Kaepernick fighting for social justice whereas Google dude was just fighting for introverted thinkers

The key distinction of course is that introverts (especially the thinking variety although the artists have had their troubles...) is not an historically repressed class.

So there is no hypocrisy

I'd imagine Kaepernick talking about why there are fewer women in the NFL wouldn't be very controversial.

It's just nice a rich millionaire had everyone backing him while some good faith posting regular schmoe was sent to the gulag

I super skimmed the manifesto and anybody could have taken a sociobiology or evolutionary psych class, thought about company culture some, and written that.

The whole thing seemed super benign. Hard to see on what basis they fired him. I wonder if he's suing?

I'm assuming that trump is essentially unlucky in that the nkers' development is what it is, and the tests are not _because_ he's president, at least in the first instance. But I'd much rather have a conventional us politician in charge, hawk or not (jk, they're all hawks amirite?), over this bloviated ignoramus. What -should- the policy towards nk be? Or is it just "I wouldn't start from here" (for all that that is a solid position).

Neocons are the best. They've done such a great job with everything we should keep them going.

Trump is a racist.

i'm a good person only in some ways, same as most people.

you know the kinds of people who get elected. you don't need me to tell you that. it takes massive amounts of money to win an election. you don't get that money without being a scum.

a good person can not win an election with our current set up.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-0...lism-here-stay

I thought this was good although i think in the information age economic conditions aren't the only driver of populism

Whatever you want to say about Trump, i dont think anyone can deny that he owns twitter. His ability to drive the narrative, change the story, or just do whatever is unrivaled.

How would people want to be treated themselves if they were the Google memo guy? Be fired? What about when they have won't opinions? Be gulaged? Are we all just means to an end?

wtf

He is saying the world is laying the giant eggs not the western middle class

fyp

I don't think I have ever commented on that guy from google, but it is interesting you respond to that video with this in some sort of soft defense of google? I am not sure what your post means exactly

It is amazing though that google is not going to shy away from firing people who they feel push negative views or sterotypes

yet they will pay money/coordinate with legally to defend a site that lets children be sold into slavery and serially raped.

really thought i came in here with some non controversial views this time

that sexism/racism/antisemitism is not okay just because you disagree with someone politically and that human trafficking is bad

ill stay out of politics and if i post in pog it will be in games, you guys can let CNN control what a "trump supporter thinks"

When rights and freedoms are litigated, it is very often despicable ****s in the cross hairs.

Google coming out to argue for net neutrality should not be any kind of surprise.


How you can still support a president who, despite being famously overactive on Twitter, can't immediately and unequivocally condemn Nazi flags being marched by a synagogue in his name.... That is shocking.

What you are talking about is not net neutrality

Nn is not giving preference to any content provider vs another

Arguing for freedom of speech is all well and good and maybe there is a case to be made about the limits of responsibility of hosting, but at some point if you find yourself in a foxhole with the child abductors you have to realise you're not the good guys anymore.

I'm glad you're finally realizing that. The light isn't so far away. You can be the good guy! (Or girl)

The economist had an interesting article this week imagining what happens if social media gets reconceptualised as a utility. IIRC, the profit figures they were working with came down by like 75-80% for FB and google.

I think it's interesting to think about what it is that these disruptors actually add to the world economically. Several of them are basically network providors, so I don't think it's beyond reason to argue that their endpoint is basically utility like.

What's Uber do? As far as I can see there are three critical things that are novel:
- an end around to avoid regulations regarding labour and employment standards, etc.
- a network enabling people to match free time with the desire for a service (transport)
- taking advantage of excess labour in the modern economy.

The foremost is unstable - if the regulations are rubbish they should be abolished, and if they're not uber should have to comply or be found some new status of employer/employee relationship. This isn't of real lasting value.

The social value of the network matching supply and demand is non zero and innovative etc, but like I say, it feels to me like a utility-like entity - ultimately destined for ubiquity/low value high volume low growth stable business, so it should be valued at a low multiple of wherever it settles as a business. I guess if you envisage that steady state at a really high volume relative to current levels then fine, I've not looked at the numbers.

The final point - the issue of low marginal value of human labour is (imo) a real social problem, and something that uber benefits from rather than creates, but it's something that is an emergent crisis in western society, so might be tackled in the next generation.

I'm a bit confused at the transition in there. Otherwise seems fine.

Who should regulate Facebook is an interesting question I'm.

The 2nd and 3rd ones go away when they start using self driving cars.

1st & 3rd, right?

There's going to be one hell of a labour problem when driving is no longer a job.

Oh yeah, I guess I misunderstood the 2nd one. Was thinking the supply was the drivers and not the cars (or rides really)

72 hours

I think a lot of people give trump a pass for not immediately condemning nazi & white supremacists because he always eventually gets around to condemning them where obama never got around to condemning radical Islamic terrorists. It is kinda like if a dog is used to eating dog food he is going to love a mcdonald's hamburger - he won't even realize how bad of a burger it is.