Yes, but this has been conflated with the idea that offensive ideas aren't a value worth protecting. Offensive ideas expressed in a non-offensive way should be protected as those ideas may come to seem less offensive in the future.
And nobody is going after speech they don't agree with. They're going after incendiary speech. The reason that people tend to speak in this way is that they feel like they are being ignored. And often they are. Because their ideas don't have supporting evidence. But rather than go back and do additional research and make a stronger case, they do the equivalent of shouting which only serves to make the community less attractive.
That's the downside of the town square being a commercial entity. But lets not be deceived. Somebody has always been in control of the town square to some extent. Historically in the US it was the churches. Then to some extent the newspapers. Now it's tech companies. I'm not convinced it's any better or worse right now, just different. Facebook, reddit, and the like really don't have any ideology. They just want to maximize engagement. And none of them really suppress opinions. They suppress certain incendiary ways of communicating. If you actually went out and did real research and made a controversial conclusion and wrote it up in the same style as a scientific paper, it would survive the hate speech rules. Spouting off vitriol is going to tend to be suppressed because it doesn't add value and makes the community a place that people don't want to be. It's the free speech equivalent of graffiti.
I guess I can just copy and paste into every up-modded post. Nobody is denying anybody the right to speak in these situations. They're simply declining to provide a platform.
Yes the speech must be protected but that doesn't mean that the speaker is guaranteed a platform. Places like Reddit, Slashdot, Facebook, et cetera rely on positive engagement by the users. If you alienate your users in the name of free speech, you end up with nothing. Those who want to spout uninformed opinions in vitriolic language should be allowed to do so. They can by serves and domain hosting and the rest and have at it. They're not entitled to use Reddit's platform.
The problem for any business is that not all speech is good for business and that problem isn't going away. Somebody might have the right to panhandle but if you have to wade through a crowd of homeless people to get to a convenience store, people won't go there. Sure racist speech is free speech but if a web site allows this to happen, who is going to want to participate in the discussions? That's somewhat of a tyranny of the majority but I'm not sure how much that matters. If you have something that is a non-majority opinion, there are avenues for expression. Primarily you go get funding, you perform a rigorous double-blind study, and you publish your results. Academic journals will take your work as long as it's written with the proper detached tone. Otherwise, racist or not, nobody wants to listen to a bunch of uninformed, offensive tripe.
I think the argument goes something like this. The Tesla feature is 40% safer if and only if the driver is attentive. If more than 40% of drivers become less attentive due to use of the system, then overall safety is actually compromised. For a system to be an actual (rather than theoretical) improvement, the benefit of the system has to overcome the "moral hazard." It's not clear that the Tesla system does this. And there's no reason to believe that it is even close to achieving this. Especially because it is called "autopilot" which is misleading and (whether it should or not) causes people to try to read the newspaper or watch movies while driving.
The other thing with aircraft auto-pilot is that you have air traffic controllers controlling the airspace. You're never close to another plane except during "critical operations" (i.e. takeoff/landing). If airplanes flew as close as cars drive, their autopilots would be borderline useless.
The problem with any (partial) solution is that either its (a) simple enough that you can fully predict what it will do in which case it isn't valuable or (b) it's complex enough that you have no idea what it will do and you can't manage it. I've never driven a Tesla with lane departure auto-steer but unless the car holds perfectly to the center of the lane, how in the world would one know whether to correct manually or let the auto-steer do it?
No but they also said that it's "at least twice as good as the average human driver" which would certainly make one think that the best thing to do is to engage the auto-pilot and keep your hands away from the controls lest you interfere with the machine's superior driving.
We have a name for the Tesla system. Adaptive cruise control with enhanced lane departure warning. But Tesla refuses to call it what it is.
I listened to his answer and read the transcript. Although he did point out that you can record video with audio, he did seem to categorically deny the constant microphone monitoring. But given how long this conspiracy theory has been around, the complete lack of supporting evidence, and the questionable value of the activity, occam's razor says that this isn't happening. Not that I expect the conspiracy theory to go away.
The problem would be that, even if they were *caught* draining the CPU, it could be just a bug or something inefficient. Scraping from the voice activation does seem pretty reasonable, though. They did suck up your call history and text messages, why not your search history?
Or maybe Facebook really doesn't do this and doesn't want to listen to your audio because they already know so much about you that they wouldn't glean much more information.
But in that case, it was unintentional and there was no attempt to hide it. I pointed out in another post that an actual implementation wouldn't look like this at all.
Depends on how they implemented it. If they were streaming your mic to a server, that would be trivial to detect. It would also drain your battery and use a ton of bandwidth. If they just listen locally, pick out keywords, and then piggyback a small amount of meta-data onto an existing server round-trip, you may never find it. This type of audio processing, though, may use significant CPU cycles which would give a clue but you would still have a heck of a time deciding if that was audio processing or just some other inefficiency in the implementation. I tend to believe The Zuck here, only because I think that this feature would be a lot of work to implement and deploy for very minimal incremental value to Facebook since they already know so much about their users.
The command is a bit more complicated than that. It allows you to specify the tone and duration. And the race condition comes because (a) multiple processes can call it simultaneously and (b) there is signal handling code present so that the speaker isn't left beeping in perpetuity should the process somehow get killed in the middle of a beep! If you look at the proposed patch, things make a bit more sense. And the FAQ is hysterical
https://holeybeep.ninja/
This is the wrong solution to the wrong problem. If you can't afford to hire a full-time lifeguard, you can't afford to have a pool at home. Join the YMCA. If you're wealthy enough that you can afford to have a staff of lifeguards on duty, you don't need this. Swimming pools are a means for middle-class people to pretend they're wealthy in lieu of building real wealth. You should be able to staff the pool for under $100k/year which is less than you pay the pilot for your jet.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but this has been conflated with the idea that offensive ideas aren't a value worth protecting. Offensive ideas expressed in a non-offensive way should be protected as those ideas may come to seem less offensive in the future.
And nobody is going after speech they don't agree with. They're going after incendiary speech. The reason that people tend to speak in this way is that they feel like they are being ignored. And often they are. Because their ideas don't have supporting evidence. But rather than go back and do additional research and make a stronger case, they do the equivalent of shouting which only serves to make the community less attractive.
That's the downside of the town square being a commercial entity. But lets not be deceived. Somebody has always been in control of the town square to some extent. Historically in the US it was the churches. Then to some extent the newspapers. Now it's tech companies. I'm not convinced it's any better or worse right now, just different. Facebook, reddit, and the like really don't have any ideology. They just want to maximize engagement. And none of them really suppress opinions. They suppress certain incendiary ways of communicating. If you actually went out and did real research and made a controversial conclusion and wrote it up in the same style as a scientific paper, it would survive the hate speech rules. Spouting off vitriol is going to tend to be suppressed because it doesn't add value and makes the community a place that people don't want to be. It's the free speech equivalent of graffiti.
It's worse than that. Somebody once modded me down. I now have PTSD. Maybe I can sue /.?
I guess I can just copy and paste into every up-modded post. Nobody is denying anybody the right to speak in these situations. They're simply declining to provide a platform.
Yes the speech must be protected but that doesn't mean that the speaker is guaranteed a platform. Places like Reddit, Slashdot, Facebook, et cetera rely on positive engagement by the users. If you alienate your users in the name of free speech, you end up with nothing. Those who want to spout uninformed opinions in vitriolic language should be allowed to do so. They can by serves and domain hosting and the rest and have at it. They're not entitled to use Reddit's platform.
The problem for any business is that not all speech is good for business and that problem isn't going away. Somebody might have the right to panhandle but if you have to wade through a crowd of homeless people to get to a convenience store, people won't go there. Sure racist speech is free speech but if a web site allows this to happen, who is going to want to participate in the discussions? That's somewhat of a tyranny of the majority but I'm not sure how much that matters. If you have something that is a non-majority opinion, there are avenues for expression. Primarily you go get funding, you perform a rigorous double-blind study, and you publish your results. Academic journals will take your work as long as it's written with the proper detached tone. Otherwise, racist or not, nobody wants to listen to a bunch of uninformed, offensive tripe.
Right so if you don't want somebody to think you are a bad person, don't introduce yourself as a hacker!
And the number of boaters who end up in accidents with their auto-pilot is enough evidence that Tesla is being negligent by using the term.
I think the argument goes something like this. The Tesla feature is 40% safer if and only if the driver is attentive. If more than 40% of drivers become less attentive due to use of the system, then overall safety is actually compromised. For a system to be an actual (rather than theoretical) improvement, the benefit of the system has to overcome the "moral hazard." It's not clear that the Tesla system does this. And there's no reason to believe that it is even close to achieving this. Especially because it is called "autopilot" which is misleading and (whether it should or not) causes people to try to read the newspaper or watch movies while driving.
The other thing with aircraft auto-pilot is that you have air traffic controllers controlling the airspace. You're never close to another plane except during "critical operations" (i.e. takeoff/landing). If airplanes flew as close as cars drive, their autopilots would be borderline useless.
In many states, you are required to yield to buses coming back into traffic.
The problem with any (partial) solution is that either its (a) simple enough that you can fully predict what it will do in which case it isn't valuable or (b) it's complex enough that you have no idea what it will do and you can't manage it. I've never driven a Tesla with lane departure auto-steer but unless the car holds perfectly to the center of the lane, how in the world would one know whether to correct manually or let the auto-steer do it?
No but they also said that it's "at least twice as good as the average human driver" which would certainly make one think that the best thing to do is to engage the auto-pilot and keep your hands away from the controls lest you interfere with the machine's superior driving. We have a name for the Tesla system. Adaptive cruise control with enhanced lane departure warning. But Tesla refuses to call it what it is.
I listened to his answer and read the transcript. Although he did point out that you can record video with audio, he did seem to categorically deny the constant microphone monitoring. But given how long this conspiracy theory has been around, the complete lack of supporting evidence, and the questionable value of the activity, occam's razor says that this isn't happening. Not that I expect the conspiracy theory to go away.
The problem would be that, even if they were *caught* draining the CPU, it could be just a bug or something inefficient. Scraping from the voice activation does seem pretty reasonable, though. They did suck up your call history and text messages, why not your search history?
Posted by a guy who logged in from a Facebook account! :)
Or maybe Facebook really doesn't do this and doesn't want to listen to your audio because they already know so much about you that they wouldn't glean much more information.
But in that case, it was unintentional and there was no attempt to hide it. I pointed out in another post that an actual implementation wouldn't look like this at all.
Depends on how they implemented it. If they were streaming your mic to a server, that would be trivial to detect. It would also drain your battery and use a ton of bandwidth. If they just listen locally, pick out keywords, and then piggyback a small amount of meta-data onto an existing server round-trip, you may never find it. This type of audio processing, though, may use significant CPU cycles which would give a clue but you would still have a heck of a time deciding if that was audio processing or just some other inefficiency in the implementation. I tend to believe The Zuck here, only because I think that this feature would be a lot of work to implement and deploy for very minimal incremental value to Facebook since they already know so much about their users.
And wen Barack Obama was president, the conservatives embraced federalism. In other words, people will take the fight to wherever they can win!
The command is a bit more complicated than that. It allows you to specify the tone and duration. And the race condition comes because (a) multiple processes can call it simultaneously and (b) there is signal handling code present so that the speaker isn't left beeping in perpetuity should the process somehow get killed in the middle of a beep! If you look at the proposed patch, things make a bit more sense. And the FAQ is hysterical https://holeybeep.ninja/
Or you can hire a properly trained and attentive lifeguard.
The Waymo cars don't crash. It's only the Uber cars.
This is the wrong solution to the wrong problem. If you can't afford to hire a full-time lifeguard, you can't afford to have a pool at home. Join the YMCA. If you're wealthy enough that you can afford to have a staff of lifeguards on duty, you don't need this. Swimming pools are a means for middle-class people to pretend they're wealthy in lieu of building real wealth. You should be able to staff the pool for under $100k/year which is less than you pay the pilot for your jet.