I believe the idea that unions are still relevant is a popular message among the corporate media. For example when Hostess went bankrupt in 2012 due to mismanagement, the press reported mostly that the business would have to close if the unions didn't make concessions. Never mind the fact that they had previously made many concessions in the past, and the new contract would result in wages barely over minimum wage yet would not touch executive bonuses. OCP owns the police.

I think the problem is that if you build an engine for a wider audience at the cost of the community, you'll be left with nothing. There are plenty of other "shiny" websites for the mass audience. The community that was built at Slashdot is the real value of the brand. If the parent company wants to build a website with a mass appeal, they should build one from scratch and spin Slashdot off into a separate company.

There was one person that posted "Beta is fine, Beta is great", but the comment text itself was how to improve things that fell short. It seems like a forgone conclusion that once the new system goes live, most people that contribute to the Slashdot community will leave and never come back.

I sure am glad these conglomerates are in the position to buy out these companies and make them more successful by using proven business tactics. Let's give them another round of tax-cuts for creating jobs!

I think it's more analogous to new Digg than /r/politics. The awful Digg website design drove off users never to return. There are several other sub-Reddit that took the place of /r/politcs. Hell, we could even make a slashdot-esque sub-reddit.

It is definitely worse. The screen real estate is not used very well.

Which country do you live in? In the US, where I live, teachers' unions have been crushed by scab organizations like "Teach for America", charter schools, and private school vouchers programs.

strong voice != absolute power. It's a straw man argument to say that he was advocating for absolute power on behalf of the teachers' union.

If you look at the link I posted above, there is a model that shows how the spoiler effect is real. This has happened in the real world many times. For recent examples look at Perot and Nader taking away votes from candidates that lost their elections. What is your evidence that this effect is a fallacy?

You could see it that way, but it is more likely that by not voting you are giving the supporters evil person better leverage by not working against them. Your only chance is to get the good person to win the primary, but if you don't it's giant douche or turd sandwich.

When your world-view is no longer based on reality, reporting the truth should appear to be biased against you.

All third-parties do is introduce a spoiler effect, making the more similar candidate lose.

He's not the *most* conservative, but he could easily be within the top 5. He hasn't enacted a single "liberal" action or policy that didn't have corporate backing.

The App store TOS prohibits releasing software that is GPL. You can find your favorite source if you google "app store gpl".