I think it is fair to say "it is popular" without any qualifier. Almost the entire work was written to parallel actual events and situations that played out historically by a professor of medieval history. Though it is worth mentioning that the books vary in subtle but significant ways and the the current and last season aren't based on the works of George R. R. Martin at all only, certain pieces of high level plot elements.
There is nothing about my suggestion that prevents them from having filters, including filters that operate based on your "like" preferences. Those would just be an option and/or plugin you enable and that you tune with likes or a thumbs up/thumbs down. But FB staff wouldn't be deciding anything, users would, users select the potential streams of input and users tune the algorithm. No central mass censorship required except force enabled filters based on a good faith effort to comply with local law.
Users generate the content, users should be deciding what to generate and what content they want to see from who. Not FB. Control belongs with the users not the carrier. That doesn't mean they can't offer helpful filters the user might want to select.
On the flip side, as FB has already begun to discover it just isn't possible to reliably apply complex rules without fail across that many languages and jurisdictions anyway. The staff required is insane and expensive. This would actually provide users more control, guaranteed access, and would dramatically reduce costs for FB. This would also be diverting legal responsibility for content to those who generate it and those who choose to consume it. It's a win all around.
I still don't have the study but based on the supplemental they are using HD-tACS transcranial alternating current stimulation and phase locking to the regions in question with inphase bringing benefits and outphase causing detriment. Their study didn't go beyond two days from what I can see so there may well be longer lasting benefits if they continued daily treatment over time.
Here is the supplemental. https://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2017/10/03/1710257114.DCSupplemental/pnas.1710257114.sapp.pdf
A 20-25 minute session is pretty standard protocol for transcranial stimulation techniques which this may be (article is behind a paywall). The effects are usually temporary but a couple studies I know of have continued the protocol over the course of time (daily treatments not a continuous session!) and shown results still lasting a year later.
For most of these the results last longer and longer. So it may well be that this preliminary result shows a temporary benefit and subsequent results will show that regular sessions produce an increasing long duration of effect.
I like it. At that point you can safely expand it beyond drug crimes which mostly need to be removed from the books and expand it to all the white collar crimes. You can put fine proceeds, tolls, and any other government charge which offsets taxation into the same scheme. All of these serve to shift costs away from the proportional tax system, hiding the real costs, and disproportionately distributing it.
This way you can keep penalties to prevent abuse and to throttle certain services while paying for everything via the centralized tax system where it can be properly accounted. You fix any problems or disparity in the one place.
Yeah because secrets are kept so well in prisons. They'd stay in one of the private cells with a cell, tv, internet, and hot tub in the closed ward that the mobsters and the other wealthy innmates enjoy with hookers and female guards sucking their dicks 3x a day.
While at it you end property seizure or at least stop giving the proceeds to the police who do the seizing. Instead, give the proceeds to subsidize the USPS or to some secular non-profit that provides benefits to the people but provides no direct economic benefit to government and offsets no taxes or inflation. Remove the economic incentive from everyone from lobbyists to police.
"Slavery should be profitable. If slavery is not profitable, why would the slaveowner pursue slavery?"
Because it is profitable. Just not for the taxpayer, it is profitable for the prison. If it weren't profitable it would cost more to do it than not do it and they wouldn't have prisoners perform labor. You are conflating the cost of incarcerating prisoners with the cost of having them perform labor. The labor generates more value for the state and the prison (which are largely privately operated) than not performing labor.
Offsetting some portion of the cost subsidizes a larger prison population which generates more profit for the private prison. This subsidizes the private prison system and police state alongside property seizure.
That covers public service as a punishment for crime but it doesn't cover using people given a punishment of incarceration as labor. The very fact there is a separate distinct punishment of labor makes that very clear.
They do labor taxpayers would otherwise have to pay for and they reduce the cost of operating the prison. Just like drug seizures this is a way to subsidize a police state.
"The idea that an adult can turn on a listening device while a child is, say, in the bathroom or in their bedroom is not good."
This could also be used to listen to privileged conversations. While they couldn't use them in court directly there would be no way to determine if the prosecution otherwise took advantage of that knowledge.
Exactly. You can squabble about the popular vote Trump v Clinton but without question the majority of americans who voted didn't vote for Trump, they voted for not Clinton and a huge swath of those who did vote for Clinton weren't happy about it.
Both parties have done their best to vilify and sandbag him but if the democratic party hadn't conspired to sandbag Bernie Sanders and/or Clinton had honorably withdrawn the conspiracy was revealed Sanders would be President today.
Don't be deliberately obtuse with regard to why they are conflated.
Communism is a philosophy of governance applied to an economic system. Capitalism is democracy in the market, communism is fascism in the market. Where you have something like an Oligarchy applying communism that group collectively is the markets dictator.
Communist Oligarchies also employ censorship. No amount of twisting changes the point, censorship is a means of control and democracy can't exist where the voters are being controlled. Only the illusion of democracy can exist in that state.
I'm not hating on soldiers. Indirectly war itself but not soldiers.
"For another thing, killing in self defense or killing in defense of others"
In war, it is a matter of perspective which soldiers are the defenders and which the offenders. That is a bias. Also whether killing honorably, defensively, offensively, dishonorably, etc is different depends on the ethics and values one subscribes to. That is also a bias.
"On the other hand, if you're a biased dipshit determined to hate on soldiers, you will likely ignore reality and wantonly misuse words like "killer", "murderer", " war criminal", and "executioner". In that sense it's true that bias matters... but that doesn't mean that significant differences do not exist. It just means that you're happy to ignore them."
And thus your bias is revealed. Another might take those distinctions as splitting hairs and contend no being has the moral authority to take the life of another regardless of justification.
I'm not scoring those views, arguing their merits, or assigning them values. I'm saying that the various views represent a bias. Everyone has not one but thousands obscuring their views and biases change over time. Best to let people express and share their ideas, argue their merits in the open, rather than silence them.
"Just because they're not having many reproducible results, doesn't mean they're not scientific. Science is not about only countless confirmatory studies, it is about reproducing work in an attempt to confirm of deny a hypothesis."
Yes but they are like a syn flood attack on science at this point. In the tcp protocol you need an initial connection, a syn, a response, and then a confirmation the response was received to make a reliable connection. A syn flood sends the initial connections without replying to the response causing the system to keep an ever growing number of half-open connections until it overflows its ability to track all those half-open connections. Similarly researchers have been syn flooding social science with studies that haven't been replicated.
Results which haven't been replicated may or may not be correct but they could be flukes, have flawed methodology, or simply made up. They have very low reliability and shouldn't be the basis of a system which itself is being conflated with an applied science and used to assess mental health in mass scale.
All social media? Probably not, but the waters of that term have been deliberately muddied and made broad one doesn't need to dominate all social media to have a monopoly platform. There is no other "social media" that qualifies as a competitor to Facebook's network, it might compete with some facebook produced or third party app running on that network but not the social network itself. That the makes the facebook social network a monopoly of sorts, not necessarily an illegal monopoly though. If I make a special type of cookie out of berries that only grow in my yard I have a monopoly, that doesn't mean regulation is required. There are millions of monopolies.
Facebook controls a mass portion of the population with their monopoly though and has leveraged it to some degree to push new applications against competitors. For example, whatsapp is called "social media" but it is really just a messenger. It isn't a competitor to facebook, it is a counterpart to FB messenger and to a limited degree instagram, skype, etc. Their integration of their network with instragram is a grey area because they are now leveraging their monopoly to push another product but they aren't going so far as to directly push it via other FB applications so I think they've been very careful not to cross a line here.
I would support Facebook being regulated in a manner similar to common carriers, basically they just blindly transit the user generated messages with any blocking or filtering being applied at the user level, though they might provide tools to enable that. In exchange they aren't legally liable for that content unless supplied with a legal request.
It's government regulation but the restriction is a block from providing restrictions.
In general I oppose censorship but there are certain cases where it is sketchy to call something speech and cases where it conflicts with other important rights and principles and a compromise must be reached.
The danger of censorship is that when you allow it you must keep it very narrow and explicit so it can't be used as a precedent for the next time. Otherwise you create a more and more broad tool. Even if you think it is just in the case being provided you must also think about when not if the values of the group you've empowered will shift or your own will shift. Without censorship you empower the audience to employ their values.
Applying the general values of our society in 1776 and allowing censorship might have seriously changed history in a way that would lead to slavery still persisting to this day for example. Consider that. We also need to consider that censorship efforts that have been thwarted in the past aren't fully comparable to today, in a digital world the silencing can effectively be absolute. The side channels of information like physical word of mouth just don't exist like they used to. Even water cooler gossip between co-workers is more likely to be IM's exchanged over digital platforms.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it is fair to say "it is popular" without any qualifier. Almost the entire work was written to parallel actual events and situations that played out historically by a professor of medieval history. Though it is worth mentioning that the books vary in subtle but significant ways and the the current and last season aren't based on the works of George R. R. Martin at all only, certain pieces of high level plot elements.
This
There is nothing about my suggestion that prevents them from having filters, including filters that operate based on your "like" preferences. Those would just be an option and/or plugin you enable and that you tune with likes or a thumbs up/thumbs down. But FB staff wouldn't be deciding anything, users would, users select the potential streams of input and users tune the algorithm. No central mass censorship required except force enabled filters based on a good faith effort to comply with local law.
Users generate the content, users should be deciding what to generate and what content they want to see from who. Not FB. Control belongs with the users not the carrier. That doesn't mean they can't offer helpful filters the user might want to select.
On the flip side, as FB has already begun to discover it just isn't possible to reliably apply complex rules without fail across that many languages and jurisdictions anyway. The staff required is insane and expensive. This would actually provide users more control, guaranteed access, and would dramatically reduce costs for FB. This would also be diverting legal responsibility for content to those who generate it and those who choose to consume it. It's a win all around.
I still don't have the study but based on the supplemental they are using HD-tACS transcranial alternating current stimulation and phase locking to the regions in question with inphase bringing benefits and outphase causing detriment. Their study didn't go beyond two days from what I can see so there may well be longer lasting benefits if they continued daily treatment over time.
Here is the supplemental.
https://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2017/10/03/1710257114.DCSupplemental/pnas.1710257114.sapp.pdf
A 20-25 minute session is pretty standard protocol for transcranial stimulation techniques which this may be (article is behind a paywall). The effects are usually temporary but a couple studies I know of have continued the protocol over the course of time (daily treatments not a continuous session!) and shown results still lasting a year later.
For most of these the results last longer and longer. So it may well be that this preliminary result shows a temporary benefit and subsequent results will show that regular sessions produce an increasing long duration of effect.
I like it. At that point you can safely expand it beyond drug crimes which mostly need to be removed from the books and expand it to all the white collar crimes. You can put fine proceeds, tolls, and any other government charge which offsets taxation into the same scheme. All of these serve to shift costs away from the proportional tax system, hiding the real costs, and disproportionately distributing it.
This way you can keep penalties to prevent abuse and to throttle certain services while paying for everything via the centralized tax system where it can be properly accounted. You fix any problems or disparity in the one place.
Yeah because secrets are kept so well in prisons. They'd stay in one of the private cells with a cell, tv, internet, and hot tub in the closed ward that the mobsters and the other wealthy innmates enjoy with hookers and female guards sucking their dicks 3x a day.
Just as with taxes, it should be based on wealth not income.
That's a fair point. He might be a nudist butcher who just got robbed.
While at it you end property seizure or at least stop giving the proceeds to the police who do the seizing. Instead, give the proceeds to subsidize the USPS or to some secular non-profit that provides benefits to the people but provides no direct economic benefit to government and offsets no taxes or inflation. Remove the economic incentive from everyone from lobbyists to police.
"As to room and board, that's been part of the standard slave package forever. Actually getting nominal pay has not"
No but was part of the sharecropper system of continued slavery in the southern united states.
"Slavery should be profitable. If slavery is not profitable, why would the slaveowner pursue slavery?"
Because it is profitable. Just not for the taxpayer, it is profitable for the prison. If it weren't profitable it would cost more to do it than not do it and they wouldn't have prisoners perform labor. You are conflating the cost of incarcerating prisoners with the cost of having them perform labor. The labor generates more value for the state and the prison (which are largely privately operated) than not performing labor.
Offsetting some portion of the cost subsidizes a larger prison population which generates more profit for the private prison. This subsidizes the private prison system and police state alongside property seizure.
That covers public service as a punishment for crime but it doesn't cover using people given a punishment of incarceration as labor. The very fact there is a separate distinct punishment of labor makes that very clear.
They do labor taxpayers would otherwise have to pay for and they reduce the cost of operating the prison. Just like drug seizures this is a way to subsidize a police state.
They produce money (by offsetting money which would otherwise have to be spent) which subsidizes a police state.
That doesn't stop a prosecutor from gaining intel on the defense through it.
"The idea that an adult can turn on a listening device while a child is, say, in the bathroom or in their bedroom is not good."
This could also be used to listen to privileged conversations. While they couldn't use them in court directly there would be no way to determine if the prosecution otherwise took advantage of that knowledge.
Exactly. You can squabble about the popular vote Trump v Clinton but without question the majority of americans who voted didn't vote for Trump, they voted for not Clinton and a huge swath of those who did vote for Clinton weren't happy about it.
Both parties have done their best to vilify and sandbag him but if the democratic party hadn't conspired to sandbag Bernie Sanders and/or Clinton had honorably withdrawn the conspiracy was revealed Sanders would be President today.
Don't be deliberately obtuse with regard to why they are conflated.
Communism is a philosophy of governance applied to an economic system. Capitalism is democracy in the market, communism is fascism in the market. Where you have something like an Oligarchy applying communism that group collectively is the markets dictator.
Communist Oligarchies also employ censorship. No amount of twisting changes the point, censorship is a means of control and democracy can't exist where the voters are being controlled. Only the illusion of democracy can exist in that state.
I'm not hating on soldiers. Indirectly war itself but not soldiers.
"For another thing, killing in self defense or killing in defense of others"
In war, it is a matter of perspective which soldiers are the defenders and which the offenders. That is a bias. Also whether killing honorably, defensively, offensively, dishonorably, etc is different depends on the ethics and values one subscribes to. That is also a bias.
"On the other hand, if you're a biased dipshit determined to hate on soldiers, you will likely ignore reality and wantonly misuse words like "killer", "murderer", " war criminal", and "executioner". In that sense it's true that bias matters ... but that doesn't mean that significant differences do not exist. It just means that you're happy to ignore them."
And thus your bias is revealed. Another might take those distinctions as splitting hairs and contend no being has the moral authority to take the life of another regardless of justification.
I'm not scoring those views, arguing their merits, or assigning them values. I'm saying that the various views represent a bias. Everyone has not one but thousands obscuring their views and biases change over time. Best to let people express and share their ideas, argue their merits in the open, rather than silence them.
"Just because they're not having many reproducible results, doesn't mean they're not scientific. Science is not about only countless confirmatory studies, it is about reproducing work in an attempt to confirm of deny a hypothesis."
Yes but they are like a syn flood attack on science at this point. In the tcp protocol you need an initial connection, a syn, a response, and then a confirmation the response was received to make a reliable connection. A syn flood sends the initial connections without replying to the response causing the system to keep an ever growing number of half-open connections until it overflows its ability to track all those half-open connections. Similarly researchers have been syn flooding social science with studies that haven't been replicated.
Results which haven't been replicated may or may not be correct but they could be flukes, have flawed methodology, or simply made up. They have very low reliability and shouldn't be the basis of a system which itself is being conflated with an applied science and used to assess mental health in mass scale.
All social media? Probably not, but the waters of that term have been deliberately muddied and made broad one doesn't need to dominate all social media to have a monopoly platform. There is no other "social media" that qualifies as a competitor to Facebook's network, it might compete with some facebook produced or third party app running on that network but not the social network itself. That the makes the facebook social network a monopoly of sorts, not necessarily an illegal monopoly though. If I make a special type of cookie out of berries that only grow in my yard I have a monopoly, that doesn't mean regulation is required. There are millions of monopolies.
Facebook controls a mass portion of the population with their monopoly though and has leveraged it to some degree to push new applications against competitors. For example, whatsapp is called "social media" but it is really just a messenger. It isn't a competitor to facebook, it is a counterpart to FB messenger and to a limited degree instagram, skype, etc. Their integration of their network with instragram is a grey area because they are now leveraging their monopoly to push another product but they aren't going so far as to directly push it via other FB applications so I think they've been very careful not to cross a line here.
I would support Facebook being regulated in a manner similar to common carriers, basically they just blindly transit the user generated messages with any blocking or filtering being applied at the user level, though they might provide tools to enable that. In exchange they aren't legally liable for that content unless supplied with a legal request.
It's government regulation but the restriction is a block from providing restrictions.
-1 Offtopic
That is a different debate for a different day.
Hear Hear
In general I oppose censorship but there are certain cases where it is sketchy to call something speech and cases where it conflicts with other important rights and principles and a compromise must be reached.
The danger of censorship is that when you allow it you must keep it very narrow and explicit so it can't be used as a precedent for the next time. Otherwise you create a more and more broad tool. Even if you think it is just in the case being provided you must also think about when not if the values of the group you've empowered will shift or your own will shift. Without censorship you empower the audience to employ their values.
Applying the general values of our society in 1776 and allowing censorship might have seriously changed history in a way that would lead to slavery still persisting to this day for example. Consider that. We also need to consider that censorship efforts that have been thwarted in the past aren't fully comparable to today, in a digital world the silencing can effectively be absolute. The side channels of information like physical word of mouth just don't exist like they used to. Even water cooler gossip between co-workers is more likely to be IM's exchanged over digital platforms.
"Repeat it until you believe it: Trump won because he was a better candidate."
Not to be confused with an assertion that he was a good candidate I'm sure.