Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Business (Score 4, Insightful) 237

Judging by the number of broken web sites I've seen lately, we could use a bit more staticness and a bit less dynamicness

And a good deal faster too. It seems to be very fashionable now to use heaps of mandatory JS to serve up what in the end amounts to some text with a few images and perhaps a link or two. In other words exactly what HTML was designed to do, except it used 20M of JS libraries, hogs the CPU for a few minutes to render and is otherwise horrid.

But hey, it uses a different font to the default.

Comment: Re:Is there a single field that doesn't? (Score 1) 411

by serviscope_minor (#47950007) Attached to: Science Has a Sexual Assault Problem

That would be exactly my point. You just label anyone that disagrees with you to have "outright reprehensible behaviour".

And you just cherry pick and ouright make shit up. If you read his posts, you will very clearly see that he does not in fact label literally everyone who disagrees with him as having outright reprehensible behaviour. As far as I see, it's fine for him to label the dickheads who disagree as dickheads.

Either that or you just conveniently ignore (or pretend don't exist) the huge amount of people that disagree with you and do not have reprehensible behaviour.

I think you're confused as to who is ignoring what. You seem to be ignoring the people who disagree over things in a reasonable way who he isn't in fac labelling as sexist.

You think that you are better than people; you think that entitles you to act like an asshole.

You're projecting here. What I see is him disagreeing with people who are basically asshole MRAs and you jumping all over him accusing him of being a "straw feminist" whatever the fuck that is. You are thereby getting a very smug feeling of superiority over him (and now presumably me) which is exactly what you're accusing him of.

Comment: Re:Is there a single field that doesn't? (Score 1) 411

by serviscope_minor (#47949797) Attached to: Science Has a Sexual Assault Problem

But when I came back recently, the first thing I noticed was that the community is awful. Apparently everyone with 2 ounces of social skills left a while ago. The people left seem to be mostly basement dwelling neckbeards who have ridiculous issues with women.

Witness the rise of the MRA movement. The shared voice seems to have emboldened them o share their deep issues and repulsive attitudes much more freely.

Comment: Re:Is there a single field that doesn't? (Score 0) 411

by i kan reed (#47949565) Attached to: Science Has a Sexual Assault Problem

I've never accused anyone of being a misogynists for disagreeing with me, and since you've clearly gone over my posts recently, I can tell you have no evidence of it.

You're strawmanning again.

And I don't give a fuck if you think I'm being "morally superior" to people whose behaviors are outright reprehensible. Take you self-righteousness about self-righteousness and shove it up your ass, you hypocritical douchebag.

Comment: Re:Is there a single field that doesn't? (Score 1) 411

by i kan reed (#47949421) Attached to: Science Has a Sexual Assault Problem

"Horrible shit" being denialism over the level of sexual assault in the scientific field, and implicitly by suggesting that this completely spurious dismissal is somehow not completely fucking insane by the nature of your argument.

Now you can argue your statements are somehow completely divorced from the discussion's context. You can do that till the cow comes home and I won't be able to prove it, but I don't think you've remotely earned that level of good faith.

Comment: Re:why does the CRTC need this list? (Score 3, Interesting) 301

by i kan reed (#47949231) Attached to: Canadian Regulator Threatens To Impose New Netflix Regulation

Netflix plays what their subscribers want to see

Then why do they have so many reality TV shows? Ugh.

No, but really, the set of inputs to what Netflix has is quite complicated. They love things with cheap per showing licenses, like off-the-air TV shows, unpopular movies, documentaries where the producers are more interested in pushing a message than making a profit, and a smattering of more popular "draw" shows/movies to bring in the popular audience.

And then there's the loss-leader shows trying to get people to start watching the series as it comes out, either on pay services or with commercials.

And then there's the various "taste profiles" of the people who are netflix subscribers, and what's both cheap and good within that frame.

There's some pitiable accountants in the company who's responsible for balancing all those factors, while making a profit.

Reducing all that to "giving the people what they want" is a little unpragmatic.

Comment: Re:Is there a single field that doesn't? (Score -1) 411

by i kan reed (#47949077) Attached to: Science Has a Sexual Assault Problem

The fuck is wrong with you? People are allowed to have stupid opinions. That's not the same as allowing sexual assault, in any way shape or form.

Are you brain dead? There has to be a little life in your mind that sees actual harm as separate and distinct from dumb opinions. Right?

People thinking stupid things is not "an issue". Holy christ are you dense as fuck.

Comment: Re:why does the CRTC need this list? (Score 1) 301

by jedidiah (#47948743) Attached to: Canadian Regulator Threatens To Impose New Netflix Regulation

> I suspect they just want to know how many customers they have, not specifically who they are.

Nonsense.

I am sure that Netflix is more than willing to BRAG about how many Canadian customers it has, or how many customers it has in ANY country.

Way different kettle of fish than actual subscriber info.

Comment: Re:Is there a single field that doesn't? (Score 0) 411

by i kan reed (#47948639) Attached to: Science Has a Sexual Assault Problem

You're right; feminists don't in general, push for only that, because legalistic bias isn't the only kind that's harming people. You can see object evidence of how systemic bias hurts women Or objective evidence that certain kinds of cultural media measurably cause those biases. Standing against that, in spite of having nothing to do with the law, is morally justified, and even necessary.

But I'm sure you meant that what they we want is some kinda imagined matriarchy, where special rights are reserved for one half the population. Which is dumb. And while people with all sorts of self-labels say all sorts of dumb things, it is not a suggestion made by anywhere near a large percentage of feminists.

Comment: Re:why does the CRTC need this list? (Score 5, Informative) 301

by i kan reed (#47948537) Attached to: Canadian Regulator Threatens To Impose New Netflix Regulation

To clarify, in this case they claim that netflix doesn't do enough to encourage the production and consumption of Canadian entertainment, a requirement they place on other distributors.

So they're, in theory, doing exactly what you say, just in less harsh terms. They want to ensure the continued interest of Canadian producers, and not American.

And they're using arbitrary leverage like demanding subscriber lists to push netflix to obey. It's not neat or nice. But they're kinda being upfront that it's just leverage not genuine interest in the records.

The only thing cheaper than hardware is talk.

Working...