"Factchecks" are nothing more than left wing propaganda opinion articles, they offer little to nothing of value. The "circumstantial" evidence is damning and they STILL refuse to investigate it.
>How to properly moderate social media to control some of its worst tendencies has been a very visible and very difficult issue for pretty much every social media company for the past 10 years.
Define "worst tendencies", because most people agree that "doxxing" and calls to violence are unacceptable but the left has just labeled all speech that they disagree with as "violence" or "misinformation" and just banned it all. I think musk has a good pulse on the dividing line that is most appropriate and that having the wrong opinion on the definition of a man, who won the last presidential election, and whether or not a vaccine is "safe or effective" have no business being censored by the cretins currently running twitter.
I'm sure there is the equivalent of a laffer curve by which intangibles are valued subjectively like that. At some point of government overreach people leave... and they are leaving in droves.
The problem is that you can't ram down income redistribution schemes in places like New York without watching all the income earners move to another state. No rational person is going to subject themselves to being robbed like that, they will leave (like I did with NYC). The key is to do it at a national level so you can shove it down everyones throats concurrently and give them no way to escape your shitty systems. Then you can appeal to your larger base of voters who are benefiting from stealing from a smaller number of people who are providing all of the resources, or a least until the government runs out of other peoples money to use as bribes.
Complaining about people complaining about virtue signaling is even more tiresome. It's a way to protect the root toxic behavior by projection of that behavior on those trying to put a stop to it.
>How is it obvious you're a man, other than that you just explicitly said so in your comment? It's not mentioned in your HN bio, and it's not obvious from your username.
I've gone my entire life without be confused for a woman. So I would say that constitutes a good deal of empirical evidence.
>It seems like you view this as a political partisan issue and it's an important part of your identity.
Being a man is part of my identity, but I went my entire life without "being a man" being a political partisan issue. I didn't make this a partisan issue, a fringe group of leftist have. And if any part of this is "part of my identity" is that I have no desire to bend to some fringe activist groups demanding compliance for their latest "current thing".
>but it's not the logically-obvious thing you are claiming.
It's logically obvious to everyone who isn't on the fringe left. Is water wet?
We are daily inundated with woke vernacular all day everyday and I bet you never leave a comment there complaining about terms like "casual transphobia", "harm", "hate", "problematic", all the "-isms", "-ists", "-phobes"... but you drew the line at this one HN comment. Good for you.
No, sorry, not gonna fly with me "casual transphobia". The whole declaring your pronouns everywhere is a societal compliance test. It's a way for progressives to assert control over you and force you to adhere to whatever bs of the day they came up with. I spent my entire life without having pronouns next to my name because its obvious I am a man and I'm not to start declaring them now because a bunch of blue checkmark twitterazis say I have to.
Most of the people getting caught up in all this banning aren't rabid racist or misogynist or whatever ism or ist they are being smeared with. They are non hateful individuals who don't fall in line with the "current thing" and have a non-approved view point. The woke crowd somehow has been given a monopoly on who has a voice in the modern era. Is someone a "transphobe" and intolerant of trans people because they think the definition of a woman is the same as sex? This isn't intolerance this is a disagreement on the nature of reality.
"It's a private company" has been the excuse for the abusive censorship. Are you saying if someone has right wing leanings on free speech that politicians will now change their tune and threaten it?
There are influential media personalities calling for the jailing people who aren't towing the line on the war drum beat on ukraine/russia... that any narrative deviation is treasonous and thus a jailable offense. Yeah, so what if our gulags have rainbow flags and black fists murals.
Here you are perpetuating more western propaganda and potential misinformation. First of all the difference between a "biolab" and a "bioweapons lab" is a semantic difference without actual substance. If covid was released out of the wuhan lab, the now predominate theory, this wasn't a "bioweapons lab" but just a "biolab". What is the practical difference? Fact is, anyone performing research that could be used as a bioweapon doesn't actually call it a bioweapon. They just in practice do all the same things a bioweapons lab would and pretend its just "for defense". You say potato, I say potato.
It's curious as to why we don't treat western govt / media sources as "propaganda" but everything Russian is. I fully agree with the label, but its not being applied to the west. How long were western media just regurgitating that "biolabs" was "Russian disinformation" and writing "fact checks" which just parrot the official government narrative until they realized the Russians were going to capture them then they just admit it in an open hearing? I don't believe a word of what either side says. The moral superiority gap has shrunk to next to nothing.
>Yes that's hard to believe for westerners that your own state would do such nasty stuff to you, but it was commonplace then.
We are just about there ourselves. FBI labeling political opposition of domestic terrorist is kicking it off, replete with false flag operations and political prisoners.
I view the job of the MLOps framework as essentially a contract where "You place your messy code that does X here, and we'll take care of turning it into a retrainable, resilient, secure API endpoint without any extra fuss". This requires the software engineer/dev ops person to think through ahead of time what the data scientist will need to do as a part of their process and templatize it and form a good abstraction. The problem is that the abstractions are often leaky so there is some constraint that needs to be put on the data scientist. This also requires the MLOps engineer to work on new feature development to form a new abstraction to handle the new features. "Oh you want to do active learning? What does that look like?".
It covers differing levels of maturity, with the Maturity Level 0 being what the op was mentioning. Our team is trying to dig out of Level 1 to Level 2.
The problem is scaling up. You do 2,3 - 5 projects the "hard way" manually deploying the data pipelines, model images, api, etc... then you are like.. there has got to be a better way. It's the difference between a side project and a full department supporting the entire enterprises needs.
I don't have anything handy, and not going to invest time to score internet points. My point isn't who was or was not correct in this instance. My point is that social media making decisions about what is "low quality "evidence"." or making conclusions on who to censor based on "trusted sources" is and labeling everything else as "misinformation" is a terrible precedent and this is just one example of it blowing up in their faces in an obvious way. They are in no better position than me to evaluate what is or is not low quality and I especially don't trust their motives/bias/judgement in the matter. They thing CNN is reliable... I think CNN is garbage. CNN puts out more fake news than anyone.
Whether or not it originated out of the lab is almost beside the point, they can't be trusted with this type of universal censorship power because they are often wrong and have an agenda which biases their decisions on the validity of sources.
I didn't and I am not going to be coy about it, I am right of center of most issues. It really annoys me to see Facebook shut down the "truckers convoy" facebook organization even but at the same time never shut anything down relating to BLM as just a recent and obvious example. That said I don't want either shut down. I think these platforms should seek to emulating the free speech *principles* of the first amendment even if they aren't bound legally by them (today) where anything up to incitement of violence is unacceptable. Today its just a disaster where they ban/deboost people for political views that aren't left wing, banning "misinformation" that is actually true, and are funneling dark money into elections, and god knows what the hell they are doing with all the data.
Critical thinking is only applicable when you encounter a right-wing meme (turn to CNN to get the correct view on the topic), but when the government puts out propaganda like "There's no way it was leaked from a lab" when there is a lab next to where the virus leaked, we are not supposed to apply critical thinking and if we do we are banned from social media. We don't need mimetic immunity, we need immunity from just accepting that the media/gov establishment party line and that to call them on their BS is "extremist".
The problem is there position is completely irrational when you take the amount of damage down to standards of living to the negligible environmental damage done from PV panels. It's almost like the goal is to maximize human misery not minimize environmental damage.
I think it depends on the topic. I don't think you will find many sockpuppet accounts when you are talking about some CS programming framework... but you want to talk about politics? Its where the culture war is being waged.