gacgacgac

Double check the link. The study clearly looked at resumes.

Nothing in this has any bias in it? Which words are you suggesting are biased? This study measured constructed resumes where only names were changed, and observed the rate each group was favored (the percentage of resumes that passed). One group must be "most favored" because thats how math works. It's the group whose percentage was the highest. The resumes were fictional and equivalent across race, only the names were changed.

You are reading a paper without understanding the language of the paper. Adverse Impact has a specific meaning, and in this case it's specifically meaning that Black candidates were selected only four fifths as often as white candidates when their qualifications were identical. The study is only suggesting that further investigation is warranted.

Name. Other factors were controlled.

Please read the study or at least the comments here before jumping to the conclusion. Yes, they used constructed resumes, so the qualifications were exactly the same. And no, literally no one is suggesting this proves racial discrimination. It's applying the four fifths rule, a fast, coarse evaluation that is used to identify if maybe theres worth investigating more for a conclusive evidence of racial discrimination.

The authors are saying it's worth doing more research, because in a controlled data set the results appear unbalanced.

You are misreading this sentence. This sentence is saying: "Using a constructed dataset of resumes, whose only difference was a name change, we would anticipate a system evaluating on qualifications to produce an equal distribution of candidates across names. Our observed result was highly unequal, and that warrants further investigation."

Yes. You missed it. They are using a test dataset of 83k resumes generated in 2022 for this paper and comparing it as a baseline against their observational data: https://www.nber.org/papers/w29053

The dataset is constructed, deliberately, to hold candidate performance constant and vary the names of candidates to appear to be associated with a specific race.

It's not used to measure discrimination. It's used to identify outcomes that appear to be potentially discriminatory. You have to do the legwork afterwards.

Like. If I am evaluating a developer on lines of code written, I am a bad manager. But if an engineer has 40% fewer lines of code than the team median, it's absolutely ok for me to go, "Interesting. What's the story there? Are they slower or is there some other factor?"

Same idea -- this is purely a fast, first pass metric that can quickly assess if something warrants a deeper evaluation.

Importantly, the rule is not used to resolve racial discrimination claims. It's purely meant as the first test to evaluate whether a deeper dive is warranted. Fast, first pass data analysis tools are very useful for spotting unintended consequences.

Have you googled this? The EEOC is a federal agency, and they've published on this topic quite extensively. The four fifths rule is used to define if there is a "substantially different selection rate". It does not measure racial discrimination. It measures selection rate.

It indicates there may be adverse impact to one group. It specifically is not used to resolve racial discrimination.

It's purely a signal for "we should consider asking more questions, because this appears unusual". That's what your quote says too, it "flags" a low recommendation -- it's indicating further study and investigation is likely warranted.

Cops pulling someone over is never "fun and whimsy".

Nordics, Costa Rica, Australia and New Zealand.

Communism is not "when the government does stuff", and "the more the government does, the more communist it is".

I think it's plausible China and US invert in that calculus over the next 30 years. The median US person (anecdotally) feels to me like they are getting worse and worse stakes. $45k a year is not a lot these days. Chinese are investing heavily in infrastructure in a way that's appearing to build a healthy amount of economic potential. Whereas the US is... struggling. Global happiness index scores for China and Vietnam have risen dramatically, while the US is sliding down.

But I could be wrong. Maybe there will be a reversion.

Anarchism exists within socialism too-- the anti Francoist anarchists in Spain who were crushed by Soviets for doing the wrong kind of socialism, for example. Kropotkin's approach and anarcho syndacalism is anti-statist, and also anti-capitalist.

Anarchism is a complex area that can be capitalist, socialist, individualist, collectivist, primitivist, techno..logist? Basically, like communism, anarchism doesn't have just one flavor.

I ... actually agree with this. But I think we gotta deliberately select who that applies to. Is it everyone at Meta? Like, are we all culpable for our employers sins? Or are we all squeezed by a system where we gotta work to eat and the people who decide what jobs exist are the capital class?

Like, obviously cops aren't workers, but what level of culpability does a person working in Meta's disability accommodations team have? I dunno. Hard question.

I think you can look at different lenses of success. Vietnam successfully defeated a much, much more powerful imperial force. They have fewer freedoms, and are still recovering from the generational damage dealt to them, and they are hardly without plenty of valid criticisms. But they've had successes.

China is a major global power. I think you'd have to accept that China is successful, even if that success doesn't reach every person. And I think it's fair to point at China and ask just how communist it really is. (Then again, I think it's fair to point at the US and ask how idealistically capitalist they are.)

Cuba has some of the highest literacy rates in the world, they have a developed medical care system with lower infant mortality, high vaccination rates, and they have developed their own effective vaccines for things like covid. They've eliminated measles. They enjoy a longer life expectancy than US citizens. And they've achieved those successes with an embargo that has made it difficult for Cuba to trade globally.

This is why I was probing for rubrics, because I think one can definitely find success in communist governments, and you'll also find corruption. And you'll find crime and war. And there's no clear story of "across all axes they are successful".

Would I rather live in any of these? It's complicated! I think there are very few countries right now that are primarily focused on the welfare of their people.

I'll argue -- socialist is not the same as communist. Norway is not a communist country (despite arguably being a socialist one).

Workers are workers. We have so much more in common with one another than we do with the capital class.

Turning against a worker because they are doing better than another worker is giving in the divide and rule.

Historically, this is exactly how factory owners tried to get the white and Black workers to schism rather than unionize.

Workers deserve workers rights, and we should have solidarity towards all workers.

This is the end goal of one form of communism, but certainly not the end goal of communism. Many communists want a strong state and see a single party as desirable.

What is your rubric for successful? And does it shift if that state was the target of wars of aggression or embargoes?

People can't afford to live and food comes before paying your landlord? Economy is fucked right now. Income inequality pushes any gains into the hands of the wealthy.

And frankly, more and more people are willing to stuff their landlord if they feel their landlord isn't holding up their end of the deal.

Which assets? The textures, models, and animations are Creative Commons (various flavors, mostly non commercial).

If the code is open source, one can always build a client that works with the Creative Commons assets or community contributed ones.

Yes they absolutely can? Anyone can. I can.

The thing the GPL requires is that I also provide it for free. Now, why would anyone buy a free thing? To support the devs. To encourage this sort of business model. To get a build that's known to be working and supported and not have to deal with the hassle of compiling things themselves.

This is nonsense. You absolutely can have both -- typically by building systems to eliminate poverty and reduce income inequality.

This article definitely doesn't account for those of us who are neurodiverse. My airpods buy me precious energy I can spend in social circles that I would otherwise not have. Force me out of them on a train or bus, expect me to be asocial for an hour when I get home.

Nothing is more unwelcome than casual conversation with strangers. It's very difficult to know what to say and how to act. I don't have a machine built for interacting with this person, so every conversation is simultaneous developing and operating a machine. No thank you!

And I'm not lonely nor isolated. I've curated the relationships I want. They are high quality, free from social media, and very active. I don't need someone sticking a spanner in my mental machinery on the bus.

Because the company has said they won't. I'm not making a value judgement about what images should exist here, I'm making a "the company said it shouldn't be capable of producing that output, then it does" argument. Thats a bug.

If you think these tools are remotely comparable, you haven't been paying attention.

I don't think you understand the concern. Or at least nothing you've communicated suggests you understand it.

ChatGPT should never produce images like this. Full stop. Prompted or not, it should refuse. Now we know it's possible to walk around the gate and get it to comply. Are there other, genuinely harmful images that it should never produce? Deepfake revenge porn? Images of specific people being brutalized? I'd argue those absolutely can be harmful to someone. Well now there's evidence the "never produce this" wall can be overcome. It's only a matter of time before genuinely harmful imagery is generated.

Anyone trying to find legitimacy in the ban of this model, or incredulousness at the stated reasoning is playing into the admins hands.

They want the argument to be over "is it unsafe" or "is it incompetence". In either case, your tribe gets to point at the ban and feel superior. (This is Jon Stewart's whole career -- point and laugh at how foolish the republicans appear to be.)

What's really happening is the continuing creep into fascism. The reasoning doesn't need to be sound, because they are going to ban things that displease them and everyone has to play along. They could say, "we're banning Fable because it's turning the frogs gay" and they'd expect compliance.

Umberto Eco's essay on Ur-Fascism fits as clearly as ever. Ridiculous exertions of control are performed to find the people who resist, and to knock them down.

Merely pointing out the absurdity of the reasoning isn't resistance, it's controlled opposition. Saying "All this over 'fix this code'?! How inept are they?" Is far too credulous, and is engaging on the level the fascist wants its opposition to be on, imo.