I dunno. Like so many other things in politics, it looks like the used statistical probability. I was curious and found: https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Basically you have superdelegates. If 51% of them said they'd vote 100% without a doubt that they're voting for HamSandwich, then we all basically know its going to happen, but its still not safe to call the race, since 1% is a very tiny margin of error. A few delegates for HamSandwich could have a heart-attack and now you're only at 49% of 100% voters. So let me push my magic margin to 70% of the 100% confident voters. If that's MY (yes editorial control and all that) bar to measure a sure win, then I can call the race even if not everyone reports, or has even voted yet. When was the last election people waited for Hawaii to cast their votes before predicting a winner? Oh yeah: Never.
So you're saying half their customers are liars or that half their customers believe in lies, or that half their customers don't trust -anyone- to tell facts from lies. I'm really confused.
As with all journalism, or at any time one person communicates with another. The point at hand is that Facebook has decided to make itself a news source. Beyond that, they decided to control the flow of news information that you see. That's a fact. So what's your comment really asking:
Can there be bias (no matter how small) in a news outlets representation of news? Absolutely. There is no objective person, and there is no objective system written by humans that is objective. You either stop reporting news (relying on users to spread real/BS to their friends themselves), or people accept that there will be a systemic subjective analysis of information.
Or are you saying that fact checking as part of journalism is flawed and should just not be done? If you're debating the merits of fact checking as a critical aspect of news, then I don't think anyone will ever be able to talk to you about anything which isn't cultivated by your own original built-in prejudices (most of which we can't even identify).
My favourite and sad story of inherent bias came from a podcast a while back. The study goes as such. As a man/woman ask someone the first thing that comes to mind when you say the word "academy". Statistically (at least in North America) if you're a woman, the responder would reply "Awards". If you are a male, they would say something like "school" or "education".
This happens regardless of the responder's sex/gender and I couldn't believe just how broken it was, so I did the blind test myself with a few dozen people with my partner and I as the test speakers. It was amazing that something like 75% of the responders fell into their expected word responses. The findings are far from compelling for my small case, but the original study clearly had weight.
Ticket retailers are both a monopoly and an oligopoly. Essentially all retailer has a monopoly over a given venue. The venue may be allowed a small amount of ticket blocks which are used for their own purposes (direct sales, gifts, charity, marketing, etc..) but the vast direct-sales come through a single distributor.
Those ticket distributors are largely an oligopoly, since venues only want to deal with reputable outlets with large market shares in order to maximize sales.
All of them (Venue, Talent, Distributor) have a very shaky interest in eliminating scalping at all. Tickets are sold, the stadium is filled, most people are happy. Scalping only hurts one group of people: Consumers. In the long long term, people will be so jaded with going to 'ticketed' shows that the attendances will drop below capacity. That also hurts the smaller acts far more disproportionately than the rich ones (which have a more captivated audience to saturate the scalping tax). The arts dies and we all point fingers at one another instead of 'fixing the problem', whatever that looks like (I've given my 2 cents in a different post).
The first problem is simply enforcement. First, the individuals must live in the US (commonly not the case) to prosecute. Secondly, one needs to specifically identify legal vs. illegal forms of ticket buying/scalping, which doesn't seem trivial (based on the article summary anyway).
If scalping is legal (in your local jurisdiction, etc..) then the sky's the limit. Having bots buy your tickets or you mashing your computer is the exact same stupid thing.
Here's one possible system to defeat scalpers: Have a lottery with CC numbers held ahead of time when enrolling. If you want to enrol in the lottery without a CC, you must physically walk to a ticket retailer and leave some other form of unique ID. Hold the lottery open for a few weeks then start randomly drawing winners eligible to 'win' the right to pay for the tickets. If all the tickets aren't sold in that period, they go into the classical sales model and get sold FIFO.
If the tickets were brought by means not intended or allowed from the distributor, have a clause that can cancel the ticket at any time if found in violation of purchasing regulations. The person buying the 'now counterfeit' tickets will get burned and they may end up not using grey market tickets again. To protect legal resale, have the venue/distributor put up a system to verify that the tickets are legit and transferable. Once a purchase has been 'blessed' for transfer, add the ticket number as a legitimate ticket for interested third parties to verify. A system like this also helps inform the populace that there's an easy way of telling a legitimate ticket from a bogus one. Maybe eliminate tickets all together and just have online accounts, with transfers managed in-site. Ticket sales fraud would essentially die.
But, you know nanny state and all that. Idiots deserve the right to get soaked/ripped off, etc.....
"which would kill the existing net neutrality rules and greatly weaken the FCC's ability to protect consumers."
Cool, now ISP's can be sued for copyright violations through their pipes! The most likely outcome will be that EU three-strikes regulations will seem pretty generous after the lobbies get at the bill that fills this regulatory void. My presumed outcome is that ISP's will disable service if a subscriber is accused of being in violation of copyright. The threat of direct law suits are just too high to simply give nominal protection to their customers (a large number of whom actually violate copyright laws daily). Oh, but there's some form of arbitration which makes Youtube's take-down system seem fair and balanced.
You can pretty much see the painting on the wall. Politics has all but ruined Slashdot. I've been here around 16 years, and I've never been more driven to quit entirely. The site and the community over the last year has degenerated from critical/debating to dogmatic/adhominem.
They're welcome to go. So are you! The truth is that the vast silent majority still hate trolls far more than they hate speech. As usual a knee-jerk'd reaction from a person who's mental picture of censorship can only be two bars: 0 (regulated kindergarden) and 99 (free and open of all -- except those pond scum fucking spammers) nay? If you wanted to actually convince people of this somehow horrible policy change, try finding real examples of censored people/material that people will really really want to save.
I'm not paranoid or worried enough to turn off these services, but if you're really determined, you can use something like Tasker / IFTTT and use either geofencing (kind of against what you're trying to accomplish) or something like Wifi / NFC triggers to determine when to turn on/off services automatically for you.
I'd LOVE to see a lawsuit which that attempts to delete archival records. I can see it possible (unlikely but who knows) that some content may be requested to be removed from the online visible archive.
Legit question, what does archive.org do about posting torrent links, and other such 'illegal' content on the internet? "The Internet Archive respects the intellectual property rights and other proprietary rights of others. The Internet Archive may, in appropriate circumstances and at its discretion, remove certain content or disable access to content that appears to infringe the copyright or other intellectual property rights of others."
So they still honour copyright and who knows what else, so there's no wholly unmolested source of archival information (at least publicly).
You can't call someone left or right if they're authoritarian. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Tito, Caesar, William VIII, etc.. If someone makes a decision on how to run a nation, that's one voice. It isn't a movement (left/right are scales of popular belief in terms of social/economic freedoms). To call a single person (left/right) is almost entirely meaningless in the grand scheme of things, and calling a dictator anything but a dictator doesn't advance one's story.
All dictators require control, and how one exercises that said control varies wildly based on their time in history and the levers necessary to exert control. That's the only real figure necessary for dictators. If a lever of control no longer exists, it falls apart. Romans and most earlier empires exerted control by marching huge armies at opposition. Later, European monarchs exerted control largely through social classes re-enforced by the nation's religion. In my poor home of Canada, they had programs to take aboriginal children from their parents to 'learn' the Canadian way of life. Yay, democracies! The pope is a dictator in his own right, though a dictator who's power to control has fallen significantly.
"Heck, just look how the left in the US is rewriting history" I'm confused here. Can you give me some google juice on this? Specifically, I'd like to know when/where records were deleted / rewritten.
You forgot to mention two developers, but only roast one. You know know those guy that learns about a new technology that the team has never heard of, convinces the boss through their evangelical zeal, writes the feature, then proceeds to bail / quit because the company is just too passe. Now the team's left with a half-broken feature and a new core dependency boat-anchor left for someone else to eventually remove in a future release.
The sad thing is, I'm far more of this guy than the stale one, but years of dealing with other people's research f-up's have tempered my zeal to much more realistic ends.
Both exist. Well, XML navigation into SQL, but same-ish difference. There are a laundry list of SQL drivers pasted over NOSQL equivalents.
The only problem is there's no universal ODBC / SQL that can just work accross all architectures. SQL has warts and is effective at a specific philosophy of data architecture, but it was a universal standard for decades, making the problem domain relatively simple to embrace. There's no standard that 99% of the dev's out there can use and embrace out of box, which will just help propagate the vast trove of incompatible solutions that exist presently.
Know your requirements first, and figure out solutions secondly.
Considering a solar system is very well partitioned already with almost no outside bleed, you could probably get by with something like Cassandra. If you're in love with 'documents' representing your sytems, you could use MongoDB.
If you want to support features that involve extra-solar system queries, you may want to stick closer to traditional RDBMS. I'd chime in more, but I have to go!
"On February 1, 2008, Blizzard Entertainment, the makers of World of Warcraft, won a lawsuit against In Game Dollar, trading under the name Peons4Hire. The court ordered an injunction that immediately halted all business operations within said game.[37]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Yes, exactly like Gold farming. Both are violations of the TOS, and one could argue that stealing something of value (even if constrained by their applicable uses) by using external tools is a pretty safe ground for fraud. I may have rot13 security on my content, but someone breaking it without permission is still most likely committing a crime under DMCA. The crime could've been amazingly elaborate, or stupidly simple. The outcome of said crime is the same. Fraud with a computer is wire fraud. So, if in fact the defendant was issued something of value through deception, I could see this having some merit. Gold farmers are just as culpable of this, especially if its facilitated through the use of outside tools.
Unless there's clear cut discrepancy with clear evidence, I prefer to believe that Google's interpretation of data isn't inherently 'political', or 'racist' or 'insert-other-bad-thing'. Instead, its regurgitating back signals that people are generating creating a cyclically re-enforced trend.
A general model:
- Google sees 10 pro-ABC articles, and 10 anti-ABC articles.
- Web searcher searches for ABC.
- 51% of searchers click on the anti-ABC pages, and the 49% click on pro-ABC pages.
- Google's algorithm ranks these pages (the anti-ABC pages ahead nominally).
- Web searcher searches for ABC.
- 55% of searchers click on the anti-ABC pages, and the 45% click on pro-ABC pages (Since there are fewer pro-ABC pages at the top of the search listings).
- Rinse and repeat.
The only relevant stat is how frequently a given model does, and if so, what conditions the phone was subjected to when it occurred. A one-off incident is unfortunate but certainly within the realm of possibility (enter any phone here).
Every local credit union in my area are up to their ears in housing mortgage debt, and we're in a local hosing bubble... I couldn't run away from them faster than I have.
So complete supplication to an authoritarian regime is the better policy? Well fuck lets lift all the trade restrictions on North Korea / Russia / Syria, etc.. What could the possible consequences possibly be? Commerce and trade clearly trumps any other possible outcomes.
Slashdot Mirror
Wear your star. Really, what's the harm?
(ugh that joke is low, even for me...)
I dunno. Like so many other things in politics, it looks like the used statistical probability. I was curious and found:
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
Basically you have superdelegates. If 51% of them said they'd vote 100% without a doubt that they're voting for HamSandwich, then we all basically know its going to happen, but its still not safe to call the race, since 1% is a very tiny margin of error. A few delegates for HamSandwich could have a heart-attack and now you're only at 49% of 100% voters. So let me push my magic margin to 70% of the 100% confident voters. If that's MY (yes editorial control and all that) bar to measure a sure win, then I can call the race even if not everyone reports, or has even voted yet. When was the last election people waited for Hawaii to cast their votes before predicting a winner? Oh yeah: Never.
So you're saying half their customers are liars or that half their customers believe in lies, or that half their customers don't trust -anyone- to tell facts from lies. I'm really confused.
As with all journalism, or at any time one person communicates with another. The point at hand is that Facebook has decided to make itself a news source. Beyond that, they decided to control the flow of news information that you see. That's a fact. So what's your comment really asking:
Can there be bias (no matter how small) in a news outlets representation of news? Absolutely. There is no objective person, and there is no objective system written by humans that is objective. You either stop reporting news (relying on users to spread real/BS to their friends themselves), or people accept that there will be a systemic subjective analysis of information.
Or are you saying that fact checking as part of journalism is flawed and should just not be done? If you're debating the merits of fact checking as a critical aspect of news, then I don't think anyone will ever be able to talk to you about anything which isn't cultivated by your own original built-in prejudices (most of which we can't even identify).
My favourite and sad story of inherent bias came from a podcast a while back. The study goes as such.
As a man/woman ask someone the first thing that comes to mind when you say the word "academy".
Statistically (at least in North America) if you're a woman, the responder would reply "Awards".
If you are a male, they would say something like "school" or "education".
This happens regardless of the responder's sex/gender and I couldn't believe just how broken it was, so I did the blind test myself with a few dozen people with my partner and I as the test speakers. It was amazing that something like 75% of the responders fell into their expected word responses. The findings are far from compelling for my small case, but the original study clearly had weight.
Well, if you can't attack the topic 'fake news' then attack the people involved in the discussion. That's the way I win debates!
Ticket retailers are both a monopoly and an oligopoly. Essentially all retailer has a monopoly over a given venue. The venue may be allowed a small amount of ticket blocks which are used for their own purposes (direct sales, gifts, charity, marketing, etc..) but the vast direct-sales come through a single distributor.
Those ticket distributors are largely an oligopoly, since venues only want to deal with reputable outlets with large market shares in order to maximize sales.
All of them (Venue, Talent, Distributor) have a very shaky interest in eliminating scalping at all. Tickets are sold, the stadium is filled, most people are happy. Scalping only hurts one group of people: Consumers. In the long long term, people will be so jaded with going to 'ticketed' shows that the attendances will drop below capacity. That also hurts the smaller acts far more disproportionately than the rich ones (which have a more captivated audience to saturate the scalping tax). The arts dies and we all point fingers at one another instead of 'fixing the problem', whatever that looks like (I've given my 2 cents in a different post).
The first problem is simply enforcement. First, the individuals must live in the US (commonly not the case) to prosecute. Secondly, one needs to specifically identify legal vs. illegal forms of ticket buying/scalping, which doesn't seem trivial (based on the article summary anyway).
If scalping is legal (in your local jurisdiction, etc..) then the sky's the limit. Having bots buy your tickets or you mashing your computer is the exact same stupid thing.
Here's one possible system to defeat scalpers: Have a lottery with CC numbers held ahead of time when enrolling. If you want to enrol in the lottery without a CC, you must physically walk to a ticket retailer and leave some other form of unique ID. Hold the lottery open for a few weeks then start randomly drawing winners eligible to 'win' the right to pay for the tickets. If all the tickets aren't sold in that period, they go into the classical sales model and get sold FIFO.
If the tickets were brought by means not intended or allowed from the distributor, have a clause that can cancel the ticket at any time if found in violation of purchasing regulations. The person buying the 'now counterfeit' tickets will get burned and they may end up not using grey market tickets again. To protect legal resale, have the venue/distributor put up a system to verify that the tickets are legit and transferable. Once a purchase has been 'blessed' for transfer, add the ticket number as a legitimate ticket for interested third parties to verify. A system like this also helps inform the populace that there's an easy way of telling a legitimate ticket from a bogus one. Maybe eliminate tickets all together and just have online accounts, with transfers managed in-site. Ticket sales fraud would essentially die.
But, you know nanny state and all that. Idiots deserve the right to get soaked/ripped off, etc.....
They do when their native printing device (phones/tablets anyone?) don't have every print driver known to man pre-installed ready to go.
"which would kill the existing net neutrality rules and greatly weaken the FCC's ability to protect consumers."
Cool, now ISP's can be sued for copyright violations through their pipes! The most likely outcome will be that EU three-strikes regulations will seem pretty generous after the lobbies get at the bill that fills this regulatory void. My presumed outcome is that ISP's will disable service if a subscriber is accused of being in violation of copyright. The threat of direct law suits are just too high to simply give nominal protection to their customers (a large number of whom actually violate copyright laws daily). Oh, but there's some form of arbitration which makes Youtube's take-down system seem fair and balanced.
You can pretty much see the painting on the wall. Politics has all but ruined Slashdot. I've been here around 16 years, and I've never been more driven to quit entirely. The site and the community over the last year has degenerated from critical/debating to dogmatic/adhominem.
.. hate *restricted speech.
They're welcome to go. So are you! The truth is that the vast silent majority still hate trolls far more than they hate speech. As usual a knee-jerk'd reaction from a person who's mental picture of censorship can only be two bars: 0 (regulated kindergarden) and 99 (free and open of all -- except those pond scum fucking spammers) nay? If you wanted to actually convince people of this somehow horrible policy change, try finding real examples of censored people/material that people will really really want to save.
I'm not paranoid or worried enough to turn off these services, but if you're really determined, you can use something like Tasker / IFTTT and use either geofencing (kind of against what you're trying to accomplish) or something like Wifi / NFC triggers to determine when to turn on/off services automatically for you.
"Trust us with your data, because like when were we known to flagrantly violate your laws."
I'd LOVE to see a lawsuit which that attempts to delete archival records. I can see it possible (unlikely but who knows) that some content may be requested to be removed from the online visible archive.
Legit question, what does archive.org do about posting torrent links, and other such 'illegal' content on the internet?
"The Internet Archive respects the intellectual property rights and other proprietary rights of others. The Internet Archive may, in appropriate circumstances and at its discretion, remove certain content or disable access to content that appears to infringe the copyright or other intellectual property rights of others."
So they still honour copyright and who knows what else, so there's no wholly unmolested source of archival information (at least publicly).
You can't call someone left or right if they're authoritarian. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Tito, Caesar, William VIII, etc.. If someone makes a decision on how to run a nation, that's one voice. It isn't a movement (left/right are scales of popular belief in terms of social/economic freedoms). To call a single person (left/right) is almost entirely meaningless in the grand scheme of things, and calling a dictator anything but a dictator doesn't advance one's story.
All dictators require control, and how one exercises that said control varies wildly based on their time in history and the levers necessary to exert control. That's the only real figure necessary for dictators. If a lever of control no longer exists, it falls apart. Romans and most earlier empires exerted control by marching huge armies at opposition. Later, European monarchs exerted control largely through social classes re-enforced by the nation's religion. In my poor home of Canada, they had programs to take aboriginal children from their parents to 'learn' the Canadian way of life. Yay, democracies! The pope is a dictator in his own right, though a dictator who's power to control has fallen significantly.
"Heck, just look how the left in the US is rewriting history"
I'm confused here. Can you give me some google juice on this? Specifically, I'd like to know when/where records were deleted / rewritten.
You forgot to mention two developers, but only roast one. You know know those guy that learns about a new technology that the team has never heard of, convinces the boss through their evangelical zeal, writes the feature, then proceeds to bail / quit because the company is just too passe. Now the team's left with a half-broken feature and a new core dependency boat-anchor left for someone else to eventually remove in a future release.
The sad thing is, I'm far more of this guy than the stale one, but years of dealing with other people's research f-up's have tempered my zeal to much more realistic ends.
Both exist. Well, XML navigation into SQL, but same-ish difference. There are a laundry list of SQL drivers pasted over NOSQL equivalents.
The only problem is there's no universal ODBC / SQL that can just work accross all architectures. SQL has warts and is effective at a specific philosophy of data architecture, but it was a universal standard for decades, making the problem domain relatively simple to embrace. There's no standard that 99% of the dev's out there can use and embrace out of box, which will just help propagate the vast trove of incompatible solutions that exist presently.
Know your requirements first, and figure out solutions secondly.
Considering a solar system is very well partitioned already with almost no outside bleed, you could probably get by with something like Cassandra. If you're in love with 'documents' representing your sytems, you could use MongoDB.
If you want to support features that involve extra-solar system queries, you may want to stick closer to traditional RDBMS. I'd chime in more, but I have to go!
"On February 1, 2008, Blizzard Entertainment, the makers of World of Warcraft, won a lawsuit against In Game Dollar, trading under the name Peons4Hire. The court ordered an injunction that immediately halted all business operations within said game.[37]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://www.techdirt.com/artic...
Yes, exactly like Gold farming. Both are violations of the TOS, and one could argue that stealing something of value (even if constrained by their applicable uses) by using external tools is a pretty safe ground for fraud. I may have rot13 security on my content, but someone breaking it without permission is still most likely committing a crime under DMCA. The crime could've been amazingly elaborate, or stupidly simple. The outcome of said crime is the same. Fraud with a computer is wire fraud. So, if in fact the defendant was issued something of value through deception, I could see this having some merit. Gold farmers are just as culpable of this, especially if its facilitated through the use of outside tools.
But since you're black, the drivers won't pick you up anyway (runs from the room screeming)!
Click-bait is click-bait.
Unless there's clear cut discrepancy with clear evidence, I prefer to believe that Google's interpretation of data isn't inherently 'political', or 'racist' or 'insert-other-bad-thing'. Instead, its regurgitating back signals that people are generating creating a cyclically re-enforced trend.
A general model:
- Google sees 10 pro-ABC articles, and 10 anti-ABC articles.
- Web searcher searches for ABC.
- 51% of searchers click on the anti-ABC pages, and the 49% click on pro-ABC pages.
- Google's algorithm ranks these pages (the anti-ABC pages ahead nominally).
- Web searcher searches for ABC.
- 55% of searchers click on the anti-ABC pages, and the 45% click on pro-ABC pages (Since there are fewer pro-ABC pages at the top of the search listings).
- Rinse and repeat.
The only relevant stat is how frequently a given model does, and if so, what conditions the phone was subjected to when it occurred. A one-off incident is unfortunate but certainly within the realm of possibility (enter any phone here).
Every local credit union in my area are up to their ears in housing mortgage debt, and we're in a local hosing bubble... I couldn't run away from them faster than I have.
So complete supplication to an authoritarian regime is the better policy? Well fuck lets lift all the trade restrictions on North Korea / Russia / Syria, etc.. What could the possible consequences possibly be? Commerce and trade clearly trumps any other possible outcomes.