subreddit
stringclasses 11
values | text
stringlengths 246
28.5k
|
|---|---|
technology
|
Spam the button tens of thousands of times, by the time the cops get there I can pay bail and buy multiple tropical paradises to luxuriate on while waiting for the team of lawyers to exonerate me as a victim on circumstance.
Bonus, take 50% of my earnings (which still leaves me one of the richest men on earth) and do a huge PR/ philanthropy campaign a la Bill Gates. By the end of this I would be a fucking hero.
|
technology
|
The city is paying USI for their own bandwidth, to serve city government needs such as wifi for the police and city hall. Municipal broadband, by definition is owned and operated by the city (usually through a city owned business). Without city ownership of the ISP, it IS NOT municipal broadband. By your definition, comcast is municipal broadband because cities offer them tax breaks to develop their market, sign exclusive licenses with them to be the sole provider of cable in their city, and city buildings are wired to a comcast connection.
What we have is like if the city had a contract to buy liquor from a privately owned liquor store for all of their holiday parties. Municipal broadband would be if the city owned the liquor store.
|
technology
|
> The city is paying USI for their own bandwidth, to serve city government needs such as wifi for the police and city hall.
Well, no, they aren't. Because they city hall doesn't even get the wifi. Also, the amount they are paying FAR exceeds the amount of their usage. The Star Trib did a report on this which was the link I meant to provide originally. The estimates of the cost of usage are 100k annually, not 1 million.
>Without city ownership of the ISP, it IS NOT municipal broadband.
Per the terms of their contract, Minneapolis can kick out USI any time and retain the rights to bring in another vendor to use the equipment strung up. Just because they subcontrcted the service doesn't make it any less municipal broadband.
>By your definition, comcast is municipal broadband because cities offer them tax breaks to develop their market
At no point did I put tax breaks as a definition of municipal broadband. Why are you trying to argue something I didn't say?
>sign exclusive licenses with them to be the sole provider of cable in their city
This is a misrepresentation of how that system works, you should go to your local franchise board meetings and see that there isn't any signed agreements. These rights are provided wholly with no agreements from the providers.
|
technology
|
I agree for the most part, but the smaller companies using newer technology can transmit ~100X100 Mbps.
I found a WISP in Wisconsin of all places that offers rural customers 25 X 5 Mbps without a data cap or contract. I would say that this one company might be something to look for if you don’t have the option of Shitrum or ATT.
Granted this will probably cost you $50/mo in urban areas vs $300+ in rural areas...
Honestly I prefer the density and stability of fiber :)
|
technology
|
That's interesting. I dont think anyone has asked me in quite a while about religion, haha. I think there are higher powers, things more elegant or simply deeper or larger than humans. Many of them are emergent properties of the basic laws of the universe. Complexities that are far larger than any one human can understand. Don't know if philosophy or mathematics would count as a religion to you however.
For the record the last post of mine was completely tongue-in-cheek. But for real, the logic of pressing the button either very few times and being scared, or a lot of times confidently checks out. Things are what they are and we need room to make them better. If someone has the confidence and ability to gather many resources to themselves you (the observer) are left with two options, to hope they are sane and doing larger things for good, or to fear they are insane and growing like cancer. The trick is that no person sees their own actions as "bad", so anyone with the will to press the button a thousand times would enact great changes. They either simply align with your interests, or your abstraction of self interests you term society, and you like those actions. Or they don't, and you don't.
Regardless of one's religion (what's yours by the way?) the rule of the earth is expediency.
|
technology
|
I'm an agnostic atheist that uses rationality and skepticism to form my beliefs. Basically my "religion" in the loosest sense of the term is, "I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible."
Among the things I believe are: magic likely doesn't exist, god likely doesn't exist, a higher power likely doesn't exist or at least functionally does not exist, and quite a lot more. All of those are worded as they are because I am not sure we can be absolutely sure about anything. We have no way to test anything beyond the natural world, and anything that doesn't interact with the natural world has no bearing on us. So while I cannot be sure a god doesn't exist, I can be sure the interactive gods that are presented do not exist because there is no evidence for their interactions.
|
technology
|
There have been more than one instance of major telecoms lobbying state legislatures to either outright outlaw or put in major barriers to entry to prevent municipalities entering the ISP game.
Another big one is screwing around to slow competitors down by things such as since they own the telephone poles, they dick around on getting them ready for a competitor's equipment installed (they legeally can't say no, as part of the terms of them being allowed to install the power poles on both public and private land they don't owe) because there isn't often a requirement on how fast they must do it.,
|
technology
|
hence the parentheses "(in the long run)". yes, Comcast and Spectrum will probably be toppled in the near future, but some other set of assholes will gladly take their places. as long as humans vote with their pocketbooks - and that's unlikely to change in our lifetimes - then there will always be a push toward consolidation, toward giving people less and less of a choice for better "value".
you want cheaper <anything>? companies will ruthlessly cater to that need by consolidating and destroying competition.
were you or anybody else consulted about nearly every company outsourcing their phone support to India? or getting rid of salaried, secure jobs in favor of a disposable, contingent workforce? or <pick some negative economic outcome from the past however-many-years>?
no, but we all collectively voted by paying less for everything, which brought those companies into power and kept them there.
whatever tech is involved won't matter, whatever paradigms are shifted won't matter. consumers choose low prices and convenience, and the result is sociopathic corporations which will fuck you every which way they can.
in a perfect world, governments would do what people themselves can't (organize to stop predatory capitalism), but that's a whole other can of worms that's ultimately related to the same phenomenon: in the absence of a central coordinating mechanism, humans act in their individual self-interest which is fundamentally short-sighted. it's an invisible form of planetary pollution which nobody recognizes.
|
technology
|
> that's when it will finally end for human ~~labor~~
If machines can do every job better then humans can then why would society need humans around? My guess is you won't see anything like what movies tries to show, instead it becomes a slow death of less and less money available to afford shelter. We already see lobbyist use the names of people who are dead or even don't exist at all. I've also seen companies use names of people who don't actually work there to make it looks like the company has more workers then they actually have.
|
technology
|
That is something that sounds like a movie script and I guess I have to repeat that it wouldn't be something you see out of a movie. I'm also guessing the issue is a missed view as to what an AI is. Companies as they are currently is an AI and the economy is the environment that they live in. What will happen is less people will be in charge of decision making for companies until eventually it will be shown that a fully automated company makes more money then one that has human decision makers, so investors will invest in that type of company instead. When every single square acre of land on the planet is owned by companies, there will be no cave to hide in, it would be a repeat process of being sent to jail for trespassing then released but no where to stay so by the next day the person is already being sent back to jail again for trespassing on a company's property.
|
technology
|
The smug attitude of people while suggesting to get some 'decent' wireless headphones. Never mind the cost and/or the fact that you have perfectly fine wired earphones already.
Get something which is easier to lose.
Get something where the battery will deteriorate over time.
Get something where you consistently keep a tab of charge its left with
Get something which is not as easily and widely available in case you lose it
Get something which blocks an essential port on the device.
Get something which needs pairing once you shared it with somebody.
The number and attitude of sheeps is mind boggling.
|
technology
|
Must clarify that I am not referring to everybody using the wireless as sheep. My reply here is for the scenario where people blindly advocate the usage of the wireless earphones while dissing everything the wired counterparts have to offer.
Say, a fellow using the wireless variant at a place like a gym is abs fine. The wires can actually be distracting, leading to serious mishaps due to the environment. But to claim all of a sudden and baselessly that wired ones are a pain and pedestrian, that is ridiculous.
|
technology
|
There are many good bluetooth headset on sale, and its actually addressing those issues.
for example the AirPods
>Get something which is easier to lose.
You can use your iPhone to search/track your headset. even if it slip under the couch, you can find it.
>Get something where the battery will deteriorate over time.
As long as you can service/change the battery, it shouldn't be problem.
>Get something where you consistently keep a tab of charge its left with
15 minutes charge on AirPods give you 3 hours of usage. No need to consistently check its charge
>Get something which blocks an essential port on the device.
Bluetooth.
>Get something which needs pairing once you shared it with somebody.
AirPods pairing is so easy, literally just open the case next to your iPhone
Have you try using any recent bluetooth headset? unless you're an audiophile, bluetooth headset audio quality is good enough to satisfy most people.
|
technology
|
Yeah many of us do have Bluetooth headphones (and a number of other devices) and like them just fine. I get that it's not for everybody, but calling those people "sheep" doesn't make sense. Technology despite people bitching about it on Reddit, is still moving towards wireless tech. We aren't there yet and the loss of the 3.5 when Bluetooth tech of any quality was still outside of the average users price range, was probably a bit misguided at that time. That being said, 3.5 and wires for many are a pain in the ass. I don't want cables all over the place it's annoying, so I actively switched. Bluetooth and wireless technology are all my kids know at this point. I get this a westerners view for sure, but it's a part of the everyday.
|
technology
|
Spending money while I have the reg option PLUS on something which ll keep asking for battery replacement after X yrs, while I can save myself from the whole vicious circle? I prefer not to take tim cook's bait hook line and sinker. Thank you.
Never gonna get any device associated with apple.
Do not want the 'service/charge' the battery routine.
The whole idea of charge your earphones sounds annoying. As it is, to keep a tab on charging a phone is bearable cuz it offers loads of functionality. Here, I am to be bothered about something as simple as plug and play? Laughable.
Sorry, bluetooth option has lag unless going with AptX HD iirc. And can't really justify the whole battery powered + charge your headset before you can use them concept.
Again, plug in the simple 3.5 mm while rushing out even, and I won't be bothered to devote time for something as simple as to be listening to the music.
|
technology
|
> Never gonna get any device associated with apple.
You call other people smug and sheep.
But you're attitude is just as bad.
>The whole idea of charge your earphones sounds annoying.
Store the headset in its case, and it will charge. It's neither difficult nor inconvenient.
>Sorry, bluetooth option has lag unless going with AptX HD iirc
Are you some kind of MLG esport player that need 0.000001 ms audio lag?. You won't notice the lag when watching movie.
|
technology
|
I feel like the hatred comes from the idea that wireless is not a universal solution and is being treated as such by both advocates and the industry.
The current state of wireless audio is series of trade-offs with wired audio. They both have their place and uses but the idea that wireless is a universal solution is what is getting so much flak.
There is a real (and possibly sensationalized fear) that the audio jack will be removed and we won't have real solution to check the same boxes in its place. USB C audio isn't really universal yet and wireless has the same trade offs.
|
technology
|
> But you're attitude is just as bad.
Sure. :D
>It's neither difficult nor inconvenient.
Guess trying to tell people who are not willing to be on the same book, leave alone the page, gonna do anything good.
>You won't notice the lag when watching movie.
Oh ho ho. We gotta clueless fella here then. :D
Should have mentioned this right at the beginning of your post/reply.. would have saved both of us time n effort. Sigh.
And 3600CCH6WRX, try to read upon you're Vs your.
|
technology
|
Meanwhile companies like Apple, Facebook, Google and Twitter are working overtime to dismantle our 1st Amendment with Orwellian 'hate speech' functions that favor Chinese style dictatorships over the freedom that our Founding Fathers envisioned for this country. Quite a bit of cognitive dissonance going on in the tech world right now. If you're a keyboard cowboy railing against Ajit Pai while simultaneously supporting censorship then go fuck your mother. Also, contact the mod to have my comment removed because it threatens your safe space.
|
technology
|
i didn't watch alex jones, but from what i heard he posted conspiracy theories, not racist stuff.
When the first amendment was made, the most effective way to reach out to people was to stand in the city preaching to people. nowadays, that's not effective at all compared to social media. if social media gets to choose what you can and can't say, there's no good alternative if you wanna reach out to the masses. It's alright that you don't like alex jones or his opinions, but one day it might be someone you like that gets banned. what will you do then?
Being fine with twitter banning people you don't like is a slippery slope to them banning people for going against twitters interests. if that's not orwellian i don't know what is.
|
technology
|
Seriously a ton of users could make the switch without issue. Look at Chrome books, where most things are done through the web. The only real downside to most end users a system like Ubuntu or Mint has is the lack of MS Office. Whatever your opinions on Libre/Open Office may be, at a minimum there are massive formatting issues when translating between the formats, which would force many to use the web-based versions of Microsoft's product, or Google docs when collaborating with other people. These are the same issues chromebooks face. I think a big barrier to a lot of people is the stigma around Linux, and it's sad but a lot of the Linux community actively contribute to the stigma by going off on rants about FOSS, when most users just want a system that works.
|
technology
|
>But then they'd have to run Linux.
And that attitude is part of the stigma. It's not like I'm advocating moving grandma to Arch here. A distro like Mint is going to be fairly easy to adjust to for people used to Windows and is trivial to install. There's a different underlying architecture and different debug steps, but for your average user that's all a black box anyway. Specialized software will always be an issue though unfortunately
|
technology
|
> And that attitude is part of the stigma.
The attitude is justified, especially if you're not a techie.
> Specialized software will always be an issue though unfortunately
And commodity software, as well. If someone can't run a specific program that they want/need then that's going to kill the experience. Just look at what the "app gap" did with Windows Phone. There were credible alternatives to nearly all of the most popular apps, including third-party apps that connected to first-party services. But if people couldn't get the app that they wanted then they weren't interested.
|
technology
|
Valve just shipped a new compatibility layer that's brought hundreds of Windows games up on Linux. (Ubuntu specifically, although others can work too, I understand. I imagine SteamOS is probably included, although I haven't tested with that.)
They're using a modified version of WINE with some other compatibility/glue layers that they've provided and (I believe) open sourced, and the early reports I've seen is that it works quite well. It doesn't work with every game, obviously, but the officially supported ones are nearly flawless, and apparently many other games are running now, too.
|
technology
|
Google docs and office web apps do mitigate a lot of this, but of course there's the VBA issue. They work perfectly fine though for general documents and spreadsheets. And yeah, Libre is there and fine for regular stuff, but after using it for a while I'll admit to missing my _absolutely proprietary_ ms office products. They're more polished and some of the stuff in Libre/Open are just not intuitive.
If you're super cool though you clearly use vim/emacs to write your documents in LaTeX. This is clearly a reasonable workflow to roll out to your organization as well, because training your office staff how to use vim is like, what, 3 hours? And LaTeX formatting is completely intuitive and should be easy for Betty and Fred in sales to pick up
|
technology
|
>>But then they'd have to run Linux.
>A distro like Mint is going to be fairly easy to adjust to for people used to Windows and is *trivial to install*.
You are literally are comedian. You should post this on r/funny. You think the people who don't know what a start menu is, who think their operating system is HP or Dell, or who have all kinds of malware/spyware browser extensions and software on their computers can install Linux.
|
technology
|
>You are literally are comedian. You should post this on r/funny.
Why do people on the internet have to be cunts when they disagree?
The only reason people like that are using windows is because it came with the computer. I'm not saying they should install it themselves any more than they installed their current OS. I'm saying that it is easy to install, and after a brief "this is the magic icon to go to Google" explanation they can be equally functional and incompetent regardless of OS. Same applies to having them transition to a Mac. Hell they'd even have a nice "App Store" where they could download things safely and easily without getting maleware. Linux meets the functional needs of these users and many others.
|
technology
|
look at savetheinternet.info, those people actually confronted Axel Voss with a petition of over a million people, which I actively followed, signed and donated to. They are the people working with Martin Sonneborn and Julia Reda (Pirate Party) to turn this over.
He dismissed them as "alt right trolls" and "fake accounts" because "nobody would have a reason to oppose this"
There are a lot of people trying to stop this, but money > common sense.
|
technology
|
Microsoft continues to roll out nag-ware damaging to their brand.
Sure, you can roll it out and annoy customers into submission. Freeware turned crapware was prolific because it was effective means to cash out quickly.
I assume Microsoft intends to stay in the industry for the long-term. Under that constraint, brand matters. The reputation of the product matters. It's much more difficult to build up trust in the brand than it is to quickly cash out by turning to the nagging crapware model.
Futures on Microsoft are probably not so high for the decision. I predict earnings fall short in future years. In the long-run the pool of customers willing to spend energy to get into an alternative, any alternative, grows when trust is burned.
Deploy golden parachutes and good luck to those left holding the brand.
|
technology
|
We need a button that rolls clip of Elon Musk stating Valve is a good company on Joe Rogan.
This demonstrates the point perfectly. We see over and over again that given a sufficiently annoying hurdle for inconvenience, a talented builder creates an alternative solution.
In the tech sphere, when the product has been placed at a price too high or becomes sufficiently obnoxious to use, it becomes less convenient to invest time in the replacement.
We see this play out so frequently that it should have a formerly defined law or naming such as 'Streisand Effect'.
|
technology
|
>Deploy golden parachutes and good luck to those left holding the brand.
Right, but before you do that let's consider three things. First, their target customers. From the way they hold your hand and the kind of nagware they employ its obvious they're going after technological illiterate masses that can't tell the difference between safari and firefox. A browser is a browser so if they find out they already have one installed why install another.
Second, the major PC operating systems. Correct me if I'm wrong but right now that's macOS, Windows and a few Linux forks. And let's just leave Linux out of this because it's an almost pure developer and programming OS that requires so much knowledge to operate your average PC user isnt going to want to bother with it. So Windows and macOS But macOS is exclusive to the Mac and theres cheaper alternatives to a Mac, the kind of thing the people I mentioned earlier might take into consideration. Mac, HP, Dell, its all computers in the end right?
Third, and maybe the most important, windows comes basically preinstalled on almost every retail PC. It's easy, it's there and your average person isnt gonna go about uninstalling windows to switch to Ubuntu or Amazon Fire (or whatever they were gonna name their OS). More than likely nagware is going to work on them, or at the very least it's not gonna bother them. I know it doesn't bother me: it's just an extra button to click, it's not forcing me to do anything.
My point is, this is simply an ad aimed at a specific group of people that isn't you. Now if it's enough to make you wanna jump to a different OS, good on you. But damaging their brand? Breaking customer trust? If they lose all the tech savy people it'll hardly be more than a minor dent in their operations. Microsoft is basically everywhere, as I mentioned earlier.
And even then they won't lose all of them, or even most of them, because things like this aren't much to kick a fuss up over. If they haven't lost them with the almost arbitrary update restarts, turning security essentials into a non-negotiable feature or the almost impossibility of creating a User account on windows 10 without a microsoft account, I'm willing to bet there's a lot of petty shit they can get away with, definitly nagware.
Know how I know I'm right? Because of how many people still put up with WinRAR despite the constant purchase reminder. Because the end-product is still there. Its just an extra button press away
|
technology
|
It really doesn't take much to game on Linux. The real problem is developers ignoring the platform. If there are no Linux binaries for a given game, the only way you can play it is via emulation. And emulation is really a toss up. Sometimes it works really well. In my experience, most of the time it doesn't. Additionally, emulation always comes with a performance penalty, and most gamers aren't at all interested in sacrificing performance for fucking anything.
There is hope though. Most modern third party game engines support Linux as a build target. Developers just need to use that option.
|
technology
|
Pretty sure just themes, appearance options, and background pictures. And a nifty bootlogo. I'm actually not even completely sure what's built in to gnome and what's from this. It has a macOS style dock which is optional as well as windows and traditional Linux style appearance profiles. If I'm honest it should probably just be a PPA and set of packages, but, then again, that might be what it is under the hood while images are being created. Maybe I misunderstand what's changed. Have to say your question will have me installing Ubuntu later on. I run a MAAS server so getting a fresh gnome shell and ub desktop image up won't take long in a VM.
Frankly it just looked better than Ubuntu did to my eyes and had way more options for changing the positions of UI elements which can't always be fixed in theming.
|
technology
|
I think they're taking a calculated risk with this ad: They're going after the majority of consumers by targeting the technologically illiterate, but at the same time betting that something like an ad in an instalation wont drive away the more tech-savy crowd, if purely only because it doesn't make their OS less convenient to lose. They're not taking away anything, agressively pushing their product and making alternatives harder to get. It's just an ad during instalation. Chances are it wont even register to you at some point.
|
technology
|
Apple and Google have moved there corporate offices to China. In other words , hand in hand. Both corporations have bent over backwards to restrict access to the wide internet in China. Now they share all that they have mined from us in the last 20 years with a country that has for a long time declared war on us. Look it up. There is lots of YouTube on their top general talking about crushing us as a country. If the USA doesn't wake up. We are in trouble. The youth today are some whinny little bitches. Wait till they live under Chinese law and order. We find we should have fought for our country.
|
technology
|
Yikes.
Well there’s a lot to unpack here. In order for you to sell in China, you have to have some level of operations *in China*. That’s their law. Now Apple just spent a tremendous amount of money building a new HQ in Mountain View, CA. Not sure why you’d think they would toss away their new pride and joy.
Manufacturing jobs are never coming back to the US. Ever. Manufacturing, however is being automated in the US where output has actually increased since the 90s. The US Economy has fully shifted to a services-based enployment market, and Apple is prime example of this shift. I don’t want to have to spend $350 for a pair of Nike’s. The US still dominates the influx of cash globally.
Nice of you to trash your own people , btw. In their defense, they probably understand economics better than you do and can discern fact from fiction.
|
technology
|
Which is hilarious since I paid $1499 for a 512gb Note 9.
I justified that price since my phone has become my main screen, I dont use my laptop anymore and turn on the desktop maybe twice a month for games.
Prevously it was $500 phone, $2500 laptop. now I can get by just fine with a single device that splits the difference in price.
Pretty sure thats how apple are justifying this strategy themselves. laptop and desktop sales are stagnant while phones are constantly increasing. they are becoming the main device for a lot of people, rather than the secondary device which is now the smartwatch in apples plan.
|
technology
|
It isnt, but it's undeniably getting there.
a couple of years ago I would fire up the laptop to do things like buy movie tickets, book a flight or download a document. These days I can do that just fine on a phone.
Still lots of things a full Pc is needed for, but I use my Note9 on an external monitor with a keyboard and mouse at work for documents and emails.
Sure a $300 laptop can do that, but having a single device is really convenient to me.
|
technology
|
I have been thinking of revolution as of late. Something which serves the masses. Not like communism, because communism is genocidal and violent. Not like Fascism or nazism because that also can be very oppressive. Not like democracy because it can be inefficient and it is usually spineless bean counting vermin that end up populating important positions.
This new thing would be something which takes the best aspects of nazism, communism, democracy. I just think about it on my free time. How could I make a governmental system where the incentives and standards and processes are setup with such perfection that everybody does exactly the right things and the North Star is to increase the size of the middle class and raising wages. You could go full privatization Nazi style, but that also has issues without proper controls. The Soviet centrally planned economies are the most incompetent thing ever. But somewhere on the middle there is the perfect combination of controls and privatization.
You wanna talk?
|
technology
|
[A tiny fraction of costs go to research.](https://web.archive.org/web/20060421235800/http://www.chcf.org/documents/insurance/HealthCostsSnapshot04.pdf)
Even if you could say these medicines definitely wouldn't exist if we'd covered everybody - is treating those rare illnesses worth the millions of Americans killed or bankrupted by mundane and preventable bullshit? If it was a clean trade between un-inventing antiretroviral therapy and bringing back everyone who'd died because they 'hoped it would get better on its own,' are you *sure* you wouldn't take it?
|
technology
|
a circlejerking echo chamber of people who legitimately believe they know more about the deep-down, backdoor dealings of deep state politicians than scientists, political analysts, and a vast majority of other far-more-qualified people.
Did you ever have that one uncle who was weird, probably harmless, and had rock solid (in his mind) proof that the illuminati controlled every aspect of peoples lives all over the globe?
Imagine a couple thousand of him in a big gymnasium all shouting at the top of his lungs.
|
technology
|
>It's unclear.
No it's not. "Q" linked to a satirical Twitter account about a month ago. The person behind it started getting death threats, people on that sub posted his picture, name, address etc. He reported it to the mods, they put him on mute and banned him. They posted threads saying he was raping and eating three year olds.
And then got banned.
I mean... What the fuck did they think would happen.
|
technology
|
You mean where those posts are a very small minority, deleted promptly, and both the community and moderators are in total agreement that it's unacceptable behavior? Yes, please continue comparing that to open doxing and threats from an order of magnitude larger percentage of their community if not more, left unchecked by the moderators. Let's wait until another lunatic shoots up another public venue in their name and sit around saying there was nothing we could have done to prevent it.
|
technology
|
Not just a gun, he walked in with an assault rifle and pointed it at people.
~~And didn't get charged.~~ Caught 4 years of prison, guess the justice system works once in a while.
They constantly bitch and complain about being persecuted, yet they get away with shit like that.
[Like that one group of fucknuts that literally got into an armed face-off with federal officers, and just sort of got away with it.](http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-bundy-mistrial-2018-story.html)
|
technology
|
>they're being deplatformed because they literally pushed people to make death threats, talked about it publicly, and continued to deny it.
Hopefully there's some sort of summary in /r/outoftheloop when it's all done so I can read up on it. As someone who uses this site mostly to post on /r/the_donald I know we do not do those same things yet we're always at risk of being on the chopping block.
|
technology
|
Reddit is a private site, not a public forum, as you say. This isn’t censorship, it’s Reddit adhering to the law, lest they be abetting people who break the law. This is no different from a company shutting down child porn distribution on their site.
You’ve made a really great equivalence fallacy (and a nice strawman by bringing censorship into this), between following the law and the nebulous concept of censorship (which you clearly don’t understand what censorship means, fear or not). Being scared simply proves you’re afraid of censorship, but that isn’t what happened to these people.
They did some terrible shit and got their just rewards...which you admit... So your fear of censorship hits at least two, if not three of the classic cognitive distortions: https://psychcentral.com/lib/15-common-cognitive-distortions/
|
technology
|
No, Pizzagate came from John Podesta's hacked (phished) emails in which he made several cryptic messages with commonly used pedopohilic terminology. Pizzagate came from September/October 2016, leading up to the election.
Q Anon start posting in Late October 2017. While Q Anon hasn't personally mentioned Pizzagate, it's a safe assumption, given the overall nature of his drops, that he would believe that Pizzagate is just scratching the surface of the Globalist's Pedo and Human/Child Trafficking Network
|
technology
|
Sure, check out the controversial comments in this thread after the Unite the Right 2 march failed:
https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/96s4qf/the_white_supremacist_rally_in_washington_thats/?ref=share&ref_source=link
Hundreds of people all pouring in to /r/pics all repeating the exact same talking point. "It's almost like..." "It's almost as if..." "And yet the media...."
They clearly all got a few phrases to use in Discord somewhere and went to town. I wonder if there's any similarity in their posting history?
Narrator: There was.
|
technology
|
https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/courts/suspect-in-hoover-dam-standoff-writes-trump-cites-conspiracy-in-letters/
> KINGMAN, Ariz. — A Henderson man facing terrorism charges in Arizona for using an armored vehicle to block traffic on the bridge near Hoover Dam has written letters from jail to President Donald Trump and other elected officials bearing the motto of a right-wing conspiracy group known as QAnon.
> The letters do not explain Matthew Wright’s motive for the 90-minute incident on the Mike O’Callaghan-Pat Tillman Memorial Bridge on June 15, but they do contain an intriguing clue. Both include the signoff “For where we go one, we go all.”
> That phrase is popular among followers of QAnon, a murky plot unfolding online that casts Trump as the shrewd hero in a secret campaign to expose evil, left-wing global elites responsible for everything from child sex trafficking to the Oct. 1 massacre in Las Vegas.
> In his letter to Trump, Wright called himself a “humble Patriot” and makes what seems to be a winking reference to the “Great Awakening,” a nickname for the “coming storm” that QAnon conspiracy buffs believe will soon bring down the mythical globalist cabal.
> “My name is Matthew Wright and I wish to apologize for the disrespectful manner in which I have recently addressed you,” the letter to Trump stated, possibly in reference to a sign he held up during the bridge blockade demanding the release of the inspector general’s report on the Hillary Clinton email probe.
> According to court records, the unemployed Marine veteran was armed with an AR-15 rifle, a handgun, multiple magazines of ammunition and a “flash bang” device when he parked a black armored truck on the bridge.
Yeah.. harmless.
|
technology
|
>They clearly all got a few phrases to use in Discord somewhere and went to town. I wonder if there's any similarity in their posting history?
That's interesting, I can see where you're coming from however I don't think limited cases like that which can't really be tied to leadership at /r/the_donald should be a basis for shutting them down. There are 600,000+ subscribers, if a couple of groups on discord coordinate I don't think that should be means for censoring the most pro-Trump subreddit on the site.
|
technology
|
You dont see the pattern emerging from the growing list of banned subs? Hell, we had to fight to get 1 sub unbanned that was about AIRSOFT (because - guns are evil!). Take a look at the subs trying to ban more subreddits, its all just more banning of right winged ideas, yet the communism subs, anti-capitalist subs, all continue to be allowed. Its disgusting. Socialism is economic pedophilia, perfectly ok to discuss (all on a site that wants to make money). Hilarious.
|
technology
|
Everyone is thier own leader in a way with these movements. Its also so vague that they all believe pretty different things, sorta like a group schizophrenia. What it could do though is push 2 or 3 people to a violent outburst towards innocent people. All this banning of hatespeech makes me uncomfortable from a freespeech perspective, but violent threats are no joke. Humanity cant keep up with the information it is creating because we arnt allowing our brains to digest it. Rather than having to debate these things at a coffee shop in the comradery of free thinking, we do it here. People dont seem to read as many books either.
|
technology
|
I don't see it happening.
Too big, too soon. For something like that to occur you need to be like the game Pandemic. You put on your points into infection and don't dump any into being obvious. That way you get global reach without anyone realizing the potential for toxicity. After you reach criticality, then you start dumping into the visible traits.
The point is, if you don't start in Madagascar you gotta be stealthy.
|
technology
|
Are they hurting you by having discussions about the possibility we are being played as a country... ‘Cause “trust the media to tell us the truth”. Gtfo. So tired of people like you attempting to tell us facts when you’re getting Bs info just like everyone else. I prefer free thinkers, not ABC trusters.
No censorship is ok unless the subject is physically harming someone, or spewing hate... like politics sub and all of the trump hate subs that show far more derangement.
Reddit is not my moral compass, so they should stay out of attempting to control what we see. Banning only makes the issues more well known and focused on. Streisand effect 101.
|
technology
|
Hey my dude. While the illuminati, roths, etc. make it seem really stupid it's actually not. I think you have to pretty close minded to think that there aren't some people who have huge volumes of wealth who use it to control things. "Hey X company. I'll support you more if you do such and such" "Hey aspiring president/prime minister/governer I'll back your campaign and give you great PR if you'll cut such and such tax or change such and such law."
I mean it's pretty easily Google-able that the amount of money put into campaigns pretty much aligns with how much it's voted for.
So I do agree with you about uncle crack pot that believes in crazy shit and no moonlandings or a flat earth but if you are really trying to tell me that people that believe there are bigger things going on behind the scenes are wrong then you are the crazy one.
|
technology
|
Private company = private site
Not sure where you got the public forum bit, didn't say that.
I'm scared of censorship in the way that Iranian women are scared of the police coming for them for showing their faces. I'm frightened of corporations in the future having the ability to exert power over citizens for speaking out, like an employee coming forward with human rights violations committed by a company and having legal action brought against him. That's frightening.
My fear of censorship has nothing to do with this situation, I was just pointing out that censorship itself is a frightening aspect associated with the future of humanity.
I'm on your side though, this is what they deserved. I wasn't defending their actions in any way... not sure why you're coming at me like this.
I **do** understand what censorship is, I didn't allude to a misunderstanding of censorship in any way.
|
technology
|
Ad revenue is ad revenue, 600,000+ impressions on a daily basis is a lot of money.
Doesn't change the fact that r/the_donald has clearly evaded the rules and punishments for breaking the Reddit ToS.
I'm sure you're a great dude, dude. But Trump is on the wrong side of history, and so are his supporters.
He is an **unindicted co-conspirator**. If he wasn't the president he would've already been arrested and charged with crimes.
I'm not saying you're a conspiracy theorist, but if you want to follow the actual conspiracy, go ahead and check out [/r/Keep_Track](https://www.reddit.com/r/Keep_Track/comments/7zfiwu/megathread_chronicles_timelines_overviews/) and you might be able to wrap your head around exactly why this is such a big deal.
|
technology
|
> Ad revenue is ad revenue, 600,000+ impressions on a daily basis is a lot of money.
I'm just not seeing that as being the case, although if we're in conspiracy theory territory there's evidence that the subscriber numbers are a lie and are more in the range of 6,000,000
>Doesn't change the fact that r/the_donald has clearly evaded the rules and punishments for breaking the Reddit ToS.
Similarly to how everybody commits 7 felonies in the average day. If r/the_donald could be shut down for independent actors then any sub could have that done to it. I could start a discord right now and get people to the same with r/technology , what's the standard?
>If he wasn't the president he would've already been arrested and charged with crimes.
Only because he goes against the establishment. If we lived in an objective government then Hillary Clinton would've already been arrested and charged with crimes but we live in a trying time in politics.
>I'm not saying you're a conspiracy theorist, but if you want to follow the actual conspiracy, go ahead and check out /r/Keep_Track and you might be able to wrap your head around exactly why this is such a big deal.
Similarly, if you don't think the FBI and DOJ have been caught in the largest political scandal to ever hit the US I recommend [reading this](https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/01/05/operation-condor-how-nsa-director-mike-rogers-saved-the-u-s-from-a-massive-constitutional-crisis/) and [give this a listen](https://www.bongino.com/january-8-2018-ep-628-the-biggest-scandal-in-american-history-is-unfolding/)
|
technology
|
>*goes against the establishment*
And launders money for international gangsters, and is an alleged rapist and pedophile, and a traitor, and a niggardly asshole incapable of following through with payments to **literally** hundreds of small-time businessman, a thief who wouldn't bat an eye at taking money from people who assumed he could give them an education, a racist dickhead who blames the problems of his base on Mexicans and other shades of brown people *(further enabling the divide amongst the citizens of the country)* as if that hasn't backfired tremendously throughout history
Whataboutism is a nice color, conservatives wear it well.
Have a good day dude.
|
technology
|
>And launders money for international gangsters, and is an alleged rapist and pedophile, and a traitor, and a niggardly asshole incapable of following through with payments to literally hundreds of small-time businessman, a thief who wouldn't bat an eye at taking money from people who assumed he could give them an education, a racist dickhead who blames the problems of his base on Mexicans and other shades of brown people (further enabling the divide amongst the citizens of the country) as if that hasn't backfired tremendously throughout history
You are so deep in the hole of being wrong I don't think there's a way to get you out of it. You've been told Trump is a villain for so long and I imagine you don't have anybody in your group of friends who supports him so you've never been given the other side. If anybody is dividing this country it is the people who, after chastising Trump for saying he might refute the results of the election, have been whipped in to a frenzy and led by a desperate-to-get-Trump media that he is the worst thing that has ever happened which you have fallen for hook line and sinker.
>Whataboutism is a nice color, conservatives wear it well
Whataboutism is a nice new buzzword, leftists use it to dis-spell criticisms very well
>Have a good day dude.
You too
|
technology
|
Can't keep up with the news for you man. Hope you figure this shit out for yourself, but I am not wrong. The writing on the wall is plain to see. I already linked you the keep_track page with a list of sources and dates and arrests and indictments and charges and guilty pleas.
You linked me some nebulous unsourced garbage, which I took a look at and was entirely unconvinced because it unsourced fearmongering garbage.
If Hillary had done **any** of the things Trump has been accused of the country would've ground to a halt.
He is the worst thing to happen to this country in a very long time. He hires sycophants who are hellbent on destroying the institutions they've been put in charge of. Scott Pruit literally fired every single scientist from the EPA and filled the positions with people beholden to corporate interests.
I can't put it plainly enough. You are wrong, and misinformed. I hope you find the answers you're looking for, but they won't be given to you by Trump.
There's a reason he has the lowest approval ratings of any president ever.
Covering your eyes and ears doesn't change the facts or reality of what's happening.
|
technology
|
>You linked me some nebulous unsourced garbage, which I took a look at and was entirely unconvinced because it unsourced fearmongering garbage.
Ah, in that case I'll just do the same thing to your link, no skin off my back.
>If Hillary had done any of the things Trump has been accused of the country would've ground to a halt.
No because there's enough people like you who don't question the media or the narrative that it didn't matter. That's why the person who chanted "lock her up" was elected president but you must think they're all just imagining things.
>He is the worst thing to happen to this country in a very long time. He hires sycophants who are hellbent on destroying the institutions they've been put in charge of.
You're thinking of the last guy.
>I can't put it plainly enough. You are wrong, and misinformed. I hope you find the answers you're looking for, but they won't be given to you by Trump.
Neither can I, you are on the exact same side as the media, the corporate interests, and all of the establishment politicians who were able to get together when the outsider threatened what they had going. You are on the side of King George. Covering your eyes and ears doesn't change the facts or reality of what's happening.
|
technology
|
Can we be more reasonable plz?
Can we stop using “they” like all 70 000 users of the sub are one person that we think we know everything about?
Can we be more honest when we talk about a handful of individual extremist users, and contextualise the discussion by highlighting the fact that only a fraction of one percent of those users are as violent and unhinged as you would have us believe?
|
technology
|
Washington Examiner? New York Post? Literal tabloid garbage owned by American Media Inc.
Please, you might as well link me TheOnion for how much bullshit nonsense you're trying to feed me.
You're literally linking me fabricated nonsense stories and trying to pass it off as serious journalism.
Edit:
>[Bongino has downplayed the Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections investigation, calling it a "total scam."](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Bongino)
So you're saying he's somehow more informed than the special investigator literally assigned to the case?
['He is a paid contributor to NRATV.'](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Bongino) An organization of which has already been implicated in several serious allegations, including laundering money, facilitating illegal payments, and working through a back channel with a literal Russian spy?
Opposes Obamacare and socialized healthcare in general, what a fucking surprise.
Dan Bongino is a political hack, you're ridiculous.
|
technology
|
Sure dude, let's roast some marshmallows over a fire while we watch Trump's meltdown after being charged with a litany of crimes in the state of New York once he's out.
Remember, you can't pardon state crimes. So even if he did pardon himself, he'd still end up in handcuffs.
He's already **admitted** to several felonies. Campaign finance impropriety is a felony offense, and he admitted to it multiple times, even though he's too fucking stupid to realize what he did.
|
technology
|
Yep. Not for agriculture. Not for greenhouses. Tell me technology will fix it till you’re blue in the face, but who is paying for this tech at the small and mid size and non profit agriculture/horticulture spots where, you know, things have to stay alive and there’s not enough people or enough pay?
Or health care, where you have to show up and keep people alive. There’s that. Flipping tech megalomaniacs.
|
technology
|
>Yep. Not for agriculture. Not for greenhouses. Tell me technology will fix it till you’re blue in the face, but who is paying for this tech at the small and mid size and non profit agriculture/horticulture spots where, you know, things have to stay alive and there’s not enough people or enough pay?
Pretty sure there are a number of products in various stages of done that range from "fully automatic / remote controlled machines that can harvest massive fields and plant them after fixing up the soil" to "small robot designed to roll around a small field to remove weeds and general maintenance such as fertilizing and wasting plants".
So I guess the answer is whoever owns the farm saves up enough money to order one of those machines which can replace a few people's wages of expenses for the low cost of power (and in some cases not even that thanks to solar).
>Or health care, where you have to show up and keep people alive. There’s that.
Actually, there's a few projects for remote healthcare going from a screen to talk to a doctor to robotic surgery. As for hospitals, there'll probably always be some nurses on staff, but IBM's Watson was originally set up to be a virtual doctor iirc.
> Flipping tech megalomaniacs.
It's more like you just haven't done any research into it, or just don't understand how stuff like this works.
|
technology
|
Notice op said “small to medium sized farms” to get the technology to entirely replace a worker all year you’d need an automated tractor these are incredibly expensive and you need someone to operate one and monitor it anyway (another worker could do that whilst working themselves but it’s not ideal. A small farmer would need to save up for decades to buy something like that in this current situation so replacing a worker is not a feasible solution. In the future I fully expect to see much more automated equipment but in the next 50 years you won’t see them on small to medium sized farms and they’ll only serve specific roles on livestock farms.
With regard to the tech megalomaniacs I’d watch a documentary about farmers who are hacking tractors https://youtu.be/F8JCh0owT4w . The gist is that John Deere and other companies withhold access to their vehicles computers so you cannot replace existing parts without going to a John Deere dealer who will access the computer and let the new piece work with the tractor for a very high price naturally. The other issue is that dealerships aren’t very common so during harvest if they breakdown (which is more common at this time than other periods) you cannot use that tractor the dealerships are too far away and you can’t afford to spend an entire day just to repair a tractor because the window for harvesting can be very small, callout costs are very high/they don’t do call outs at short notice.
|
technology
|
>Notice op said “small to medium sized farms” to get the technology to entirely replace a worker all year you’d need an automated tractor these are incredibly expensive and you need someone to operate one and monitor it anyway (another worker could do that whilst working themselves but it’s not ideal. A small farmer would need to save up for decades to buy something like that in this current situation so replacing a worker is not a feasible solution.
I never said they'd have to totally replace labor on small farms: one of the examples I gave was one designed to do weeding and watering, and while I can't recall the name it's designed for personal sized plots. That alone is a huge help, which saves time and money, which would allow you to save up for another robot designed for tilling and planting, which saves more time, etc.
> In the future I fully expect to see much more automated equipment but in the next 50 years you won’t see them on small to medium sized farms and they’ll only serve specific roles on livestock farms.
50 years is a long ass time for computers and automation. That's more along the lines of "we solved the problems with vertical farming and now farms are just largish buildings in a city that are 100% automated".
It's also the kind of time frame for lab-grown meat, so livestock farms aren't really going to be much of a thing either: or rather, livestock farms and small farms are more likely to avoid heavy automation so they can charge a premium for being "natural" and/or "traditionally harvested".
>With regard to the tech megalomaniacs I’d watch a documentary about farmers who are hacking tractors https://youtu.be/F8JCh0owT4w . The gist is that John Deere and other companies withhold access to their vehicles computers so you cannot replace existing parts without going to a John Deere dealer who will access the computer and let the new piece work with the tractor for a very high price naturally.
Yeah, I support right to repair for stuff like that. I'm kind of hoping for more open-source projects to help combat that as well: it'd be neat if when the tractor or whatever breaks, it can figure out what's broken and you could have the part delivered by drone or even just 3D print it yourself. Or even just the last two alone for that matter.
>The other issue is that dealerships aren’t very common so during harvest if they breakdown (which is more common at this time than other periods) you cannot use that tractor the dealerships are too far away and you can’t afford to spend an entire day just to repair a tractor because the window for harvesting can be very small, callout costs are very high/they don’t do call outs at short notice.
I feel that even in this case you could have robots designed to repair tractors, even if just remote controlled. Callout could be cheap and much faster then. It might even be worth it to have a warranty service where one of those robots is stationed (offline) at the farm, along with a 3d printer, so repairs (even if only temporary) can be done in under an hour. (Farmer calls support, robot diagnoses, 3d printer prints off replacement part, robot installs and confirms working state, real part ordered, machine back online)
|
technology
|
If you need a body to turn it around, it's only partially automated.
That said, doing light reading about turf grass harvesting doesn't give off anything that can't be automated: prepare and level soil, seed, place netting, water, mow, harvest, roll, pack, ship. If it wasn't for the fact it'd be hideously expensive, turf grass seems like it'd fit right in for vertical farming too: which would make it considerably easier (no worries about weather, could probably grow it faster, likely use CNC style harvesting and planting).
|
technology
|
Until any of that machinery runs into mud after a 1/2 inch of rain, or makes ruts from automatic mowers running into wet spots, or you need to adjust mowing height. Also you need guys to rebuild pallets, dig runoff trenches when a field floods or an automatic machine hits irrigation lines. Then the automatic harvesters get jammed up or some sensor reads wrong. Also all upkeep on mowers, harvesters and tractors. You’re still gonna have the same amount of guys to keep things running. Until that all can have a computer fix issues like that, you’re still gonna need people in the seats for when something goes wrong
|
technology
|
>Until any of that machinery runs into mud after a 1/2 inch of rain, or makes ruts from automatic mowers running into wet spots,
Wouldn't extra wide and soft tires almost entirely prevent that?
>or you need to adjust mowing height. Also you need guys to rebuild pallets, dig runoff trenches when a field floods
I don't think those are particularly hard jobs to automate... Particularly runoff trenches, you could have sensors in the field for monitoring how wet it is and deploy robots almost instantly.
> or an automatic machine hits irrigation lines. Then the automatic harvesters get jammed up or some sensor reads wrong. Also all upkeep on mowers, harvesters and tractors. You’re still gonna have the same amount of guys to keep things running. Until that all can have a computer fix issues like that, you’re still gonna need people in the seats for when something goes wrong
I'd be surprised if a fully automated commercial machine wouldn't have redundant sensors considering how cheap they are. And I don't think you'd need the same number of people, at least not on-site at all times. If a machine gets stuck (and if they are designed right they never should) they could be set up to call for someone. Same for sensors failing. Maintenance can be partially automated, but it's more likely to just have weekly checkups scheduled.
|
technology
|
>There are, I believe, perfectly good surveillance drones that don't need to be reapers
Which ones? Specifically?
There is virtually no competition in long loiter, medium speed, surveillance aircraft (the type you would want for patrolling a long border). The only direct competition for the Predator B (reaper), is the Predator A (MQ-1 and the Army's Gray Eagle).
>whose main claim to fame is their effectiveness at killing (usually unknown and unidentified, faceless) people from a distance
Actually their primary claim to fame is the aforementioned attributes of medium speed and long loiter time (for those in the aerospace industry). The "unidentified and unknown killing" is an outcropping of a specific usage case that those capabilities create, and how the governments/customers use them.
|
technology
|
The MQ-9 is absolute overkill for this application. At $17M per drone, operating costs soar above thousands of dollars per MINUTE. Add in the cost of building out the secure network require to support additional capacity and endless testing and this just became a $200M waste of money, much like the proposed wall.
Could easily replace that with a few dozen commercial drones for a couple thousand a piece and then write software to automate reporting for under $500k. Out the door for way less than $1M and nobody has to fear for their lives.
...Plus Trump could then continue to spend 3/4 of the time at his golf course pouring the gov't money saved back into his bank account. Or maybe he'll just give Putin a direct video feed to see if there are any sexy immigrants coming across the border to add to his human trafficking rings.
|
technology
|
I don't know what i'm talking about since i have never encountered what you describe on reddit, mods are quick to react. Not one link has been provided that would indicate anything wrong, and i won't go on a blind goose chase. Funny how you recommend to me what you criticize qanon cultists for doing.
How about you provide one link where something illegal is ongoing, and it was not acted upon? Prove me wrong.
|
technology
|
Look, I'm sorry that you got sucked into this nonsense, it's not your fault. Things like Qanon are specifically designed to target people who want to believe that the world makes more sense than it does. That there are still heroes to save the day and villains to be defeated. It sucks, but in the real world there aren't heroes and villains, there are only people.
&#x200B;
All that said though, you're not doing yourself any favors. You're down to your last technicality in the face of fairly overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing. Just let these people go. They're not your friends, they're not even a real community. All Qanon and their ilk are, are assholes abusing people's search for answers to further their own political agenda, or for their personal amusement. Let them go, they don't have anything to offer.
|
technology
|
I see “proof” for banning one sub. 20 subs got banned. Did they all do something wrong? Did all of those subs incite violence? Mods of all 20 subs committed foul play?
The proof that Q incites violence would be easy to track down since all the “drops” are publicly available outside of Reddit. Except nobody ever wants to link to that, outside of the banned subreddits.
Having followed the Q phenomenon on Reddit until its demise, I can say categorically that I have not read any incitement to violence from the Q source, in fact quite the opposite.
Users on the other hand can post whatever they like on any sub. I agree that moderation is very important here, in which case I would appreciate the Reddit supremo admins to cite a post specifically inciting violence and mod inaction from each of the banned subreddits.
Without such, it appears clearly to me as a censorship carpet-bombing of all Q related discourse, rather than the selective targeting of the incitement of violence.
A statement on whether new subs can be created for users to discuss Q would also go far as to clarifying the position on whether Reddit has effectively banned a subject of discussion.
|
technology
|
You, like many, assume that everyone questioning the apparent censorship buys into Q. It’s possible to find things interesting without believing they are real. Marvel movies for instance.
Interested does not mean invested. Just look at the Q ban related upvotes. MANY Reddit users are interested in this subject. But it seems anyone with any interest in the Q phenomenon for any reason must follow the story and talk about it, now, off of this platform.
|
technology
|
Totally agree with this. Especially when many journals still charge the author to publish the article (typically just online).
The move of several granting agencies to force authors to publish in Open Access journals or with Open Access for their paper is an important step to acknowledging that science (funded largely by the public purse) should be accessible to those that have paid for it (the average taxpayer). This will shift the cost burden onto the grant and off of the audience.
|
technology
|
Exactly! Where's all this money going? Taxpayers fund it, writers fund it, readers fund it... nothing is going to the people who work for the actual information. This is just a circle of gatekeeping that is out of most people's price range.
No wonder they are getting stuck in loops. That's what happens when you try to restrict the flow of information. Open the doors and watch the creativity and innovation flow in. The only way science can progress is if people can helping each other to further innovation.
|
technology
|
There could be a weak argument for charging for access if the journals funded strict and transparent peer review and occasional replication studies. As it is now, many journals are just asking everyone to "trust us" that they are professional in peer review on what they see as products. "You pay us to give us your product, and then we sell your product, don't worry... we will definitely be objective and have high standards".
|
technology
|
At least within the biological sciences (my personal field) the review process is very rigorous. A paper will be reviewed by at least three other researchers who have an expertise in the area, possibly not exactly on the what the paper is on but enough to judge how good the research is. Each reviewer does this independently and these all go to the editor or the publishing house who then judges if the reviews are good enough to allow the paper to be published. It lies on the reviewers to put forth the good faith effort to honestly review the research, and, by and large from what I've seen, the vast majority of reviewers are VERY thorough in their reviews.
|
technology
|
> nothing is going to the people who work for the actual information.
Yup... As a scientist, you pay absurd fees to publish the paper (often per page). You (freely) volunteer your time to be an editor / peer reviewer for the journal. You (or your institution) then has to pay (crazy expensive subscription costs) to download those papers from behind the same publishers paywall.
This economic model may have made *some* sense when the method of distribution involved printing/binding actual physical copies of that paper and then coordinating shipping them to libraries around the planet (who of course still paid for that subscription). It DOES NOT make any goddamn sense whatsoever when the publisher just coordinates a volunteer army that does all of the actual work and then hosts the PDF on AWS at fractions of a penny per download [1] while extorting tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars per year from each university and scientific institute on this planet in perpetuity.
[1] Which is something the US government could trivially fund, or hell, Google, Amazon, Microsoft or dozens of other companies would freely host if given the opportunity.
|
technology
|
Pain, psychiatry, anxiety, neuroscience here.
I've only paid once to submit, $250...
Never paid less than $1000 upon acceptance. My most recent one was to a Nature family journal with an impact factor of ~13 and it cost about $3000 I think.
So your original post that good journals don't charge is just completely wrong.
Edit: You said non-predatory, my mistake about what you said... I guess my point can be changed then... A vast majority of journals are predatory businesses.
|
technology
|
I believe in and want open access as well. I'm spoiled by what I have had access to and believe in public access. There is more than the cost of the research.
As it is now journals do have costs of organizing and keeping the journal. Defending it when something blows up on them. They have to recruit (almost sucker) someone into peer reviewing a paper for little money. And you need more than one peer review.
These things are real costs after the research. And they should be done professionally and well to keep a journal ongoing. If you want public release of info who pays to defend anything?
I don't have an answer just pointing out part of the problem that needs addressing. I think we have undervalued work and expertise and expect it for free. The poor slubs who get suckered into peer review endanger their reputations for hardly enough money to cover their time at minimum wage.
|
technology
|
Makes me think of the process for this regional conference I attend and present at for my field. Every year you have to pay a fee to be a member, and membership allows you to register for their yearly conference and it allows you access to an academic journal. The journal is nice, but many of us recieve access via our academic institutions, so it's really not something I'd spend money on normally. The ridiculous part is the fee only allows me to register, which in itself has a fee regardless of whether I'm presenting or not. One would argue that we all come to this conference to present and to see other presentations, so basically I'm paying a fee that allows me to pay another fee, all to give a 15 minute presentation.
|
technology
|
> nothing is going to the people who work for the actual information.
Yes, right now authors are not paid for submitting papers to journals. But if they are required to submit to open access journals, then they will actually have to pay the journal to publish their work. And getting nothing is still better than getting a bill.
These proposals sound good in principle, but ultimately they make science more expensive. Scientists will be forced to pick up costs formerly shouldered by libraries. And more expensive science inevitably means less science.
|
technology
|
> Scientific magazines contribute jack shit while getting paid to publish and keep the rights to publicly funded research. The work they should do (peer review, quality check, the actual goddamn papers and studies) is done for them for free by other people.
Ok wait a second. I believe all journals should be open access, but let's keep the melodrama to a reasonable level. Scientific magazines require administrative and editorial staff to do what they do. There is actually a publishing process that goes on. More importantly, you're saying that the magazines SHOULD do the peer review? Who is "the magazines", exactly? I *guarantee* you don't want them doing the peer review, because then it would just be a review, and the "peer" part is soooort of important. If you write a manuscript and someone is going to tell you what's wrong with it and how you need to improve it, YOU WANT IT TO BE A PEER.
|
technology
|
That is what they all say they do. Unfortunately, there is still a replication problem in *all* the fields (some more than others). That very well may be due to factors outside the control of journals, but how is anyone supposed to dig down to the root causes when many of the publications have anonymous reviewers and opaque decision making?
It seems like the first variable you would want to eliminate as a possible failure point would be the review and publication process.
|
technology
|
I mean, that argument doesn't really hold water. If their standards are low, then they publish crap. If they publish crap, their impact factor drops, and everything else is downhill from there. If they didn't have high standards, many more of my publications would be accepted on the first try, but the body of my published work would be *weaker*.
And course that's all largely beside the point because the standards aren't theirs, the standards largely belong to the peer reviewers, and the problem there is often with standards being too high.
|
technology
|
>Where is the money going?
I have a PhD in Nutrition, earned by doing immunology research on influenza vaccine and obesity. I currently do research on HIV vaccine as a postdoc. I have published papers in for-profit journals, reviewed papers for open access and for-profit journals, and have more publications planned.
Here's where that money goes: Seniormost Editors of prestigious journals like Nature are typically people who had a successful career publishing in the journals. These people typically have medical degrees, and were poached from academic institutions with the promise of high salaries and lots of discretion to control the journal, and influence the scientific fields. They collect 6 figure salaries, while hiring junior editors who typically also have doctorates. These people have to be enticed to leave academic and industry jobs: they are highly specialized, and command fairly high wages to begin with: And they are necessary.
A Journalism undergrad major cannot vet these papers: You need Scientists to conduct the editorial process, as well as control the review process: Otherwise the science deosn't get thoroughly vetted.
Journals with open access typically (though not always) have higher publication fees because the revenue stream is more limited.
|
technology
|
Google, Amazon, and microsoft would not freely host.
And I don't trust those data mining assholes destroyers of privacy to do a god damn thing right anymore.
BTW those companies work for the shareholders, not their customers, and not this country.
Until shareholders no longer get priority when it comes to how a company operates, and until the stock market is no longer a thing, private companies should never be trusted at all whatsoever to do the right thing. EVER. History has proven they never do and never will.
|
technology
|
> Google, Amazon, and microsoft would not freely host.
Google has been scanning/preserving books for decades now, and is storing petabytes of data that they can never truly monetize and currently only partially serve to end-users. Microsoft paid outright for rights to the Feynman lectures so they could host them for free. Bezos is a huge science/tech nerd who literally burns billions of his own cash on rockets each year. You are out of your goddamn mind if you think one (or all) of them wouldn't immediately jump at the opportunity to freely host a few terabytes (i.e. even if every single paper was downloaded every single minute, this is still a popcorn far compared to Youtube or AWS traffic) of PDF's containing the sum-total of humanities scientific knowledge. Hell, a bunch of rando russians are currently running kolhoz, libgen, scihub, etc. without any trouble. The *only* barrier here isn't technical or monetary. It's copyright. Once you stop assigning copyright to parasitic publishers the rest sorts itself out.
> Until shareholders no longer get priority when it comes to how a company operates, and until the stock market is no longer a thing
Calm down Stalin
|
technology
|
> Especially when many journals still charge the author to publish the article (typically just online).
**Every** journal (that I know or care about) charges authors to publish the article. Usually the cost is on the order of $1000-$3000 dollars. They usually charge extra for color figures, even if they will only be printed online ( on the order of ~$200-300 per figure).
Many journals will offer an option to pay extra to allow your paper to be published open source. This usually costs the author $3000-5000 dollars.
The last paper I published cost me (read: the American taxpayer) around $8000 in publication and open-access fees.
|
technology
|
The NSF is a body that funds research. If it has a new expense, such as direct payments to journals, then there will be less money for research.
It would be nice if libraries would pay publication fees for authors. And some do. But there isn't really any way to enforce this. A journal could force the payment to come from a library, but they can't stop the library from turning around and asking the scientist to reimburse it from a grant.
Scientists already pay their institutions "overhead" to cover various administrative costs, and nothing stops an institution from tacking on publication fees. Even worse, this policy might lock someone out of publishing if they are not affiliated with an institution that supports research.
|
technology
|
>But there isn't really any way to enforce this.
Sure there is, a publisher can simply refuse to allow a University affiliated academic from publishing unless their institution pays a subscription fee. If they're feeling generous, they could have special policies for unaffiliated researchers.
>The NSF is a body that funds research. If it has a new expense, such as direct payments to journals, then there will be less money for research.
Universities already have to pay subscription fees, money that those Universities could have used to fund PhD students or buy new lab equipment. We're already using precious research money. If we flipped to fees to publish vs fees to view we could keep University spending the same whilst allowing anyone to view the articles.
|
technology
|
OK, if the peer review process is so great, then why is there a replication crisis?
I'm not meaning to be confrontational, but you have to admit that it could look fishy to a layperson...
*Some journals charge money for submissions, and then also charge readers to access. Many reviewers are anonymous, and criteria is subjective.*
> 70% of researchers (all fields) were unable to reproduce another's results. 2% admitted to falsifying data. 14% said they had personal knowledge of a colleague who did
That is just the broad Wikipedia summary. There have been a ton of studies that have dug deeper and looked at the problem more specifically.
While I think "crisis" may be too strong of a term (70% does cover any single instance over a career), I would think it enough to actively look for solutions.
If there isnt sloppy science passing peer review, that adds an insinuation of *active* attempts to dodge rigor by the researchers themselves.
Personally, I am more inclined to be suspicious of a successful, for profit industry than the research science community.
|
technology
|
> Many reviewers are anonymous
Of course reviewers are anonymous. Can you imagine the opposite?
>70% of researchers (all fields) were unable to reproduce another's results.
This doesn't really say as much as it sounds like it does. A paper's results not being replicable does not mean the paper should not have been published. In many fields, 95% confidence interval is that chosen for statistical significance: in other words, about one in twenty published papers is likely wrong, even though everything was done correctly.
|
technology
|
> Sure there is, a publisher can simply refuse to allow a University affiliated academic from publishing unless their institution pays a subscription fee.
That's a good way to discourage scientific publications. Here's why:
Current model
Scientist: Our institution needs to subscribe to Journal of Flightless Birds!
Librarian: That's expensive, and we already have the Journal of Birds.
Scientist: Look at all these very high quality papers recently published in the Journal of Flightless Birds. We need access to them! You're a librarian, your job is to provide me access to knowledge.
Librarian: Ok.
Your model:
Scientist: I want to publish in the Journal of Flightless Birds. Please subscribe!
Librarian: That's expensive, and we already subscribe to the Journal of Birds. Go publish there.
Scientist: I tried, but they weren't interested my work.
Librarian: Hahaha, too bad. Here's a book on how to write papers on more popular topics, like eagles. Better read it, because we're going to cancel 50 subscriptions next semester.
|
technology
|
Scientist: Alright, well, University XYZ will pay for my research to be published, so I'm going to leave this University.
University President: We're losing a lot of high impact scholars and we're not publishing in any prestigious journals. This is hurting our University ranking, which is hurting our ability to attract students, which is hurting our ability to collect tuition.
We can construct scenarios ad nauseum. At the end of the day, I'm not willing to fund public research if the results aren't open to the public. So I'm either going to vote for politicians who will mandate Open Access Only publishing by institutions that take public funding, or ones who will slash public funding. I believe research is worthless if the public can't access it. May as well save the money and not do it at all.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.