes-websi...
2. Snopes, Which Will Be Fact-Checking For Facebook, Employs Leftists Almost Exclusively: http://dailycaller.com/2016/12/16/snopes-facebooks-new-fact-...
3. The Daily Mail Snopes Story And Fact Checking The Fact Checkers: https://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-dai...
4. Who’s Checking the Fact Checkers?: https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/s...
Oh HN, downvoting what was asked for. This is why nobody likes talking to you about politics and you think your minority opinions are the majority.
One person in Silicon Valley even asked me to sign a confidentiality agreement before she would talk to me, as she worried she’d lose her job if people at her company knew she was a strong Trump supporter. - What I Heard From Trump Supporters, sama.
The fact that, as the Lichter study shows, "A majority of Democratic statements (54 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely true, compared to only 18 percent of Republican statements," probably has more to do with how the statements were picked and the subjective bias of the fact checker involved than anything remotely empirical. Likewise, the fact that "a majority of Republican statements (52 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely false, compared to only 24 percent of Democratic statements" probably has more to do with spinning stories than it does with evaluating statements.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
True and nobody is really arguing that point.
Or providing solutions, just automating their jobs away.
Ignore the social repercussions or try and shift responsibility for who should help them all you want, I suggest it is a very unwise thing to do.
Dell XPS 15" maybe.
Automating people's jobs away without meaningful replacements is how regions get decimated, and you end up with very large swaths of very angry people without much to lose.
We're talking about how difficult it is to find people to do this work.
* in California. So farmers don't matter, just like other workers who lose their jobs to automation. Got it, thanks for the help.
Okay, what's your proposition for the displaced workers?
People already push that narrative, just with factory farming. Ascribing some moral position to strangers' diets is a pretty gross thing to do.
Farm labor in other states earn $15-20 an hour [1], and will enjoy much higher purchasing power, and (almost certainly) a political climate they'll find less actively hostile than the one they'll find in California. Why would farm laborers want to come here?
MEMETICS—A GROWTH INDUSTRY IN US MILITARY OPERATIONS
- United States Marine Corps, School of Advanced Warfighting
Extortion, money laundering, racketeering, human trafficking, illicit organ selling, slavery, gun running, piracy (Somalia not Napster), poaching, assassinations, political violence for hire, etc. are all independently profitable. There will be profit incentive for bad behavior as long as laws exist that people don't want to abide by. People are terrible to each other on a daily basis, the world over.
Rationalizing immigration laws eliminates most of the rest.
This is indicative of what I'm taking about, approaching these problems in an extremely reductive way. Did you know there's an estimated 21 million slaves in the world today?
You legalize drugs, you take away their massive cash flies and cripple their organizations.
I'm not convinced this is true, there's lots of ways to make a big profit illegally, drugs are just comparatively easy. I'm a proponent of full drug legalization (it's a space where I have large amounts of first hand experience that won't be discussed on HN), but it's still important to separate an ideological position from reality. The international drug trade is directly tied to human trafficking. Turning a blind eye to one is turning a blind eye to both.
I think you underestimate the frequency pretty dramatically.