Can be found here: Unite the Right rally: the counter-protesting group Antifa, explained – Vox.
It covers the things most people can agree with (opposing Nazis) and other things many people would disagree with (opposing liberalism).
Antifa is a term taking in many different groups, some very fringe, some violent.
Read this post before just assuming they are simply positive (or simply negative).
If you are like most people, you don’t get enough sleep. Also, you likely wish you could get more sleep. If you fall into both of those categories, why not read this guide right now: The 2-minute guide to getting better sleep – Vox. (It will take you 2 minutes: you have time). Take some notes, then make this weekend your goal to get more sleep.
Get some rest; improve your life.
In reading this: Trump: “THE SECOND AMENDMENT WILL NEVER BE REPEALED!” – Vox, I’ve come to the conclusion that progressives in the U.S. are making a mistake by not looking to shift the Overton window, especially on the issue of gun control. If anything, they have an opportunity at this time to shift the Overton window immensely. Moreover, what they should recognize from watching Trump is that you can shift the Overton window in all sorts of ways with very little pushback. Progressives should line up and say that nothing moderate will ever work. That’s what Justice Stevens argues, and more progressives should line up with him and force the Overton window all the way over if they want to be successful. Moderation is not working and has rarely worked.
Posted in politics
Tagged politics, vox
Here’s a really good piece highlighting a big problem the Frightful Five / Big IT have right now with user generated content: YouTube’s messy fight with its most extreme creators – Vox.
Some background is in order. For years, content creators on Youtube (part of Google/Alphabet) have been jacking up the extremism in their videos to get more views. Extremism in all senses of the word, including political extremism. Some do it for Fame, but many do it for Fortune. This was going well for them until….
In March this year, 250 advertisers pulled back from YouTube after reports that ads were appearing on extremist content, including white supremacist videos. As a result, YouTube demonetized a wide range of political content, including videos that didn’t include hate speech but might still be considered controversial by advertisers. Creators called it “the adpocalypse” — they saw their incomes from YouTube evaporate without fully understanding what they’d done wrong or how to avoid demonetization in the future.
And this is the problem for Youtube and other platforms…how to maximize both traffic and profit. For a long time the formula was simple: more extreme videos = more traffic = more profit. Now they are hitting a wall, and advertisers and consumers are fed up.
The question big IT will be struggling with is: how to draw the line? In case you think the line is easy to draw, I recommend you watch the video by Carlos Maza of Vox. He makes a case that it is very difficult, even if at first glance it should be obvious what should be removed.
I don’t think there is a simple answer to this. If anything, it is going to be one of the major political debates of the first part of the 21st century, as global IT companies deal with national laws and policies.
Good news: Merkel won by moving to the center.
Bad news: AfD, a far right party, has surged and won seats.
This could either be a blip and AfD could fade after this election.
Or it could be the start of big and bad changes for Germany, Europe and the world.
For more on this, see this good piece: Angela Merkel wins 4th term as chancellor of Germany in Vox
If you take any of these meds then you really should read this: Should you take Tylenol, Advil, or aspirin for pain? Here’s what the evidence says. – Vox
I was surprised by what they said about Tylenol. You might be surprised by what’s in here as well.
As for me, I have found when I have had a sore back, ASA was the best thing to relieve the pain.
Like any medicine, consult with your doctor or pharmacist before taking. You should especially consult with them if you are taking such medicine on a regular basis.
(Image from bayer.com)
Economists write a lot about the mystery of why productivity is not increasing, with pieces such as this. There’s even a section on it in Wikipedia.
My own theory is that limited wage increases is also limiting the benefits of productivity aids. How I think this works is so:
- Employers wont raise wages for employees.
- Employers deploy technology that should result in productivity gains.
- Employees take the technology deployed and use them to decrease their efforts.
- The employer sees some productivity gains and assumes that is the limit for the technology deployed.
Look at this chart:
In much of the world economy, all the job growth is in the services sector (green line), not the manufacturing sector (red line). Achieving productivity gains in the manufacturing sector is more straightforward: replace people with robots and you are done. It’s not as straightforward as that in the services sector. In some services sector jobs, it is not possible to decrease effort without it being visible. But in many services sector jobs, it is. If employees cannot improve their lives by making more money, they may decide to do so by working less and working right up to the point where they don’t lose their job.
If you look at employment as a game, then we currently have a Nash equilibrium where the employees know that they won’t get paid more working for the same company, because that is the best strategy for the company. Therefore the best strategy for the employee is to minimize their effort without getting fired and while showing little if any productivity gains.
That’s to me is key reason why I think we have the productivity paradox.
I would add that the reason this is a paradox is because no one wants to admit that this is happening. It seems like a failure on both the employers and the employees side. The employee wants to be seen as a good worker and the employer doesn’t want to admit it could be paying more. Instead technology is brought in to solve an organizational problem, which is something technology cannot do.
(Chart from Business Insider).