reroute1

> Systems can be made fair or unfair, that is what you must derive from the fact that everything is a system.

Or conversely, as the OP suggested systems end up that way. Not necessarily designed fairly or unfairly, they can become that way over time.

> It is pure stupidity to accept that all systems are unfair. This is not true and is nearly an obscene belief.

Where did anyone say that all systems are unfair? Where did anyone say you should just accept the way they are? Those do seem stupid and I don't see where anyone posited those ideas.

On the other hand it does seem very useful to understand that unfair systems do exist, how and why they came about. And if you have no control or influence over a system, then you need to accept it. Those are all pretty obvious truths and is what the OP highlighted...

"But that last hill is just a landfill"

OK, so you've shown that sometimes billionaires donations are buying things and not really donations. But that certainly does not account for ALL billionaire donations.

My argument was about RECIPROCITY, which in the billionaire example is not possible regardless of their motives. Even if some are just buying things, there's absolutely no way that every single large donation was given to buy something like a name on a building. There are countless examples of anonymous donors.

Because the idea that all generosity has expected reciprocity is silly and completely unprovable. You would have to change the definition of reciprocity to include any feeling or personal satisfaction, which is completely unknowable. You could never actually prove what that donors intentions were or how they felt after, even if you think you know. And even if you could that would be a huge stretch of an argument for " expected reciprocity" and not what I was implying by the billionaire example.

Maybe, but that's also not generosity with expected reciprocity. That's just buying something.

Selflessness or altruism are not the same things as reciprocity.

> Ultimately, all generosity is predicated on an expectation of reciprocity ("Do unto others...").

Not really, a billionaire donating his fortune doesn't expect to have that given back to him. The richest in the world would never have a hope of reciprocity

Maybe teachers can scale with technology? Maybe we see some of this with online courses, MOOC's? If that were monetized in a way to give the proceeds directly to the teacher maybe that could work? Although some teaching does not lend itself well to that environment, in some cases classrooms and 1 on 1 interaction is something that cannot be substituted.

I agree for all the examples you give, there's nothing clear like there is for athletes and artists.

Being dangerous isn't the only qualification for a high paying job and not why I chose those 2, they are both in my opinion underpaid. Obviously for different reasons at face value, but they both provide a public service and get paid poorly historically.

But you are right about athletes only having a short viable career and that helps lower the gap, I was referring more to the high end athletes making millions. Even considering their short careers they make far more than an average teacher can hope to ever in their lifetime. On average I'm not really sure, that does depend on the individual sport and athlete.

Yes that's right, that's what I meant by me contributing in some way, via ticket sales, merchandise, it all adds up to some athletes being mega millionaires. Although nowadays the big stars have lots of advertising deals and make big $$ outside of their regular paycheck also.

I don't know how to fix the teacher's pay. It's just unfortunate that by comparison they make pennies.

As a sports person I understand it, but am still conflicted by it. There's something unsettling about teachers and police officers getting paid a sliver of what a pro athlete does and in some way I have contributed to this. But it's also a source of joy and inspiration for many people, that has to be a good thing.

It is a bit subtle, I think the background of the page and the text below isn't doing it a favor.

Quickly in the browser giving the <p> below a margin-top of 150px and then moving it over a white part of the background (or making it white if you like), the effect becomes more obvious and it does look a bit blockier around the edges to me in the linear example. I would prefer the second as I'm seeing it.

“On a long enough time line, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.”

Aye fight and you may die. Run and you'll live... at least a while. And dying in your beds many years from now would you be willing to trade all the days from this day to that for one chance, Just One Chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take.. OUR FREEDOM

That depends on the community, if there is a mature group of people playing these aren't really big issues. Not that it's going to fix everything, but when I play games with these features they seem to help more than they are abused.

How is this an american strategy?

Monetizing data is not an evil thing in and of itself. People are so quick to outrage at anything these days.

Really? Apple sure seems to be shoving a lot of ethical privacy crap down our throats right now. They may even have a point, but it's still obviously holier than thou and not any different than Google claiming to not be evil.

It was a fairly big headline, similar to the australian fires although that coverage has been more as of late. Anyone who follows news at all would be aware of this, Americans or otherwise.

Location: Chicago

Remote: Yes

Relocate: Maybe

Tech: Javascript + D3, Perl, Linux (RHEL 6.10), Css, front-end and server side mostly, but doing more backend work all the time. A lot of AJAX and Jquery work on a small data viz app for the United Airlines IT security team.

jrjeffreyrice [at] gmail.com

Resume: http://www.jeffreyrice.net/ and completed CS certificate at Loyola Chicago

Conversely you might want to consider the mental gymnastics required to pretend that all that people at google do is merely adtech.

> A real ad is the same as a fake ad.

We're talking about fake likes. An ad without purchased likes is clearly not the same as an ad with purchased likes. One has a genuine representation of response and the other does not. Who you pay does matter as one is a legitimate ad and the other is at worst posing as a legitimate ad, but possibly also a real ad that has been given inflated numbers via purchased likes.

One is trying to operate within the system, the other is trying to game it. Not the same thing and who you pay obviously does matter. Just because they may have a similar purpose doesn't make them the same...

That is actually one of the interesting things about social media as a political platform. This wasn't possible at the same level with television or radio advertising because of the fact that "posts" and "likes" are often by essentially complete anonymous strangers online. The troll farm levels being what they currently are I think people would do well to take all numbers and advertisements they see online with a grain of salt until these issues are more settled.

> I would consider paid ads, paid likes, paid comments, etc., to be unethical if the content they're supporting is false.

That's not a very useful statement. What if it's in support of an opinion? Advertisements are rarely just a list of facts and likes

> TLDR: What's the difference between paying Facebook/Google/etc for an ad vs paying someone else to like your post? The 2nd seems like a better solution for a majority of people.

The difference is pretty clear, one is purchasing a real ad on a real platform. The other is paying for fake interactions to project a false response to something.

ok... but this is kind of a problem that Facebook wants to fix also, so where is the conflict with "Zucc" ?

> There are countless stories of large scale failures involving non-consultants as well as very well paid consultants.

Sure but there are undoubtedly more failures involving cost leaders doing the same job as highly paid consultants. It is foolish to suggest otherwise or that there isn't a correlation. Your diminishing returns example might be true, but also doesn't discount the original statement.

> People look at Google and say, "it's fine, because it works for them." 99% of companies in the world aren't Google, and will not be able to pull this off without suppressing their hire quality and retention.

Do they really? Who cares? If some startup adopts the policies of one of the largest most successful companies in the world, then that is stupid and on them, they deserve to fail. At this point it doesn't even have anything to do with Google.

You said you won't apply to Google because of their policy, I said fine they don't need you they have plenty of qualified applicants. Now you're saying the problem is all these copycats. OK, whatever. Let them do what they want, and let people sign agreements they want. You just keep saying that it's absurd, but that doesn't make it so. That is entirely your opinion and the fact that thousands of engineers CHOOSE to work there is supporting that it's not absurd. If this is all about Google and you don't care and would never work there then why do you care so much about the people that do? Are you concerned they're being oppressed in some way? Have they been mislead? Isn't it possible they just disagree with you?

I never said anything about trying this policy out at your local startup or anything about what's best for you as a programmer in general. No kidding people like freedom? People lash out at Google and then turn it into something completely different halfway through the conversation.

Right, every company in an entire country is evil. You don't sound horribly biased at all

> I would never, ever join a company that didn't (in writing) allow me to retain ownership of my side projects.

OK that's fine, but doesn't everyone have this choice? Apparently google attracts thousands of top engineers with this clause. Lots of people agree to it, just because you won't doesn't mean it's absurd. Maybe you are absurd for calling google and their ideas absurd.

Let's not imagine a ridiculous hypothetical where someone gets a job without knowing how to read. That doesn't make any sense as an analogy. Learning how to read is not any domain specific skill anyway, if you work for a pharmaceutical company they don't give a shit if you write, unless you are spilling company secrets.

Yea I think you are right about the training data. So that would be more impressive. I still would like to see a team dedicate some time to it, but that's really not in the interest of a pro team. Also the things that affect real tournaments like drafting would be really interesting to see some day also as that is a huge part and considered a more cerebral aspect of the game.

> AIUI the bulk of the training was self-play.

Maybe but it also has played against humans in many instances across many years time span.

> The bots had no communication channel.

The execution between them was flawless though, acting as one mind whereas a team of human has to communicate ideas. It's a clear advantage, but it just feels hacky in a way since it's not really comparing the same thing. 5 humans are a diverse group of people. Maybe it's not fair to knock the bots for this behavior though.

> That was covered by the openai open matches. humans could play against the AI for several days and find exploitable flaws. Most didn't, a handful did. That is pretty impressive considering that humans can learn while the AI is frozen during those matches.

I'm talking about playing against OG, who didn't spend days playing against bots. Beating regular players is great, but not the accomplishment they are portraying. The bots had a pretty specific playstyle, and if pros had dedicated time to beating them I think there would be different results.