Slashdot Mirror

Finding a flaw?
With what fucking dataset?
Exactly.

They probably count things like "bitch" or "cunt" as only attacks against woman, when large numbers of Twitter users use those words casually in reference to ANYONE.
See their own dumb system as evidence.
It's not the attack that is important, but the way the system is geared.
These people are out of touch. They are clueless. The system was probably filled with SJW-tier retards that get triggered at the most trivial of things.
The sorts of people that usually end up becoming mods and takers of social science studies because they are worthless outside of that due to being on permanent welfare / bank of mommy and daddy handouts. (including Twitter, has a literal SJW unit for triggered babbies to report to)

Until the dataset is public and is done for men, intersex and whatever other subgroups of interest, it's worthless data.
It's also fucking tiny. So saying "every 30 seconds" is pointless.
Just like saying "a person dies every 3 seconds", and? There's many more people born. Fuck off.
Focus on the actual issue, the insane growth rate, and you will fix both the population explosion and the unnecessary and unfortunate deaths.
Nope, gotta guilt trip people in to donating by showing kids with flies in their eyeballs and sad piano music.

I just looked at the published methodology.

I detect some issues with their methodology. Definitions of what constitute "abusive" or "problematic" tweets are explained in Appendix E.

Their explanations of the categories do not seem very precise. They are vague enough to include lots of edge-cases. Their examples are clear enough, but a clear example does not exonerate a vague criterion. (Hypothetical example: "I am going to murder you tomorrow" is certainly an example of abusive and threatening speech... but what else is in included as threating and abusive speech? Counterexamples are also necessary, else "I hate that rabbit in the field behind your house" might also be considered abusive.)

But more to the point, a full 55% of the tweets they flag as "abusive content" fall under the category of "other"... and that's a huge red flag.

They describe "other" thus: There will be some tweets that fall under the âother categoryâ(TM) that are problematic and/or abusive. For example, statements that target a userâ(TM)s disability, be it physical or mental, or content that attacks a womanâ(TM)s nationality, health status, legal status, employment, etc.

Uh... yeah. "Some" is 55%. And not only is this one the majority, it is a particularly vague definition. For example, if someone replies to an irate tweet, "Calm down! I know the Irish are famous for temper, but cool down a little!" is that "targeting a woman's nationality"? According to their description, it could be.

But here is the biggest problem with this study:

Nowhere did they compare this to any other groups. They singled out famous women and women in politics, but they didn't compare against famous men and men in politics.

And since there is no such comparison, it's all pretty much meaningless.

What if famous men and men in politics are "abused" on Twitter every 31 seconds? Or every 28 seconds?

Without that knowledge, does the study really say anything other than "the subset of people we chose got 'abused' at this rate?"

So what? Nothing to compare it to makes it pretty much useless knowledge.

While what they say may be true,

You mean 50 years, and actually after steadily rising under the last administration, the number of Americans on welfare/snap benefits is shrinking under the current administration, in large part because of record-low unemployment figures across several demographic groups (blacks, women, Latino, etc.).

You are from the right because you over generalizing what is actually going on. No, it is NOT steadily rising under the last administration. It was going up from Bush administration, and then got to the peak during the last administration (2012~2014). Then it was declining since [Food stamp recipient statistics]. Those who have half a brain should be able to interpret the data. Please stop being too far into your belief and assuming but rather search for data to understand what has been going.

Xbox One, Windows Phone, Surface, various 3rd party tablets and netbooks, laptops, servers and virtual machines, IoT devices, Raspberry Pi...

That increases the numbers beyond what we would think of as a traditional Windows 10 application environment. It doesn't mean we can easily target those 600M active devices in any meaningful way.

https://winblogs.azureedge.net...

Microsoft loves to throw this graphic around but they're delusional if they think it's that simple.

The efficiency of any engine (even electric motors) varies with how much power it's producing. Gas turbines hit their highest efficiency at highest load. Since as you point out the majority of a plane's time is spent at cruise speed, you want the engines to be tuned for optimum efficiency at cruise speed.

That's not possible though because the ~15 minute ascent phase of the flight requires more power than cruise. So this forces cruise to operate at a lower than optimum efficiency. In theory an electric motor boost could obviate this need, and allow jet engines to cruise more efficiently. I'm not sure there's much to be gained here though because modern twin-engine airliners are required by regulation to operate (both cruise and ascent) with one engine out. So cruise efficiency is already pretty far down the curve.

The approx 20-30 min descent phase of the flight requires running the engines at low power, far from their optimum efficiency point. This is where a lot of fuel could potentially be saved. Both the ascent and descent phases of the flight run the engines outside this max-efficiency range. The question is whether the fuel saved can offset the extra fuel burned carrying around the electric motors and batteries.

I think this will solve everyone's problems: https://scjdmcdn.azureedge.net... please chug the entire bottle and post it on YouTube.

Nah. Nobody has done that. Oh, no, never!

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us...
https://edudownloads.azureedge...

(If I ever met a fairy granting me the fulfillment of but *one* wish, that would be to kick one of those lobbiysts in the nuts. Really hard.

LOOK AT THE FUCKING GRAPH FROM THE MICROSOFT ARTICLE ABOUT THIS TESTING!

https://winblogs.azureedge.net/win/2016/06/browser-power-consumption-tests.png

LOOK AT IT! Look at the data! Don't go by what some shitty Slashdot summary says. LOOK AT THE DATA! We are scientists here. We LOOK AT THE DATA!

It shows average power consumption by browser. As the title clearly states, LOWER IS BETTER. What is Chrome's number? 2819 mW. What is Firefox's? 3161 mW. The other browsers are less than Firefox, too.

Firefox uses the most power on average. That means it will exhaust the battery quicker, regardless of what some fucked Slashdot summary says.

You're arguing against physics and math here! You say you're not "ideology-driven", yet you've clearly let ideology override your ability to LOOK AT THE DATA and perform an objective analysis of it.

Seriously, think about this! You're assuming the Slashdot summary is correct. Why the fuck would anyone do something that stupid?! The data clearly contradicts what the summary is stating. Holy fuck, this is Slashdot! The summary is probably the last place to find correct information!

Battery life is indicative of overall efficiency. A browser that's more CPU efficient and more memory efficient will likely draw much less battery, too, as it's the battery that provides the energy for the CPU and memory. That's why measuring the battery usage is a good measure of efficiency: it collectively represents all of the actions the browser takes.

This graph from the article about the testing is really interesting:
https://winblogs.azureedge.net/win/2016/06/browser-power-consumption-tests.png

The interesting part isn't Edge. The interesting part is actually how Firefox is the worst performing browser in the test.

We often hear from Firefox supporters that Firefox is more efficient than Chrome and other browsers. They talk about how Firefox is supposedly faster (that is, uses less CPU) and how Firefox supposedly uses less memory. They vehemently deny that other browsers, and especially Chrome, are more efficient.

Of course, these claims from Firefox's supporters contradict experience. People who try Firefox and Chrome, and who aren't driven by ideology, readily admit that Firefox feels a lot slower than Chrome does.

Now thanks to these tests we have more evidence to show that Firefox is less efficient than Chrome and other browsers are.

The real question is, when will the Firefox supporters finally admit that Firefox needs some really serious work to become competitive with the other browsers? We aren't talking about wasting time and energy on something like Servo, too. We're talking about improvements to the Firefox browser that an ever-dwindling number of users are using. When will they admit that Firefox has poor performance and that this poor performance needs to be fixed immediately?