Before reading that article, I was intrigued by the hyperbolic title of the platform: American Greatness. My alt-right BS alarm was immediately triggered. So, I opened another article to get a feel for what it was about. A wave of unsubstantiated lies and storytelling that rivals anything published under Political Fiction.
Stopped reading after Monday when it took a strong turn into weird racist shit, but Monday is accurate and it would be great if someone could tell me how to get out of office hell rather than encouraging me to become a “Gee Bob, great idea!” office improv guy
That piece is really bizarre and poorly written. It feels like they're trying to shoehorn a bunch of right-wing talking points into a piece about corporate boringness. This quote is laughably bad:
> The male toilet has disappeared overnight. Now there is an “All-Gender Toilet” and the door is decorated in rainbow hearts.
> You go through three stalls before you find one that hasn’t got a used tampon floating in the basin or discarded on the floor.
It's not like the author is shy of his views and agenda. If you truly don't see the right wing talking points, well maybe you just perceive as normal the views of a far-right political writer, no need to be shy about it.
Online dating seems to be a perennial problem, like a note-taking or "todo app" that attracts many different approaches from startups, but whose end result never quite scratches the itch (for me, at least).
a bit offtopic, but have any HN users successfully used dating websites in the past 2-3 years to find long-term partners or spouses? If so, which did you use and do you feel the site/app helped facilitate that process, or was it more of luck that it worked out?
I've met three girlfriends on Tinder that I dated for more than a year.
Dating is always a crap shoot and there's nothing an app can do about it except expose you to volume and ensure you're seeing women who think you're attractive at all. I don't think there's anything I can know about someone that can predict if we'll have chemistry, and that's almost all that matters in the sense that it's not a choice for either person nor can you make it past a meetup without it. For that reason I'm interested in meeting basically any woman I'm attracted to, and that's exactly what an app like Tinder facilitates.
I've had zero chemistry with women everyone thought were perfect for me. And I've had long relationships with complete opposites. The question is simple: wanna grab a drink or not?
Dating isn't an easy problem. And the reality of it feels cold and cruel to begin with. Apps can't fix that part. There are always people out there who won't even give you a shot because of something out of your control, and that's a hard pill for some to swallow.
Can someone use this if they espouse "white nationalist"-adjacent beliefs (such as building a border wall and deporting illegal immigrants)?
What does it mean if they can or cannot?
So first off Facebook would have to transgress the barrier in place that they say they're erecting between the user's Calibra account and the user's FB or WhatsApp or Insta account – simultaneously Facebook would have to tag its users as holding sets of beliefs that were antithetical to some set of ideal beliefs that would be encoded digitally somewhere inside Facebook's algorithms. To do this without human intervention would be a supreme AI task, to do it without human arbitration would be to blindly trust an algorithm, to do it at all would be an act of tyrannical censorship.
We here at Facebook hope that answers your question.
>They wouldn't do that, because there would be justified public outcry.
Somehow saying "yes, these multinational corporation could exert undue influence over a political system, but they just wouldn't" does not seem sufficient. I feel that such an attitude is like saying "The US government would not spy on its on citizens -- they wouldn't do that, just imagine the public outcry!" Perhaps that is a bad analogy, but the issue here is that we are nearing the point where "oh, they wouldn't do such a thing" becomes untenable.
The CFO of Google said, in the leaked video[1] of the TGIF immediately following Trump's election, that they would use "the great strength and resources and reach we have to continue to advance really important values." Going by the reactions of everyone in that meeting, their efforts are certainly not impartial or apolitical.
Boomers are worse, a thousand-fold worse. I doubt there has ever been a generation more destructive, hypocritical, or self-unaware... I pray there is never another.
The biggest sin of the Boomers is, they grew up in a world that was carefully curated by their parents, and became convinced that this was the natural state of things.
He’s on the verge of turning the internet into cable TV. That necessitates significant attack. And he seems to be doing so for personal gain. His supposed justifications are demonstrably false.
Well what else are they going to do? Send comments to the FCC? How did that work for them?
Ajit is absolutely ignoring the majority message and there is absolutely nothing your average citizen can do about it. They can't vote on it, and the 3/5 Republicans have already made up their mind a long time ago.
Just to be clear, I think the personal attacks are wrong and uncivilized, but I understand that when there is no civilized outlet for people, they are going to act out.
Yes, he did. He rigged the comment period for this, and then basically said that public sentiment, which is overwhelmingly in favor of NN, doesn't matter, because he's going to do what the ISPs tell him to do. He then goes on to insult the intelligence of every single American out there with his "defenses" that do not make any logical sense, and do not actually address the problem. He is an example of the worst kind of regulator, and he deserves to be publicly shamed from now until eternity.
https://amgreatness.com/2019/11/27/human-capital-a-horror-st...