Terrario

> Why are so many people upset by this? > It’s like they have some kind visceral reaction to seeing someone who isn’t being thrifty and researching every little thing out with spreadsheets. It doesn’t affect you. They’re not telling you to do it.

Would you pay $100 for a 100MB usb drive? Would you not react and try to dissuade a friend from making a purchase you recognize to be ill-considered?

It’s your money, do what you want, but people are upset because there are (probably, since we dont know yet) better options that don’t have an Apple pricetag. The purchase would be based on complacency with a brand, and not conformity to rational principles and knowledge.

Few have already posted that they would buy this because it’s Apple, in order to avoid 1-2 hours of research. I really hope these aren’t the same people complaining about how terrible capitalism is.

I do think you missed the point.

Parent: The software itself shouldn't have any control over the student's grades. A person should have to review the flags and actually find some wrongdoing. Not just push 'yes' and walk away.

You: Let’s say you’re only using the software to flag suspicious behavior, and bringing in humans to make the final decision. What happens when (inevitably) the software disproportionally flags people with dark skin because it is not trained to recognize dark-skinned faces? Or when the software disproportionally flags poor people, or people with families?

Answer: A person should have to review the flags and actually find some wrongdoing.

You: It means that those groups of people will be targeted by the (human) bureaucracy and tasked with defending themselves, when they’ve done nothing wrong

Me: The human bureaucracy is suppose to be there to determine the quality of the flags and analyze whether there is any discrimination at play. A company that lacks this human element is negligent and should be held responsible.

> And my response is—that’s not enough. It sounds like the algorithm, because it is biased, has the effect of increasing the bias in the whole system.

Hence why the humans should be held responsible for not addressing bias in their system. And why the actions of an algorithm should be the responsibility of its creators.

> If your response is that humans should work harder to counteract biases in machine systems, well, I think that’s just a way to CYA and assign blame but not a way to solve the problem—humans will remain biased, and they will trust automated systems even when that trust is misplaced.

So...? What’s your solution? All you’re saying is that humans will remain bias, yeah they will. That’s why we have laws that punish discrimination and bias. If your company creates products (algorithms) that discriminate, you should be held responsible. The human element is not there to “work harder” but to assure that what you’re releasing works properly. If you don’t think increased accountability fixes the problem, please tell us what would be “enough”.

> This argument assumes that EITHER access to guns is to blame OR people are to blame, but not both

No assumption. If you think a cop can have a gun but a criminal can’t then the gun isn’t the problem. If you believe cops can have guns but civilians can’t then the main factor is the person with the gun and not the gun itself. This isn’t an argument against increased restrictions and if you believe no one should have guns (including the government) im all for it. But if you believe someone has the right to have guns while others don’t, im hard pressed to see any other determining factor except who has the gun.

I think this misses the parent’s point.

The point is to not let the algorithm make decisions. The human bureaucracy is suppose to be there to determine the quality of the flags and analyze whether there is any discrimination at play. A company that lacks this human element is negligent and should be held responsible. Unless algorithms can be trialed and held accountable, they shouldn’t be allowed to make decisions.

Also guns don’t kill people, people do. Otherwise explain to me why it would be okay for certain institutions to be armed but not individuals. If guns are the problem, then no one should have them (including the military/police).

It sounds stupid because that analogy doesn’t work. A surgeon can’t properly do most kinds of surgery on themselves, some are down right impossible. There’s nothing a mechanic can’t do to their car that they can’t do for their costumers.

Your argument doesn’t follow. It sounds like you have a problem with the winner takes all system in us elections and not the electorate. Conservative voices in Cali and Liberal voices in Texas would be more relevant in a proportional system and not a winner takes all. These would be particularly relevant for states with split populations.

> No places should control an election. People should.

You say this but you dont mean it. In practice, removing the electoral college today would guarantee that certain places (coastal/densely urbanized states) control the election.

Should a Taiwan be able to dictate the laws and policies of a Tibet just because they have a larger population? The reason there are borders (in theory at least) is for different communities with different interest to have certain autonomy to choose their own destinies. It was part of the “deal” when the union was made because of this. If you want to remove the electoral college, then there should be a painless and democratic way for states to secede.

There are very few countries as large as the US, this circumstance is not shared by many countries. We should have a proportional system and then there wouldn’t be much of a need for an electorate AFAIK.

> What "protection" does the electoral college give to Kansas, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Idaho, or Montana?

Their collective voice along with the rest of the “heartland” is the backbone of the GOP. Trump and Bush both won without the popular vote because the electoral college amplified their collective voice.

The electorate doesn’t make them win, it gives them better odds. The campaign focus on swing states should explain itself...

Blacks and latinos can live in Montana as well... Also the electoral college predates emancipation, so I dont think the black vote was a factor for its creation.

California has 55 votes, Montana and DC only have 3 each. Is that not enough influence? Cali and NY make up almost a third of the electoral votes.

Is it really fair for these two places to control and dictate the policies of a country spread as far and wide as the US? Hasnt the blue/red divide, not only in the country but within states themselves show that the desires and attitudes of people are heavily influenced by their geographic location? Isn’t a good thing there’s a political system (the electorates) that accounts for this?

But the country is not a union of people of different ages and professions, but of different states, technically.

The electoral college is a form of protection for the naturally less densely populated agrarian states against the densely populated urban ones. Without the electoral college, the colonies would not have agreed to unite under a shared federal government.