But either way the argument is just an appeal to an absurd extreme. The sentiment is not that we should completely disarm, merely that we should consider every weapon we buy and if the money could be better spent. Both of those being American presidents I think they had a fair point that the US spends a lot more on its military than is needed for purely defensive purposes.
That's what I was taking about. Ridiculous generalisations, compete ignorance of what those issues are and what people in those roles actually do, and insistence that you are the victim of a conspiracy.
Yep, all this technology we have based on "Hard Science" only works randomly.
Yes a lot of it does have seemingly random failures until we learn more and understand them. Classic example is the DeHallivard Comet aircraft. They started randomly breaking up in mid air for no apparent reason. Eventually extensive tests figured out that it was due to pressure cycling.
Note that there were no double blind tests on the fix (rounded corners on Windows), they just assumed that the fact that the aircraft didn't fall apart in mid air any more meant that it worked. The exact mechanism by which the fix works wasn't fully understood until some years later.
Just because material science wasn't as advanced back in the 50s as it is now doesn't meant that it wasn't useful or that the science was bunk.
Feel free to join that double blind test of parachutes though. Fingers crossed you don't end up in the placebo group.
I assume you will be happy to volunteer, in the interests of science.
Because psychologists aren't idiots they instead looked at the success rate on similar cases. I couldn't find any hard data but I imagine someone must have done a survey of parachute vs. no parachute falling from aircraft and found a statistically compelling result, same as they did for CBT.
On Android just discreetly hold down the power button for a few seconds and it will shut down, disabling fingerprint/face unlock until the passcode is entered.
How is it helping oppress people more than not being available in China? What extra oppression is there that doesn't already exist with the other search engines like Bing and Baijou?
Problem is that updates have a cost. I don't mean development, I mean that some percentage of devices will brick. Failed updates, failed flash memory etc. Then some percentage of users will have trouble like a lost configuration that their son or daughter set up and they don't know how to fix.
As such there is little incentive for manufacturers to advertise the fact that an update is available. As long as it exists they are covered legally, but ideally (for them) no one will actually apply it.
If people understood that they would probably be grateful. Unfortunately there are a lot of tech support scams these days and people are worried about doing their banking and shopping online...
Not worried enough to really do much about it of course.
Honestly the biggest threat to our society is people who think cultural Marxism is a real thing and haven't studied the history of where it comes from.
Check the Wikipedia article. The lede explains it.
You are assuming that the only way to prove something is through "hard science methods" like reproduction and strictly controlled testing.
However, look at things like Cognitive Behavioural Therapy. Impossible to prove through reproduction because you can't reset someone's mind, yet it helps millions of people and is proven to work beyond any doubt. A lot of psychology is like that, proven to be effective or predictive on a large scale.
And it's a good thing too, because dismissing it as bunk would leave many millions of people suffering from mental health problems that are treatable.
Isn't it fascinating how the comments on this story don't make reference to her gender, but on similar stories where the message is known to be from a woman... Somehow it's worth mentioning.
Leaving aside that many "hard" sciences have the same reproduction problem (e.g. climate science), software engineering isn't exactly great either.
Look at the state of security in software and systems. We are learning as we go and improvement is rapid but often later found to be in error. Think about how many security related protocols have been found lacking and deprecated.
Same with UI concepts, programming paradigms and languages, development methodologies etc.
Engineering is not dissimilar. A lot of stuff was only discovered when things failed catastrophically and the solutions were sometimes not even understood for a long time after they were found to work. The rocket engines that took us to the moon are a famous example.
So while psychology etc have their problems I don't think we should be so dismissive.
Lack of replication is often cited as evidence that science is bunk, e.g. climate science where we don't have a control Earth or a second planet to reproduce our findings.
That's just the nature of some sciences. Can't replicate people. Yet the results we have are extremely useful, allowing us to cure many forms of mental illness.
A great example is Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, which is a very effective treatment for depression. It involves learning to change the way you think and react, and rebuilding some kind of life you don't hate. It's all very soft, people wonder how taking up a hobby can stop them feeling suicidal, but it works and has helped millions of people.
Do you really think that requiring every Facebook user to set up their own custom spam filter is a viable business model? We people be happy if their email service just let the flood of spam in until they manually created an advanced beynesian filter and DNSRBL to stop it?
Even Gab has kicked spammers off the service. Even 4chan blocks crapflooding.
You could find it to be very problematic if you have children.
Marriage carries more benefits than tax breaks too. It's basically a pre-packaged contract that sets up lots of defaults for things like inheritance, and is referenced by many other contracts and law such as stuff governing insurance and worker's rights.
Facebook does not appear to be having much trouble taking down and banning accounts that are guilty of wrongthink. But that's easy. On the other hand, trying to ban all the robo-posted spamcrap that's flooding the remaining pages is apparently too difficult for them.
No, it's the exact opposite.
People are complaining all the time that extreme political content isn't being removed. Take this investigation, for example: https://www.channel4.com/info/...
Note this finding in particular:
"Pages belonging to far-right groups, with large numbers of followers, allowed to exceed deletion threshold, and subject to different treatment in the same category as pages belonging to governments and news organisations."
The documentary explores the reasons for this, basically Facebook thinks that extreme politics are good for its bottom line.
On the other hand they are making great efforts to ban fake accounts and spam, even going as far as to advertise it on TV and on billboards because of the damage that revelations about fake-news and Russian meddling have done.
Actually under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License that Wikipedia uses they are legally obliged to give attribution. So it appears that they are at the very least in breech of that licence, leaving aside any moral arguments about contributing to a resource that is absolutely vital to the performance of their highly profitable product.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a bad analogy because we already have evidence that falling from even dozens of feet can be lethal, never mind thousands.
Sure, but how do we know parachutes stop people getting injured when they fall? Where are the double blind controlled, repeatable tests?
I think The Simpsons did it first.
But either way the argument is just an appeal to an absurd extreme. The sentiment is not that we should completely disarm, merely that we should consider every weapon we buy and if the money could be better spent. Both of those being American presidents I think they had a fair point that the US spends a lot more on its military than is needed for purely defensive purposes.
That's what I was taking about. Ridiculous generalisations, compete ignorance of what those issues are and what people in those roles actually do, and insistence that you are the victim of a conspiracy.
Yep, all this technology we have based on "Hard Science" only works randomly.
Yes a lot of it does have seemingly random failures until we learn more and understand them. Classic example is the DeHallivard Comet aircraft. They started randomly breaking up in mid air for no apparent reason. Eventually extensive tests figured out that it was due to pressure cycling.
Note that there were no double blind tests on the fix (rounded corners on Windows), they just assumed that the fact that the aircraft didn't fall apart in mid air any more meant that it worked. The exact mechanism by which the fix works wasn't fully understood until some years later.
Just because material science wasn't as advanced back in the 50s as it is now doesn't meant that it wasn't useful or that the science was bunk.
Feel free to join that double blind test of parachutes though. Fingers crossed you don't end up in the placebo group.
Reminds me of this classic study of randomized double blind trials to determine the effectiveness of parachutes in preventing death and severe trauma. Clearly parachutes are just bunk science until we shove some people out of aircraft with placebos to act as a control group.
I assume you will be happy to volunteer, in the interests of science.
Because psychologists aren't idiots they instead looked at the success rate on similar cases. I couldn't find any hard data but I imagine someone must have done a survey of parachute vs. no parachute falling from aircraft and found a statistically compelling result, same as they did for CBT.
On Android just discreetly hold down the power button for a few seconds and it will shut down, disabling fingerprint/face unlock until the passcode is entered.
No, because Google is evil and everything they do is evil and no other opinion or thought is allowed.
How is it helping oppress people more than not being available in China? What extra oppression is there that doesn't already exist with the other search engines like Bing and Baijou?
Problem is that updates have a cost. I don't mean development, I mean that some percentage of devices will brick. Failed updates, failed flash memory etc. Then some percentage of users will have trouble like a lost configuration that their son or daughter set up and they don't know how to fix.
As such there is little incentive for manufacturers to advertise the fact that an update is available. As long as it exists they are covered legally, but ideally (for them) no one will actually apply it.
If people understood that they would probably be grateful. Unfortunately there are a lot of tech support scams these days and people are worried about doing their banking and shopping online...
Not worried enough to really do much about it of course.
Honestly the biggest threat to our society is people who think cultural Marxism is a real thing and haven't studied the history of where it comes from.
Check the Wikipedia article. The lede explains it.
You are assuming that the only way to prove something is through "hard science methods" like reproduction and strictly controlled testing.
However, look at things like Cognitive Behavioural Therapy. Impossible to prove through reproduction because you can't reset someone's mind, yet it helps millions of people and is proven to work beyond any doubt. A lot of psychology is like that, proven to be effective or predictive on a large scale.
And it's a good thing too, because dismissing it as bunk would leave many millions of people suffering from mental health problems that are treatable.
Isn't it fascinating how the comments on this story don't make reference to her gender, but on similar stories where the message is known to be from a woman... Somehow it's worth mentioning.
The fact that you are so profoundly ignorant of these issues demonstrates the need for people with an understanding of them.
Lewis's law in action.
Leaving aside that many "hard" sciences have the same reproduction problem (e.g. climate science), software engineering isn't exactly great either.
Look at the state of security in software and systems. We are learning as we go and improvement is rapid but often later found to be in error. Think about how many security related protocols have been found lacking and deprecated.
Same with UI concepts, programming paradigms and languages, development methodologies etc.
Engineering is not dissimilar. A lot of stuff was only discovered when things failed catastrophically and the solutions were sometimes not even understood for a long time after they were found to work. The rocket engines that took us to the moon are a famous example.
So while psychology etc have their problems I don't think we should be so dismissive.
Lack of replication is often cited as evidence that science is bunk, e.g. climate science where we don't have a control Earth or a second planet to reproduce our findings.
That's just the nature of some sciences. Can't replicate people. Yet the results we have are extremely useful, allowing us to cure many forms of mental illness.
A great example is Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, which is a very effective treatment for depression. It involves learning to change the way you think and react, and rebuilding some kind of life you don't hate. It's all very soft, people wonder how taking up a hobby can stop them feeling suicidal, but it works and has helped millions of people.
That list reads like a catalogue of personal failings
"I have no social skills so can't see the value of even thinking about social issues.
I have no no management skills so can't understand the need to manage projects and enterprises.
I'm post-truth so think all politics are a waste of time."
Of course history isn't worth studying, there is nothing we can learn from the past, right?
-1 troll huh? Seems we have a moderator who finds same sex marriage offensive and supports banning it.
Do you really think that requiring every Facebook user to set up their own custom spam filter is a viable business model? We people be happy if their email service just let the flood of spam in until they manually created an advanced beynesian filter and DNSRBL to stop it?
Even Gab has kicked spammers off the service. Even 4chan blocks crapflooding.
Both stories explore a dystopian world where women outnumber men
Sounds like she thought it was a terrible idea.
You are right thought, it was only about 45-50 years ago she made those statements. Long before she wrote the above.
Yeah... I was trying to avoid blowing anyone up, but okay it's a start I guess.
I don't read spam, I don't watch ads on TV, I block ads on web sites and I don't answer calls from telemarketers.
If my spam filtering is censorship then I can live with that.
You could find it to be very problematic if you have children.
Marriage carries more benefits than tax breaks too. It's basically a pre-packaged contract that sets up lots of defaults for things like inheritance, and is referenced by many other contracts and law such as stuff governing insurance and worker's rights.
Facebook does not appear to be having much trouble taking down and banning accounts that are guilty of wrongthink. But that's easy. On the other hand, trying to ban all the robo-posted spamcrap that's flooding the remaining pages is apparently too difficult for them.
No, it's the exact opposite.
People are complaining all the time that extreme political content isn't being removed. Take this investigation, for example: https://www.channel4.com/info/...
Note this finding in particular:
"Pages belonging to far-right groups, with large numbers of followers, allowed to exceed deletion threshold, and subject to different treatment in the same category as pages belonging to governments and news organisations."
The documentary explores the reasons for this, basically Facebook thinks that extreme politics are good for its bottom line.
On the other hand they are making great efforts to ban fake accounts and spam, even going as far as to advertise it on TV and on billboards because of the damage that revelations about fake-news and Russian meddling have done.
Actually under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License that Wikipedia uses they are legally obliged to give attribution. So it appears that they are at the very least in breech of that licence, leaving aside any moral arguments about contributing to a resource that is absolutely vital to the performance of their highly profitable product.