The demographics of reddit users probably do lean towards a more liberal/libertarian group, but r/politics certainly has no problem with bashing Democratic party members, employees, or appointees.
A quick search proves this out: there are tons of highly upvoted posts calling out Obama, Holder, both Clintons, Spitzer, Geithner etc. This is actually what fueled a lot of the fervor for Sanders - he brought together the disenchanted Paulite libertarians, lefter-than-Obama liberals, and anti-establishment independents.
Many long before. Prior to Bernie, the classic stereotype of a redditor was a Ron Paul supporter and I'm sure it would still be skewing much more conservative if western conservatism hadn't completely degraded into nonsense. The demographics are evening out, but the dominant viewpoint is still a straight, white, college-educated male, which has traditionally been a strong predictor of conservative tendencies.
But there's nothing about this tactic that prevents future action against AT&T. If anything, gp now has more advantageous legal standing as a customer and denied them the added revenue which was the point of the monopoly in the first place - especially if they still have to pay off the landlord.
GP's marginal cost to AT&T is probably zero, so they're still getting some free money over what would happen if GP fought a bit more. So in a way, it is a wasted opportunity - instead of dealing the enemy a powerful blow, GP only scratched them a bit.
I don't think opportunity is actually that difficult to describe, it seems to mostly be a product of labor markets. Either there's an untapped well of excess labor (like the post-war boom in Phoenix, AZ) or there are jobs in a high unemployment environment (like what's fueling growth in the bay area now).
In the case of Phoenix, they went from 99th in the US to 9th in about 30 years in large part due to the government building air force fields and pilot training camps. When everyone went back there after the war and realized they needed jobs, industry was happy to fill the gap because there was high competition among labor.
Similarly the bay has developed obviously because of tech, but for most of that early tech, the US government was the primary customer. Not just transistors, but before that, radio and telegraph research and operator training was done for/on behalf of the Navy.
That is all to say that the next step probably won't be fueled by some small-batch kickstarting program. People won't relocate en masse if they don't have long-term motivation. I think the best bet for inciting development of New Cities is mass investment by the government training people to do things like build and operate solar farms in the great plains, understand and combat coastline destruction in the gulf, etc.
If the government commits to buying clean energy and prioritizes investing in it's development, it can have a big say in where that happens and I think that's a great opportunity to rebuild dying old cities or start from scratch since so many people have abandoned those places already.
You should really watch the video because it's amazing, but the tl;dw is that WWE is a live-filmed TV show with stunts about an over-the-top wrestling league. The world in the league has magic and wizards and all sorts of outlandish fictional elements, but the show we're watching is a sort of meta-show about that world.
With that in mind, politics is taking on a lot of the characteristics of wrestling in that it's this meta show about itself that doesn't really resemble the underlying truth. The big difference though is that the underlying truth in politics is the real-life workings of government, not a magical world of wizards, undead, and feats of strength.
With regards to papering over reality in favor of a preferable narrative–an activity as old as recorded history–I think wrestling actually has a much more honest relationship with fiction and truth than most things.
If they were going to buy just a streaming service they should have bought Rdio. But–and this was kind of the focus of the article–Apple has an internal bias towards hardware. They saw a music-y hardware play with a huge markup and a ton of brand capital and went for it.
I'm still having trouble nailing down the timeline on this, but it seems like, at some point there were two companies, both with access to the mosaic source and both rebuilding it from scratch. One of those companies had licensed it, the other hadn't. Obviously there's more to it than that, but in 1994, I can see how this would look to lawyers.
That said, I think public university research should all be public domain so we avoid this entirely, but there's a whole waterfall of other problems that come with that.
Also, as a graduate of UIUC, I'm curious about this bad rep. I know their entrepreneurship initiatives are pretty dismal but I still don't understand why that's a uni's job. All the cs/engineers that graduated when I did went straight into great jobs.
Actually the point was precisely the opposite. If you give marketing creative control of your transactional emails, you don't have to blast your users constantly to maintain their attention.
Drip campaigns push the envelope on "transactional mail" a lot, and a lot of what the article suggests could IMHO easily push in the area that I'd consider spammy (sending multiple mails per week) and which makes sure I don't actually read any future mails unless I explicitly look for them, because they get filtered away.
Yeah we like NPS a lot. Not only can you segment and specifically reach out to 9s and 10s, but you can dynamically fill your emails. So for example your standard footer could say "share for x bonus" if they're a 8-10, but "give feedback for x bonus" for <8.
He's not really deconstructing the word hacker in the sort of semiotic tradition that Derrida did in that he doesn't seem too concerned with what "hacker" itself actually means (or what meaning even is, etc), more so who has interest in redefining it in the way that it has been over the past 30 years.
For what it's worth, I think a similar study of the flattening of hippy culture into a one-dimensional caricature, could be quite relevant. A counter-cultural segment is stripped of elements critical of the mainstream and repackaged, undermining the validity of the original movement.
That said I think the author does sort of mix and match between the mainstreamification of a counter-culture for profit and the role technology plays in extracting huge amounts of wealth from the reformation of commerce and funneling it into the hands of relatively few.
A quick search proves this out: there are tons of highly upvoted posts calling out Obama, Holder, both Clintons, Spitzer, Geithner etc. This is actually what fueled a lot of the fervor for Sanders - he brought together the disenchanted Paulite libertarians, lefter-than-Obama liberals, and anti-establishment independents.