fweespeech

2) People on Reddit and elsewhere noted pro-Trump videos with thousands of shares and a couple hundred views repeatedly. The only way that would happen is with bots since to trigger the share link on YouTube would be by viewing the video.

Why is it people always try to argue ignorance is okay because it is popular?

[2014]

https://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/2014/08/30/large-the-intern...

> The Internet’s fake news problem

> Some of it is satire (The Onion and, to a less proven extent, its clickbaiting sister site Clickhole continue to bear the standard of mastery), but the larger part of what’s out there is “satire” — from the chronically unfunny half-jokes of the Daily Currant to the shrug-inducing falsehoods of Empire News , the toothlessly goofy sendups of Free Wood Post , the over-the-top Christian-trolling of Christwire , and the more pernicious race-baiting of sites like CreamBPM and Newsbuzzdaily .

https://newrepublic.com/article/118013/satire-news-websites-...

> Upworthy and Viralnova, at least, are honest about what they're selling: gaudy, sentimental, life-affirming stories. But the Currant class promises humor and almost universally fails to deliver it—because the actual goal is SEO clickbait. Given that, you might wonder why they even bother identifying themselves, usually in disclaimers at the bottom of the page, as satirical news sites.The answer is simple: to avoid a lawsuit.

> But the biggest mystery isn’t the identity of the conmen—it’s how much they're hauling in. Barkeley told Slate that his humor provides him with a “tight but livable” income. A number of publically available valuation services, which are by no means precise, estimate that The Daily Currant brings in anywhere from mid-five figures to $130,000 dollars a year on ad revenue alone. Finkelstein, the SEO expert, says even those numbers may be low, as they doesn't include revenue derived from short-term revenue bumps when a story goes viral. “I would estimate their yearly revenue from display advertising at about $100,000–$150,000 a year,” he said, noting that even with his expertise and access to estimation tools, it's not an exact science. “It isn’t perfect, but it is close. But at most, over the few years they’ve existed, The Daily Currant may have made as much as $500,000 in revenue—split between two people who are hardly doing any work.”

> The Daily Currant is likely the king of this particular con. But others may be catching up. The same public revenue calculators place Mediamass’s annual ad revenue alone at just under $40,000; Huzzlers' is rapidly approaching $45,000. Not bad takes, especially when you consider that some of these sites don’t even bother to write their own unfunny canards: They just steal them from other sites.

[2016]

http://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-human-news-editors-2...

> After a Gizmodo story claimed Facebook editors had suppressed conservative news from the Trending section, the social network fired those editors in favor of an algorithm. As part of the change, the Trending section no longer shows custom headlines and summaries of news topics.

> “We’re not in the business of deciding what issues people should read about," he said. "We don’t create content. We’re not in that business.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2016/10...

> Facebook has repeatedly trended fake news since firing its human editors

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-o...

> But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. “If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years -- I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.”

> “The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”

It was gaining mass for a long, long time and that trend is reversing and it ultimately doesn't change the fact the sea level rise is still occurring despite the mass gain.

That isn't a 'so things happen' situation. It is a "Well, traditionally Antarctica gains X each year. The rate of this gain is offsetting the Y in losses for now but the rate of loss is accelerating and overall we are still losing ground regardless'.

Still a fan, sorry.

They can freeze your bank accounts too.

Then you shouldn't have replied to me and changed the context?

The context was information in Google's possession.

You tried to narrow it to advertising after I replied which is, at best, silly.

EDIT:

> ..did you read the original post?

You replied to me and tried to plays devil advocate. The context of my words is the one that is relevant, not your attempt to shift the goal posts into some narrow land of the absurd where you get to pretend the fact information Google collects ultimately gets abused isn't a privacy problem.

So just stop, honestly. Your position as absurd as storing plain text passwords because "Well, there has never been an official policy of abusing that information."

Rogue admins, hackers, etc. are all valid threats to privacy when the information is stored in an easily transportable form and the fact that isn't obvious to you terrifies me that you are somehow a professional sysadmin.

---

http://www.theweek.co.uk/google/11581/google-worker-fired-fo...

> But further examples of Barksdale's abuse of his privileges were more serious. Earlier this spring, he viewed call logs from Google Voice in order to identify the girlfriend of a 15-year-old boy, who had refused to name her. Barksdale then taunted the boy and threatened to call his girlfriend.

---

Not a single instance of a Google employee misusing info? Not one you say?

A failure of internal controls qualifies as a problem just as serious as intentional abuse of it.

It is actually about making a good AI. Civ 6 or SC2, in both cases they simply "cheat" by providing multipliers to the AI in order to solve its limitations. The basic function is largely the same. Providing the AI with cheat codes is not "good" AI.

A good AI design would remove the need for such arbitrary advantages that are out of context for human players and leads to weird issues.

However, the invasiveness of the Pixel changes for "Deep Google Integration" in #3 is likely as much a pro as a con.

People have pushed this "You are paranoid, no one is out to get you" narrative since the 90s. Everyone has something to hide, even if its just their sex life or beliefs that aren't politically favored that might affect your employment.

The US is cheaper. I'm guessing like many people who don't live in the US you are thinking about the popular coastal areas and ignoring 80% of the land area.

I'm talking houses for $125k and a total cost of living around $20k outside of the mortgage.

http://listverse.com/2013/07/15/10-criminals-caught-thanks-t...

The other problem is someone dressed and equipped like a fully armed infantryman showing up in a mall...gets noticed. You can't stealthily carry a ton of cartridges AND have them easily accessible. You'll have to put them in a backpack or the like, changing the equation.

Yes, if they play things perfectly, you will lose every time. The reality is, most of these guys are pretty average and make numerous mistakes. The guys who play it out perfectly never get caught regardless of the law. That isn't an argument we should make murder legal.

I'm not going to respond further.

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapon...

> Other studies, he said, have suggested attacks with semiautomatic guns – particularly those having large magazines – “result in more shots fired, persons hit and wounds inflicted than do attacks with other guns and magazines.” Another study of handgun attacks in Jersey City during the 1990s, he said, “estimated that incidents involving more than 10 shots fired accounted for between 4 and 5 percent of the total gunshot victims in the sample.”

> Koper, Jan. 14: So, using that as a very tentative guide, that’s high enough to suggest that eliminating or greatly reducing crimes with these magazines could produce a small reduction in shootings, likely something less than 5 percent. Now we should note that effects of this magnitude could be hard to ever measure in any very definitive way, but they nonetheless could have nontrivial, notable benefits for society. Consider, for example, at our current level of our gun violence, achieving a 1 percent reduction in fatal and non-fatal criminal shootings would prevent approximately 650 shootings annually … And, of course having these sorts of guns, and particularly magazines, less accessible to offenders could make it more difficult for them to commit the sorts of mass shootings that we’ve seen in recent years.”

It doesn't quite work that way. There is a reasonably consistent trend among studies that somewhere between 3% and 5% fewer gun deaths occur if magazines are smaller than 10 rounds. That is also more than the margin of error for such studies.

Similarly, even a 2% reduction saves ~1,300 people a year.

So pretending its a mere scapegoat is...stretching quite a bit. Now you can argue a thousand or two thousand people dying is an acceptable cost to maintaining the status quo but that isn't the argument you tried to make.

Smaller magazines provide a margin of safety of several seconds which you might actually be able to get clear and accuracy is frequently low, so that first shot after reloading is likely to miss.

High end models few can afford at first, then slowly moving into the "regular guy" market once the R&D is done and mass production bottlenecks are solved.

15% below average is not on par imo.

For many people on HN or at GS, that is basically the tco for their a car every year (at a minimum).

Tesla is constantly behind on producing cars for its customers. They just wanted to generate money now rather than later.

Tesla's main costs aren't the cost per unit but the engineer/software costs iirc.

I can't find ones in that case (since his account his expended) but I can still find older news articles, like his #WorldPatriarchyDay post which was targeted at someone.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/16/sexbots-w...

> by MILO 16 Sep 2015

> I mean, look, I don’t mean to be rude, but most of the reason I went gay is so I didn’t have to deal with nutty broads. Imagine how much worse they’re going to get when the passive aggressive manipulation tactics stop working because the guy can get himself off with a thinner, hotter robot any time he wants to. They’re going to go mental.

I'm sorry but pretending Milo isn't sexist is like pretending water isn't wet.

I agree with you.

That said, this statement is at odds with your statement in regards to lying.

> The filing described Mr. Martin as computer genius who easily outsmarted government efforts to protect secrets and said he possessed an advanced understanding of how to encrypt messages and hide information in cyberspace.

They are certainly lying in terms of how capable he was with the "genius" implications.

The simple truth is NSA internal security is fucking terrible as we are shown time and again that lone wolves are easily able to do this if they so choose. Snowden isn't some magical computer genius of exceptional ability either. He honestly comes across as more of an above-average (but not 1 in 100) IT guy.

I'm willing to bet Martin is "above average" but, once again, not a computer genius mastermind capable of outsmarting competent security practices. It is simply the NSA is not competent at implementing such practices when it comes to internal actors.

If you look weak on "National Security" you lose your next election campaign the vast majority of the time.

That is really the entirety of the reason and its frightening how disconnected our election process is from the reality of the results they produce.

For anyone that wants to avoid the paywall.