This is one of the best collections of hard-hitting factual explications of where this is all going that I've seen. Thanks. It should serve as a warning, but will be ignored by most progressives.
Thyroid levels and other hormones affect this. I'd be shocked if the mutated gene didn't affect the metabolizing of one or more of those hormones. I'm falling off a cliff of being able to function normally on 8 hours of sleep as my thyroid levels (affected by medical issues early in life) are finally falling below the normal range.
Agreed, but still, even in a non-NEBS scenario, there's still a lot to be tested because you're putting something potentially flammable in someone's data center. It's really easy to think of designing so a server failure doesn't bring a cluster down, but a server failure that results in a fire has the potential to do more.
The one time I had a fire in a test lab, it really scared me, and made me realize as rare as that kind of thing is, it's potentially disastrous. And that's why they test for it.
But testing well is really, really hard. And expensive, especially for data center scenarios. If you haven't put it in an oven and observed the effects, it's not tested for telco data centers.
You are confusing me with society and the laws it creates through its elected government and judiciary.
I don't think so. I did happily give my opinions on those laws, but in my criticism I'm directly addressing this statement you made:
The authors of the paper admit in the abstract that they don't know who is responsible for the different results, but since the only difference was the "gender" setting it is clear that at some point in the chain (Google, advertisers, recruitment companies) there is a rule that says "favour males", just like there is a rule that says "favour females" for tampon adverts.
The difference between those two examples, and why one is a problem, is hopefully obvious.
Nowhere do you establish that one of those cases is a problem, nor its obviousness.
First, you have to establish that there are laws on the books in the jurisdiction of the study (USA) to say it's a "problem" on a quantitative level. You only claim it "might" be a problem in Europe. Nothing obvious here.
Second is methodology - you don't know why this is happening. If an automated algorithm generally associates a characteristic with a derived characteristic, you have to justify a basis for mandating that there are some things that are permissible for a computer to learn (men don't use tampons), and others that aren't (women don't apply for roughneck jobs). You don't come close to establishing that anywhere in the thread. And that opens a whole other can of worms that the PC types never like to look at - which is data that establishes choice by protected group members as a factor in undesirable results.
Which I'm fine with, as fraud is a legitimate crime.
, no adverts for tobacco products, no adverts for toys in the breaks between children's programmes based on them etc.
None of which I agree with.
there is certainly precedent for not allowing behaviour that is deemed harmful to society in general.
"Deemed harmful" deemed harmful. Minutes spent watching TV is an order of magnitude more important than the ads one sees. You're just taking a position where you feel comfortable outlawing behavior. There's absolutely nothing objective about it.
It's possible that without a good reason (e.g. advertising for products that can only be used by one gender) the advertisers may not be allowed to discriminate in this way.
Yes, that's a great idea. Let's have government make those kinds of decisions for us, because we can't trust people to decide for themselves.
I get that you have a right to these viewpoints, but you need to understand -- there's nothing objectively correct about what you propose, and your argument is based on subjective evaluations that others may disagree with. And many do.
The ads that Google shows you are based on your search terms most of the time.
Except when it's not. Which in this case clearly indicates there's a profile that's made up of more than just search terms.
The search terms were identical for all profiles, male or female. The authors of the paper admit in the abstract that they don't know who is responsible for the different results, but since the only difference was the "gender" setting it is clear that at some point in the chain (Google, advertisers, recruitment companies) there is a rule that says "favour males", just like there is a rule that says "favour females" for tampon adverts.
Right, confirming that it's not just search terms. So we agree, there's a profile involved, not just search terms.
The difference between those two examples, and why one is a problem, is hopefully obvious.
It's really not obvious. Are you suggesting that advertisers shouldn't be allowed to target ads? Are you suggesting freedom to engage in advertising should be modified by rules? You're implying that. On what basis do you justify telling corporations how to spend their ad money?
So Bradley Manning was treated in accordance with existing US laws while being tortured and without access to counsel? Come on. In the information age, the powers that be can't afford more Snowdens. Snowden saw what happened to Manning and knew how previous whistleblowers were treated. It's up to you to prove the government follows the law.
The only fair society is one that lets people make their own decisions about how to lead their own lives, and how to spread out savings and consumption over their lifetime.
But that doesn't give pushy logical positivist progressives the special privilege of telling other people how to live.
I didn't mean to say ADHD isn't real. My wife was a school psychologist and worked with kids who benefitted profoundly from medical diagnosis and intervention, but she also agreed I'd likely be treated inappropriately today in many schools.
If I were in a public school today and behaved as I did in the 80s and early 90s, I'm certain I'd be prescribed drugs for ADHD and sent to mandatory counseling for emotional problems. Because I acted like a boy, and drew pictures of horrible things in and out of art class. So really, this is already happening. If you want to be on the committee, get into school counseling, guidance, social work, and so on.
A fairly well-run capitalist society ensures that as many people as practically and realistically possible have the opportunity, if they so choose to do so, to create a business/corporation *of their own* with hard work, sacrifice, and whatever other capital they can invest, and with a good business plan, have a chance at competing with others in the market.
Does it ensure it, or is it simply a basic characteristic? I think of the market-driven economy as amoral, but largely effective -- certainly better than any other solution we've seen to date. But your use of the term "ensure" connotes intent, and intent implies moral cause.
I don't disagree with the larger point here, but sometimes I think pro-market people slip into thinking that markets are positively moral, rather than simply fair through consistency (so long as laws are justly enforced). Markets are not immoral, which socialism is. Markets are baseline neutral, and allow for positive moral decisions because people can do what they wish with charitable or humanitarian use of private property.
They are, broadly, a bunch of well-behaved socialist conformists who are afraid of the real world, and think that a panopticon surveillance state will make them "safe". It is disgusting.
You don't know what you're talking about. There are some people in the UK who fit that description, but they are a minority.
That's good to hear. I am exposed to a lot of leftist college educated UK citizens through social media connections and it's pretty terrifying to think that otherwise intelligent people *think* that way. Then I see the UKIP and I have to assume that a strong right-wing response is rebelling against the socialists who are afraid to report the skin color of the London rioters because it would disprove the myth of racial integration in London.
So who's the majority, then? Not the extreme left? Not the UKIP? Then why is the UK ever increasingly moving towards a surveillance state and socialism?
My descriptors regarding socialist and surveillance state tendencies were intended to be orthogonal. I believe both are true. In a way, though, I think that socialism and police-state stuff both contribute to fascism. It's like the attitude in The Law of Jante. This is a weird grass-roots fascism.
It's not just Cameron. The people I know in the UK support this kind of thinking. A few years ago there was legislation introduced to assign a caseworker to *every* child in the UK. It didn't have as little support as you'd think. They are, broadly, a bunch of well-behaved socialist conformists who are afraid of the real world, and think that a panopticon surveillance state will make them "safe". It is disgusting.
This guy suggests they're going about it the wrong way. It's counterintuitive, but he found that making things more ambiguous causes people to use more caution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Google stores cached versions of part of what they've indexed. Scraping that is actually not a bad way to do exactly what was suggested. http://webcache.googleusercont...
You beat me to it. Also, the new "drones" are easier to fly than regular airplanes, and come as consumer or prosumer goods, instead of being stick built like in the old days.
Slashdot Mirror
This is one of the best collections of hard-hitting factual explications of where this is all going that I've seen. Thanks. It should serve as a warning, but will be ignored by most progressives.
Thyroid levels and other hormones affect this. I'd be shocked if the mutated gene didn't affect the metabolizing of one or more of those hormones. I'm falling off a cliff of being able to function normally on 8 hours of sleep as my thyroid levels (affected by medical issues early in life) are finally falling below the normal range.
Agreed, but still, even in a non-NEBS scenario, there's still a lot to be tested because you're putting something potentially flammable in someone's data center. It's really easy to think of designing so a server failure doesn't bring a cluster down, but a server failure that results in a fire has the potential to do more.
The one time I had a fire in a test lab, it really scared me, and made me realize as rare as that kind of thing is, it's potentially disastrous. And that's why they test for it.
But testing well is really, really hard. And expensive, especially for data center scenarios. If you haven't put it in an oven and observed the effects, it's not tested for telco data centers.
Because I'd rate this funny!
You are confusing me with society and the laws it creates through its elected government and judiciary.
I don't think so. I did happily give my opinions on those laws, but in my criticism I'm directly addressing this statement you made:
The authors of the paper admit in the abstract that they don't know who is responsible for the different results, but since the only difference was the "gender" setting it is clear that at some point in the chain (Google, advertisers, recruitment companies) there is a rule that says "favour males", just like there is a rule that says "favour females" for tampon adverts.
The difference between those two examples, and why one is a problem, is hopefully obvious.
Nowhere do you establish that one of those cases is a problem, nor its obviousness.
First, you have to establish that there are laws on the books in the jurisdiction of the study (USA) to say it's a "problem" on a quantitative level. You only claim it "might" be a problem in Europe. Nothing obvious here.
Second is methodology - you don't know why this is happening. If an automated algorithm generally associates a characteristic with a derived characteristic, you have to justify a basis for mandating that there are some things that are permissible for a computer to learn (men don't use tampons), and others that aren't (women don't apply for roughneck jobs). You don't come close to establishing that anywhere in the thread. And that opens a whole other can of worms that the PC types never like to look at - which is data that establishes choice by protected group members as a factor in undesirable results.
No lies, no misleading claims
Which I'm fine with, as fraud is a legitimate crime.
, no adverts for tobacco products, no adverts for toys in the breaks between children's programmes based on them etc.
None of which I agree with.
there is certainly precedent for not allowing behaviour that is deemed harmful to society in general.
"Deemed harmful" deemed harmful. Minutes spent watching TV is an order of magnitude more important than the ads one sees. You're just taking a position where you feel comfortable outlawing behavior. There's absolutely nothing objective about it.
It's possible that without a good reason (e.g. advertising for products that can only be used by one gender) the advertisers may not be allowed to discriminate in this way.
Yes, that's a great idea. Let's have government make those kinds of decisions for us, because we can't trust people to decide for themselves.
I get that you have a right to these viewpoints, but you need to understand -- there's nothing objectively correct about what you propose, and your argument is based on subjective evaluations that others may disagree with. And many do.
The ads that Google shows you are based on your search terms most of the time.
Except when it's not. Which in this case clearly indicates there's a profile that's made up of more than just search terms.
The search terms were identical for all profiles, male or female. The authors of the paper admit in the abstract that they don't know who is responsible for the different results, but since the only difference was the "gender" setting it is clear that at some point in the chain (Google, advertisers, recruitment companies) there is a rule that says "favour males", just like there is a rule that says "favour females" for tampon adverts.
Right, confirming that it's not just search terms. So we agree, there's a profile involved, not just search terms.
The difference between those two examples, and why one is a problem, is hopefully obvious.
It's really not obvious. Are you suggesting that advertisers shouldn't be allowed to target ads? Are you suggesting freedom to engage in advertising should be modified by rules? You're implying that. On what basis do you justify telling corporations how to spend their ad money?
Beat me to it. Nicely done.
They're changing the "approved use" under the safety regulations, not permission/license grounds.
such technology were available to Maax, Dar wouldn't have stood a chance.
So Bradley Manning was treated in accordance with existing US laws while being tortured and without access to counsel? Come on. In the information age, the powers that be can't afford more Snowdens. Snowden saw what happened to Manning and knew how previous whistleblowers were treated. It's up to you to prove the government follows the law.
The only fair society is one that lets people make their own decisions about how to lead their own lives, and how to spread out savings and consumption over their lifetime.
But that doesn't give pushy logical positivist progressives the special privilege of telling other people how to live.
I'm sure there are new policies in place that probably deal with people like Snowden extrajudicially.
I didn't mean to say ADHD isn't real. My wife was a school psychologist and worked with kids who benefitted profoundly from medical diagnosis and intervention, but she also agreed I'd likely be treated inappropriately today in many schools.
If I were in a public school today and behaved as I did in the 80s and early 90s, I'm certain I'd be prescribed drugs for ADHD and sent to mandatory counseling for emotional problems. Because I acted like a boy, and drew pictures of horrible things in and out of art class. So really, this is already happening. If you want to be on the committee, get into school counseling, guidance, social work, and so on.
We need a study measuring the effects of alcohol-influenced people holding firearms on responses to obvious headlines. I volunteer as a test subject.
A fairly well-run capitalist society ensures that as many people as practically and realistically possible have the opportunity, if they so choose to do so, to create a business/corporation *of their own* with hard work, sacrifice, and whatever other capital they can invest, and with a good business plan, have a chance at competing with others in the market.
Does it ensure it, or is it simply a basic characteristic? I think of the market-driven economy as amoral, but largely effective -- certainly better than any other solution we've seen to date. But your use of the term "ensure" connotes intent, and intent implies moral cause.
I don't disagree with the larger point here, but sometimes I think pro-market people slip into thinking that markets are positively moral, rather than simply fair through consistency (so long as laws are justly enforced). Markets are not immoral, which socialism is. Markets are baseline neutral, and allow for positive moral decisions because people can do what they wish with charitable or humanitarian use of private property.
crimes using hand guns, not ownership of a hand gun
They are, broadly, a bunch of well-behaved socialist conformists who are afraid of the real world, and think that a panopticon surveillance state will make them "safe". It is disgusting.
You don't know what you're talking about. There are some people in the UK who fit that description, but they are a minority.
That's good to hear. I am exposed to a lot of leftist college educated UK citizens through social media connections and it's pretty terrifying to think that otherwise intelligent people *think* that way. Then I see the UKIP and I have to assume that a strong right-wing response is rebelling against the socialists who are afraid to report the skin color of the London rioters because it would disprove the myth of racial integration in London.
So who's the majority, then? Not the extreme left? Not the UKIP? Then why is the UK ever increasingly moving towards a surveillance state and socialism?
My descriptors regarding socialist and surveillance state tendencies were intended to be orthogonal. I believe both are true. In a way, though, I think that socialism and police-state stuff both contribute to fascism. It's like the attitude in The Law of Jante. This is a weird grass-roots fascism.
It's not just Cameron. The people I know in the UK support this kind of thinking. A few years ago there was legislation introduced to assign a caseworker to *every* child in the UK. It didn't have as little support as you'd think. They are, broadly, a bunch of well-behaved socialist conformists who are afraid of the real world, and think that a panopticon surveillance state will make them "safe". It is disgusting.
This guy suggests they're going about it the wrong way. It's counterintuitive, but he found that making things more ambiguous causes people to use more caution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Google stores cached versions of part of what they've indexed. Scraping that is actually not a bad way to do exactly what was suggested. http://webcache.googleusercont...
You beat me to it. Also, the new "drones" are easier to fly than regular airplanes, and come as consumer or prosumer goods, instead of being stick built like in the old days.
Also, "Get off my lawn!"