In addition to clickbaiting someone, imagine the possibility of someone using this against, say someone who does research into a political party that supports the full legalization of marijuana.
So then the internet becomes a big game of "they looked at a subject I don't like, therefore, they need the book thrown at them".
I do my fair share of technical editing, and one of the most frequent mistakes I encounter is not defining acronyms on first use. I constantly (and repeatedly) have to remind people to treat ANY technical document as if, even though it's expected that the reader is assumed to have some level of technical experience, that it's to be treated as if someone is picking up material on this particular subject for the first time. That includes defining all acronyms.
Don't get me started on how often I have to explain that "data" is plural.
Maybe I misread what you originally wrote, but what you wrote reads as though she may have some sort of false modesty about her (your words: "came with excuses for the opponent's loss").
For a player of her caliber, that's the very definition of false modesty.
I think anyone who reaches the top of their field, no matter what field, is deeply strange and on some level has problems relating to the rest of us mortals. Because in order to achieve that level of focus on that one thing, one must be able to block other things out. It probably acts to the detriment of other skills that everyone else needs to get along with the rest of the planet, who weren't born with natural talents and need to compensate somehow.
Polgar, as I understand it, is a chess prodigy, who could beat experts when she was a child, with her back turned to the board no less. Her two sisters are ranked highly in the chess world as well, though more among women. That having been said, her parents sought out to prove the three girls could be chess masters by starting them training at an early age. If you're not a completely maladjusted weirdo by virtue of the fact that your parents openly stated that they made you into an experiment in subject mastery, you're doing all right.
But you don't get to be the #8 player in the world by being mediocre. Maybe I don't know enough about chess that I don't know how much of her modestly comes across as false, but there's only so much social engineering and opponent wrangling that you can do before the cracks in your talent show. But then again, we could discuss Ronda Rousey as well...
I know how quickly some people like to decry "Freedom of Speech". They don't outright say it, but that's what they're advocating for.
But taken to its logical extreme, everything can be hidden with innocuous words and people, ingenious as the dickens, can find ways of skirting around the AI to get their point across.
Let's take a couple of examples where perfectly innocuous things become in some way malicious.
The word "banana". I think on Slashdot, more has been made of the banana's potential to go extinct than its use as a slur among Asians ("yellow on the outside, white on the inside!"). However unlikely it may be, if a group of Asians decided to get together one day and claimed it didn't like the word "banana" because of its racist implications, what then? We avoid using the word? Our computers and smartphones will give us a warning that this word may be "problematic"?
Or, how about "skiing"? In some circles, it's code for cocaine use, and therefore criminal activity. Are we then to censor the word "skiing" because someone, somewhere might use it to mean drug use instead of the sport?
(As an aside, would saying "ski the slopes" be both indicative of criminal activity and racism? Okay, long way to make that joke, I know. Also, since I'm Asian, I get a pass on making that joke, right?)
Point I'm making is, trying to censor every little thing because it sounds like something someone, somewhere might object to is a bad idea. Because anybody can get it in their head that anything is bad if given the proper motivation.
The weird part is Patton Oswalt taking on "slumming" sort of projects, presumably by choice. Apparently, he also appears in Red Letter Media's "Space Cop".
There's an air of oddness hanging over the proceedings that three (!) of the original players haven't been called in to bat. Those guys DID help make MST3K what it was. If they're being openly snubbed, there's a good chance it will be reflected in the work via noticeable absence.
Like I said, cynical, and that I was ignoring a fair amount of nuance there. But so are you.
A kid who has the resources and acceptance letter can go to Harvard. That kid's options are comfortable, pleasant, and are not borne out of desperation.
A kid who is languishing in relative poverty, feels he has little choice but to turn to crime, ends up in prison, can say "hey, it's an education", especially since he, in relative poverty, wouldn't have had access to that education anyway (I've met kids who have struggled to make payments for a community college education). Kid gets out, probably won't make tons of money, but a respectable enough amount to never have to commit crimes again. Other kids find out about this, and think it's a way to game the system, may purposely commit crimes.
To you, it's like taking a flight to get free peanuts. To some kid who never sees himself with any better options, it may be the best possible one.
Do I necessarily think this would spark off a trend of kids committing crimes so they can get an education in prison? Probably not. But I could be wrong: Among the inner-city kids I met teaching at a CC, you get the feeling that even if some of them are there to kill time, a lot of them see inherent benefit in education, and genuinely want to be there, but struggle with money and think the system is stacked against them.
There are very few constants in life. One is beware anyone who suffers from a diminished number of options, especially if they see one that's fairly attractive.
It's pretty cool that there are educational resources for prisoners. Keeping their minds occupied on doing something productive is good for rehabilitation, something the prison system is sorely lacking.
However, and this is me being a cynical asshole, guaranteed there's no out-of-pocket payment for these classes, so one would think that it's just less painful to go to prison to get an education than go to college. (Yes, I know I'm vastly oversimplifying the long-term issues here, among them the cultural issue of not wanting to hire an ex-con; there's also a long-winded point to be made about crippling debt here that I'm too lazy to reach for.)
There's a certain novelty of "doing what you love" that's at best a modern invention (much the way "childhood" is).
It used to be that to be a useful part of society, you did the job you were suited for, were apprenticed into by way of parentage, or whatever other circumstance led you there. You accepted that you did a thing, and didn't worry about it being your "dream job", because that's not what drove people back then.
Now, I'm not saying "work/life balance" isn't something that shouldn't enter into consideration when you take a job. It most certainly is, and, in fact, should be protected by your employer, not actively fought for by you. It's just that there's a certain amount of dark amusement I get out of the people that made the concept a meme. It's just that most people don't have such a breadth of historical context when it comes to things like work, marriage and religion that they almost talk about things as if they'd always been the way these people claim they are.
In fact, "work/life balance" is an invention of an age of, if not arrested development, then the idea that people should be entitled to have the life that they want (including getting the big promotion while shouting "work/life balance!" at the very same colleagues that put in extra hours day after day), whether or not those prospects are realistic.
To play devil's advocate here: suppose you have a new incentive to grow a new group in your company. Would you want dedicated employees to help it grow, or would you prefer people working on established projects maybe, possibly working on your pet project when they have a few minutes when they're not distracted with something they know has traction?
Oh, I know all about Pastafarianism. I rather appreciate it. I still think her point is off-base, though.
Unless she's walking around with a colander on her head all the time, or more to the point, driving, I'm sorry, but this comes off as more slacktivist douchebaggery than demonstration of fallacy.
Slashdot Mirror
So? That could be a "Blue Harvest"-type misdirect.
Heh. I'm doing Jewish Christmas, same as you, same plan and everything.
And I'm not even Jewish.
Show me a long-term vegetarian, and I'll show you someone who never wants to see lettuce again.
In addition to clickbaiting someone, imagine the possibility of someone using this against, say someone who does research into a political party that supports the full legalization of marijuana.
So then the internet becomes a big game of "they looked at a subject I don't like, therefore, they need the book thrown at them".
Sadly, George Lucas could have used that advice.
I do my fair share of technical editing, and one of the most frequent mistakes I encounter is not defining acronyms on first use. I constantly (and repeatedly) have to remind people to treat ANY technical document as if, even though it's expected that the reader is assumed to have some level of technical experience, that it's to be treated as if someone is picking up material on this particular subject for the first time. That includes defining all acronyms.
Don't get me started on how often I have to explain that "data" is plural.
Maybe I misread what you originally wrote, but what you wrote reads as though she may have some sort of false modesty about her (your words: "came with excuses for the opponent's loss").
For a player of her caliber, that's the very definition of false modesty.
I think anyone who reaches the top of their field, no matter what field, is deeply strange and on some level has problems relating to the rest of us mortals. Because in order to achieve that level of focus on that one thing, one must be able to block other things out. It probably acts to the detriment of other skills that everyone else needs to get along with the rest of the planet, who weren't born with natural talents and need to compensate somehow.
Polgar, as I understand it, is a chess prodigy, who could beat experts when she was a child, with her back turned to the board no less. Her two sisters are ranked highly in the chess world as well, though more among women. That having been said, her parents sought out to prove the three girls could be chess masters by starting them training at an early age. If you're not a completely maladjusted weirdo by virtue of the fact that your parents openly stated that they made you into an experiment in subject mastery, you're doing all right.
But you don't get to be the #8 player in the world by being mediocre. Maybe I don't know enough about chess that I don't know how much of her modestly comes across as false, but there's only so much social engineering and opponent wrangling that you can do before the cracks in your talent show. But then again, we could discuss Ronda Rousey as well...
To your chess example, two words: Judit Polgar.
Was the only woman to ever beat Kasparov.
At her peak, was the #8 chess player in the world.
And...mostly refused to play women-only tournaments.
And in ENGLAND!
I know how quickly some people like to decry "Freedom of Speech". They don't outright say it, but that's what they're advocating for.
But taken to its logical extreme, everything can be hidden with innocuous words and people, ingenious as the dickens, can find ways of skirting around the AI to get their point across.
Let's take a couple of examples where perfectly innocuous things become in some way malicious.
The word "banana". I think on Slashdot, more has been made of the banana's potential to go extinct than its use as a slur among Asians ("yellow on the outside, white on the inside!"). However unlikely it may be, if a group of Asians decided to get together one day and claimed it didn't like the word "banana" because of its racist implications, what then? We avoid using the word? Our computers and smartphones will give us a warning that this word may be "problematic"?
Or, how about "skiing"? In some circles, it's code for cocaine use, and therefore criminal activity. Are we then to censor the word "skiing" because someone, somewhere might use it to mean drug use instead of the sport?
(As an aside, would saying "ski the slopes" be both indicative of criminal activity and racism? Okay, long way to make that joke, I know. Also, since I'm Asian, I get a pass on making that joke, right?)
Point I'm making is, trying to censor every little thing because it sounds like something someone, somewhere might object to is a bad idea. Because anybody can get it in their head that anything is bad if given the proper motivation.
+1 Funny, ya cheeky bastard.
May be relevant to your interests.
(I think Weird Al is relevant to many people's interests, but I may be biased.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"Apatheist" is a real term.
Yes, and I have the right to question his motives.
Could he be supportive of these little "indie" ventures because he believes in them? Sure.
Could he also be doing these little "slumming" projects to put on the air of "look at how cool and counter-culture I am"? Sure.
Oswalt's always come off to me as the nerdy kid who's just DYING to sit at the cool kids' table. Maybe you didn't see it that way, but I do.
The weird part is Patton Oswalt taking on "slumming" sort of projects, presumably by choice. Apparently, he also appears in Red Letter Media's "Space Cop".
Foolish? Debatable.
There's an air of oddness hanging over the proceedings that three (!) of the original players haven't been called in to bat. Those guys DID help make MST3K what it was. If they're being openly snubbed, there's a good chance it will be reflected in the work via noticeable absence.
Just my two cents, of course.
Like I said, cynical, and that I was ignoring a fair amount of nuance there. But so are you.
A kid who has the resources and acceptance letter can go to Harvard. That kid's options are comfortable, pleasant, and are not borne out of desperation.
A kid who is languishing in relative poverty, feels he has little choice but to turn to crime, ends up in prison, can say "hey, it's an education", especially since he, in relative poverty, wouldn't have had access to that education anyway (I've met kids who have struggled to make payments for a community college education). Kid gets out, probably won't make tons of money, but a respectable enough amount to never have to commit crimes again. Other kids find out about this, and think it's a way to game the system, may purposely commit crimes.
To you, it's like taking a flight to get free peanuts. To some kid who never sees himself with any better options, it may be the best possible one.
Do I necessarily think this would spark off a trend of kids committing crimes so they can get an education in prison? Probably not. But I could be wrong: Among the inner-city kids I met teaching at a CC, you get the feeling that even if some of them are there to kill time, a lot of them see inherent benefit in education, and genuinely want to be there, but struggle with money and think the system is stacked against them.
There are very few constants in life. One is beware anyone who suffers from a diminished number of options, especially if they see one that's fairly attractive.
I think it's kind of telling that (when last I checked), Joel was listed as a Kickstarter supporter, but for none of the previous Rifftrax efforts.
It's pretty cool that there are educational resources for prisoners. Keeping their minds occupied on doing something productive is good for rehabilitation, something the prison system is sorely lacking.
However, and this is me being a cynical asshole, guaranteed there's no out-of-pocket payment for these classes, so one would think that it's just less painful to go to prison to get an education than go to college. (Yes, I know I'm vastly oversimplifying the long-term issues here, among them the cultural issue of not wanting to hire an ex-con; there's also a long-winded point to be made about crippling debt here that I'm too lazy to reach for.)
No, that's just one possible example of there being a reason to run away rather than stay and fight.
There's a certain novelty of "doing what you love" that's at best a modern invention (much the way "childhood" is).
It used to be that to be a useful part of society, you did the job you were suited for, were apprenticed into by way of parentage, or whatever other circumstance led you there. You accepted that you did a thing, and didn't worry about it being your "dream job", because that's not what drove people back then.
Now, I'm not saying "work/life balance" isn't something that shouldn't enter into consideration when you take a job. It most certainly is, and, in fact, should be protected by your employer, not actively fought for by you. It's just that there's a certain amount of dark amusement I get out of the people that made the concept a meme. It's just that most people don't have such a breadth of historical context when it comes to things like work, marriage and religion that they almost talk about things as if they'd always been the way these people claim they are.
In fact, "work/life balance" is an invention of an age of, if not arrested development, then the idea that people should be entitled to have the life that they want (including getting the big promotion while shouting "work/life balance!" at the very same colleagues that put in extra hours day after day), whether or not those prospects are realistic.
To play devil's advocate here: suppose you have a new incentive to grow a new group in your company. Would you want dedicated employees to help it grow, or would you prefer people working on established projects maybe, possibly working on your pet project when they have a few minutes when they're not distracted with something they know has traction?
I'm not much of a history buff, so I didn't know about that. Thanks for the link.
Oh, I know all about Pastafarianism. I rather appreciate it. I still think her point is off-base, though.
Unless she's walking around with a colander on her head all the time, or more to the point, driving, I'm sorry, but this comes off as more slacktivist douchebaggery than demonstration of fallacy.