mike741

automatic updates without the user's consent are the very definition of a 'backdoor.' just because a new name for it "update" has been commercially normalized doesn't mean the original name has lost its meaning.

there are multiple comments in this thread attesting to the fact that these detection systems often don't work.

when you examine the video being reacted to, the reaction doesn't seem odd at all.

It seems OK to me, care enough to give a specific example of a comment you'd prefer disallowed?

Some have already cancelled their Premium subscriptions, others have discovered alternatives to Youtube such as Odysee. So complaining does lead to change, even if it isn't a change in Youtube's agenda.

Here is an easy example to understand the utility of the dislike count:

Imagine you are looking for a How-To video on something very common but specific, such as changing a car part or Windows setting, and that when you search for this you are given dozens of options. All of these options are 20 to 30 minutes long and 90% of them are either inaccurate, out-dated, or automated click-bait. This lower 90% will have a disproportionate number of dislikes. Each time you click one of these videos the dislike ratio can save 20+ minutes of your life and this benefit is multiplied by dozens of videos and tens of thousands of viewers.

your comment amounts to name-calling and adds little to no value to the conversation in comparison to the comments you want censored.

"trolling dynamic" is not really meaningful

Since it's about to be hidden and unverifiable: Susan Wojcicki's "Freedom of Expression Award" (sponsored by Youtube) video currently has 227 upvotes, 56000 downvotes, and 185000 views. That's a 99.6% downvote ratio.

i waited a full minute before right-click -> open image in new tab, and it still opens the thumbnail-sized image instead of the original. i tried the side-column as well and got the same result.

EDIT: strange, i tried the same process again on the same image and this time it worked! i guess it really is a cache-related issue

taking drugs is not the same as wearing clothes

what standard? the differences between finding content distasteful and completely deleting said content are self-evident.

Why would you compare a search engine to a social network? And to the single worst social network at that? If you set your standards as low as possible, just about everything "gets the job done."

OK, but is 2 seconds of googling before saying "deliberate disinformation" the standard we want to set for ourselves?

Proof doesn't really matter. Most theories you have in your life are unproven. Scientific hypotheses should be falsifiable which means unproven. There are dozens of comments in this section making unproven claims that you don't seem to have taken issue with. You just don't like this one in particular because its associated with a religion.

I think that definition has too much overlap with the already popularized coinage "Phishing" where a user is baited into giving up something.

The article equates "trolling" with phishing and harassment. It states "Trolling is a hard concept to define" and uses this as a convenient excuse to make false equivalences. The term "troll" is actually easy to define: "antisocial, quarrelsome and slow-witted creatures which make life difficult for travelers." Its the literal interpretation from norse folklore. The troll doesn't follow you around, build a following, or encourage suicide. The troll sits under a bridge and charges you a "toll" (time, monetary, or emotional) as you pass by it.

One could argue that this author is trolling their audience with obfuscatory language.

"The law says that you must always follow police instructions."

out of curiosity, which law is this or where does it say that?

how often?

Why does this sign-in not show up the "Apps & Websites" section on Facebook? How do I make it stop recognizing me without disabling sign-ins on other sites? It sure would be nice if these questions and their answers were included in the article!

As a counter-counterpoint, every TV station runs with some form of bias.

i think you just answered your own question there at the end

how does the current system, or any voting system, prevent coercion? If there's a gun to your head, or some other ultimatum, it seems far too late to be worrying about your vote being shared. Even if votes aren't all logged, you can still be tortured for the answer. I would much rather the country have an individual coercion problem than a mass voting fraud problem.

"Voting systems should [...] not permit anyone, including the voters themselves, to learn how they voted" What could possibly be the benefit of that?

why would negative mass fill in the space rather than just "zero mass?"

"how do we know that Banksy's art is all by the same person?"

We don't.

"What prevents others to publish art under Banksy's name (with or without approval)?"

Whoever owns or manages Banksy's brand and instagram profile.

"You seem to be saying some mental events don’t have physical causes, or maybe that some mental properties are not encoded physically."

I think he is only saying that an empirical language alone will not be enough to relate mental processes to physical ones. You have to define what a mental event really is before you can properly test anything about it, and depending on what definition you choose it might be inherently un-testable. If you define a mental process as being composed of physical processes from the start then of course you will conclude that all mental processes are influenced by physical ones. There are other possible definitions though such as physical processes being composed of multiple mental processes (the opposite of the last) in which case no physical test could be performed to verify a "change" occurred in the mental subject (but a "mental test" of sorts might still be able to tell us)

Right. So is 1+1=2 not a tautology then? Mrlieter seemed to be implying it could not be proven.

That makes sense, thank you. However, at what point is the symbol "2" introduced in such a scheme? Is it before addition, or after? At some point it is given a definition, like S(S(0)) where S(0)=1 and S(X)=X+1, at which point isnt it easy to substitute

  2 = S(S(0))= S(0)+1 = 1+1

is this simple equivalence really not provable with sufficient axioms?

Obviously from the downvotes I am missing something fundamental, I would very much like to know what that is but am at a loss. Perhaps I am just missing mrleiter's original point.

isnt 1+1=2 true in the same way that 0=0 is true, namely by definition? its proven analytically, 2 is defined as 1 greater than 1, 1 less than 3, 1/2 of 4, etc, all of which derive from 0=0, which is a tautology. I really don't understand the difficulty in proving something that is true by definition, it's like saying "prove all white swans are white." To me, it seems a harder thing to prove would be something empirical such as "prove the moon and stars exist during the daytime"

the decentralization of cryptos like bitcoin refers to the source of the money (the miners), not its end location. most of the "contradictions" come down to misunderstandings like this. there's nothing that forces me to use a particular exchange and if the exchange crashes it will not affect my personal wallet, and i can feel safe knowing no 3rd party can come bail out the failed exchange at my indirect expense.