Burritamos

>and his blog has big stupid "to the top" button^ fixed at the bottom, covering two lines of the text.

I don't see what you are talking about. There is no such button for me.

>What's weird is that Facebook cannot rely on their users to report blatantly criminal acts witnessed by thousands of people...and makes me doubt that doubling this or that team size can make a meaningful difference.

Then wouldn't it make sense to add more people whose job specifically is to report criminal acts instead of relying on the users to do it?

It doesn't seem to fit the definition of astroturfing. [1]

>Astroturfing is the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g., political, advertising, religious or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by a grassroots participant(s).

Are they concealing the source of the messages? It seems like they are just adding more people who have the authority to remove content that violates the TOS.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing

From Wikipedia:

>Engineering is the application of mathematics and scientific, economic, social, and practical knowledge in order to invent, innovate, design, build, maintain, research, and improve structures, machines, tools, systems, components, materials, processes, solutions, and organizations.

>The discipline of engineering is extremely broad and encompasses a range of more specialized fields of engineering, each with a more specific emphasis on particular areas of applied science, technology and types of application.

>The term Engineering is derived from the Latin ingenium, meaning "cleverness" and ingeniare, meaning "to contrive, devise".

Software engineering fits this description in its own right. I think it's perfectly fair to call its practitioners engineers.

I don't think most people have the desire or awareness to come to any conclusion about what the 'liberal media' was doing. I think it's more about believing what they were told by someone who spoke on the matter with an air of authority.

If you ask the average person on the street about the improprieties of the media leading up to the election, they're not going to go into the details of the DNC emails and explain the cozy relationship between them and the media. They never read them. They're going to say the media is 'rigged' because that's what they were told over and over until the notion stuck with them.

>Why not novice instead of your girlfriend? You don't even mention her in the articles so why cling to a distracting title?

>He should change it. Regardless of the intention, this is how it will be interpreted.

Seems more like an advisement than an admonishment. Perhaps I should have said no one is rebuking them for it.

Either way, I don't see this as the 'political correctness police jumping on them'. It's not like people are organizing a lynch mob for the author.

Well I hope you are not equating the discussion happening in this thread with the 'political correctness police jumping on someone'. The only discussion happening here seems to be about whether it is appropriate or not. No one is suggesting that the author be punished or admonished for it.

It seems like a very valid thing to discuss, and suggesting that people might be 'triggered' for even bringing it up only serves to undermine a legitimate discussion on it.

No one here seems emotionally distraught by the author's words. Rather, all of the discussions about the inappropriateness of the remarks seem to be pitched in a constructive and explanatory way, without regard to whether they were offended by them or not.

It's a bit disingenuous to call the people here 'triggered'. No one seems emotionally distraught by the author's choice of words. Most of the comments here seem to be pitched in a constructive and explanatory manner (the meat of which you might entirely disagree with), but calling them 'triggered' only seems to try to undermine their opinion without actually providing any counterpoint.

Hillary won a majority of the popular votes in the primary as well as the majority of pledged delegates (i.e. not just superdelegates). I don't think I understand how that counts as 'suppressing' your vote. Mind expanding on that a bit?

It didn't really sound like kazinator was berating in their reply. It actually sounded rather helpful. Please be more mindful when replying to people here. Less tendency to jump to vitriol would be helpful.

> Must be a Berkshire Hathaway shareholder to enter. See contest entry rules and terms & conditions in description below.

> Essay/Answer Requirements...

Umm, how about no?

Any idea how big the Anti-vaxxer movement is? I'm not really finding any polls that suggest what percentage of people in any particular region are antivaxxers.

Considering this is a comment thread about that article, I would presume that makes it relevant.