Now it's the progressive left against everyone else, calling them nazis, fascists, and alt right. This ostracizes the center so good luck with that...

An example being pederasty of little boys in Afghanistan being common, similar to your example. Completely cultural and I would argue traumatic.

Not for men (for the most part, as in 99%). They either love vagina, and are disgusted by penis, or vice versa.

On the other side, most "straight" women, fantasize and experiment with the same sex, and to them, preference is usually on a sliding scale.

That all said, sexual preference is further confusing when we have a large subset of straight males, being attracted to very feminine transsexuals, like Bailey Jay.

To me this means male sexual preference is holistic, meaning if you pass as a woman, but have a penis, you may attract many straight males, who would gag at the idea of a well toned and very masculine male.

Even if the masculine "man" was a woman passing as one, with a vagina.

I'm not too familiar with analytics and marketing, but I did like how the contribution and web store mechanics were set up.

That all said, I'm curious how much revenue you can attribute to optimization versus just general interest when it came to people wanting to donate, or buy a MAGA hat.

What I mean is, how much money could have been generated, without utilizing optimization tools such as the ones you used from Adobe, and by adding "Official" to everything.

Not trying to demoralize them, I'm just curious if they could separate that revenue, and point to a portion of it that directly came from optimization.

Ideally any word should be able to be copyrighted or whatever.

But if you want to ban words based on something, like racism or whatever. Don't be surprised when someone's sensibilities outpace yours.

Beyond that, the pros and experts who have a lot do cold storage. Putting the keys offline.

> He is candid enough to admit he tested the method on his production staff after "reading about the trend on Facebook" and musing on whether it could be an innovative draw for future talent.

> But the firm's experiment was ditched in less than a month, after bad feedback from employees.

We already have short work weeks. It's called part time. If you don't like the pay, blame reality. This experiment was done with tax money, and my guess is businesses would not voluntarily pay more for less work, without massive subsidy, which would be pro large corporation, and anti small business.

I welcome anyone, including Elon Musk, to attempt it. Barring anyone is an affront to human progress.

Doubt it, at least not in the next 8-12 years. Let's wait and see what President Trump does with Healthcare and the Economy.

If he messes up, Dems should be able to get everything back in no time.

> And, in the interest of supporting a united front between liberals and socialists

As a classical liberal, I find communists (anarcho-communists?) writing stuff like this (https://twitter.com/nunzioni/status/827041257323126784 / https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3otTkPVMAEBiEb.jpg) extremely concerning.

Honestly, this sounds very Pro American Corporations, and very anti-other countries.

No one ever mentions Brain Drain - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_capital_flight

It's a disservice to young and struggling Americans, and young and struggling youth in other countries, by making it harder for youth here to find jobs, and robbing other nations and cultures of their best.

> The tech industry is a global one, and it depends on hiring workers and employees from around the world.

So there's no need for immigration for tech. Remote working, new start ups in other nations.

I see no problem with restructuring our immigration patterns, especially if it helps young Americans already here gets jobs more easily, and enriches other nations and peoples, so they don't have to "move to the US" for a future. My ideal world has people working in their own countries, for their own families and culture, not for the established corporations of the West.

China loses. Plain and simple. So, given that China obviously knows what I know, a trade restructuring is the best way for both sides to Win.

Lopsided deals from the 70s, when Kissinger gave our millionaires cheap labour from China - Doesn't work anymore.

I get discouraged talking strategy with people who have no clue about modern capabilities.

Russia VS US would be game over. Pakistan VS India would decimate 50-70% of World Population - but not game over.

China has a very small stockpile of missiles. Also, All of them would get shot down, while Nuclear Subs of the coast of China would destroy every population center.

Not to mention, first strike with this capability by the US could mean no war... Just absolute and total victory.

So again, per my original point. Trade will be restructured. China KNOWS this!

I like how buddy proves to you he's right, and you have the gall to act like you're right.

Besides, this argument is over pedantics. My original comment stands. China is weak compared to US. No war necessary, restructuring in favour of US WILL TAKE PLACE.

Yet I get downvoted by idiots who hate opinions they don't have. And I replied to you to agree with you - Trump one because giving lopsided deals makes NO SENSE - Unless you're a billionaire wanting cheaper labour in the 70s...

Not only do we absolutely decimate them in nuclear and naval capabilities, our combined allied forces would decimate them technologically, on the ground, and through strategic embargoing, attrition, psychological warfare, etc.

We and our allies literally surround them. Not only that, look into geopolitics, Trump getting a call from Taiwan pisses China off more than giving them weapons. Why? Acknowledging and reaffirming our commitment to protect them, angers them more than physical capability of defense for Taiwan.

China enslaves a portion of its citizens, jails activists, kidnaps Taiwanese, support DPRK, among other things.

Trump is remapping Asian relations, because China isn't strong, nor are they suicidal. Rewriting our trade relations will help us, and if they continue being friends with us, good for them as well.

A restructuring is likely, and a war will only happen if our Asian allies or China forces our hand. If so, we win, based on any strategic viewpoint of might.

Competing schools have to provide results, not just to federal powers, which public schools horribly fail time and time again, but also to their customers.

Those advocating public schooling ONLY (no free market alternatives), please envision your trade or industry working the same way...

Hate Speech, "Evil People" prevented from speaking, their fans attacked.

Mark my words, the other, more silent side of America will respond to violence if the left WONT discuss, debate, and be rational and peaceful.

Google how many celebrities and reporters have condoned that sucker punch against the "nazi". It's A LOT of people.

The problem is that the regressive left is labelling everyone that disagrees with their notions "nazis".

So my question is, if we normalize the punching of nazis, but we're not sure who they are, does that give 50% of the US population the right to harass the other 50%?

This is honestly tantamount to starting a civil war... When you prevent speech, prevent discussion. Only violence remains... SAD!

All of that is mainstream news. This whole fake news thing is a part of the cultural war. Religious/Conservative people simply don't trust Mainstream media. To them, all of them are liberal and highly bias. Enough to omit facts for their narratives.

Example: https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/05/19/just-another...

Sources, Reports, Officials, Reporters, etc - News is HUMAN god dammit! No such thing as non-bais, and every story should be investigated, and not appeal to the authority of the organization publishing it.

I imagine if we had this tool when George W invaded Iraq, this AI would have said Weapons Existed, being all the CIA, and Politicians said so.

Isn't that how your filter works? Anti alternative media, pro establishment?