Bullshit.

Google are a highly effective propaganda company.

But, as providers of a platform for developers, they are absolutely horrible. Writing software for their "platform" is like building a house on quicksand.

They make me look back on the time spent developing for Microsofts products with fondness.

Yeah, no shit.

My post wasn't directed at the lusers, though, it was directed at the editor.

But yeah, I think it's true... our community was bought and paid for by outsiders, and it's going to be used as a vehicle to attack us until it's finally been rendered irrelevant.

Shame. I've been coming here for a long time, and I'm still on the cutting edge of my field with lots of knowledge and wisdom to share.

Done now though... the well is poisoned, time to move on.

Doesn't this study show that women and men don't work as well together as they do separately, and that trying to increase diversity results in less effective teams, and was a bad idea all along?

So, the smart thing to do is separate the women off away from the men, encourage them to form teams entirely composed of women, and give them some meaningful tasks to do that won't overly burden them physically and will exploit their particular strengths.

This is very innovative stuff.

OSX is horrible. Really, really horrible.

Like an OCD wife that puts your tools away while you're trying to use them because everything has to look clean and nice at all times.

Is there a way to reclaim Slashdot from this constant barrage of psychological assault on IT professionals by outsiders?

I'm a bit of a nerd and I'm an IT professional. This place used to be a place to find news of interest to nerds and IT professionals. Now it's a place where there's going to be a daily article about how shitty a person I am and how shitty my industry is.

Is this what the rest of you guys come here for? To get shit on daily? It's kinda feeling like Slashdot has just become a bad habit I do when I'm bored because I've done it so many times before.

Is your target audience people who are nerds, or is it people who are envious of nerds? It's kinds feeling like this place has become the latter.

Yeah, I'm not talking about you, stupid. You're just barely above notice.

I do have a life outside of Slashdot, dimbulb.

I'd call what Charlie Hedbo did hate speech, myself.

I hope people refuse to work for them, myself. Professional antagonists who got what they deserved.

Your approach requires billions to willingly agree to put my head in the sand in order to work. This simply isn't going to happen.

My approach involves giving people greater intel systematically. This can happen, and if it does happen, it will make everyone stronger and able to make better informed decisions.

Yes, the inside of my head is a strange place. "Gifted", "Genius", "Freak", "Monster", "Idiot", take your pick, I've heard it all.

I'm being stalked right now, by people who don't like the shit I write. They don't do anything, they just follow me around because they're bored.

Do I wish I'd self-censored myself? No. Do I wish I could look at my phone and have the conclusive evidence I need to confront the guy face to face and use physical measures to make him stop? Damn right I do.

And, frankly, the more information everyone has, the better I can trust them to participate in a democracy with me. If you're inclined to willfully stick your head in the sand, why would I want to participate in a consensus style system of decision making with the likes of you? That's like having the car break down with 3 toddlers in the back seat and having a vote on what we ought to do... no thanks.

You're totally ignoring the fact that they already can. You don't need technology to stalk someone.

If someone wants to stalk me, all they need is a car. If I want to catch them, and be warned soon enough to stay safe, I need to be constantly vigilant.

Allowing technology to be vigilant for me makes me safer, even if it makes finding me easier.

Worked out in this case

Well, what if we made it so things were even more transparent, and we were able to bring pressure against the "doxer".

I had someone engage in character assassination against me based on a wilful misinterpretation of what I said. Rather than taking my post down, I left it for all to judge for themselves.

Apparently ordinary people who saw what this person did, under their real name, and started sending threats. Or so I overheard when i was recognized, prompting a conversation I could overhear.

More transparency fixes most objections to problems with transparency.

Example: Woman is being stalked. Wants to keep her privacy because shes scared. Solution: He sees her movements by expending effort. She doesn't want to make that effort to track his movements, it makes her a prisoner. So, make it easy for her to see her stalker as he moves around, and move to safety, and prove to the rest of us that it's going on.

Transparency. Just add more.

As others have said, there's no way for you to know what the other player (in this case the other computer) holds, so you can't have any additional data with which to make a different decision. All you know is whether they bet, call, raise, or fold.

I had friends over for Texas Hold'em last night. When I picked up my chips as though I was going to raise substantially, I watched his face in the reflection off the glass table, and when it twitched towards a smile for a split second, I knew he had the straight, and knew to fold.
 
Real Texas Hold'em, where you're sitting with real cards in your hands looking at the faces of the other players, involves a lot more than game theory. I'm by no means a great poker player, but I'm good enough to know that much.

Real democracies represent the people exercising their collective will to direct their society.

Real democracies don't immediately hand the reigns over to rich and cruel capitalists and surrender their hard won influence.

Anywhere you see Capitalism, you know you're not looking at a real democracy.

That's the way it SHOULD be.

Performances are naturally scarce, and can provide all the necessary funding.

Making things that are naturally abundant artificially scarce is wrong. It is economically wrong because it reduces our return on an already sunk investment, it is morally wrong because it causes needless hardship to massive numbers of people, and it is strategically wrong because cultured neighbours are safer neighbours to have than culturally starved savages.

There are valid arguments on the "for" side, but, in my judgement, they don't carry enough weight to overcome the "against" arguments.