I agree that Hillary was a fundamentally weak candidate, but there's evidence to suggest that Comey's announcement was the straw that tipped the camel over in Trump's favor.
And yeah, Trump would still be hounded, but I find it hard to believe he wouldn't have been better off this whole time without Mueller's investigation (which directly stemmed from firing Comey).
1) If Bill Clinton had just stayed away from the situation, Hillary may have ended up president. 2) If Trump had left Flynn to Comey, there may not have been the same scope of investigation we're currently seeing.
The takeaway is this: leave the shit alone that you're supposed to leave alone, otherwise you risk getting it all over yourself.
James Comey, a Republican appointee, was the one who announced a few days before the election that he was reoppening the Clinton email investigation when he has no legal requirement to make such an announcement.
He had no legal requirement, but one of the interesting things that came up in his testimony is that it was because of Bill Clinton's highly irregular boarding of Attorney General Lynch's plane that Comey felt there was a duty to be as clear as possible that that event hadn't impeded the investigation. In other words, if Bill Clinton hadn't pulled that stunt, then Comey wouldn't have announced the re-opening of the investigation (since if he hadn't announced it promptly, and that later came to light, it might have appeared to be because of Bill Clinton's influence).
I'm not saying his decision was the right one, but I can appreciate that he was between a rock and a hard place there.
(I originally up-modded your post, which I generally agree with, but then decided a comment was preferable)
dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
I like how I literally answered the question (how an algorithm can be effectively biased even if it's not obvious from the inputs, and without taking any sides on whether New York is doing a good or bad thing), and got modded down to Troll.
IANAL, but my understanding is that discrimination does not need to be intentional to exist. As an example, if an algorithm makes zoning decisions based on property taxes, and therefore excludes low-income areas from certain kinds of benefits, then the fact that those areas are disproportionately comprised of minorities means that the algorithm is effectively biased against them.
Again, look at the actual article Ichijo posted: Texas is clearly not the only Red State in that category. And again, he was replying to a comment specifically about the economic climate in Texas.
The whole Red States as Welfare States thing is totally worthy of discussion, but is strange to bring up in response to a comment that is soley and specifically about a state which lies outside that category. So while I applaud the shoehorning...
Look at your article: the Red State we're talking about, Texas, gives more than it takes (i.e. same column as California). So while I applaud your greater point, this isn't really the place for it...
Who wrote this unmaintainable shit? No comments, variable names like "azfh232", and a complete lack of whitespace are bad enough, but there's race conditions, zero edge-case handling, and an overall structure that's more organic than planned.
"This is, obviously, a related issue, but it's distinct, which is, what about cases where people are using electronic media to commit crimes? Having access to those devices is going to be critical to have evidence that we can present in court to prove the crime. I understand why some people merge the issues. I understand that they're related. But I think logically, we have to look at these differently. People want to secure their houses, but they still need to get in and out. Same issue here."
You 'think logically', eh? Well, I guess that settles the matter.
Now, there's a grease fire I need to put out, and this handy bucket of water nearby...
That rule refers to porn about things; this is merely a thing about porn. But lemme help you out there: He rubbed his eyes, wondering what time it was. Suddenly the lights came on, blinding. Billy fell out of his chair in surprise, and heard Jenny exclaim "Oh, so sorry! I didn't know someone would be in the PornHub office this late. I'm just here to clean". Rolling onto his belly, Billy strikes a sexy pose, and says with a wink "It's okay, you might actually be able to help me out. See, I'm writing a system to detect various kinds of sexual acts and poses, and, well, it needs training data".
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, by Philip K Dick
But seriously, I read Neuromancer for the first time ~8 years back, and it came across as visionary for the period in which it was released. That is to say, it was kind of a slog to read now, and most everything new in it has been done to death since. Maybe his other stuff holds up more? Maybe I was in a weird headspace and I'd like it a lot more if I re-read it?
I tried reading Snow Crash as well, by Neal Stephenson, and distinctly thinking "This would have been revolutionary to read back in the 90s". Reading it nowadays, it seems more tired and silly.
Dick, though, holds up really well, despite being a lot older. So if you're a freak like me who questions the premise of this article, and you haven't read his stuff, give it a shot:)
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that Hillary was a fundamentally weak candidate, but there's evidence to suggest that Comey's announcement was the straw that tipped the camel over in Trump's favor.
And yeah, Trump would still be hounded, but I find it hard to believe he wouldn't have been better off this whole time without Mueller's investigation (which directly stemmed from firing Comey).
Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
1) If Bill Clinton had just stayed away from the situation, Hillary may have ended up president.
2) If Trump had left Flynn to Comey, there may not have been the same scope of investigation we're currently seeing.
The takeaway is this: leave the shit alone that you're supposed to leave alone, otherwise you risk getting it all over yourself.
Agreed
James Comey, a Republican appointee, was the one who announced a few days before the election that he was reoppening the Clinton email investigation when he has no legal requirement to make such an announcement.
He had no legal requirement, but one of the interesting things that came up in his testimony is that it was because of Bill Clinton's highly irregular boarding of Attorney General Lynch's plane that Comey felt there was a duty to be as clear as possible that that event hadn't impeded the investigation. In other words, if Bill Clinton hadn't pulled that stunt, then Comey wouldn't have announced the re-opening of the investigation (since if he hadn't announced it promptly, and that later came to light, it might have appeared to be because of Bill Clinton's influence).
I'm not saying his decision was the right one, but I can appreciate that he was between a rock and a hard place there.
(I originally up-modded your post, which I generally agree with, but then decided a comment was preferable)
Tell that to the poor, spectating whale pod. If only they had streaming capabilities in the ocean, the whole tragedy could have been avoided :(
(AC to preserve moderation)
I got some bad news for ya, buddy
dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.
I like how I literally answered the question (how an algorithm can be effectively biased even if it's not obvious from the inputs, and without taking any sides on whether New York is doing a good or bad thing), and got modded down to Troll.
IANAL, but my understanding is that discrimination does not need to be intentional to exist. As an example, if an algorithm makes zoning decisions based on property taxes, and therefore excludes low-income areas from certain kinds of benefits, then the fact that those areas are disproportionately comprised of minorities means that the algorithm is effectively biased against them.
Again, look at the actual article Ichijo posted: Texas is clearly not the only Red State in that category. And again, he was replying to a comment specifically about the economic climate in Texas.
The whole Red States as Welfare States thing is totally worthy of discussion, but is strange to bring up in response to a comment that is soley and specifically about a state which lies outside that category. So while I applaud the shoehorning...
Look at your article: the Red State we're talking about, Texas, gives more than it takes (i.e. same column as California). So while I applaud your greater point, this isn't really the place for it...
Well, I mean, they kind of were, weren't they? At least in the case of the Patriot Act, which he used and defended to a greater extent than W...
And unless any big surprises happen, they're now Trumps (or at least soon will be).
Who wrote this unmaintainable shit? No comments, variable names like "azfh232", and a complete lack of whitespace are bad enough, but there's race conditions, zero edge-case handling, and an overall structure that's more organic than planned.
This is why we have code reviews, people!
"This is, obviously, a related issue, but it's distinct, which is, what about cases where people are using electronic media to commit crimes? Having access to those devices is going to be critical to have evidence that we can present in court to prove the crime. I understand why some people merge the issues. I understand that they're related. But I think logically, we have to look at these differently. People want to secure their houses, but they still need to get in and out. Same issue here."
You 'think logically', eh? Well, I guess that settles the matter.
Now, there's a grease fire I need to put out, and this handy bucket of water nearby...
My apologies, I didn't realize we'd broadened the scope of relevant media to include art.
A different breed of revenge porn, eh? Where the subject is not the victim?
... not to visit Detroit.
That rule refers to porn about things; this is merely a thing about porn. But lemme help you out there:
He rubbed his eyes, wondering what time it was. Suddenly the lights came on, blinding. Billy fell out of his chair in surprise, and heard Jenny exclaim "Oh, so sorry! I didn't know someone would be in the PornHub office this late. I'm just here to clean". Rolling onto his belly, Billy strikes a sexy pose, and says with a wink "It's okay, you might actually be able to help me out. See, I'm writing a system to detect various kinds of sexual acts and poses, and, well, it needs training data".
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, by Philip K Dick
But seriously, I read Neuromancer for the first time ~8 years back, and it came across as visionary for the period in which it was released. That is to say, it was kind of a slog to read now, and most everything new in it has been done to death since. Maybe his other stuff holds up more? Maybe I was in a weird headspace and I'd like it a lot more if I re-read it?
I tried reading Snow Crash as well, by Neal Stephenson, and distinctly thinking "This would have been revolutionary to read back in the 90s". Reading it nowadays, it seems more tired and silly.
Dick, though, holds up really well, despite being a lot older. So if you're a freak like me who questions the premise of this article, and you haven't read his stuff, give it a shot :)
"New spoon has throws soup back into your face"
"Cat sues owner for pooping in its litter box"
"Internet Explorer leaks your address bar"
Who exactly do they mean by "you"? Not me, surely, nor (as far as I can tell) any of my friends, family, or coworkers.
Strictly enforced by physics
millionths of a second, to be precise.
That wouldn't be hard
(stolen from coworker)
Uh, it was anticipated. Or do you think the counter-protestors all popped in via magic portals?