fearai

does the author just have a problem with "autoplay" vs the user clicking on the videos?

i had to read over halfway just to find out what the google exec said. here is the quote of contention, i think

"“I’m not saying that a user couldn’t click on one of those videos that are quote-unquote more extreme, consume that and then get another set of recommendations and sort of keep moving in one path or the other. All I’m saying is that it’s not inevitable.”"

the software robots informing the humans will come for your repetitive job

using Orwellian newspeak to change words to match your "scientific" agenda should be considered an attack on science and not regurgitated by people who believe the agenda. no conspiracy, they don't hide the manipulation

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/17/why-the-...

well aware climate and weather are different and so is the Green New Deal leader who was schooled last week https://twitter.com/RyanMaue/status/1131676480281427968

vr IS art.

just because someone identifies as an "artist" and makes vr doesn't mean they are making "vr art" and a graphics programmer is not making art. human creative expression is art whether made by an "artist" or programmer.

now for the smarter humans/bots to tell us how it really is. thank you.

Literally playing video games is now a dream job and people are still complaining smh

This doesnt prevent trusted people from doing stupid things like this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18534392

We need to trust the code not the programmer

cool. seems very ambiguous and watered down.

without intent seems like it should just be called "watching" or "recording". also does it stop being called "Sousveillance" if done on a plane? or hiking above a certain altitude?

we are very interested in pulling data from "accidental" surveillance.

Isn't this just a fancy name for "reverse" surveillance?

how is the token chosen for a new token? also couldn't a bitcoin address be used 1. it's unique and 2. you can pay for the data