You can only click after watching 3 5 11 ads.

Very few people have a truly diverse software experience base. Many humans without a large, diverse experience base have trouble imagining there are problems outside their own experience.
There are millions of different problems that need software solutions. People with limited experience have opinions as to the “best” software.
People with large, diverse experience bases tend to be a bit more circumspect and can understand there is no single best answer. The “best” software for a given task depends on many things, including the problem, the schedule, the availability of resources, etc.

When used by marketers, “up to” should be understood by customers as, “we guarantee you’ll never get more than”.

How much hubris/ignorance this guy has to believe his algorithm is accurate enough to detect “10%” of employees were deadbeats? What precision! If it found 50% deadbeats, that would mean the algorithm might be working.
The worst companies have only 10% deadbeats? Any company with only 10% deadbeats means their management team is doing a great job hiring/managing. Any company that only 50% deadbeat managers would be outstanding.

“We need to collect every bit of information about you so we can target you with only ads you’d be interested in.”

Ah, good times. /s

That’s why I have created the AI rubber duck. It replaces both the dev and the old, outdated traditional rubber duck. Save thousands per week!

Only $20,000 per month via subscription.

Far-right leaders are winning across the globe.

How does it map to income inequality? Only authoritarianism can support higher levels of income inequality. Arab Spring. Western Fall.

There’s not one single reason when the election went the way it did, just like there is not one demographic that made the election go the way it did.
But the argument “It wasn’t the economy. The economy is great, just look at these numbers [published by the government]!” is just politicians falling for their own rhetoric.
The US governments have been skewing official statistics for decades. I’ve lived through decades of “Oh, X is fine” when my lived experience has been quite the contrary.
I suspect that a significant source of D’s sitting this election out is similar to a lot of R’s thoughts: “You’ve ignored us for decades telling us that things are getting better, but they never do. We’re done. Burn it down.”
Maybe they don’t expect things to get better after this election, but maybe their hoping that spreading the suffering will prompt more people to demand change as well.
Just a thought.

deleted by creator

As long as they continue to help him overthrow democracy, it’s performative bullshit.

Sadly, a lot of Americans couldn’t name the states correctly either.

General rule amongst those groups: “If you can’t be good, be loud.”

My theory is: free publicity. Just like the fashion industry comes up with ridiculous clothes that no one would ever wear, attention whores will constantly do outrageous things so that people will talk about them. The number of electrons spilled over this stupid mouse port placement over the years is uncountable. But the repeated conversations keep Apple in the public consciousness as a fashionista.

In the early days it seems pike Stack Overflow tried to regulate engagement from trolls. They encouraged support for dumb/newbie questions and discouraged obnoxious behaviors.

I’m guessing that’s just a losing battle. I don’t think there’s much hope of keeping a good moderator for free. It’s a tough, thankless job. Troll/poor moderators are free.

If I didn’t know better, I would say this sounds like Farley giggling and winking in order to make a play for his next CEO gig.

All those teachers over at the middle school ARE pretty elitist.

/s

deleted by creator

That is the nature of greed. There is no thought of the future or consequence.

The Saw anniversary DVD.

In my experience, groups of people will ignore inconvenient but correct answers until the problem explodes into their collective faces.

“The point is that we are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield.” – George Orwell