harrumph
I see it the opposite way: any forensic examination of the business lines in an IT-only operation can benefit greatly from institutional memory such as Hughes can provide and few if any other cooperators could. The "why" of business processes are often quickly obscured/lost by successive operations and if the company is a candidate for breakup, old decisions often speak to demarcations where business lines can be reasonably separated. Of course, the company's counsel would never admit to any reasonable theory of separation, so old execs are kind of essential to the examination.
>Note: As I understand it, anti-trust litigation isn't based on stuff a company did long ago, it is based a company having and abusing a commanding position. What does someone who left long ago know about this?
They know the why and all of the how and the when, which allows anyone interested in breaking up the company to put their fingers on the hidden fault lines buried by successive layers of years of "new normal" at the company.
I'm not sure what washing a Little Debbie snack cake will accomplish, outside of preventing its ingestion, which, now that I think about it, is an excellent outcome!
Totally agree about how inane and insufferably out of touch this complaint is. As if today's now-totally-normalized tech company valuations, openly built on nothing more than cash bonfires, aren't dangerous at all.
Weaksauce centrism: it's a helluva drug.
Agitation for women's rights, including suffrage, first appeared formally in the US east in the 1840s. Suffrage was radicalism of a historic part with abolitionism, a radicalism over which a giant and entirely justified civil war would be fought and won by the emancipators in twenty or so years. Emancipation is the central theme of radical left thought, and here is no exception; while capitalism and imperialism went effectively unexamined theoretically until Marx in about the same decade, there is no left radical idea before or after that fails to hew to emancipatory ideals in the US.
Speaking of failure, it appears as if you've failed to "observe the real world" of historic occurrence, and have done so in pursuit of an ideology -- a weak, vacuous, change-nothing, injustice-friendly centrist ideology. I suggest you heed your own advice.
To review: left radical ideas become mainstream and improve the society when they do. The chief opponent of this mainstreaming is not the radical right, but rather the enormous, cowardly middle, whose political emptiness has always been the greatest friend and enabler to those who enslave us.
No, there are no serious counterexamples to the claim "allowing women the vote improved society and made it fairer", nor to "ending official, normalized white supremacy improved society and made it fairer." These outcomes were mainstreamed only after appearing as left radical ideas, a plain fact that weak, doltish centrists don't wish to admit, believing as they do in "incrementalism" and "nuance", which in the context of historic change served only as codewords for "abetting and protecting the status quo, no matter how unjust".
Sorry, it's not an opinion: the examples given in the first paragraph of the article are nothing but left radical ideas that became mainstream. Don't mistake plain, historical, uncontroversial fact for opinion. They are left radical ideas that, like others of their kind, became mainstream and made the society fairer and better. It seems you don't want to admit it -- probably because it would interrupt your pose of above-it-all detachment -- but the good thing is because we have a shared history, you don't actually have to admit it. It's true anyway.
Good for you. The thing is, it's not a matter of opinion: radical left ideas do, in fact, improve the society and do, in fact, become mainstream.
>Incremental changes work. Radicals causing destruction very seldom do.
The only thing Rosa Parks destroyed was the unchallenged idea that she was rightfully subject to lesser treatment. What she did was not incremental in the slightest, though, so, lame centrist chiding that would have her act "incrementally" is at best meaningless and at worst openly supportive of the unjust status quo of the time.
Rosa Parks gives us a model for behavior, for bravery in the face of institutionalized injustice. We want as many of her as we can get, because left radical ideas make the world fairer when they become mainstreamed by people like her.
> So instead they look to make issues
No. If you had ever been on the receiving end of what radicals exhibiting bravery actually get as response, you would understand that nobody prefers that kind of abuse.
load "sysres",8,1
I think the declarations in the article do confuse the issue a bit - some of the benefits of a VPN such protecting against DNS logging are real but are probably not as useful to VPN marketing people as a "pitch", because they're a bit tougher to explain to laypersons.
> Such brutal honesty would be welcome in other papers.
To say nothing of the commitment to employment fairness!
This is kind of my nightmare! Condolences.
YT, wtf.
This is my experience as well. YT thinks I love Jordan Peterson. Four or so months ago, I didn't know who he was, and clicked one clip, found it ridiculous and never clicked another one. But my recommendations are lousy with the guy.
I'm lost as to what is meant here by "number". Are you saying the target firm was randomizing its iceberg order's component order sizes using the same seed? If yes, how could the target firm's usage of that seed be known by the "attacker" here?
Does anybody know if FB's practice has been attacked in court sooner than this?
No, I'm the one who corrected an utterly insane equivalence drawn between a commercial figure who drives grieving fathers of murdered kids to suicide and a man who was literally killed for his demanding equal treatment for all people. Again: if you bring up history, you are now forced to deal with historical results and categories. Deal with them. Don't just pretend you are.
Because one was a indispensible paragon of civil rights and an avatar of anti-racism and the other is a shrieking whackjob entertainer peddling freeze-dried survivalist food while spreading lies, mental illness and grief to families of murdered kids.
Hey, you're the one who brought up history.
Thanks for correctly identifying “good people” as praise (for a vehicular murderer plus a guy firing a pistol into a crowd).
Eviction, the gateway to homelessness, is in no way a choice. Inability to accumulate, pay or borrow capital is so seldom a choice, the word is effectively meaningless in the context.
>Until a society arrives at a consensus in which a sufficiently large quantity of individuals with access to sufficient resources are obligated to offer free housing and other benefits to everyone, that society has implicitly chosen to accept the existence of a population of individuals who live in tents alongside sidewalks.
That is true, but it has to be said it totally contradicts your first point, because sufficient and sweeping redistribution of housing and housing capital is the answer to nothing but the coercive suffering felt by those who lack capital, not the answer to some alleged "choice" taken by the sufferers.
Did you just equate suffering from typhus, hepatitis, bacterial infections and other diseases directly tied to homelessness with a "choice of living arrangement"?
Did you do this while being aware that homelessness is a "choice" that historically begins with an acute lack of capital that forces an event called eviction?
Okay, no more weak, baseless and condescending ad hominem?
> I understand you're very excited about Marx > I know you feel slighted
That didn't last long.
You ask: how do we argue? We don't, because you've already performed your function.
Recall why you engaged: I noticed that despite the topic's plainly economic roots in housing markets, literally nobody in the thread was talking about the dominant economic system, prompting you to contribute the idea that capitalism somehow bears no responsibilities for what happens to the steadily growing population of persons who specifically lack the capital to pay for shelter under its system.
Effectively, you believe nobody actually lacks the protections of having capital under capitalism even when they don't have capital. That is a howling absurdity on its face, available for all to see, similar to a turd worn as a hat.
I thank you for your help in demonstrating my point: indoctrination tends to make people believe absurdities and enforce taboos to suppress examination.
Have a good weekend!
You absolutely did. In fact, you plainly used the phrase "nothing to do with". I'm sorry, but words mean things.
>In this topic I've stated that chronic long-term homelessness is largely the result of mental illness and drug abuse.
Then I am here to tell you that you have it perfectly backwards. What I've learned from working with the persons who make up the growing tent settlements in my giant city is that the perfect reverse is true: overwhelmingly, lack of capital triggers evictions, which triggers homelessness, and homelessness triggers mental illness, criminality and drug abuse. Exceptions to this pattern exist, but nowhere nearly in sufficient numbers to derail the characterization.
>You're arguing a straw man when you imply we live in some sort of Randian/Libertarian free market capitalist system. We don't. Social welfare policies are tools already used by modern governments.
I repeat: Your position is that concentrations of wealth -- such wealth's tangible assets dominated by holdings of real estate -- do not overwhelmingly divert the attention, priorities, electoral outcomes and revenues of government to their own ends at the explicit costs of the safety net. You seem to believe government does not sell political results exclusively to persons who can pay for those results...with capital. Again: total nonsense.
I've hung around with way too many homeless people who were working three to five years ago and were laid off as an effect of nothing but their employers' capital flight for me to fail to notice that capital allocation is the primary catalyst in this suffering.
>lob at our current system accomplishes besides FUD.
Don't worry about what I'm accomplishing; through your response, I've already demonstrated that the role of capitalism in human suffering is commonly and literally a taboo to discuss. Someone, maybe even you, although it need not be, will notice this when they hadn't before. That is a good thing.
Your position is that the unavailability of housing to those suffering diseases tied directly to their being unable to pay market price for housing somehow has nothing to do with the prevailing economic arrangement that utterly defines the housing market these persons cannot participate in. They don't have and cannot borrow capital, but their suffering "has nothing to do with" the prevailing system that revolves around / is animated by nothing but...capital? Total nonsense.
> Our governments have all the legal and revenue-generating tools they need to enact any policy they wish.
Your position is that concentrations of wealth -- such wealth's tangible assets dominated by holdings of real estate -- do not overwhelmingly divert the attention, priorities, electoral outcomes and revenues of government to their own ends at the explicit costs of the safety net. You seem to believe government does not sell political results exclusively to persons who can pay for those results. Again: total nonsense.
> Finally, I'm not sure what alternative you're advocating for
I'm advocating for merely mentioning capitalism in the discussion! And that much is too much, apparently.
I suggest you examine your own indoctrination in this economic arrangement if it is so sensitive that it cannot abide even its naming when discussing the intensification of suffering caused by lack of capital under the system that is exactly centered on capital.
Which is very much like a conference about pollution that lacks any mention of industrial production.
Can confirm. For me in the 80s it was about the writing and the friends, some of which I'm lucky to say I still have. Indulging in some phreaking when needed was about the extent of our "misuse" of technology.
I really believe it doesn't. No serious concentration of wealth ever does. Yes, personal attitudes in SV are often liberal, but the economic outlook most common in the place is akin to Andrew Carnegie with a git repo. It's this economic outlook where her proposal targets.