penetraitor69

Exactly. If your fire-control system is trained on a dataset that (through carelessness or malice) has some bias, you could end up with a racist machine gun turret.

Dang, if only every laptop I've had die didn't tend to go screen-first.

Agreed. But at the same time, a key part of normalization is constant exposure; people who are exposed to extreme views incessantly are less likely to recognize them as "extreme" than those who only see them once in a blue moon, and see them get moderated when they do.

This isn't even specific to extremist views or even politics in general; in all parts of life, from the foods people eat, to the religion they practice, to the music they enjoy: people will consider "normal" that which they constantly perceive.

The lack of transparency is really unfortunate. It makes this whole thread sorta ironic: there's a lot of hate in this thread (deserved or not) directed at larger social media sites, but at least those ones aren't both removing peoples' content and deliberately wasting their time by pretending to accept their posts.

You could make that case, but I do think that they ceased to be "ideals to work toward" before people started recognizing them as such. I.E. it was only after "colorblindness" advocates started using the term to shut down discussions of issues facing minorities that people started calling out "colorblind" rhetoric as disingenuous.

Oh, gotcha; I just meant in the general case.

My understanding is that push/pop from the front/back of linked lists are constant time, but that inserts in the middle necessitate looping through the linked list until you get to the correct index, which is a O(n) operation.

"Individualism" was never really implemented as "western" value; it was only ever a catch-phrase to defend the status quo by insisting those at the top "earned the right" to be there.

"Color blindness" likewise has mostly been used to argue that those on the bottom of society deserve to be there; (again) preserving the status quo. I.E. shutting down discussion by labeling racism a "solved problem".

"Freedom of speech" complaints most often come from those claiming to be "censored" because they are no longer being given a megaphone.

"Rule of law" is used to prevent analysis of those laws by, among other things, demonizing any discussion of those laws' motivations, or the cultural context in which they are enforced.

"Objectivity, Facts, and Reason" are used as buzzwords, often by those who know they aren't actually on their side, because

1) everyone knows they are good, and so claiming to already possess them is convincing rhetoric,

2) painting your opponents as "rejecting" them is also persuasive rhetoric, especially to your uninformed audience.

Claiming that people are actually demonizing them is a mischaracterization.

> Daniel Shaver's death is not argument against BLM's goals, it's an argument in favor of them.

Exactly. I've seen far more outrage about the death of a white man from those who say black lives matter than from those saying all lives matter.

> They wanted to _clarify_ it with the true fundamental principle.

I don't think that's an honest portrayal of the actual actions that took place or their motivations. In the context of disproportionate black deaths, mischaracterizing focusing on that specific issue:

1) does not inspire any positive change itself,

2) prevents positive change by demonizing those who are bringing awareness to and proposing solutions to the problem.

Rarely do you see the "all lives matter" crowd calling for increased police accountability; in fact, given their close association with Blue Lives Matter, I believe those who throw the slogan around tend to fight for quite the opposite.

Agree 100%. I essentially started going down the "Qanon" rabbit hole a few years before "Q" existed (the tropes have existed in right-wing circles for longer than the specific conspiracy theory has); part of my realization that it was wrong was noticing that the sorts of things I believed were promoted almost exclusively in places also rife with obvious racism, sexism, and antisemitism.

You could, but you could also argue that law enforcement and the military attract people with very black-and-white views of morality and society; people who who already unconditionally consider themselves and those like them the "good guys", and everyone else as a potential enemy; people who join the force to "beat up the bad guys" without much consideration of who the alleged "bad guys" are. Given America's widespread problems with police brutality, its police's steadfast opposition to increased accountability measures, and my personal observations of family members and neighbors in the force, I'm inclined to think it's the latter.

You're largely correct with regards to calling the church "neoliberal"; it is infatuated with deregulation (most $100 billion dollar corporations are). However, it's not particularly interested in "social guarantees". To put it in perspective, the church demands 10% of its members' income be tithed to it as admission to "the celestial kingdom" (super V.I.P. heaven); to assuage the fears of those who don't really have 10% to spare, the church tells them they can rely on "the bishop's storehouse", a fund for struggling members. However, in practice many members are unable to get the assistance they need; bishops are actually explicitly instructed to tell members to borrow from friends or family before approaching the church, despite the church's likewise explicit teaching that "if you have to choose between feeding your family and paying tithing, pay tithing".

Depending on how you're cutting it, you could also call it 1/1000000000000 of the way there.

As an American, I have no idea. I actually don't think I've ever seen a recipe that didn't have explicit tea/tablespoons before, that's really weird.

So, while this looks like it's more about breaking up the human-visible color spectrum into more discrete parts than RGB, and not stretching it out into infrared/ultraviolet. Still very cool (especially since even within the human band there's a lot of resolution missing), and honestly I'd love to see what happens when you map some of those other colors into RGB to see what the world looks like. What colors look smooth to humans but would appear splotchy or unmixed to other eyes, I wonder?

True, but which is more likely to get your click: a headline you're indifferent to, or a headline that fills you with righteous indignation? I think that if there's one thing that the development of social media has taught us about human nature, it's that any emotion is better than boredom, from an engagement standpoint.

Speaking as a (now-ex) mormon, this is a very flattering characterization that unfortunately skips over a couple important points.

For one, mormonism is a very conservative religion. From blacks voting to gays marrying, the church's stance is "morality peaked in the early 1800s, and everything since then has been backsliding". It is also a very America-centric religion, implicitly and explicitly teaching manifest destiny: that America's founding was ordained by god specifically to facilitate the church's "restoration" (mormonism maintains that it is the "original christianity" practiced by ancient hebrews, don't think about that too hard), that Columbus and the founding fathers were all moral paragons, divinely inspired to that end. It's very insular; you can scarcely go a sunday without some warning about Lastly, it is a religion with a very top-down command structure; "obeying your leaders, even if they're wrong, will bring blessings from god" is an explicit teaching.

So it should come as no surprise that Utah suffers from some of the highest rates of affinity fraud in the nation; mormonism is good at making hard workers who obey orders; it's not so great at producing independent thinkers or whistleblowers who'll hold their bosses accountable, nor who will think twice about maintaining the status quo. Those who do break that mold are unlikely to fit in with their mormon peers, assuming they don't just leave on their own (which about 2/3rds of then do).

Naturally, if you're running a federal agency with a questionable history, tasked with maintaining the state of the union, that's exactly what you're looking for: a rule follower and order obey-er, not some "free spirit" who could blow the lid off of whatever scheme you're cooking up that week.

I was about to say the same thing. For lack of pictures, it's hard to get a sense for whether they would turn out well, except in the trivially simple cases like "put some chicken and veggies in a slow cooker for 8 hours" or "bake chicken wings in a bag with Frank's RedHot".