"Considering" might be a bit strong. All that's really happening is the CRTC is opening a public consultation in response to a formal complaint. A cursory look at the CRTC's website shows quite a few public proceedings that are open to comment [0], including the one from the featured article.
I'm inclined to believe this is an example of the system working as intended. A complaint was filed and now the public has their opportunity to voice their opinions in response.
I would agree CRTC complaints are like lawsuits, anyone can file one. However, there is some risk that this is a trial balloon for more restrictive policies, and publicizing it like this is consistent with a playbook this government has been using. Fox is mostly harmless, and a good canary for what's going on up here. The whole picture is far too pessimistic for most people to even consider.
One can be simultaneously supportive of the freedoms of LGBT people and against the malefactors who have co-opted this and other legitimate popular movements for some very insideous ends. The primary need of these actors behind the movements is for the majority of people to do nothing. It's called neutralization - where they don't have to actually defeat you if you don't resist. Bizarre behavior, extreme statements, disproportionate aggression over seemingly minor transgressons are all designed to cow people into not confronting their representatives or the activists who operate on their behalf.
The reason they're going after Fox is because their commentators embolden viewers to become disagreeable to official narratives. In Canada, Fox News represents dissent, and dissent represents both hope and belief that can create resistance to the revolutionaries who have seized our institutions while we were being polite and civil. I've been watching the canaries pile up for years, but maybe this one will be the one that alerts the people in the cave.
It's called astroturfing, and it's standard PR and party politics. The idea that a mainstream newspaper, which is beholden to advertisers and granting agencies could be dismissed as "right wing," is ridiculous. You may in fact believe the National Post is edgy, and that a literal newspaper is still capable of offending delicate sensibilities, but I can't accept that view as worthy, serious, or normal.
I think you misinterpreted my comment. Calling the National Post "ring wing" is not some kind of slur. I would similarly call the Toronto Star "left wing". They all have their leanings, that's all.
This is kind of an interesting misalignment, where typically one would use conservative vs. progressive, whereas the -wing generally implies a specific critical viewpoint predicated on polarization.
That was a very entertaining read. Pulling no punches in the conclusion:
> 'In the modern-day vernacular, people often refer to a criminal case “being thrown out”. Obviously, this is little more than a figurative expression. Cases aren’t actually thrown out, in the literal or physical sense. Nevertheless, in the specific circumstances of this case, the Court is inclined to actually take the file and throw it out the window, which is the only way to adequately express my bewilderment with the fact that Mr. Epstein was subjected to an arrest and a fulsome criminal prosecution. Alas, the courtrooms of the Montreal courthouse do not have windows.'
Info like this should be automatically added as a flair right next to each submission on HN. Time to first interactive, download sizes, number of ads, ...
This would actually be a nice side project. Throw each link which was submitted to HN at a headless Chrome/Firefox, do performance/ads/size analysis, save everything to a database and then make it available to the HN user through a browser plugin which adds this info next to each submission. And then you can even display badges of shame for the worst offender or block links and other stuff. Any takers?
True, passenger in the car does blow a hole through this. But that's only something like 5% of cars, so it'd be easy to only target the other 95%.
Voice to text is certainly harder to prove right now.
To me (and I know this will be a controversial opinion) I feel this is something smart phone manufacturers should work together with the government on. A simple "has a text been manually entered in the last x minutes" read out feels like a non slippery slope that may save lives by proxy.
> To me (and I know this will be a controversial opinion) I feel this is something smart phone manufacturers should work together with the government on. A simple "has a text been manually entered in the last x minutes" read out feels like a non slippery slope that may save lives by proxy.
It wouldn't save lives -- it's only useful after the fact. My phone shouldn't spy or taddle on me (more than's already required to connect to the cell network.)
Here’s an example: while interviewing a man for a comptroller position, he asked me if I was familiar with financial statements, like a balance sheet. This person knew I had been an entrepreneur for years. When I simply replied yes, because I found the question so mystifying, I was met with laughter and a five minute lecture on why balance sheets matter. A lecture that would have been more fitting for a high school level finance class than an interview with a CEO who carved out a precious 30 minute slot to speak with a candidate.
That is brutal. I don't understand how someone could be so tone-deaf, especially in a job interview.
I don't think I agree. I know many CEOs that aren't familiar with these concepts in silicon valley. Additionally, being on the same page as your interviewer is key, so giving a quick background summary before talking about an item is common.
The author comes across as someone who's looking to find fault so I wouldn't be surprised if she read too much in to this (then again I wouldn't be surprised if she was spot on). I can certainly see people having the same reaction in this interview to men.
I believe the tone-deafness is because she answered "Yes". She knew what they were. The interviewee then laughed and lectured her on something she said she knew about. That's being tone deaf. There's nothing wrong with asking the question, except the question wasn't genuine. It was merely tossed out as an intro into what the individual wanted to talk about... which was themselves (and in doing so also insulted the intelligence and knowledge of the person they were talking to).
From my own experience around this sort of conversation, it doesn't seem like malice to me.
I'm a male and I've given this response before when someone asked me "have you read about X?" In turn, they gave a brief background because they weren't aware of the full scope of my knowledge on the subject.
If instead I had said: "Yes, I've worked on many projects involving X and I wrote a dissertation on it," then there would be no need for explanation.
It seems more like inexperience with the other gender and conflating assumptions in the workplace.
> Why would you laugh at the response unless you don't believe someone?
It's a way to try and break the awkwardness of just a one-word answer. We can't tell the tone this man had, or how the author perceived that tone, just from the writing, but I like to use Hanlon's razor liberally.
I think it's a moot point using only one datum, especially one as subjective as experience, in argument though.
Can someone with Silicon Valley exp. please confirm or deny that "many" CEOs don't have basic understanding like what a balance sheet is? Because I can't tell whether this comment is comical or if Silicon Valley is comical or both.
Sometimes people do this in interviews because they get a chance to explain something that they are very comfortable with and get cheap points. In cases like this it will backfire, but in general it doesn't hurt to explain a concept in detail to show that you know it more than the next guy.
Listen to women talk about man-splaining, and you start to realize that this is really, really super common. Men condescend to women all the time, and for us men, we're simply never exposed to it.
The only way we find out is when women tell us (and they have to trust us enough to know we won't dismiss their stories out of hand).
A theater group made the news a few days ago when they gender swapped the two candidates in the us election and reenacted a few of the political debates. A comment that often got back was how Clinton's speech was received as completely mansplaining when it was repeated word-by-word by a man.
It is very anecdotal counter example, but saying that men never get exposed to condescending from women don't seem true at all.
I've done it. In slight self defense, though, I didn't presume that she didn't know her stuff because she was female. I presumed it because she was a manager.
But, yeah, not my best moment. I can't undo it, but I can sure try to never do it again...
Mansplaining (condescending explanations in which sexist attitudes are an underlying motivation) is, I believe, a very real thing, but also probably exaggerated; people condescend to people all the time, and it's likely to be perceived as being motivated by dismissiveness across a differential in social position (whether sex, race, or otherwise) where that condescension happens to be directed in what is seen as the "downhill" direction across such a differential whether or not that's really a factor in the particular act of condescension.
This is true, but I think the point the parent comment was getting at is that an investigation tends to take a more holistic look at the incident rather than simply assigning blame directly to a single factor. Even pilot error, especially in the context of commercial aviation, is often found to be the result of training deficiencies or cultural issues on the part of the airline.
That's precisely the idea: if a pilot makes errors so grave as to endanger the aircraft, how come the airline training/monitoring in place did not pick up indications earlier?
The people that helped overcome the "pilot error, case closed"-mindset must be thanked (among others) for making aviation today as safe as it is.
I'm not sure why the article refers to Chesterton's fence as a fallacy when it basically agrees with the principle that you shouldn't blindly push reforms without understanding the reasoning behind the existing state of things.
That's not to say I disagree with the content of the article. I think it presents a good approach to promoting improvements to processes, the key takeaways being:
1) Observe the process and try to understand all aspects of it (not just that which affects you).
2) If you still feel that it can be improved, come up with a plan to improve and implement the process in a limited scope over which you have control.
3) If successful, break down why it was successful, and evaluate whether it is suitable to be expanded to the general case.
4) Find the owner of the existing process to discuss it with them, and present your proposed improvements.
I think there's an argument to be made that you should talk to the owner of the process before you start coming up with improvements, which could save some time on understanding it. But I suppose that depends on the situation.
It's referring to the "I don't see the use of it, let's remove it" part as a fallacy, and agreeing with the "no, come back after you see the use of it" part.
I'm inclined to believe this is an example of the system working as intended. A complaint was filed and now the public has their opportunity to voice their opinions in response.
[0] https://applications.crtc.gc.ca/instances-proceedings/Defaul...