gerland

Can you recommend anything? I do enjoy the content here, and some of the people are really great, but the level of wokeness is just absurd. I got some people chasing me from here on other networks just because I dared to say my opinion. Thanks for speaking your mind btw. Obviously you had to be downvoted as well

I think it's much easier to measure value of tech skills than most other skills. In the management and business areas you have to bet on how well people will perform and it's harder to put a finger on what will define success. Even people moving between similar environments might have difficulty adjusting. I personally believe that a lot of hiring is happening only on appearances alone. Since the people in middle management are often recruited like that, they also tend to overvalue skills of similar individuals. I'm seeing right now some "reassessments" happening due to the whole COVID thing. A lot of invaluable people are losing their jobs and yet no one is feeling any difference. It's just the market finally catching up to an overvalued good.

Most of my best jobs came from LI leads, so I don't really get the point. I find LI to be a more open and just system than hiring a guy that knows a guy, or forcing people into slavery in open source.

It's not the hiring that is broken, but the tech industry itself. There is nothing that compares in how low a measurable value is priced in any other domain. It seems that the less you can put a price on something, the more people speculate that it is worth. There is probably some fancy economical law to follow, idk.

So I guess Scientific American also joined political bias? Should have expected that, but it's a bit sad.

Additional trivia - Benjamin Franklin was a big proponent of inoculation. He tried to spread the awarness and convince people that it's safe and effective. Unfortunately his first son died of smallpox before he could be inoculated. He was 4 and developed some other infection, so BJ decided to wait with inoculation. Before he could perform it, he contracted the disease. It was huge blow to the credibility of BJ claims about inoculation, but he continued his mission nevertheless.

They try their best to keep their business as profitable as possible. This often means they just don't want to analyse content in a sufficient way, although it should be possible to do it in an automated way. It's better to take down 10 videos with the word pedophilia, even if 9 of them talk about how to make your kid safe, than to spend computing power on a more detailed analysis. Why bother, those videos won't sell ads anyway. It's one of the reason that the whole "I'm a private company na na na na na na ha ha ha ha ha ha, you can't regulate me!" argument is so weak.

Not every problem can be solved with automation, because content adapts. If there will be people involved, there will be biases and scandals. Not that I trust people designing algorithms to be some kind of saints.

We know now that people are more likely to discriminate basing on political orientation than race. Basically all the people that would be racists 100 years ago now took a different angle to be able to behave in the same manner. I do not trust moderators and overlords, because they seem to be all from one political orientation. Being a black person 100 years ago, would you trust an all-white private company to handle all your information in an equal way, even knowing that some of the data exposes illegal practices of the said company? It's absurd to think that anyone under those circumstances would be 100% clean and it's just plain insane to thinnk we can hold hundrets of thousands of people at the same time to thius standard.

Putting aside the topic of how easy is it to understand a trained ML model, I really hope we won't end up in a SEO-like situation.

Very convenient for the author of the post, right?

Just a notice - there is a "in English" button in the top-right corner.

I agree that there is no privacy law violation, but it is a bit distasteful. We have some implicit standards in the society and it seems those are conveniently ignored at this point. There is some excuse given in the article in the form of "he probably gives out this number to people he does not wish to talk to", which I find a bit suspicious.

When I got letters to previous tenants at my current address I did not open them and share with everyone I met. I sent them to their new address.

I heard someone found shoes that Bill Gates once wore and a gum chewed by Steve Jobs. Both became relics and worshippers write articles about this in the internet.

Seriously though - would someone think it was ok if I got a number after a local bakery owner and started sharing messages that were sent to me by mistake? Is this ok because EM is a more known person? I think it still falls under privacy standards.

Would an online degree be worth something? If yes, then which would you recommend?

I'm hoping a bit that we moved past those early steps and CE is now more in a DIY phase, but I don't know, hence I'm asking.

Once again a post that does not break any guidelines is being downvoted. Which proves why we need to battle deplatforming inj the first place. If you cannot even post something as harmless without people trying to bend the system to silence you, then I cannot believe that there will be a due process for anyone that has a really strong opinion.

No Sir, you are just strawmanning here. Please do not put in my mouth (or rather in my hand) words that I did not say. My point is, that you cannot always distinguish what is hogwash and what is legit. If you refuse someone the right to speak, you give people a convenient tool to silence everybody that is inconvenient to them. Also, it's just a matter of common decendy to allow people their basic rights.

Sounds like people had to go around a system to get results. System that was full of holes and not bordering on orwellian or huxleyan principles.

Einstein was refused publication and ridiculed until Bohr, who was an authority, vouched for him. Madam Curie had to publish under her husbands name, because her publications were rejected on the basis that she was a woman.

I hope I won't go too close to breaching the Godwin's law, but there seem to be some analogies to Herschel Grynszpan here. We can always find an outlier that would be a good excuse for an overblown reaction. We can also probably find outliers on the other side of the spectrum, but we choose to ignore them. Conveniently.

> Free speech doesn't mean everyone is forced to listen to that speech.

You are completely right. Free speech does not mean that anyone will force you to listen to Alex Jones or any other nutjob. It means that AJ will have the right to speak and you can ignore him.

From the top of my head, let me just list a few of the poeople that were considered crazy and could not initialy find a platform to express their ideas:

Clair Patterson E. Cuyler Hammond Albert Einstein Marie Curie Sklodowska Nikola Tesla

You get my point?

It's a nice move, but probably it will even further deteriorate the situation. If NYT had to lower standards due to lack of funding, then removing cookies will only speed up the fall. It looks like a last resort attempt at trying to save themselves. How much credibility does it restore in the end?

Let's hope it happens. If anything can change this pathological US-China relation, it's something like this.

Sure, I agree, but so far unregulated capitalism served only those companies and nations that already had market advantage. Forcing "liberal" economic changes in South and Latin America caused their markets to crumble under global competition. You always have to regulate markets somehow. The anti-monopoly laws are an example of just that. Now let's ask ourselves how is a monopoly in a certain area of information brokerage any different? I think classical media gave a very good example of what should be avoided and we have to remember that those actually split the domain between themselves. In the case of internet giants it is often a division based on functionality, so each player owns almost a monopoly of one form of expression. YT Twitter and Reddit are the prime examples. Those three altogether cover almost all of meanigful ways of communication. Most of what's left is just too short, shallow and spreads not that well. Ok, there is still Facebook et al, but you will probably share content created on those 3 big platforms anyway. This is not a game. This is a breach of trust on an unprecedented level and is a direct threat to the future of humankind.

That was a bad joke, but truth be told there are not that many outlets. The word "monopoly" is thrown around very lightly, although if you have just a few big players on the market then there is always a real possibility of cartel-like operations. Small platforms are eliminated or bought out very quickly. The way in which all the classical media reacted to Gab getting bigger was a bit suspicious, because it was not their direct competitor. From their point of view it should be an enemy of an enemy. It's much more likely, that existing internet molochs do not like competition that much. Maybe Gab was a special case, but ask yourself this - how many video platforms created from 2008 onwards can you name and how much of them are still around, not owned by big G and having a reasonable market share? There is only YT, nothing else comes close. This format - medium to long, usualy rich in content, videos are something that cannot be easily replaced in public discourse. Maybe facebook groups or reddit fill some of the gaps, but definetely not tictok or instagram. Communication does not equal communication. A well made video can have a lot more impact than all conversations that you can possibly start on WhatsApp in your life. Twitter is too shallow to fill this gap in my opinion.

I would say from approximately 2008

This is a very hard situation for the affected, but I cannot look at it any other way than a positive change. My own opinion is that modern universities are a mix of ponzi scheme with stockholm syndrom. It's a bubble that should have burst a long time ago. From institutions of education and widening of perspecitve they morphed into thought-culling money making machines. I think we underestiumate just how many things changed for the better thanks to the virus.

The word "key" does not reveal if it's positive or negative, just that it's important. On the other hand - nor does the article. Variance could be explained not only by testosteronje levels, but also by behavior and environemnt. You know - men and women differ.

No it is not. Problems with drawing the line between what is acceptable and what is "violent" speech are caused precisely by the fact that this axiom is completely false. You cannot have free speech, and by extension speech at all, without causing what you percieve as "violence". First of all, do not put equality sign between physical and being verbally abusive. The first one is something external that you have no control over, no matter how much you fight, the second you can just shrug off and continue with your life.

Problem with your example lies in the lack of context. On the more humorous side - maybe your wife is a cunt and your children are little bastards. If you percieve any kind of abusive expression, no matter of the context, as violence, then you're just done. There is no useful way that you can contribute to culture and society, because you cannot participate in discourse anymore.

On the more serious side - what about "psychological violence"? What about when your wife treats you like a slave and verbally abuses you on a daily basis? If your wife mistreats you, then just leave. Her words cannot stop you. What stops you is more likely the threat of being beaten, that she will make it impossible for you to see your kids and she will take your house. The violence is physical, economical and sociological, not verbal.

Going further - your comment disgusted me and I've felt that it violates some of the most important values I have in my life. Is this violence? Not at all, I will just shrug it off and continue to enjoy my day. I will get some downvotes and maybe be less frequent in visiting left-leaning websites. We lose the ability to talk to each other, but it's far from being violence. It's just stupidity on both sides.

Thank you very much for that lengthy explanation. I experienced the fear of loss before and I was surprised how bad I handled it. It's shortcircuting all rational decisions.

That's a bit off-topic, but what do you think is happening? I'm considering buying some s&p500 based stock, but I'm a bit afraid. What do you, anonymous stranger on the interweb think?

I'm not an expert, but it seems to me than other than a PR some of those dates are also set to provoke higher efficience and appease taxpayers. Once the project is underway and billions were spent it's much ahrder to back out.

So this basically a place where EM haters can get their daily fill of "he's a fraud!"?