In the OP's posted story, Robert was the dumb fuck that almost drove off a cliff. You cannot hold algorithms accountable, they're NOT PEOPLE. They cannot be punished. They don't feel remorse.
All we can do is to explicitly build a legislative system that follows the trail back to the human that gave the algorithm that power.
If Bob is driving a car, it's STILL Bob's responsibility to watch to damned road. If Bob is sold a self-driving car with the written assurance from the dealer that this car will drive itself in conditions a, b, and c, if Bob gets killed during a, b, or c, ultimately the dealer is liable at LEAST for manslaughter, worse if they knew it wasn't perfected.
If the dealer was assured by the manufacturer, then the manufacturer is responsible. I would even say all the way to personal liability the person or group of persons who signed-off that this *was* capable. Don't like that risk, Mr Auto Executive? Then don't sign off that X is safe until you're willing to take that risk.
(And I don't know if I'm just excessively cynical, but I don't see a lot of "holding people with power" to account EITHER. Hell, I don't see that holding ANY people to account - even for the logical consequences of their OWN CHOICES - is much of a priority in our society.)
One would hope that this would actually be something the Left and Right could unify on, as nuclear power is the only extant technology that is truly green.
- We have the tech to completely avoid meltdowns (well, as long as there's gravity). - There are many, many tech advancement opportunities as much of civilian nuclear tech development in the US has basically stopped since the 1970s. Fortunately the world has continued. - nuclear continues to need FAR too many subsidies to develop/operate.
Unfortunately, a segment of our political leadership likes to INSIST that wind/solar are 'competitive' with previous techs including nuclear which is basically a baldfaced lie - it's competitive BECAUSE IT'S BEING MASSIVELY SUBSIDIZED.
Comparing subsidies per MWh produced is not a flawless comparison - it ignores, for example, massive sunk costs in coal, oil (mainly in gov't land subsidies) and nuclear (long since invested large capital projects).
But coming out of the lines right now, nuclear is the sole "greenest" tech. If Global Climate Change is CO2 driven and is the critical, urgent issue it's presented to be, nuclear is the only solution.
...there seems to be a concerted effort in the media to deprecate what's an astonishing act of generosity.
"Oh that? That's only like $1500 to him!" Well, I can tell you, not a lot of people even give $1500, so it's still generous, to say nothing of the fact that money is absolute: his dollars have the potential to do MASSIVE good even though they aren't individually meaningful to him. They're still meaningful and useful to others.
And let's be clear: the wealthy have ALWAYS donated to try to polish their reputation - formerly with god (chapels, monasteries, churches, poorhouses, hospitals, etc) now with the public. If you think the Carnegie Endowment is more than that family trying to wash away the blood of dead steelworkers you haven't paid attention to your history.
Nevertheless, it's still better than them NOT donating.
Are you asserting that there isn't a great deal of public posturing going on in American political culture today? Really?
Why was his virtue-signaling? It came as a capstone announcement to a climate change "summit" with maximum press in attendance. "Brown's announcement came in quickly delivered remarks at the close of the three-day gathering and received a standing ovation from many in the audience." If it was simply about actually getting something done, they'd have lined it into the budget (you know, the one where they're $1.3 trillion in debt already? - sorry, that was $1.3 trillion as of June 2015; some reports put it at $1.3 tn in pension liability alone, and $2.3 tn in total today) and executed it. Or at least have an actual program and progress to talk about. But they didn't, they haven't actually done shit-all except announce it. That would, dear AmiMoJo, be the essence of virtue-signaling - "look how much WE'RE going to do!"....just as soon as we can pay for it, or we're going to limp along pretending we're going to do it until people forget we said it....
RTFM: the story itself points to Gov Moonbean saying pretty much the same thing back in 1976. Never happened.
And if I were truly virtue-signaling, I *think* I could probably find better places to do it than an obscure techy messageboard.
I'm going to assume it's an honest question, and not just one of the ones being virtue-signaled believing it's clever to assert ignorance of the mechanics: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=virtue+si...
Pretty cool visualization, although I'd argue that their first 'stop' at three feet really looked more like four, but that's certainly quibbling. It was quite well done.
I sincerely appreciate your clarification of this here and elsewhere. No way that I can tell with/.'s ancient forumcode for me to pm you that thanks, so here it is.
I have 4 young 20-somethings. 2 are Eagle Scouts, and getting them to actually go IN PERSON to visit local businesses and present their projects to ask for funding was far more anxiety producing and work than the whole planning and project execution.
2 are daughters, and even when they're having drama issues or trouble getting things planned, if we suggest "well, why don't you just CALL them and get it sorted much faster than text/IG/whatever method they're using?" is met with incredulous stares.
The paleoclimate record shows that for the past ~3 million years, the earth warms spectacularly quickly about once every 120-140,000 years after which it settles back to the Holocene Optimal we all love. This has happened at least 15 times. The last was about 120,000 years ago.
For the current warming to be anthropogenic or even majority-anthropogenic, both a) the previous cycle would have to be stopped, and b) the new mechanism driven by SUVs and Republicans would have had to replace it in almost *precisely* the same manner, frequency, and magnitude.
Please explain how that happened.
And then, while you're at it, please explain how whatever mechanism drove those extremes of climate back toward the Holocene Optimal wouldn't work this time.
I can't get an actual climatologist to reply - not on open climate boards, not on Reddit AMAs, never.
What's your point? Actuarial Degree = meaningful, skill-based, compensated. Women's Studies = meaningless, meaningless, not well rewarded (I'd expect the only reason they have a decent pay is because every university seems to need 1-4 such professors).
Neither of those has ANYTHING to do with how many such degrees are awarded.
My daughter graduated with an economics degree, is trying to find a job since May. Her good friend who was an actuarial major came from the same economic tier as us, had a $100k+/yr job waiting for her since her sophomore year, bought a $180,000 home as a rental property about halfway through her senior year.
....such a major, and the high income that comes with it, requires a proficiency at math and the ACTUAL proof of ability in objective, rigorous testing...a somewhat higher standard than the plethora of other liberal arts majors like Gender Studies and Medieval Russian Literature which qualify one to be little more than a barista. (And not even that, really.)
While I think you're trying to be clever, I actually AGREE with you.
Those are private businesses, they are absolutely ENTITLED to make the choice of who they allow and who they don't. Absolutely. And if their best long term financial interest is to ban Jones - and even Trump - then they should do it. It doesn't even have to be in their interest - they're private firms, they can make that decision for WHATEVER reason.
You know, like a baker can decide who they bake a cake for. Or a golf course can decide they don't want women or Negroes.
Just like that, right? Are we all still free-marketeers then?
While I understand their argument, I guess, shouldn't Netflix et al already be paying for what they use?
I mean, if I have a 100/20 connection, I pay for that. If Netflix has a 1 terabit connection to each of its movie servers in 36 different metro areas, shouldn't they already be PAYING for that?
I get that their regional fees mainly are for their local access to the trunk, but doesn't the pay-chain go up from there too? Essentially, this is the main cost (I presume) that Netflix's internet provider bears, ie their bandwidth to the trunk, which is then sold (with markups) to their various customers, no?
I understand there are some complicated "tragedy of the commons" issues at play (moreso than either side's oversimplifications) but this doesn't seem like one of them?
So what's the alternative? Basically, the OP is saying "these darn stupid people, WhatsApp is guilty of letting them talk to each other".
Should we then manage our communication channels to prevent stupid people* from communicating? Isn't this what Twitter/Youtube/FB/etc are trying to do? *according to our very-personal definition of stupid
You may agree with what Twitter et al are doing because you hate Trump and Alex Jones etc...but if you can't see the pernicious and corrosive effect of that slippery slope, think about what life would be like if that principle becomes universalized and someone like Trump or Alex Jones is RUNNING the Twitter/FB/Youtube company?
Slashdot Mirror
In the OP's posted story, Robert was the dumb fuck that almost drove off a cliff.
You cannot hold algorithms accountable, they're NOT PEOPLE. They cannot be punished. They don't feel remorse.
All we can do is to explicitly build a legislative system that follows the trail back to the human that gave the algorithm that power.
If Bob is driving a car, it's STILL Bob's responsibility to watch to damned road.
If Bob is sold a self-driving car with the written assurance from the dealer that this car will drive itself in conditions a, b, and c, if Bob gets killed during a, b, or c, ultimately the dealer is liable at LEAST for manslaughter, worse if they knew it wasn't perfected.
If the dealer was assured by the manufacturer, then the manufacturer is responsible. I would even say all the way to personal liability the person or group of persons who signed-off that this *was* capable.
Don't like that risk, Mr Auto Executive? Then don't sign off that X is safe until you're willing to take that risk.
(And I don't know if I'm just excessively cynical, but I don't see a lot of "holding people with power" to account EITHER. Hell, I don't see that holding ANY people to account - even for the logical consequences of their OWN CHOICES - is much of a priority in our society.)
...I genuinely hope they're successful and everyone comes back alive.
...then this is great, right?
One would hope that this would actually be something the Left and Right could unify on, as nuclear power is the only extant technology that is truly green.
- We have the tech to completely avoid meltdowns (well, as long as there's gravity).
- There are many, many tech advancement opportunities as much of civilian nuclear tech development in the US has basically stopped since the 1970s. Fortunately the world has continued.
- nuclear continues to need FAR too many subsidies to develop/operate.
Unfortunately, a segment of our political leadership likes to INSIST that wind/solar are 'competitive' with previous techs including nuclear which is basically a baldfaced lie - it's competitive BECAUSE IT'S BEING MASSIVELY SUBSIDIZED.
https://spectrum.ieee.org/ener...
Comparing subsidies per MWh produced is not a flawless comparison - it ignores, for example, massive sunk costs in coal, oil (mainly in gov't land subsidies) and nuclear (long since invested large capital projects).
But coming out of the lines right now, nuclear is the sole "greenest" tech. If Global Climate Change is CO2 driven and is the critical, urgent issue it's presented to be, nuclear is the only solution.
...there seems to be a concerted effort in the media to deprecate what's an astonishing act of generosity.
"Oh that? That's only like $1500 to him!" Well, I can tell you, not a lot of people even give $1500, so it's still generous, to say nothing of the fact that money is absolute: his dollars have the potential to do MASSIVE good even though they aren't individually meaningful to him. They're still meaningful and useful to others.
And let's be clear: the wealthy have ALWAYS donated to try to polish their reputation - formerly with god (chapels, monasteries, churches, poorhouses, hospitals, etc) now with the public. If you think the Carnegie Endowment is more than that family trying to wash away the blood of dead steelworkers you haven't paid attention to your history.
Nevertheless, it's still better than them NOT donating.
Are you asserting that there isn't a great deal of public posturing going on in American political culture today? Really?
Why was his virtue-signaling? It came as a capstone announcement to a climate change "summit" with maximum press in attendance.
"Brown's announcement came in quickly delivered remarks at the close of the three-day gathering and received a standing ovation from many in the audience."
If it was simply about actually getting something done, they'd have lined it into the budget (you know, the one where they're $1.3 trillion in debt already? - sorry, that was $1.3 trillion as of June 2015; some reports put it at $1.3 tn in pension liability alone, and $2.3 tn in total today) and executed it. Or at least have an actual program and progress to talk about.
But they didn't, they haven't actually done shit-all except announce it.
That would, dear AmiMoJo, be the essence of virtue-signaling - "look how much WE'RE going to do!"....just as soon as we can pay for it, or we're going to limp along pretending we're going to do it until people forget we said it....
RTFM: the story itself points to Gov Moonbean saying pretty much the same thing back in 1976. Never happened.
And if I were truly virtue-signaling, I *think* I could probably find better places to do it than an obscure techy messageboard.
I'm going to assume it's an honest question, and not just one of the ones being virtue-signaled believing it's clever to assert ignorance of the mechanics: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=virtue+si...
...because that's a prudent use of the taxpayer's money: "Virtue signaling".
Oh yeah, and there's this: https://californiapolicycenter...
Pretty cool visualization, although I'd argue that their first 'stop' at three feet really looked more like four, but that's certainly quibbling. It was quite well done.
I sincerely appreciate your clarification of this here and elsewhere. No way that I can tell with /.'s ancient forumcode for me to pm you that thanks, so here it is.
1) doing things you don't like but have to IS something worth learning how to do.
2) if you don't like it, why don't you just come up in front of the class and explain why?
"If you open Edge and search for "Chrome" or "Firefox" using Bing,"
Well that's ok then, pretty much nobody will see it.
I have 4 young 20-somethings.
2 are Eagle Scouts, and getting them to actually go IN PERSON to visit local businesses and present their projects to ask for funding was far more anxiety producing and work than the whole planning and project execution.
2 are daughters, and even when they're having drama issues or trouble getting things planned, if we suggest "well, why don't you just CALL them and get it sorted much faster than text/IG/whatever method they're using?" is met with incredulous stares.
...I'm sure all of Trump's detractors will agree that he has done the right thing and it's about time.
Won't they?
I'd agree that's a good analogy. Both groups are zealots uninterested in anything but flogging their particular creed to every passer-by.
If there was such a thing as God, he's clearly a sadistic motherfucker.
The paleoclimate record shows that for the past ~3 million years, the earth warms spectacularly quickly about once every 120-140,000 years after which it settles back to the Holocene Optimal we all love. This has happened at least 15 times. The last was about 120,000 years ago.
For the current warming to be anthropogenic or even majority-anthropogenic, both
a) the previous cycle would have to be stopped, and
b) the new mechanism driven by SUVs and Republicans would have had to replace it in almost *precisely* the same manner, frequency, and magnitude.
Please explain how that happened.
And then, while you're at it, please explain how whatever mechanism drove those extremes of climate back toward the Holocene Optimal wouldn't work this time.
I can't get an actual climatologist to reply - not on open climate boards, not on Reddit AMAs, never.
And you appear to not understand the difference between "meaningful" and "meaningless"?
What's your point?
Actuarial Degree = meaningful, skill-based, compensated.
Women's Studies = meaningless, meaningless, not well rewarded (I'd expect the only reason they have a decent pay is because every university seems to need 1-4 such professors).
Neither of those has ANYTHING to do with how many such degrees are awarded.
When we point to cooler summers or warmer winters or a near-complete absence of tornadoes, the reply is "WEATHER ISN'T CLIMATE, YOU FUCKING DENIER"
But somehow everytime there's a hurricane, we see posts and news stories about how this is driven by climate change.
Funny.
My daughter graduated with an economics degree, is trying to find a job since May.
Her good friend who was an actuarial major came from the same economic tier as us, had a $100k+/yr job waiting for her since her sophomore year, bought a $180,000 home as a rental property about halfway through her senior year.
Yeah, it's always been a thing.
....such a major, and the high income that comes with it, requires a proficiency at math and the ACTUAL proof of ability in objective, rigorous testing...a somewhat higher standard than the plethora of other liberal arts majors like Gender Studies and Medieval Russian Literature which qualify one to be little more than a barista. (And not even that, really.)
"No fucking way."
-Styopa
September 2018
While I think you're trying to be clever, I actually AGREE with you.
Those are private businesses, they are absolutely ENTITLED to make the choice of who they allow and who they don't. Absolutely. And if their best long term financial interest is to ban Jones - and even Trump - then they should do it. It doesn't even have to be in their interest - they're private firms, they can make that decision for WHATEVER reason.
You know, like a baker can decide who they bake a cake for.
Or a golf course can decide they don't want women or Negroes.
Just like that, right? Are we all still free-marketeers then?
While I understand their argument, I guess, shouldn't Netflix et al already be paying for what they use?
I mean, if I have a 100/20 connection, I pay for that. If Netflix has a 1 terabit connection to each of its movie servers in 36 different metro areas, shouldn't they already be PAYING for that?
I get that their regional fees mainly are for their local access to the trunk, but doesn't the pay-chain go up from there too? Essentially, this is the main cost (I presume) that Netflix's internet provider bears, ie their bandwidth to the trunk, which is then sold (with markups) to their various customers, no?
I understand there are some complicated "tragedy of the commons" issues at play (moreso than either side's oversimplifications) but this doesn't seem like one of them?
So what's the alternative?
Basically, the OP is saying "these darn stupid people, WhatsApp is guilty of letting them talk to each other".
Should we then manage our communication channels to prevent stupid people* from communicating? Isn't this what Twitter/Youtube/FB/etc are trying to do?
*according to our very-personal definition of stupid
You may agree with what Twitter et al are doing because you hate Trump and Alex Jones etc...but if you can't see the pernicious and corrosive effect of that slippery slope, think about what life would be like if that principle becomes universalized and someone like Trump or Alex Jones is RUNNING the Twitter/FB/Youtube company?
The Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves.
Then maybe you should complain to your Party when the nomination process is about as rigged as a Politburo election?