CrushU’s Techdirt Profile


About CrushU

CrushU’s Comments comment rss

  • Aug 2nd, 2018 @ 9:43am

    Lying to Shareholders

    Isn't there something about not being allowed to lie about what you're doing to shareholders...?

    "To put it in perspective, we’re operating in 41 states, we have thousands of franchise agreements, and generally we have good relationship with the communities we serve," Rutledge added. "We live up to our commitments and we have in New York State; in fact we’re well ahead of our obligations in terms of speed upgrades and in the build-out itself."

    That sounds verifiably false, to me.

  • Jul 12th, 2018 @ 9:52am

    A bit confusing

    So let me get this straight...

    Elsevier is in charge of monitoring the effects of Open Science research. (They also invest heavily in the space, so this is the conflict of interest.)

    To help them figure out which papers are having the most impact, they're using CiteScore to determine this. They helped develop CiteScore's methodology, but not independently. CiteScore's ratings show Elsevier's papers higher rated than a competitor's, which isn't surprising.

    The methodology for CiteScore is freely available.

    So the solution is just that Elsevier shouldn't be monitoring the system, it should be some other third party? And if this 3rd party uses CiteScore, then that's fine?

    So why is it a problem that Elsevier uses it...?

  • May 14th, 2018 @ 11:30am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: More 'Acceptable' Collateral Damage

    It means that there is little or no correlation between the party of the representative and whether he voted for the bill.

    In other words, if you took one random Congressperson, the odds are more likely than not that they would support the bill.

    Further, knowing how they voted on the bill does not allow you to guess their party affiliation with better than 50% accuracy. (Yes, technically there are more than two parties so it'd be lower than 50%, but that's pretty minimal.)

  • Apr 16th, 2018 @ 10:28am


    While I appreciate her expertise in the matter, I would respectfully recommend that Professor Samuelson use less 'um', 'uh', and 'er' in her speech. It made it sorta difficult to follow her. :(

    (I understand that the podcast format is not exactly normal public speaking. I don't want to assume, but perhaps she hasn't been on many podcasts before? I can't imagine that she has problems with public speaking, as a professor.)

  • Jan 16th, 2018 @ 9:09am


    And this is why we can't have nice things. :(

  • Jan 10th, 2018 @ 12:41pm

    Re: Re: Re:

    Oh, man. 49 US markets and 29 million people?

    Huh. So it turns out they'll be reaching ~9% of the population. Yep. Real Competition®

    Other problems: You say GLW holds 12GHz spectrum in those markets. That implies wireless connectivity. We've gone into the problems with calling Wireless 'Broadband' in the past... Still, baby steps forward, I guess.

  • Jan 10th, 2018 @ 8:06am

    Watch what you say...

    Not only do they know it would be more difficult, they know that they'd lose.

    Isn't that how we got a cheeto in charge of the USA?

  • Jan 5th, 2018 @ 11:29am

    From the article

    > In that ruling from April of this year,


  • Dec 19th, 2017 @ 11:56am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Wow, that was easy. There's no way we're "ignoring" zero rating schemes.

  • May 18th, 2017 @ 11:15am

    Re: FCC Ignores The Will Of The Public,

    As opposed to no regulation, which is what just happened, which, um... also removes the public's seat at the table?

  • Jan 24th, 2017 @ 11:06am

    Re: Re: Re:

    [i]stronger preventions against the revolving door between government and industry.[/i]

    While good in theory, these preventions could also prevent Subject Matter Experts from holding political office, one of the severe problems we have in the tech sectory. (People who know how Tech works don't hold public office.)

    I do agree that people who used to literally campaign for certain proposals or laws should probably not be put in charge of approving/denying those proposals.

  • Dec 16th, 2016 @ 10:55am

    Re: Re: Re: Cautiously Optimistic

    So much for 'html is no longer supported'...

    You can, however, state that they did <racist thing X> at some point, and that thing is objective and verifiable and falls under this policy.

  • Dec 16th, 2016 @ 10:54am

    Re: Re: Cautiously Optimistic

    Option A: Provide sources to back this up; things they said or did that were racist.

    Option B: They both are, by the strict definition of the word, because everyone is, by the strict definition of the word.

    Corollary: Whether or not they are racist is not possible to be 'fake news', because whether someone is racist or not is a matter of opinion and inherently subjective. You can, however, state that they did at some point, and that thing is *objective* and verifiable and falls under this policy.

    Basically, trying to cut through all the 'but he didn't say/do that!' objections at once. (Or the opposite, proving that he did say/do that thing.)

  • Dec 15th, 2016 @ 10:30am

    Cautiously Optimistic

    I'm in general agreement with you, that trying to block or prevent speech is generally worse than just putting out more speech.

    I feel that nowhere is this more obvious than with 'Fake News' stories. Whenever there is something that's legitimately false, solving that problem is by stating that it's false, and why it's false.

    I only use the 'Fake News' definition associated with 100% factually untrue information.

  • Nov 4th, 2016 @ 1:53pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Mountains out of Mole-hills

    The information was already released. The Twitter bot just pointed out where it was. That it happened to be tangentially related is unfortunate and entirely benign.

    Even better, the Twitter bot was supposed to have already sent this information out. So if anything, the 'violation of professional ethics (and possibly laws)' is on anyone who didn't initially release it.

  • Nov 4th, 2016 @ 9:17am

    Mountains out of Mole-hills

    An FBI official told Motherboard that the FBI Records Vault Twitter account had been dormant for more than a year because of a bug in the content management system (CMS) that links the website where the documents are posted and the social media account. On Sunday, according to the official, the FBI’s IT team pushed a patch to the CMS and fixed the bug, causing the flood of tweets, which had been scheduled over the last few months, to go out on October 30.

    This is a perfectly reasonable explanation and serves to highlight the troubles of the modern IT wo--

    Whatever the explanation is, the FBI is pretty much a walking catastrophe at this point -- at least as far as maintaining distance from the electoral process is concerned.

    What. No. NO. This is a valid explanation. There was a bug in the CMS. IT fixed it. You can't possibly claim to start pointing fingers at IT people for doing their jobs.

  • Oct 12th, 2016 @ 9:52am

    Re: It's the internet, ya know?

    There's actually decent points in here, however, I do disagree with the conclusion at the end:

    Every re-tweet is, in it's own way, spreading a little lie or a little twist of the truth.

    I don't believe that is necessarily true. I believe there is an objective truth and that it is shareable. It's why I tend to downplay the importance of 'timing' in releases of Interesting Information. I consider the information itself to be more important than the circumstances behind it. (Who released it, When it was released, Why they released it, How it was released.)

  • Sep 15th, 2016 @ 12:52pm

    User Control

    Shrug. I dunno, it seems to offer greater User Control than it did before. I was actually looking at a game earlier today and noticed that new bar of options. (Halcyon 6. Looks interesting and the reviews were Pretty Good. I'd wager it was a Kickstarter game due to about 50% of the reviews being from Steam Key Users instead of purchases off Steam directly. The 'negative' review said that after 25 hours playing the game he was done playing it forever. ... I'd call that Worth It? Anyway...)

    Waiiiit a minute... a post on Techdirt that has a flawed premise? ... Yep. Geigner. :P (Not all of yours are like this, but the posts here that have a flawed premise are more likely to be yours. Or, at the very least, a very Subjective premise.)

    So yeah. This isn't about 'silencing' reviewers. It's about making sure that you know where the review is coming from. Sure, the fact that each page resets to the default 'Only Steam Purchases' setting is a little odd, but in most cases I only care that there are reviews, period. If there's a bunch of negative reviews, then I'm likely to check 'All' to see if it changes.

    Basically, on the list of things that Steam does that are actually Not Good, this is... pretty far down the list. If this somehow convinced you to not use Steam, I'll be amazed. (Note that the others here who don't use Steam for purchasing have said they didn't prior, either.)

  • Sep 14th, 2016 @ 10:58am


    The DNC is not part of the government. It is not in charge of any critical infrastructure. It is not privy to classified information. It does not provide any products or services critical to the US, or anyone in it.

    Replace all those 'is' and 'does' with 'should'...

    I really hope that 'is' and 'does' apply to this case, but being pessimistic when it comes to politics, I'm pretty sure 'should' is the correct verb. :(

  • Sep 12th, 2016 @ 12:18pm

    Production Issues

    I'm curious, was production lined up before the Kickstarter was launched?

    The main problem I see with things that I back is production issues; Things like the box they'd planned to use turns out to not be large enough or sturdy enough... Or a test run coming back wrong and needing to be fixed...

    So for these bags, you said you had the prototype, and you got it through the normal production line that you'd use for the successful campaign? Or did you prototype it youselves?

More comments from CrushU >>