Senator Franken probably had no plans to create the most extensive surveillance network of innocent people in human history, but he's doing everything in his power to keep it going. ALL YOUR DATA ARE BELONG TO US.
Evidently Sheryl Sandberg sees it differently in this case. From TFA:
“Peter did what he did on his own and not as a Facebook board member,” Facebook’s COO Sheryl Sandberg said of Thiel’s decision to fund lawsuits
Yes, and perhaps "stop all this nonsense complaining about all the wars that make a few super rich people even richer, and look, this new thing is shiny!"
Well if a policy that bans hate speech is enacted, and that policy includes language that can be reasonably viewed as hate speech, then by its own terms the policy must be deleted and all the hate censorship can end. What am I missing? FWIW TFA does list some reasons for banning hate speech, and none of them have anything to do with rationality, truth, honesty, etc.
When some hateful bigot is accused of "xenophobia", this incites hatred toward people with actual phobias. The mentally ill are being equated with crappy people who don't actually have a mental illness, and whose views perhaps deserve to be hated. Some people with actual phobias, diagnosed by actual doctors, get sick of the constant media comparisons to people who are motivated by hate. More like Hatebook IMO
This is all correct. I think it’s unfortunate, because Sandra really is a good editor, she’s seen a lot of good neuroscience come and go, and my best guess is that she means well. You’d think that, working at NPG for so long, she’d have taken notice of the things besides neuroscience that affect weight, like gut bacteria, the increasing prevalence of processed carbohydrates and seed oils, and the proliferation of endocrine disrupting chemicals as food additives and environmental pollutants. You’d think she’d be above the simplistic thinking that dieting is equivalent to forcing yourself to eat less of the same crap. Different foods will create different set points for body weight, and this is well-supported by science! I’d go one step further, and say that the food industry is actively muddling these issues. Their playbook of big-tobacco-style techniques is well known. They support crap science. They suppress good scientists (this week it was Nina Teicholz getting kicked off the National Food Policy Conference panel). It’s sad that someone in her position doesn’t see this, and instead goes about convincing people to accept poor health as something inevitable.
The bison, which will join the bald eagle as a national symbol, represents the country's first successful foray into wildlife conservation.
Srs? This might be the stupidest thing I have ever seen written here
I think not. Earnings were well below analysts' expectations. Guidance for future earnings was worse than that. Not news for nerds. Propaganda for morons.
OK/. editors, listen up: economics and engineering are NOT science. Osama was an economist, underpants was an engineer, and stats show that many fewer scientists go jihadi. Please stop trying to give scientists a bad name.
Not only that, but the war on drugs is directly responsible for the narco-violence that people in central America risk their lives to escape. And when that’s not enough, Libya, Syria, etc., get invaded to produce even more refugees. It’s big money for the small number of super rich people who profit from war. It’s a strategy to divide and conquer. And it’s working: I hereby disagree that nicotine and fat are harmful. Cigarettes and hydrogenated fats are harmful.
I dunno, surely it can't be claimed to be a 100% valid test, but it got peer reviewed and published in a stats journal. And it's really an effort to figure out the extent of the problem, not to make a diagnosis of fraud in any specific case. And if false positives are caused by a bunch of people giving fake responses in all the same way, I'd say the test works as advertised, and the notion of a false positive should be revisited.
No worries, just curious. I've read Nate's blog since we learned in the 2012 election that he's the first to successfully apply Bayes rule to political science. That part of his model is probably proprietary.
Yes, it is a good point, and that's why we should be glad that the researchers eschewed Pew's threats and published their paper anyway. Hopefully other researchers will follow up using these, or perhaps more sophisticated, methods to identify the extent of the problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Senator Franken probably had no plans to create the most extensive surveillance network of innocent people in human history, but he's doing everything in his power to keep it going. ALL YOUR DATA ARE BELONG TO US.
Evidently Sheryl Sandberg sees it differently in this case. From TFA: “Peter did what he did on his own and not as a Facebook board member,” Facebook’s COO Sheryl Sandberg said of Thiel’s decision to fund lawsuits
Not that simple. You can't just suddenly wish a bunch of people smarter. That won't stop the pileup of toxic waste.
Yes, and perhaps "stop all this nonsense complaining about all the wars that make a few super rich people even richer, and look, this new thing is shiny!"
Thanks for your diagnosis, but not all sick or schizophrenic people do bad things to other people.
current administration is trying to end fights and not start them? LOL
I promise that I haven't been abusing any of those.
Well if a policy that bans hate speech is enacted, and that policy includes language that can be reasonably viewed as hate speech, then by its own terms the policy must be deleted and all the hate censorship can end. What am I missing? FWIW TFA does list some reasons for banning hate speech, and none of them have anything to do with rationality, truth, honesty, etc.
I hate this comment
When some hateful bigot is accused of "xenophobia", this incites hatred toward people with actual phobias. The mentally ill are being equated with crappy people who don't actually have a mental illness, and whose views perhaps deserve to be hated. Some people with actual phobias, diagnosed by actual doctors, get sick of the constant media comparisons to people who are motivated by hate. More like Hatebook IMO
I swear I was just thinking the same thing, VILE GOOGLE BOT!!
This is all correct. I think it’s unfortunate, because Sandra really is a good editor, she’s seen a lot of good neuroscience come and go, and my best guess is that she means well. You’d think that, working at NPG for so long, she’d have taken notice of the things besides neuroscience that affect weight, like gut bacteria, the increasing prevalence of processed carbohydrates and seed oils, and the proliferation of endocrine disrupting chemicals as food additives and environmental pollutants. You’d think she’d be above the simplistic thinking that dieting is equivalent to forcing yourself to eat less of the same crap. Different foods will create different set points for body weight, and this is well-supported by science! I’d go one step further, and say that the food industry is actively muddling these issues. Their playbook of big-tobacco-style techniques is well known. They support crap science. They suppress good scientists (this week it was Nina Teicholz getting kicked off the National Food Policy Conference panel). It’s sad that someone in her position doesn’t see this, and instead goes about convincing people to accept poor health as something inevitable.
The bison, which will join the bald eagle as a national symbol, represents the country's first successful foray into wildlife conservation. Srs? This might be the stupidest thing I have ever seen written here
Yes! This!! Silicon Valley should provide the metaphor by which all of the world should be governed! Let's all welcome our new robot overlords!
I think not. Earnings were well below analysts' expectations. Guidance for future earnings was worse than that. Not news for nerds. Propaganda for morons.
OK /. editors, listen up: economics and engineering are NOT science. Osama was an economist, underpants was an engineer, and stats show that many fewer scientists go jihadi. Please stop trying to give scientists a bad name.
Not only that, but the war on drugs is directly responsible for the narco-violence that people in central America risk their lives to escape. And when that’s not enough, Libya, Syria, etc., get invaded to produce even more refugees. It’s big money for the small number of super rich people who profit from war. It’s a strategy to divide and conquer. And it’s working: I hereby disagree that nicotine and fat are harmful. Cigarettes and hydrogenated fats are harmful.
This article is an excellent example of the difference between consensus and settlement. This isn't like the Higgs boson.
Also there's that small matter of the electoral college...
Yes, and zerohedge has also pointed out that this just eliminates competition for the Rothschilds.
I, for one, consider this more of a honeydick than a honeytoken or a honeypot.
I dunno, surely it can't be claimed to be a 100% valid test, but it got peer reviewed and published in a stats journal. And it's really an effort to figure out the extent of the problem, not to make a diagnosis of fraud in any specific case. And if false positives are caused by a bunch of people giving fake responses in all the same way, I'd say the test works as advertised, and the notion of a false positive should be revisited.
No worries, just curious. I've read Nate's blog since we learned in the 2012 election that he's the first to successfully apply Bayes rule to political science. That part of his model is probably proprietary.
Yes, it is a good point, and that's why we should be glad that the researchers eschewed Pew's threats and published their paper anyway. Hopefully other researchers will follow up using these, or perhaps more sophisticated, methods to identify the extent of the problem.
THIS is not a survey.