emblem21

I'll meet you halfway and agree on the importance on taking on the powerful. But I can't lionize Gawker for doing that. I can only criticize them for lowering the bar on what taking on the powerful means.

Revealing a VC is gay isn't taking on the powerful. Revealing the low-commitment racism of a wrestling has-been isn't taking on the powerful. This is pandering to low information and low attention audiences to secure a buck with TMZ-style gossip... and then dressing it up like you're doing God's work because, somehow, everyone involved believes they are on the right side of history™.

If you want to see an example of journalists taking on power, ask yourself this: When is the last time a central bank called out Gawker?

If you want to see an example of data-driven journalism (ignore the election year antics) that actually takes on the powerful, give Zerohedge a try. At least they make the effort to back up their occasionally ridiculous speculation with hard data.

This means the algo only works in serial contexts, not in parallel ones.

It guesses what key you'll hit next. It has a naive assumption of when I will hit it next. (Eventually)

Only privileged white people think Jezebel represents feminism. Let me know when they give full-time coverage of the challenges of poverty that routinely face WoC instead of hyperventilating about how sexist a handful of pixels are.

Or are feminists only those who have minable consumer behavior?

Looks like the Overton window shifting worked on you.

Gawker Media is a Cayman Island corporation founded by a foreign national. It does not engage in journalism. It is a blog designed to shift the Overton Window for Jon Stewart's fanbase into normalizing extreme political agendas.

Are there any cases that show foreign companies that exist 100% as a tax shelter, founded by a foreign national, have first amendment rights?

I have found people are frequently ready to kill one another to protect THEI specific brands of the disempowered of choice, often at the expense of the disempowered brand they despize.

News organizations classify themselves as social networks to bypass FCC regulations, blogs at 11.

Is there a way to place a bet on the sentiment analysis rating of HN in the event of Facebook being caught pushing Hilary to trending instead Sanders and/or preventing Sanders from trending?

My gamble is that it would be the complete opposite of how this thread is evolving.

Stand up against whom?

> "Strong evidence where written by whom?"

> "What the world needs to do, what Europe needs to do, is stand up on its two feet"

Advocating ultra-nationalist, anti-internationalist policies is, precisely, what leads to the mass conflict the grandparent was talking about.

Projects die all the time. Even languages can (mostly) die. The death of a project is a valid part of a project lifecycle and knowing how it dies can affect how you deal with previous project phases.

Agile never assumes project death is a reality. It philosophically implies that you can always measure and iterate your way to the next phase... but that's just not true. No one measures and iterates their way to a dead state on purpose and yet, projects end up there all the time.

So how are the projects getting there and what is Agile doing about it? And don't give me the Agile vs. "Agile" argument. Assume a flawless execution of agile principles with completely accurate measurements and successful iterations took place when answering that question.

To me, agile just assumes infalsifiability because it refuses to acknowledge, let alone, prepare for project death. And worse, according you agile, you can even measure and iterate your way out of the grave.

The operation of a projects has more in common with biology than immortality. Treating projects like immortals flies in the face of the reality of project lifecycles and it brings very bad mental states to problem solving. It makes far more sense to treat a project in lifecycle phases (birth, child, youth, adult, mature, elderly, dead) than assuming a singular monolithic philosophy that completely ignores the arc of a project.

A: "The code base is too unwieldy, no one understands it any more"

B: "Oh, just measure and iterate"

A: "But that just creates more unwieldy code!"

Agile makes sense as a subphase of a project lifecycle for when that lifecycle is spinning its wheels in the mud, not as a end-all-be-all philosophy.

TL;DR: Agile should used if a project stalls, not as a guiding philosophy.

"Converts characters into yellow/gold N'ko, a modern unifier of the Manding languages spoken by mansas throughout medieval North Africa."

https://www.npmjs.com/package/goldmansachs

Raising liquidity for future bail-ins to be compliant with Basel III.

Comparing Reddit, a community where specialists can setup a little fiefdoms and generalists can cheery pick from whatever fiefdom they can find, with HackerNews, a singular monoculture that just happens to attract people with a huge diversity of interests, is a challenge unto itself.

Both deploy a wide variety of strategies to enforce quality content: crowd-vote mechanism and individual ignoring. These two mechanisms should be more than sufficient for even the most obsessively compulsive and curiously unaccountable of curators.

The question isn't comparing communities based on content or upon curator strategies. One should question should take aim at the unspoken epistemological assumptions every single curator engages in.

Suppose Poster 1 puts topic A into Community A. There are many overlapping relationships between topic A and community A.

Now lets suppose Poster 2 puts topic B into Community A. There are few overlapping relationships between topic B and community A.

"Overlapping relationships" is a very complex topic. Users might find topic B to be on-topic in an esoteric or meta way, and the moderators will find it off-topic. Users might find topic A to be off-topic because the topic is to frequently discussed, and the moderators remove it. However the dice roll, the concept of "overlapping relationships" between topic and community is not a guarantee of topic survival.

The selection mechanism of topic survivability is divided between the collective hands of the crowd-vote mechanism, individual ignoring, or moderation termination. And notice I say "divided" , and not "sequentially evaluated". Agents of topic survival operate in parallel. This means that posters have to appeal to not only just three different selection criteria in order to survive, but eight different scenarios that have different highly targeted payoffs.

Two rules of the topic lifecycle:

* The topic must pass/fail three moderation phases.

* The topic always has influence on the hardcore communtiy consumers (HCC), the average community consumers (ACC), and the moderators. (M)

How topic lifecycles can still influence a community even via multi-phase curation:

  Case | CrowdVote? | Mass ignore | Deletion? | Outcome
    1  |    Pass    |             |           | HCC get skeptical of ACC and M
    2  |            |    Pass     |           | ACC get skeptical of HCC and M
    3  |            |             |   Pass    | HCC and ACC think M is lazy
    4  |    Pass    |    Pass     |           | HCC and ACC think M is aggressive
    5  |            |    Pass     |   Pass    | HCC hostile to ACC and M, may fracture community
    6  |    Pass    |             |   Pass    | ACC get skeptical of HCC and M
    7  |    Pass    |    Pass     |   Pass    | No effect
    8  |            |             |           | M gets skeptical of HCC and ACC

The point is that having topics curated epistemologically only appears to work because it fails the slowest. No outcome of topic enforcement actually bolsters or adds to community value over time because all topic consumption is a destructive process (destruction of time). Thus, entropy always wins.

"Our great and noble intentions accidentally wiped out a bunch of people... but we swear we are the good guys!!!!"

I've seen hundreds of marketing types and executives prefer to chase their greed over recognizing the importance of accountability. Now, I'm witnessing altruistic types chase unfalsifiable humanist ideologies over recognizing the importance of accountability.

I can't tell if you assume the downtrodden are so stupid they'll accept any charlatan who spouts beautiful intentions no matter the actual cost or that the noble hearts are so special that they deserve freedom from consequence indefinitely. Without accountability, both conclusions are the foundation of atrocity.

Godel's incompleteness will explain some of the problems of finite regarding set theory.

“Academic politics are so vicious precisely because the stakes are so small."

> “It is an enormous challenge,” said Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, who described the clashes between U.S.-supported groups as “a fairly new phenomenon.”

> “It is part of the three-dimensional chess that is the Syrian battlefield,” he said.

Corrupt congressmen explaining the supreme unaccountability associated with this type of unofficial warfare as something too complex and mysterious for the average observer to comprehend should be classified as a radicalizer by the FBI.

Humans take 14 years to make useful. Machines take weeks.

In a world full of corporate sponsered politicians who make the laws without regard of the masses, a power mad executive branch that uses state of the art tech to monitor everything in an attempt to detect precrime, the mass incarceration of males based on balance sheet projections, and wide spread police brutality, and growing geopolitical unstability due to interventionalists refusing to allow the markets to reflect risk, it is no wonder the fourth estate and their loyal cadre of narrative worshippers want to totally eliminate gun ownership.

...or why should I work so hard to pay SF rent when I can be homeless and get free housing?

Cybernetics will just change disability insurance into hardware insurance.

Aramaic was the primary language of trade for the first civilizations during their initial rise. As other trade empires blossomed, more languages appeared, and as trade empires collapsed, those languages vanished.

Religion can and does preserve memes and linguistics, but only trade can scale it out.

Mostly at each other.

Colonial conquest is not the primary methodology of linguistic propagation. Trade is.

English is the primary programming language, not because a team of dedicated Anglo-Saxons are pointing rifles as the head of brown people, but because American trade provides the most profit motive between 1974-2008.

To summarize: The Internet was designed to survive nuclear war. It was never designed to survive psychological war.