Comments for A Series of Tubes

Comment on Yelp Gets Sued by Ben

Ben — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:35:53 +0000

This will be interesting. I can see their defense amounting to, “If you believe what you read on the internet, you’re an idiot”. Of course, their whole business model depends on us trusting what we read on their little corner of the internet. It would also be interesting if they just admitted to doing what they’re accused of doing. Yeah, we offer to improve ratings for money. We don’t like to tell people that’s what we do, though.

Now, the article is throwing around the word extortion, which I believe is a criminal offense. This is actually a civil lawsuit, although the motion filed appears to be requesting that Yelp give up all the money it’s ever earned, ever, on the grounds that it violates unfair business practice law.

It should be pretty easy to prove Yelp is doing what is claimed with some access to logs of review manipulation. I don’t know what has to happen in order for anyone to get an independent look at those.

Comment on Racial Tensions at UCSD by Ben

Ben — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 19:15:56 +0000

I’m not sure that making this a partisan issue is really the right approach. Racism is a very deep problem, and it wouldn’t go away if Beck et al. or even the Republican party as a whole did. Addressing inequality in our public education system is an important part of the equation. As Mark points out, we’re really dropping the ball on that particular challenge. Now, some might read the previous assertion and think I mean oh, if only we could teach these frat boys about racism, they’d be more sensitive. No, it’s more that public education (particularly in CA) pretty much fails to provide high quality education to communities consisting predominantly of people belonging to a racial minority or a low economic status. Ignorance and idiocy among the student body at UCSD is more of a symptom of larger problems in our society. That’s not to say nothing should be done, but that it’s more of a band-aid than a real fix to do so.

Comment on Yelp CEO Jeremy Responds to oehlberg.com by A Series of Tubes » Yelp in the News Again

A Series of Tubes » Yelp in the News Again — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:36:27 +0000

[...] had emailed the CEO of the company and got responses from him denying the claim but using quite possibly the worst logic imaginable and making me more suspicious [...]

Comment on Racial Tensions at UCSD by Montana

Montana — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:31:34 +0000

Instead of an apology there has been steady escalation and now the noose. So, what exactly will the excuses be for this cowardly act that brings up memories of the confederate KKK of the South in their attempts to keep slavery and the non-whites in fear? Is it that are uneducated, is it that their parents planted these seeds of hate, is it that they are live in fear because our President in the white house is not 100% white. This is what the republican party of “birthers, baggers and blowhards” have brought you. These kids follow what their dullard leaders say, they are young and dumb. Are you surprise at what they do when you know what they think? Of course it could be an off-campus dullard who listens to Beck, Hedgecock, Hannity, O’Reilly, Rush and Savage and the rest of the Blowhards.

Comment on Video Games by Ben

Ben — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:54:14 +0000

These kinds of results have been trickling out for a while, now. When I was working in a vision science lab, I tried to ask our research participants if they played video games and what kind. We never did a formal study, but the gamers almost always produced the best results. One of the graduate students actually put together a grant proposal that involved buying a bunch of high-end gaming pcs and researching the effects of games on visual task performance. I think it even got funded, but I don’t really know.

Comment on Aftermath of the UC Regents 32% Fee Increase by Mark

Mark — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:00:59 +0000

I should also note for comparison purposes: “The increased fees are expected to generate $505 million”
Keep that in mind when looking at the budget information.

from: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/22415

Comment on Aftermath of the UC Regents 32% Fee Increase by Mark

Mark — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:05:02 +0000

Also of note: The 8/09 budget has a large section on wage disparities. It outlines how the University is not paying people an amount that is appropriate for their level in the private sector. The 08 budget was really worried that the average cost of a manager in charge of x number of people in the private sector is paid a certain amount, and the university need to hit that number. This disparity between public and private salaries was extremely important to the administration, and every hire that is made in the September Regents meeting makes sure to note the private HR firm Mercer’s average salary for an equivalent position in the private sector. Since nobody can get their hands on the actual data that is used by mercer to generate these numbers, it’s a trade secret, you are left to trust both the administration and the private HR firm Mercer to set appropriate salary levels for the top brass. Since the Hr firm is being paid by the Regents and there is no oversight of this, an obvious conflict of interest arises along with a general distrust of the integrity of the administration.

Mercer filed reports to the Regents in 2005 (see here:http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/compensation/mercerstudies.html). In it, Mercer compared our administrative salaries to other Universities including Stanford, Yale and Harvard. The reasoning behind using these Universities as a measuring tool is that in order for the UC to achieve a higher academic standard, they need to recruit and maintain top executive talent. The only way to do that is to pay them more. Of course the only way to pay them more is to increase fees and fire staff.

A close look at any Regent’s meeting minutes shows a laundry list of employees being hired for over $100,000 a year, with wage comparisons priced by Mercer. Looking through the Mercer report shows that anyone making over $160,000 has a normal pay scale, while those above it can get set at whatever sky high rate the Regents decide. Those salaries shouldn’t have an upper limit.

Here is a fun thing to do: Go to the Regent’s meeting minutes page and then click on the minutes for any meeting of the Committee on Compensation. Flip through it to see who the Regents approve high salaries and bonuses to. Mercer is used throughout to compare the hire to whatever Mercer thinks is the industry standard. Here is the website:
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/minutes/welcome.html

Comment on Aftermath of the UC Regents 32% Fee Increase by Ben

Ben — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:53:02 +0000

What a mess.
1) the American dream is no longer just for private business tycoons.
2) the American dream now means writing your own bonus check.

Comment on The UC system Explained by el samayo grande

el samayo grande — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:33:34 +0000

Unfortunately this time the right venue wasn’t enough.
And “find the right venue”, while true, gets used by lazy administrators (on both sides) to blow off reform.
Which is exactly how we got to this problem in the first place – lazy career administrators pushing off needed changes until it was too late.

I’ve worked on things like that where dogged perseverance worked, but after a point, something big has to be done. It should cost the UC money at the very least. It should inconvienience people at least 23%

Comment on More UCSC Rumblings of Occupation by el samayo grande

el samayo grande — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 03:05:07 +0000

The other thing is that I’m not seeing anybody take responsibility. The students (and their parents) are understandably angry – and while the administration is paying lip service, there needs to be some action taken. Somebody should resign in protest, at the very least.

This is a serious debacle that will drop Berkeley and UCLA out of that elite ranking and make them just 2 more regular state schools, and bump the rest of the UCs down even further. Occupation of buildings may not be the answer but it’s not like kids who are going to have to drop out for lack of money have anything to lose.