Given the data we have now, you’re right— if humans were rational we’d be focusing topics that affect the masses. Using minority groups (BLM, LGBT, Immigration, etc.) as shields for larger agendas is an effective defense strategy.
308 karma · joined June 6, 2011
I put together a resource guide here: https://becomeautonomous.com
It's clear that the majority of reporters lean center to far left politically. When it comes to topics that will make their "side" look bad, there's usually a lack of intellectual curiosity for the truth. This happens on both sides, of course, but the frequency and instances are much greater on the left-leaning reporting.
There's daily examples of where political narratives override digging in the truth. Project Veritas covers a lot examples of this: https://www.projectveritas.com/search/videos/?query=new%20yo...
No matter what you believe in, the publisher should be honest about their viewpoint instead of pretending they are not biased. Ben Shapiro is a good example of this. You know who he is and he clearly lays out the framework of evaluation. If you know where someone is coming from, you can then properly evaluate their points at a rational level rather than an emotional level.
AgJunction Inc. is a global leader of advanced guidance and autosteering solutions for precision agriculture applications.
--
We’re developing an off-road autonomous solution for 40+ ton vehicles. It’s a robotics engineer's dream. We’re using ROS2 and bleeding edge sensors I can’t even talk about. Email me to learn more.
Reach me at kmartin - at - agjunction - dot - com
AgJunction Inc. is a global leader of advanced guidance and autosteering solutions for precision agriculture applications.
--
We’re developing an off-road autonomous solution for 40+ ton vehicles. It’s a robotics engineer's dream. We’re using ROS2 and bleeding edge sensors I can’t even talk about. Email me to learn more.
Reach me at kmartin - at - agjunction - dot - com
So based on what you said, why would I just not message a coworker?: “Hey Dan thanks for pushing that bug fix so fast!” Personal acknowledgment and appreciation goes a long way. I’m not sure this score board really adds much more to that dynamic.
Another thing I’m thinking is...this is a “vitamin” idea, not a “pain killer” idea. Meaning it’s not solving a pain point so you have an uphill battle to convince folks to even spend billable engineering hours to try it out.
Sales advice: Seek to understand, respond less. Try to ask calibrated questions to learn why someone came to their conclusion/objection, over responding directly to it. This is where you learn the stuff that helps you iterate. I know it’s hard, it probably feels like you have to “defend” because it’s an “attack on you”— but it’s not.
Actually.. this same advice applies to people leadership too.
Also...it helps to thank people for their feedback. They took time out of their lives to help. :-)
Do you think this is basically a social score like China has?
Local teachers are somewhat overrated because you’re limited to what talent/style is available within a small radius of where you live.
Khan Academy, for instance, was far better than what my public high school offered. Now there’s a wide array of educational resources on YouTube to supplement a curriculum. Even a single video can drive home a point that will be internalized for life. I can’t really say that about my public education.
Lastly, parent-lead homeschooling is better because you don’t have to worry about teachers sharing their political opinions as “facts”. This certainly happened to me and many of my colleagues growing up.
HN certainly has a sampling bias leaning towards the content of white, single, liberal SF bros. Because that’s HN’s user base.
It is persecution.
per·se·cu·tion - hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs.
It’s no secret the current content creators lean towards one side of the isle.
Unless...they’re a publication in which case they need to be regulated and taxed accordingly.
Do you know anyone that is 90% terrible? I doubt it. Taking a step back from one's political views, which is hard for a lot of people, it becomes obvious that there's little honest and unbiased reporting going on within MSM.
Sure it's fine to read information with a particular viewpoint (be it conservative or liberal), as long as the reader is made aware that the "facts" are framed from a particular viewpoint. Otherwise it's just brainwashing and intellectually dishonest. I think any rational person can get behind this sort of "zero-trust framework".
[1] https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/15/a-broadcast...
Moreover, the Washington Post reported that 90% of Trump's coverage is negative [1].
Do you know anyone that is 90% terrible? I doubt it. Taking a step back from one's political views, which is hard for a lot of people, it becomes obvious that there's little honest and unbiased reporting going on within MSM.
Sure it's fine to read information with a particular viewpoint (be it conservative or liberal), as long as the reader is made aware that the "facts" are framed from a particular viewpoint. Otherwise it's just brainwashing and intellectually dishonest. I think any rational person can get behind this sort of "zero-trust framework".
[1] https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/15/a-broadcast...
Geek squad is not a warehouse nor do they want the burden of holding the equipment indefinitely. This is common practice across almost all goods services such as laundry, shoe repair, instrument repair, etc. There’s an overwhelming legal precedence in this case. In this case the shop owner attempted to return the equipment several times but no response was heard, therefore the standard contract clause(s) are executed.
I think where you’re struggling is you’re confusing your emotions, clearly you don’t like this outcome, with legality. Feelings are not facts.
I could cite a whole bunch of legal jargon and cases to utterly destroy your weak argument, but I’ll have mercy keep it high level like above.
I won’t be responding to further comments because we both know you’re just pouting here and you got some free legal education on my dime.
Taking a picture of people in public is perfectly legal yet it requires no permission. There are countless examples of where permission has nothing to do with legality or legitimacy. Please do your research and stop spreading misinformation about law.
Flame war EOF
Platform has a legal definition, which was litigated in the early 90s. The result was if you’re a platform you’re not legally liable for the content of your website. The legislation calls out that’s speech must be user generated and flow of ideas cannot be restricted unless they are already illegal (eg. how to make a bomb).
Publisher also has a legal definition, which social media companies certainly don’t want because then they’re liable for all content and can be regulated further. Actually these companies don’t want any regulation The business models will eventually come under attack due to overreaching privacy policies and general CEO autonomy.
I’d also like to point out there’s some incestuous situations going on between the staff of Facebook, Twitter and Democratic campaigns including Biden’s. If we’re honest with ourselves we know it’s highly likely collusion and back channels exist between the two. I can provide more information if you’d like.