sandoooo

Let's say you win, and Google donates to causes you find worthy, and doesn't donate to causes you don't find worthy.

This basically means you want Google to donate solely to the Dems and nothing for the Republicans, or at least greatly skew the ratio. And that would mean Google would be officially coming out as putting its grubby hands on the scale for the 2020 election.

And since everything on the internet goes through Google, this means they get to play kingmaker.

Is this the precedent you want to set? Is this the world you want to live in? Choose carefully.

Up until last year, Wolfenstein - a game depicting nazi germany - wasn't allowed to have swastikas.

Holocaust denial is still a crime, causing legal consequences for publications that dispute the actual number of jews killed in concentration camps.

NetzDG obliges websites with more than 2 million registered users to investigate and delete flagged content. This affects social media posts accessed from anywhere in the world, if the German government decides it violates their local laws.

Let's not pretend things are all rosy.

...in other words, UK court rules that MI5 can continue to carry out its business as usual. Bloomberg would really like you to be outraged by this.

cool. now if someone could just explain water flow with logic gates...

>everybody who know how to recognize them will see them popup everywhere.

Just out of curiosity, what are the tells for a drug dealer in Amsterdam? Asking for a friend.

I don't think that's how it works. In the hypothetical world where he reports no grime on filters and no difference in readings yet his sleep is better, would you predict lower chance of placebo?

Vast majority of the time, I pick up a project half-way with an existing codebase rather than start from scratch, and it's natural to just keep using what's there unless there's a showstopper, in which case I make the bare minimum addition so I could keep going.

So yeah, just a tool.

List of languages that compile to python:

https://github.com/vindarel/languages-that-compile-to-python

This change is almost guaranteed to break most of these.

'semen-free meat'

I doubt it. In fact I foresee a lot of unique long-term health problems when people start eating this as a major part of their diet.

Think of it as the early versions of a huge and complicated piece of software whose coders just sort of hacked it together from reverse-engineered APIs with zero documentation.

factory meat? ivf-meat? meat-that-may-or-may-not-contain-human-genetic-material? meat(lol)? bambi-approved meat?

I'd still eat it if they make it taste like wagyu tbh. Maybe they should popularize it by donating it to food banks and set quotas for it on food stamps.

suspect the screening process actually goes like this:

"we have this story about a spunky action girl (who is not a mary sue since she's gonna be the actual main character) and her bumbling male companions, on a quest to impeach cybertrump by the power of fisticuffs. which IP will let us shoehorn it in?"

the true risk of any given question is a nebulous thing depending on many unknowns and your very specifc circumstances, and it varies from day to day. Working it out is a cognitive load that doesn't seem to be worth the effort. Plus you don't even get much for braving this danger, on average.

From the organization's perspective, though, this is a cancerous growth that kills your employees' motivation and innovation and foments a culture of distrust, siloing and paranoia. Too bad there's no easy way to align the incentives there, since the corps are hella scared of being on the wrong side of political winds, too.

The author misses the point. People are avoiding sensitive questions not because it impacts opinion on average, but because of the rare outliers that ruin it for everybody.

It takes just a single asshole reporting you to HR to ruin your life.

How do we prove that they didn't just look at mortality in all diseases and for all restaurants, and cherry-picked stroke-vs-ramen because it has the best significance?

I am not accusing them of anything - I have no horse in this race. What I am curious about is: how do you prove that you haven't p-hacked, if you are going to do a study like this?

Sure, you can pre-register your methods, but presumably you can get the data and do some data crunching on it way before you have to pre-register. How do you prove that your results are legit in the age of reproduction crisis?

well idunno, last time around the people who seized it did a pretty piss-poor job afterwards. mostly they just ran it into the ground, in fact. there's a lesson to be learnt there.

The means of mass communication is the new means of mass production.

Wait, so let me get this straight: nine people lost their jobs over this and it's front page HN? Are we gonna have a nuclear war the next time a startup closes up shop?

Is there something special about The Nine that separates them from the hundreds of thousands of scientists and doctors and engineers and burger flippers who get laid off everyday?

Y'know, like, other than having journalist friends?

and I really doubt the people pushing for this right now really cares what Johnson's original intents were. A sharp rock is a sharp rock.

Specific categories such as employment and housing, for example? Urgh, fine, pretend my examples were about bachelor pads. Same deal: don't target the young men who actually buy them, because we don't like those people and we don't want any part of the economy to cater for them.

There is no material change in my argument.

You can't understand because you're not reading between the lines. The surface message is self-contradicting, but the underlying is clear-cut.

They want a world where advertisers are not allowed to direct messages at their outgroup or the things their outgroup like. You will be allowed to sell perfume to women by putting a model on your billboard, but the same model can't sell ferraris to young men. Shaving razors shall follow only the Gillette model, no glorification of masculinity. Want to advertise your engineering position on FB? Better prominently advertise your diversity programme and paid maternity leave and nothing else. Definitely don't mention beer night.

I imagine the legal review goes like this: "he's not rich, he doesn't have a social media following, and if we spin this shit right everybody will think he's a creepy stalker-slash-murderer so nobody will stand up for him. What's he gonna do, actually put a contract out on us? Yeah, print that shit."

so this 'journalist' Brian Merchant has not been able to prove shit, but he felt comfortable enough to dox someone, full name, and accuse him of being a murderer based on 1. his ex's suspicions and 2. the fact that he refused to give an interview?

I suppose before you do this sort of thing you make very sure that your target is not rich enough to sue you for defamation.

group amasses power under leadership signifucantly more competent than competitors in a war -> things are ok for a while because group's opponents are spent in blood and treasure, and also because of competent leadership -> [time] -> new interest groups form, old opponents recover strength, leadership declines due to reversion to the mean and complacency -> war breaks out when the government is sufficiently weakened -> repeat

Maybe the masses are saying "More stuff for <people like me> and <people I like> and less stuff for <people I don't like> and <people with stuff I want>".

I think you will find that when you do articulate, absolutely everybody has a different interpretation of exactly which parts are fucked, and how to unfuck it, and who exactly should foot the bill. Perhaps some of them think you should, or people of your income bracket, or people who share your other demographic traits. Presumably you have a different opinion. And, of course, differences in opinion is anathema to a good protest march.

The true beauty of the message is that it's vague enough to get both you and the guy next to you (and the guy you would both intensely dislike if you knew the full extent of their opinions) to all come out and smash shit up at the same time in a coordinated manner.

Interesting thing is, this message is universal. You can drop it in at any time, any place in history, and it will make sense and be supported by a significant demographic, quite possibly everybody.

So if you have the tools to amplify this message until it's all that anyone sees, and everybody knows that it's all that everybody else sees, you can cause revolts at your convenience.

You don't even need to dirty your hands with direct message shaping - which comes with consequences such as getting your head chopped off - just moderate all the competing messages a tiny little bit harder, and bob's your uncle.

As a direct example, notice how the author judges the size and effectiveness of revolts based on how prominent they are on youtube. Which is just an algorithm tweak away for the right people.

All of these things can be had in the software you want - just need to ask for it up front and pay a sufficient amount of money and accept a longer timeline. Some of these things are surprisingly expensive, even when they seem simple. It is entirely plausible that, after discussing prices, the response from client is 'actually... can you just make me a CLI thingy that spits out a csv?'

Can somebody in the know chime in on this? were there concerns over privacy issues? Did Google apply pressure? etc.

Personally I find any sort of SAYT distracting and annoying and also an unnecessary privacy leak, and I wish there's a way to turn off the awesome bar altogether and just have a damn textbox for copypasting urls into.

The first thing you do is to figure out how much your trove of user data is worth, both to advertisers and also on the blackmarket.

I keed, I keeeed.