“Me”: The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches
medium.com
medium.com
This is a technique I used to use a lot more in the days before Google became the dominant search engine, when I was using Lycos, Alta Vista and Yahoo. In those more primitive search engines that were doing something closer to a full-text search, it was important to use the words and verb tenses that were likely to appear in the answer (or target page/tweet), not in the question.
So for example, instead of querying "Which museum is the Mona Lisa in?" it was best to query "collection includes the mona lisa" and similar phrases.
Needless to say, third generation search engines like Google made this all unnecessary, and hopefully, Twitter will get there too, eventually.
> This is still how web searching works. I have no idea
> why you would think otherwise
https://www.google.com/search?q=how+can+i+pirate+movies
Seems to have no results about pirate movies.
But if you search "using * to pirate movies" (google will match the star, even in quotes, with a word or phrase in result context), every result will include the name of a method for pirating movies, which you can investigate further. I see "popcorn time", "bit torrent", "pirate bay" and "camcorder" on the first page. These are all direct answers that a human would consider reasonable (though of varying efficacy) to the question.
It might be due to better NLP, but it may also be due to the rise of blogging-style personal content where authors say things using that phrase. For example, "I was wondering how to start up my own Ubuntu server on AWS and thought I'd write a tutorial while I was at it." contains "how to start up . . . Ubuntu server on AWS"
On one hand, I want to commend you for not using the author's clickbait title.
On the other hand, I don't want to give the author more exposure (because of the clickbait title) by increasing this post's comment score.
In the end, the first hand won. Thanks! :)
It's like watching the Spotlight team going through volumes of data themselves…
Isn't Data Journalist a thing already?
Here the guy is just saying "whoa great dude and next I'll use regexps oh my god woaw". We have word2vec, doc2vec, many cores, … why aren't journalists using the tools they should be using?
If you write the post maybe someone will be inspired to build a tool for journalists using these algos.
Hopefully out of the many tech heads who read HN, one will have the same thought as you and build the tool.
And this is why we can't have nice things. Twitter doesn't kill spam bots fast enough and Twitter spammers and slimey SEO douchebags crap in their own backyard. No wonder Twitter is going down: between the gamergaters, doxxers, trolls, female hating mysogynists, outraged eavesdroppers, rape loving, NLP wielding pick-up artists, swot-abusers, and vapid, brain-dead, useless celebrities - how does Twitter even exist?
It's truly amazing how a medium with only a 140 character limit can a. make money, b. communicate anything really worthwhile, or c. be read by anyone with any serious intent! Several years ago the criticisms were that everyone tweeted about mundane crap and it went down frequently [1], now it's being abandoned because it's no better than swimming in a sewage system [2].
1. http://youtu.be/b5Ff2X_3P_4
2. http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/02/stephen-fry-quits-twi...
You live in a nice world if that's the case. Twitter is great for you, but pretty awful for everyone else. Which is great, but let's leave Twitter to this niche market and let everyone else find some other medium that isn't so corrosive for them. People of course don't leave this medium, and it beats me why.
You're advocating blurring the names out but then telling readers how to find them very easily (it's the point of the article) - this would justifiably open the author to ridicule.
It seems fairly reasonable that, on air planes non-the-less, that you will encounter many cultures that seem strange to you. Why would that aggravate you?
Or they may have felt sympathy with others inconvenienced, like the flight crew and passengers.
It seems like a pretty natural, human thing to dislike being inconvenienced. I dislike it myself, in fact -- don't you?
1) maybe I just don't want to switch seats. Maybe I'm already settled in, maybe I like the fact that it's a window/middle/isle seat, etc.
2) imagine someone refuses to sit next to you, stating the reason as "that person is ugly" or "that person's choice of wardrobe disturbs me". If that happened to me, I'd certainly be offended and might refuse to move out of principle (though personally, I'd rather the flight was on time than make a statement). Those reasons are different from "I can't sit next to a woman", but they also refer to superficial, and frankly, childish, things.
For point 2, that may have been the case for some of these tweets but I don't think that holds true for all of them. Some of these people understood that this person came from a different culture. One even said "the chasidic Jew." [sic]
One woman was offended that a Hasidic Orthodox Jew would not sit by her, thinking it was hatred of women.
In reality, the man is following his convictions to avoid touching women other than his wife.
> the man assigned to the adjoining window seat arrived and refused to sit down. He said his religion prevented him from sitting beside a woman who was not his wife. Irritated but eager to get underway, she eventually agreed to move.
Second example:
> She was in a middle seat — her husband had the aisle — when the man with the window seat in the same row asked if the couple would switch positions. Ms. Heywood, offended by the notion that her sex made her an unacceptable seatmate, refused.
Third example:
> “But this Hasid came on, looking very uncomfortable, and wouldn’t even talk to the woman, and there was five to eight minutes of ‘What’s going to happen?’ before the woman acquiesced and said, ‘I’ll move.’ It felt like he was being a yutz,” Mr. Newberger added, using a Yiddish word for fool.
The forth example is one where the man moves; the fifth example is ambiguous.
If there was porn on the back of the seat, I think the guy could reasonably say "I don't want to look at that, I don't want to be tempted". That's not blaming some behaviour by the porn, he's just saying "in this situation, I will react this way, and I don't want to".
(I don't like the way they're acting, but I don't think "they're blaming other people" is what's wrong with it.)
If the "situation" involves another person, then that person has a right to participate (or not) in whatever emotional response that is happening. If I'm attractive to you and you don't mind sitting next to me, I'm not required to show interest in you. If you continue with unwanted advances, you are liable for sexual harassment. Conversely, if I'm attractive to you and you do mind sitting next to me because I am attractive to you, I'm not required to help solve it because you are attracted to me yet are unable to manage your emotional responses. It still involves me, so I get a say in whether you can show that attraction in a specific way, including discriminating on me. So is anyone else, for that matter, given it's cognitive dissonance believing it's someone else's problem to deal with your inability to contain and manage your own "purity", which is really a fear of attraction to someone else.
In short, if you have to go to these ridiculous lengths, then the religion isn't really giving you the internal strength to behave maturely. Time to look for a new moral code.
Whether that sexism is 'hatred' like you are holding out as a possibility, a patronizing/patriarchal "women should be protected", or a repressive "I don't want to sully a woman with my sexual thoughts about her", they are all deeply problematic beliefs for putting together a civil society that treats all people with equal rights.
It is doubly objectionable because he is putting the onus on the woman who does not share his perspective to solve his problem. He could have traveled using another conveyance, or purchased seats around him if he had preferred a different seating setup.
But it has nothing to do with patriarchal society or repression of women, nor any other Tumblr-esque negative view of people of faith.
I personally don't wish to touch other women than my wife. It's a personal conviction to be respected.
What I think you're conflating or ignoring is who should be responsible for respecting it. You are responsible for respecting it; businesses like airlines are not, and members of society who conform to our general norms are not.
In a free and open social engagement, like meeting at a party, it would be respectful for you to courteously ask an overly 'touchy' woman to stop, and I don't think very many people would find that sexist. (Although consider if you didn't want to touch black people because of your religion..).
In this case though, a member of society is participating in not only a normalized way (sitting in an assigned seat), but in a restricted way (she is not allowed to move without airline consent, and similarly she is not required to move without an airline directive).
I don't think it should ever cross someone's mind that the onus would be on the woman to 'fix' this situation. It's just not; there is an outside party trying to impose his beliefs on her.
That's why there's such a strong 'liberal' societal response to situations like this -- much of liberalism has been concerned with removing these impositions on members of society with less personal power. It feels like a regression to have educated people argue otherwise.
So rubbing elbows with men on a flight is fine, but rubbing elbows with women is some sort of unfaithfulness? Oh, please. I don't wish to touch anyone on a flight, but hey, we're crammed in there like sardines, shit happens. The gender of the sardine next to you has exactly what effect on the elbow-sized contact patch you share with them?
You're also reading this situation as being solely confined to the event of the flight, rather than the overall social movement. Any single action can be stripped of context and sterilised that way. Take a racist who is always rude to blacks and no other: every single incidence of rudeness could be explained away with "oh, maybe that guy deserved it", but when you look at the overall pattern, it's clear what's going on.
I don't get how that works. Just because you sit next to someone doesn't mean tou have to fondle them, right?
The same people consider gender discrimination to be approximately as bad as race discrimination.
The Hisidic person in question has some kind of problem with women because of their own background.
If anything, I think it's more likely that the annoyance was caused mostly by the delay itself rather than what was causing it.
Interestingly, as the Conservative government kept falling in the polls, they even said that they would consider banning Niqabs for public servants!! It sounds so bizarre that a sitting Canadian government would suggest such a thing, but the 2015 federal election was a first class, direct flight to bizarro world.
This is the best article that I can find on this issue. It isn't great, but if I have more time later, I'll replace it with a better citation.
http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/blog.html?b=news.nationalpo...
On a style note, I have no idea if the word niqab should be capitalized. My iPhone autocorrects it to be capitalized, but it doesn't look correct. Can anyone help?
I, and many others who didn't vote Conservative, still supported their efforts to enforce a ban on such a regressive mode of dress during citizenship ceremonies. I don't think it's bizarre at all to address these sorts of things at a federal level. Citizenship is important and people who refuse to show their faces don't deserve it. I'm sorry if this doesn't match your ideal of an "inclusive" society or whatever.
I found it bizarre that the Conservative government would double down on the niqab issue by suggesting that they may ban public servants from wearing it. Doubling down on an issue that Justin Trudeau was gaining so many points on struck me as an admission that either they were running out of money, or they were competing against the NDP to be official opposition. It didn't make much strategic sense, especially considering former-PM Harper's 'old-stock' Canadian quote.
But, nothing about the last years of Conservative rule - from his fight against the public service, to his fight against science, to the Mike Duffy kerfuffle - made a lick of sense. It shouldn't have felt so bizarre that Harper would run a disjointed campaign, but he was otherwise an amazing campaigner.
As for the niqab during citizenship, I likely can't convince you because you'll mention that niqab's aren't even necessarily part of Islam. And, you'll mention that there is a possibility that their use is coerced.
All of those arguments are true and, for the record, I'm not a huge fan of the niqab, but I'm Catholic and I was born in Canada, so my views aren't particularly informed.
Rather, my only argument is that the Supreme Court gave some very stringent requirements for making a witness remove a niqab during trial.[1] The Supreme Court ruled that an outright ban on niqabs during testimony was wrong as, "rights should be limited only to the extent that the limits are shown to be justifiable."
I don't believe that we should have a lower standard during citizenship ceremonies. So ultimately, I think that we need strong justification to make it okay to violate someone's freedom to get dressed as they see fit.
I'm not convinced that we need to see someone's lips move as there are other ways we can determine whether they are actually reciting the vow. If the Supreme Court argues that a witness whose face is covered does not always violate an accused person's right to a fair trial, I don't think we can argue that a person whose face is covered violates the sanctity of citizenship. Those arguments aside, I can't think of any other strong arguments against the niqab in citizenship ceremonies.
[1] - https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/12779/inde...
Imagine how it feels for those who find the idea of Canadian civil servants clad in hijabs to be bizarro world.
'Bohunks' weren't treated particularly well in Canada at the time. Some Ukrainians were even put into internment camps during WW1!
Not even 80 years later, Roy Romanow (whose parents were Ukrainian immigrants) was sworn in as Premier of Saskatchewan. Some argue that he saved Saskatchewan from bankruptcy.
Perhaps the greatest joy of being Canadian is the knowledge that former outsiders have a sneaky habit of becoming among our greatest leaders! Therefore, I say wear hijabs. But when you lead, always fight to uphold the same freedom that gave you the chance to dress as you choose. :)
No. However, you would be entitled to be upset if they demanded that you wear a hijab for their religious purposes.
> Yet, as civilized people, we can come to the understanding that even though I don't support something doesn't mean that I have to tell others how to live their lives or expect them to live their lives in a way that makes me happy.
Which is exactly what's wrong in that situation, they had theses seats but because they are female, they were expected to move.
No. Nor, even if by "American" you mean "person other than a Muslim who believes that woman should where the hijab", but the former is neither equivalent to nor does it imply the latter -- there are Americans who were the hijab for their own religious reasons -- is that really parallel to the issue at hand.
Now, if you were such a person -- and a woman -- and someone asked you to wear a hijab to accommodate their religion's prohibition for women being uncovered in the presence of non-related men, then that would be more parallel to (though arguably somewhat more extreme than) the situation at issue. OTOH, an
If this person wants to avoid women, he should do what other reasonable people do to accomodate themselves: arrange for it in advance, without inconveniencing others. Telling people to their face that you can't sit next to them breaks most social rules.
> When passengers started to board, he said, an ultra-Orthodox man stood in the aisle, refusing to move and delaying the departure for 15 to 20 minutes until another passenger volunteered to switch seats.
That's wasting 75 hours because he didn't make his needs clear before hand, or didn't take the option of paying for an extra seat.
There's all kinds of things I don't like about commodity-priced airline seats either, but that's the choice we all have; either buy what you actually want or take what you paid for.
I say let him stand; the airline should deal with it. Finding an acceptable seat for him is their problem. I don't have a booking issue with my seat.
If the airline wants me to move, they should either pay me two hundred bucks, or move me to business class, or first.
They have no qualms about charging for cancellations or last minute booking changes; why should the passenger accomodate their problem free of charge?
"Low effort" is the wrong way of looking at this; the moral compromise in caving in to this request is immeasurable.
Having sex with someone is also "low effort". That doesn't mean you are obliged to have sex with whoever asks.
Listen to yourself. You are literally dehumanizing Hasidic Jews here. I don't agree with this guy's religion, but responding to insensitivity with outright bigotry is not making things better.
I never said anyone is obligated to comply — I might not either in these people's shoes. But accusing him of forcing his religion on others or being subhuman or hating women or what-have-you is toxic to conversation and not helpful.
First, that's not at all the same amount of effort, they chose theses seats, they made effort to get theses specific seats.
Second, you are still free to refuse to give time, if you don't feel like it. I already did when it was late, I didn't want to get my phone out for safety.
A better example would be that you wear a blue shirt because you liked that color, and then someone asked you to change it to red because he don't like blue. He even have the red shirt with him, ready to exchange it. You really like blue but not so much red. Would you?
I've swapped seats with people tons of times. Never for this reason, but maybe they wanted to sit next to their friend or whatever, and it didn't negatively affect me. It's much more common than having to change your shirt in public. But if you don't want to, that's OK too. My point is just that this guy wasn't exactly starting a new Crusade.
As we go through life we end up finding the lines at which each of us will stop. "Will you babysit my three children for five hours for free with no notice?" "Will you move so I don't have to touch your tempting elbow by accident?" "Will you let me blow through this deadline at work so I can.... get an emergency consult about my new leukemia diagnosis? go to Disneyland? take a mental health week? hang out with my new girlfriend?" I'm sure you'd say yes to some of these requests and no to others.
As so many office folks have said, "A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part." We all have the right to decline performing such "favors" for others.
The men were not asking for the women to be moved, they were asking to be moved.
"Irritated but eager to get underway, she eventually agreed to move." (not "he")
"when the man with the window seat in the same row asked if the couple would switch positions" (i.e. asking the woman to move - admittedly only one seat over)
"before the woman acquiesced and said, ‘I’ll move.’" (not "before they found a spare seat next to a man"). In this one, it doesn't exactly say she was asked to move, but the fact that she eventually "acquiesced" does seem to imply it.
In Sources 4 and 5, it appears that the Hasidic man moved.
In none of the sources does it say anything about who did the asking and why. There's a difference between the Hasid demanding that a woman be moved, and the staff attempting to relocate the woman as an expedient way to satisfy a polite request to find a seat without an adjacent woman.
What happened in case 1 is more of a toss up, so I'd say that it proves both of our points. The person asked to move, but the women ended up moving.
Given that, there is a 2/2 split of the other cases.
There is no evidence to suggest that either of us are right.
I don't really find it "reasonable", whatsoever, that someone can't sit beside another human being on a plane because SupremeBeingX doesn't want them to. In fact, "reasonable" may be the exact opposite description of the situation.
As I see it, they weren't upset that "someone of another religion wanted to adhere to their faith", they were upset that someone of another religion wanted them to take action to adhere to a prohibition of that other person's religion.
> It seems fairly reasonable that, on air planes non-the-less, that you will encounter many cultures that seem strange to you. Why would that aggravate you?
There's a substantial difference between encountering another culture and being asked to conform to that culture's taboos.
In other cases, there was an unwanted delay to travel.
In all cases, one must weigh the perceived harm (delay to 200+ passengers, versus harm to one passenger) against each other. Although to the man, the perceived harm to the man is high, to others, the perceived harm to the man is low. So any alarm over the situation can just be a matter of differing perceptions.
Then there's the question of were the people in the article even upset, or is that just your assumption? I'm not sure all of them were. They certainly thought the situation was remarkable, and they did remark on it, on twitter. That doesn't mean that every one of them was upset. But for those that were, see the reasons above.
Isn't that what's going on? If a person can't sit next to another person because of their goofy religious beliefs, then it's their own responsibility. It's unreasonable to throw a tantrum and insist everybody else move around.
They should expect that on an airplane they may encounter other people that may seem strange to them or make them uncomfortable.
Because it's representative of how the hasidic sect generally regards women: second-class citizens.
I don't think anyone has any problem with people wanting to adhere to their faith. The problem they have is with people of faith demand that someone else, who is otherwise "following the rules" do something that inconveniences them because of beliefs they don't share and probably don't agree with. I've had vegan friends who choose not to eat meals with me because I am a meat enthusiast. I'm fine with that and with their life choices. But if we're dining together and they begin dictating to me what I can and cannot eat on the menu, you can expect that I'll be aggravated and won't comply.
It's wrong to ask someone else to accommodate your faith for you, especially when them accommodating might just as well fly in the face of their own, personal, convictions. Now, if this person attempted to purchase a second seat next to them and had that seat filled by another passenger, then I can understand them asking if they could be moved elsewhere. But if they're refused, the only remaining choice is to politely get off the plane and wait for a flight that you can be accommodated on. It's not "standing in the aisle and holding up the flight for 15 minutes". That person's religious convictions just ended up aggravating every passenger of that flight.
Except this is exactly what ~90% of the articles that "cite" twitter do.
And then we have the problem of people just commenting on the act of editing the title, and not the actually content. That's hypocritical of me to complain about, though.
[1] "Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait."
It's along similar lines to "Blah blah blah, and you won't believe what happens next."
Not really, there are just people who haven't seen a specific type of trick not used ad nauseam, while others have seen it a thousand times already.
"I'll know it when I see it" is sufficient here, since there's a wide variety of them and with enough experience they can be easily recognized.
In case you would like to have an easier way to learn it though:
Typically clickbait is when the article communicates something (anything, really) that could easily fit in the title itself, but refuses to do so. Advanced users compose titles that specifically pique curiosity in the average person.
Here we see a fine example: "The one word journalists should add to Twitter searches that you probably haven’t considered". We have a one word answer "Me" and 'you' in the phrase 'you probably have considered'. The poster did a nice change to get the question answered before you need to read the article.
Two quick rules of thumb will take you a long way though.
1) Titles where the reader is referred to in the second person, meaning they have the word "You" in them.
2) Titles that use imprecise emotional/colloquial phrases and speculation instead of the factual crux of the article. Doubly so when the title describes the feeling or consequence that the unstated subject will theoretically inspire.
One of the purposes of a title on the web is to convince you to click on it. Good titles drive traffic. I don't get why we all get so hung up on how titles are written. If you don't like how something is worded, don't click on it.