He also stole a bunch of shit, used fraud and deception to gain market power, and destroyed trillions through lost productivity worldwide over the past 40 years.
3 Likes
I agree. I don’t understand why these people, especially those who’ve been around for the last say 30 years, aren’t more familiar with the most important technological development over that time.
5 Likes
So, you’re saying there’s definitely not anything blocking him from public office? 
(I shouldn’t joke, but sadly, that seems to be the reality these days)
I still stand by my statement that I’d prefer some level of technical knowledge, or listening to people who do have that knowledge. That’s entirely independent of other reasons I might disqualify a specific person from getting my vote.
5 Likes
And… yep.
The Post-Dispatch discovered the vulnerability in a web application that allowed the public to search teacher certifications and credentials. The department removed the affected pages from its website Tuesday after being notified of the problem by the Post-Dispatch.
Though no private information was clearly visible nor searchable on any of the web pages, the newspaper found that teachers’ Social Security numbers were contained in the HTML source code of the pages involved.
6 Likes
Oh no, I’m saying I wouldn’t want him in office at all.
But I think anyone doing anything these days should either have a reasonable amount of tech knowledge and be willing to learn more, or at least admit when they need help and will obtain it from a trustworthy source. And if one knows that they one doesn’t know shit about tech, one better admit it and not go yapping about like a puppy who’s scared of a moving leaf.
(“reasonable” means more than thinking one’s CD drive is a cupholder, at the very least)
1 Like
i’d rather have an intelligent, science-friendly person like Gates in office, especially since he’s a known quantity, than basically ANYbody else on the GOP side of things right now.
2 Likes
Even with the spectre of questionable behavior and ties to Jeffrey Epstein?
1 Like
easy for me to say, i know, but for me, yep. at least his past behavior etc. is a known quantity. he’d be under such a magnifying glass all the time from the press and everyone else, i think such things would be a thing of the past. if it was down to him against, say, Cheeto Mussolini, or Cruz or Marjorie Taylor Green? Gates all the way, without a second thought. at least Gates can learn from past mistakes, has the capacity for empathy, and a global perspective.
3 Likes
I’ve always said Australia is the Texas of the Pacific.
Way to go, insulting a whole country.
7 Likes
His existence has been an insult to ours for years.
3 Likes
All of Australia to Ted Cruz - fuck off, c**t
5 Likes
4 Likes
Jordan with his chin stuck out, making an even better target…
3 Likes
6 Likes
3 Likes
5 Likes
He is such a projectionist, isn’t he?
3 Likes
1 Like
I dunno…is this folly? And his name is like something out of Damon Runyon.
3 Likes
In a news release, Ruppersberger cited a report in The Washington Post that Facebook’s algorithm at one time treated “angry” reactions as five times more valuable than “likes,” disproportionately promoting content that was likely to include “misinformation, toxicity and low-quality news.”
Seeing this headline and image, it would be pretty normal for you to assume the pretty clear implication: people reacting happily (e.g. with “likes”) on Facebook had those shows of emotions weighted at 1/5th the intensity of people reacting angrily (e.g. with “anger” emojis) and that is obviously why Facebook stokes tremendous anger, hatred and divisiveness (as the story goes).
But… that’s not actually what the details show. The actual details show that initially when Facebook introduced its list of five different “emoji” reactions (to be added to the long iconic “like” button), it weighted all five of them as five times as impactful as a like . That means that “love,” “haha,” “wow,” and “sad” also were weighted at 5 times a single like, and identical to “angry.” And while the article does mention this in the first paragraph, it immediately pivots to focus only on the “angry” weighting and what that means. When combined with the headline and the rest of the article, it’s entirely possible to read the article and not even realize that “love,” “sad,” “haha,” and “wow” were also ranked at 5x a single “like” and to believe that Facebook deliberately chose to ramp up promotion of “anger” inducing content.
5 Likes