If you went to work every day and were verbally and physically intimidated by your team, full of larger people making racist and sexist comments against you. Then when you tried to get help, your company essentially blamed you, trapping you in that situation with that "team". I'd imagine you'd feel a different kind of "stress" than what you're talking about.
Also, the author of this article criticizes the original article for playing fast and loose with facts. But then takes an unsubstantiated claim from the CEO of the company in question as evidence that the Apple Watch is doing great. Maybe not the best source for such information. I've never heard a CEO say "Sales are not what we hoped" without raw data forcing that concession out of him/her.
Yeah, this is fake news about fake news. I would say that this is ironic, except that this is such par for the course, it's more pointless than anything.
I would add that when you put a person in a position that you have asked them for input, they will feel pressured to give SOME kind of input, whether or not it is actually warranted. You're kind of setting them up to give input in the same way you might set someone up to tell a joke, they feel pressured to fill that space with SOMETHING.
Most of the time when I have built features that came from customers, it ends up being the least used feature of a particular update cycle. Sometimes to the point that we have to reverse or highly modify it later. The reason your customer isn't in the business of making the thing you're making, is because they have no idea how to make that thing.
If you ask a person what they want out of a new Ford car, they are not going to say "Brake pads with a higher durability for longer use," they are going to say "More cupholders wouldn't hurt, and maybe you could offer it in magenta?"
Instead, you need to ask your customer about what they are doing in areas around your software. Not "What would you like in a new car?" but "What have you been doing in your car?" and "How much maintenance do you have to do?" and "What's the worst thing about the stuff you do in the car?"
Then maybe you can find out that the brakes make a squealing sound because they are mis-adjusted and are wearing out the pads too early.
Certainly, it seems appealing and, worse, people feel disenfranchised when they see polls that show the majority of people support something while the government rejects it (because people of a higher economic class or special interest side against it). This leads to them not participating in the system, which leads to further feelings of disenfranchisement. It is a negative feedback loop.
Democracy only works if people actively participate and make their voices heard. Not voting, campaigning, etc. only leads to further entrenchment of the lobbyist nightmare.
Further, rejecting democracy because "your side lost" is idiotic. When your side loses in a democracy, you get to try again in however many years when hopefully your side's arguments bear out in the negative impact of actions of the other side. When your side loses in a military dictatorship, if you try again, you go to jail.
You don't always get to have a side at all. If you are a member of a minority population, or if your political orientation is just a little bit too far outside the mainstream, you may never get a chance to vote for any candidate who represents your needs. There's that old saw about two wolves and a lamb voting on dinner; just because a political system is democratic doesn't mean it is necessarily just, or that participation would actually produce meaningful results. Abandoning the system and working around it can be the rational choice.
If you live in a society that does not hear your voice, there are ways to make that voice heard as long as the society remains free. Eventually, over time, that voice might resonate with others. Black people were not a majority when integration happened (not saying it solved all problems, but it was a step). But their plea for fairer treatment resonated with the majority and progress was made.
As soon as you abandon democracy because the majority doesn't represent you, you are surrendering your ability to be heard. When you throw out democracy, the majority doesn't disappear and become magically replaced with someone who does represent you. In most cases, a strongman with the backing of extremists in the military will end up filling that vacuum. And that person won't care about anybody's voices except his or her own.
that's sounds like justification for criminality and violence. if you talking about trying to changes peoples minds via various forms of dialog that's still part of the system.
Came to the comments to post this, so thanks for beating me to it.
Any time someone says they have "the secret," they are selling you something. And more often than not, there's a good amount of snake oil in that bottle.
Well, the NYT actually hires a lot of good journalists. Good journalists actually try hard not to print fake news. It's sad that these are surprising concepts.
On page 2 of every (paper) issue of the Times, right under the table of contents, there's a section titled, "Corrections." That's also part of doing good journalism.
It probably became fake news when we stopped buying the NYT in print. Now it's mostly fake news because they give out 10 fake news items per month and expect me and you and everyone else to pay for the "real" news so they can run their news outlet. But then we won't so then they'll just accept money from anyone with an agenda.
This is boiler-plate internet snark that one can find all over the web, but is typically looked at unfavorably on HN because it adds nothing to the discussion.
"Newspaper that print fake stories will take substantial credibility hits."
How, exactly? (I realize that you are not personally responsible for implementation, but I think this is an important question)
If "filtering" merely means blacklisting/whitelisting domains or organizations, this won't work.
And in regard to organizations not publishing falsehoods because it is in their best interest: let's consider Walter Duranty's reporting for the NYT in the 1930s. He won a Pulitzer for that, and that honor was enjoyed by the publication...it further cemented their reputation as the "newspaper of record".
It took 30 years before reports of his falsifications started getting traction, and almost 70 before serious calls were made to strip Duranty of the prize. It has yet to be revoked.
What lesson did the Times learn from that? Did they suffer any kind of financial penalty? What lesson would they learn from a smack on the hand from Facebook?
Would Facebook really ban news from the NYT if the latter had another Duranty, or even another Jayson Blair? What about the Washington Post? The LA Times?
Filtering out "fake news" will cut a lot of the obvious crap out: pointless lists, clickbait, "breakthrough diets", secrets "they" don't want you to know about, and celebrity gossip nonsense. I am not convinced that it will stop political propaganda, which is supposedly the whole point of this exercise.
Agreed. This whole phenomenon was reported on widely after "Avatar" came out. News anchors gleefully reporting that people left the theater feeling depressed their world wasn't as fantastic as Avatar. More of "the kids aren't alright!" reporting they love to do to scare parents and elderly folks.
My solution: Move out of the big cities. I live in a small town in the countryside and my world is that fantastic.
> More of "the kids aren't alright!" reporting they love to do to scare parents and elderly folks.
Sadly this is one of those topics, like violence in video games, where we don't get beyond this cycle of "accuse and deny". Which is a shame because IMO there are really important topics here we need to address collectively such as how this connects to addiction http://www.paulgraham.com/addiction.html
The "data point" I've been able to confirm with other parents of small kids (under 10) is there is a connection between extended periods of computer-aided escapism and aggression.
The experiment you can try with most kids is give them a smartphone or iPad for 1-2 hours then take it away again with minimal warning but without using force. Once you've recovered the device, the next 15-30 minutes will typically involve aggressive behaviour; shouting, physical aggression towards siblings, demands to have the device back and something not unlike Gollum desiring his Precious.
Based on my own experiences, adults can exhibit similar behaviour but extremes are dampened by conditioning, so harder to detect e.g it manifests itself in different ways e.g. sadness or depression instead of aggression.
My hypothesis for this is something like 'For every 15 minutes given to a medium capable of 'fully absorbing' human attention (books, computer games VR), 5 minutes of "unconscious recovery time" will be required to re-align the attention to the current "real" reality, during which subjects may display behaviour such as aggression, sadness or general distractedness / fidgeting'
This ratio of 15 to 5 might be different depending on the medium e.g. VR might have a more accentuated ratio than reading a book.
Why this is so I can't say for sure, but it's something like a tax on time spent existing in a disconnected reality vs. the "real reality" our bodies live in.
> The experiment you can try with most kids is give them a smartphone or iPad for 1-2 hours then take it away again with minimal warning but without using force. Once you've recovered the device, the next 15-30 minutes will typically involve aggressive behaviour; shouting, physical aggression towards siblings, demands to have the device back and something not unlike Gollum desiring his Precious.
Try the same with a book they show interest in, and you'll get the same behaviour. But nobody does that with a book because it's ridiculous, right? But so it is ridiculous to do that with an iPad or a personal computer! I'd say it's a pretty normal reaction of someone who was concentrated and fully engaged in an action, only to be unexpectedly and forcibly interrupred.
A simpler explanation to your experiences may simply be disappointment from having expectations unmet. If you were looking forward to a quiet date night without kids, only for them to suddenly come back home after being gone for just an hour, wouldn't you similarly feel such negative emotions as you adjusted to the reality of the situation?
Using a smartphone or a tablet computer for 2 hours straight will result in a negative physical condition so it is no wonder if the kids are cranky after that.
Also disrupting "flow" can make people cranky since its hard to attain that kind of a mindstate (a lot of work can go to waste if somebody interrupts you).
Anyway... I've seen kids playing Pokemon Go running around the neighborhood and the forests near by, and they seem like happy campers. It's good that there is at least something that makes kids play outside these days.
Seriously. Get me some fiber and a trainline into the city and it becomes feasible. Alternatively, hopefully I can live to become either rich, or retire comfortably to that countryside home.
On the plus side, planetary distances are so large you know for a long time that someone is coming to your planet. So you have time to prepare a reception.
Here they would not be defending other terrestrial intruders but rather space invaders from earth, so they'd be reasonably sure where to look out for coming troublemakers. On the other hand, they could be in a precarious position if their habitat isn't terraformed (not needing intensive energy to keep things habitable, thus a weak point in sustainability).
Except the economy is becoming more globalized and many people's jobs have them working at odd times anyway. I used to work 4pm-1am EST and so my schedule aligned more closely with people in hawaii and australia so I ended up befriending people in those locations on the internet since they were awake when I was.
I think this will be a more and more common thing as more of our lives ends up online. It won't matter when the sun shines so much as what is normal to the individual.
