__pThrow

This "rings true" to me. That getting rid of formal managers and formal management just lets "petty office politics" rule more than usual.

After 9/11 we learned of "chatter".

I have wondered what the NSA etc. can say about chatter in recent weeks. What the NSA might know.

And if the NSA doesn't know, what that says about NSA efficacy.

The tweet is verifiable. That a porn party took place at that residence seems likely.

There is no verification this occurred over airbnb. There is no verification that the tweets were by anyone other than the resident or owner and no verification that the tumblr post was written by the resident.

All of this, including the tweet, could be a pretty simple hoax.

And worse, it's from tumblr.

The premise you restated was the basic post itself: Hey! This shit happened to me.

I asked, why should we believe this.

You said, "Because shit happened to that guy!"

Until airbnb responds we have no reason to give this anecdote any credence.

And you were totally snide. Your apology is disingenuous. "Sorry you felt I was being snide" is not an apology. It is a faux apology.

That's not actually a response. You are just restating the premise. And exercising your right to be snide.

What is the ample verifiable evidence in the post?

Can someone explain why we should think this tumblr post has any credibility?

I have found I often agree with Michele, but I think she makes some basic errors in this piece.

1) That most power is in the hands of a few people, who at this moment are primarily men, does not generalize to mean that most men have any power over most women. Most men, most women, at work are powerless. Bosses, leads, vps from other departments -- they have power and they are frequently women.

2) She frames the problem as one of active male behavior and passive female behavior. Women are acted upon. Men at work want sex or romance -- I guess women at work do not want sex or romance. It may very well be that at work she does not want sex or romance. And my guess is that at work most men do not want sex or romance. But there are some men, and there are some women that do.

That's not to say that her path out may not have some virtues.

I do think it would be good for everyone to turn the knob back down to 10, or 9, or perhaps even 3, and talk about the issues of sex and romance and sexism at work, while recognizing this isn't a problem of "Men" and isn't a problem of "Women" but is perhaps a problem of "homo sapiens in the 21st century".

In the future, you can reduce your diatribe to what you actually believe "patriarchal misogynist assholes" and that will help everyone out. Your supporters as well as those who would disagree with you.

I've never understood what problem XML solves.

Does XML make a file understandable by a developer in superior ways to other formats? Not especially.

Does the use of XML make error recovery from a partially borked file possible? Not really.

What problem is actually solved by XML (that other formats don't also "solve" ... and better?)

In my limited experience it seems that torrent clients were all trying to migrate towards this and be a media browser first, torrent client second. The end result was user flight to the next upcoming torrent client.

So was this a torrent client to start with?

For the end user how does this compare to websites like stream-tv.me which aggregate links to tv shows? Those links lead to generally poor resolution shows, but not unwatchable. TV resolution with some HD resolution. Have there been cases where content providers go after the users of those sites? (I have a friend who uses them...)

It seems as though China is undergoing a Keynesian expansion. So I'm probably wrong about that. I'm going to watch to see if I can figure out the difference between what they seem to trying to say is a problem due to massive government spending and Keynesism.

Or are they saying "too much" Keynesism is a bad thing?

Okay, these seem to be the main differences and concerns I am getting from this vid.

  1. Many loans eventually come via a shadow banking system
     and so are not transparent, ie, no one know how much is
     loaned and regulation is poor, this could lead to a
     huge credit crunch, and China's own too big to fail  
  2. Some large amount of housing is speculative in nature
     and kept empty as an investment and hence could be
     causing an enormous bubble
  3. This real estate bubble brings benefits to rich but
     doesn't improve the economy for the poor
  4. The boom has made the local authorities very rich and
     powerful (political corruption, crony capitalism, ...)
  5. The sheer size of it is unprecedented in modern
     financial history
  6. Citizens save too much (1/3rd of earnings). So economy
     is dangerously unbalanced, fueled by debt spending and
     not enough by consumer spending or shopping (41:10)
  7. Investment is 50% of economy, consumption 30%, so when
     investment slows down, it can't be replaced with 
     consumption. Credit is at a level of twice the size
     of the economy.
  8. State owned companies are filled with inefficiencies.
     "Shaking" them up would leave huge numbers of people
     unemployed.
  9. There is beginning to be a fear of collapse (that
     could lead to collapse.)
 10. Punk Rock pointing out corruption in the system
     and how the rich are getting richer.
 11. Hard to see further economic reform without political
     reform, yet it seems that Chinese are intent on
     not reforming their political system further.

Recommendations to balance economy:

  1. China needs to become more like us and consume more 
     themselves.

> Not being an asshole about it works wonders.

That is just incredibly presumptive.