We Hold People With Power To Account. Why Not Algorithms?
We don't generically "hold people with power to account". The law requires that legally competent adults comply with legally binding agreements they have entered (employment contracts, etc.), and the law punishes criminal behavior. Legal competency requires free will and agency, neither of which "algorithms" possess.
If we permit flawed machines to make life-changing decisions on our behalf
The ABS braking algoritihm in your car makes "life-changing decisions" you your behalf. It is you (the car's owner) and the manufacturer who are responsible for those decisions, depending on circumstances.
On the other hand, doctors make life changing decisions all the time, frequently get it wrong, and frequently are not held accountable. Nor should they be: when you make life changing decisions with limited information, you often get it wrong. That's not a flaw, that's life.
Netflix/Google aren't the "customer" of the ISP in question
No, they are a customer of a different ISP, and that other ISP then peers with the ISP that you are a customer of. So, they have a contract with their ISP, you have a contract with your ISP, and the two ISPs have a contract with each other. All of these are voluntary, and all of these balance out the costs and values of the different market participants correctly.
It's like the owner of an apartment building making a deal with Pizza Hut, their delivery guys get in free to drop off pizzas to the residents, but the doorman demands $10 from the Papa John's delivery guy or he won't let him in...
And the owner of the apartment building can simply fire the doorman. So, based on your own example, there is no need for government regulation.
No doubt you have no understanding that there is a significant difference between a startup project and one that has run for a couple of decades
Which is why I said "Linus's responses were appropriate throughout most of Linux's history." Meaning, I wasn't making an argument about today.
People who think that arrogance, condescention, and crudity are the signs of a good manager and/or a great programmer wouldn't be able to operate in a civil, collegial working environment because they'd be the ones who keep it from happening.
And the evidence that a "Code of Conduct" actually creates a "civil, collegial working environment" is... where?
I long ago stopped bothering to participate in a couple of groups for a programming language because the "in group" was consistently arrogant and condescending towards everyone else.
Or perhaps people don't like dealing with you because you are cantankerous and don't bother listening to people.
Leftists who score high in the victim hierarchy are going to let you know whether you want to or not. That's so that they can then attribute anything negative you say to or about them to your supposed prejudice and bias.
Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting
You mean unprofessional conduct like trying to impose neo-Marxist identity politics on a meritocratic technical project?
The TAB is obligated to maintain confidentiality with regard to the reporter of an incident.
Unprofessional conduct such as setting up a system of anonymous denunciations and secret tribunals?
Maintainers who do not follow or enforce the Code of Conduct in good faith may face temporary or permanent repercussions as determined by other members of the project’s leadership.
You mean the TAB is going to launch a campaign of character assassination, doxxing, and death threats against people they don't like? Or does it limit itself to leaving security bugs in the Linux kernel because the TAB disapproves of their political views?
Well, I suppose in the plus column we have that we're really due for a complete kernel rewrite anyway.
I have an anti-tiger rock on my front porch. It keeps tigers away. It cost me $3000. I know it works, because I've never had a tiger show up on my front porch.
No doubt that's the way you think.
You don't know that, any more than I know that a tiger would show up if I hadn't bought the rock.
Yes, I do know that because I actually lived through the period when Linux got its start. It was very, very tough.
When dealing with monopolies and duopolies, it's impossible for the free market to regulate itself. Government has to step in to maintain a level of fairness.
You're on the side of monopolies by spreading this b.s. Stable monopolies are only ever created by government, foremost the ISPs, Google, and Netflix. And Scott Wiener and his wealthy tech donors would like to keep their corporations protected from competition.
"Unlike Pai's FCC, California isn't run by the big telecom and cable companies,
Indeed. Instead, it's run by big, monpolistic, privacy violating, in-bed-with-Democrats tech companies like Google, Facebook, Netflix, etc.
Scott Wiener, California's Senator who authored the bill, said they are "necessary and legal because Chairman Pai abdicated his responsibility to ensure an open internet."
Keeping the FCC from regulating Internet is what ensures an open internet.
Even ignoring the fact that the US link doesn't have your US number anywhere (you'll have to go to the Census to find that)
It's right there in the first figure.
you are comparing two different definitions of poverty
Quite right. As I pointed out later, according to the US definition of poverty, about 40% of UK citizens live in poverty. Conversely, if you count in kind benefits in the US (which is needed to make it comparable to Europe), the US poverty rate drops even further.
So the actual discrepancy between US and UK poverty is even larger than the official numbers suggest (ditto for Germany).
Just read Linus' LKML email that he's taking some time off kernel development to "get some assistance on how to understand people’s emotions and respond appropriately".
Linus's responses were appropriate throughout most of Linux's history. How do we know? They were effective, and that's what counts. If he had wasted time understanding people's emotions, the Linux kernel wouldn't have succeeded.
Investing energy into one's tooling, whether emotional awareness, social skills, communication, collaboration, verbal, written word, or tech/code mechanisms, is critical for anyone trying to be a balanced person that delivers the most they can at the things they care about.
And what kind of successes can you point to to demonstrate the effectiveness of your approach? Where is the evidence that this "investment" pays off?
"Anywhere else in the country, we'd be successful people who owned a home and didn't worry about anything," said one 34-year-old in a two-income family. "But here, that's not the case."
Well, then move. It's a free country.
And maybe if Apple values you enough, you can even continue working for them.
Government oversight of a hotel or restaurant is supposed to make see if they meet basic health and fire codes. The health department wants the food to be safe. Reviews tell you if the good is delicious.
Oh, reviews can tell you much more than that. And who do you think has the least incentive to investigate the safety of a restaurant?
(1) Someone actually personally eating at the restaurant.
(2) An insurance company insuring the restaurant against injuring its customers.
(3) A government inspector, for whom a mistake will have no serious consequences.
"As many as 16 percent of online reviews are fake, according to research by the European Parliament," reports CBS News. Yet they add that when it comes to accountability and consumer safety, many Americans believe online reviews are more effective than government oversight.
That's not a contradiction because:
(1) people are pretty good at spotting fake reviews
(2) government oversight is often nearly useless and at times simply corrupt
But the actual situation is a lot bleaker because "poverty" is measured relative to median income, which is considerably lower in the UK. If measured against US standards, 40% of the UK is low income. On top of that, the US has numerous benefits for people "in poverty" that aren't counted against their income. The upshot is that the US poverty rates actually greatly overestimate actual poverty.
US populace is so brain-washed it can't tell fake news from real news.
Having lived on both sides of the big pond, it's clear that it's Europeans who are brainwashed. You illustrate that with your absurd beliefs.
Brits in particular are so brainwashed that they actually trust the BBC. At least, as the same survey shows, they are not trusting their government anymore.
Actually, I moved to the US to get away from European authoritarians.
Now let's look at you: in 2011, you decided to move to Goldman Sachs, a company that had made billions from the taxpayer funded bailout at the time and lied about it to Congress, a company that was in bed with Hillary Clinton and paid her massively inflated speaking fees, getting reassurance and insider information. And then you joined Credit Suisse and moved to an enclave of the super rich and since that was long before his election, you don't even have Trump's election as an excuse. And Hillary, of course, was in bed with Swiss banks and the Swiss government too.
So spare me your self-righteous trolling about "Russian trolls". You are part of the corrupt, privileged elite of Americans that voters rebelled against, and good for them. I almost regret that I didn't vote for Trump. Almost.
Americans and Brits take socialism to mean different things, in the US socialism seems to mean communism.
I was born in Europe, and unlike you Brits, have first-hand experience with the tender mercies of socialism, democratic and otherwise.
I'd rather have his style of socialism any day over the dystopian capitalist dog eat dog world that is the US today with it's absurdly expensive health costs, insane prison population etc.
Ah, yes, the ignorance and anti-Americanism so typical of educated Europeans. As I was saying: I encourage you to vote for Corbyn and see what happens!
Having an honest politician run the country is not what most people want, they want more money and they will vote for the best liar who tells them they will get more money. They won't get more money, the richest people will, same as always.
Corbyn is a self-described socialist. In light of that and the history of socialism, the rest of your comment is profoundly ironic.
But Americans need object lessons in real-world socialism and fascism again, now that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany are gone. So go for it! It's not my life you're wrecking.
Slashdot Mirror
It should be. If you exercise your power within the bounds of law and contract, there is nothing to hold you to account for.
We don't generically "hold people with power to account". The law requires that legally competent adults comply with legally binding agreements they have entered (employment contracts, etc.), and the law punishes criminal behavior. Legal competency requires free will and agency, neither of which "algorithms" possess.
The ABS braking algoritihm in your car makes "life-changing decisions" you your behalf. It is you (the car's owner) and the manufacturer who are responsible for those decisions, depending on circumstances.
On the other hand, doctors make life changing decisions all the time, frequently get it wrong, and frequently are not held accountable. Nor should they be: when you make life changing decisions with limited information, you often get it wrong. That's not a flaw, that's life.
I think you have made it abundantly clear why people keep telling you to get lost.
Wow, even a simple question like "who pays for this" gets modded down now by progressive trolls.
No, they are a customer of a different ISP, and that other ISP then peers with the ISP that you are a customer of. So, they have a contract with their ISP, you have a contract with your ISP, and the two ISPs have a contract with each other. All of these are voluntary, and all of these balance out the costs and values of the different market participants correctly.
And the owner of the apartment building can simply fire the doorman. So, based on your own example, there is no need for government regulation.
So where does this money actually come from? Federal grants? Royalties? Someone is paying, after all...
Which is why I said "Linus's responses were appropriate throughout most of Linux's history." Meaning, I wasn't making an argument about today.
And the evidence that a "Code of Conduct" actually creates a "civil, collegial working environment" is... where?
Or perhaps people don't like dealing with you because you are cantankerous and don't bother listening to people.
Leftists who score high in the victim hierarchy are going to let you know whether you want to or not. That's so that they can then attribute anything negative you say to or about them to your supposed prejudice and bias.
You mean unprofessional conduct like trying to impose neo-Marxist identity politics on a meritocratic technical project?
Unprofessional conduct such as setting up a system of anonymous denunciations and secret tribunals?
You mean the TAB is going to launch a campaign of character assassination, doxxing, and death threats against people they don't like? Or does it limit itself to leaving security bugs in the Linux kernel because the TAB disapproves of their political views?
Well, I suppose in the plus column we have that we're really due for a complete kernel rewrite anyway.
"Tea, Earl Grey, Hot"
No doubt that's the way you think.
Yes, I do know that because I actually lived through the period when Linux got its start. It was very, very tough.
You brought up monopolies, not me.
Yet you want to deny them that right when the customer is called "Google" or "Netflix".
I remember when they were; it sucked. Badly. Obviously, you're too young to remember.
You're on the side of monopolies by spreading this b.s. Stable monopolies are only ever created by government, foremost the ISPs, Google, and Netflix. And Scott Wiener and his wealthy tech donors would like to keep their corporations protected from competition.
Indeed. Instead, it's run by big, monpolistic, privacy violating, in-bed-with-Democrats tech companies like Google, Facebook, Netflix, etc.
Keeping the FCC from regulating Internet is what ensures an open internet.
I gave the number for 2016 (just like UK). Notice how the figure was updated just Saturday?
You're still confusing absolute and relative poverty, and you obviously don't understand the different ways of measuring even relative poverty.
If that belief makes your life tolerable, I encourage you to hold on to it.
It's right there in the first figure.
Quite right. As I pointed out later, according to the US definition of poverty, about 40% of UK citizens live in poverty. Conversely, if you count in kind benefits in the US (which is needed to make it comparable to Europe), the US poverty rate drops even further.
So the actual discrepancy between US and UK poverty is even larger than the official numbers suggest (ditto for Germany).
Linus's responses were appropriate throughout most of Linux's history. How do we know? They were effective, and that's what counts. If he had wasted time understanding people's emotions, the Linux kernel wouldn't have succeeded.
And what kind of successes can you point to to demonstrate the effectiveness of your approach? Where is the evidence that this "investment" pays off?
Seriously? The people of the Soviet Union, Cuba, East Germany, Poland, Hungary, all those countries were "infinitely better off" than with capitalism?
Your level of ignorance isn't just astounding, it is offensive.
Well, then move. It's a free country.
And maybe if Apple values you enough, you can even continue working for them.
Oh, reviews can tell you much more than that. And who do you think has the least incentive to investigate the safety of a restaurant?
(1) Someone actually personally eating at the restaurant.
(2) An insurance company insuring the restaurant against injuring its customers.
(3) A government inspector, for whom a mistake will have no serious consequences.
That's not a contradiction because:
(1) people are pretty good at spotting fake reviews
(2) government oversight is often nearly useless and at times simply corrupt
In 2016, 21.6% (13.4 million) of Brits lived in poverty by UK standards, whereas only 12.7% of Americans did in 2016. The US poverty rate has been below 20% since the early 1960's.
But the actual situation is a lot bleaker because "poverty" is measured relative to median income, which is considerably lower in the UK. If measured against US standards, 40% of the UK is low income. On top of that, the US has numerous benefits for people "in poverty" that aren't counted against their income. The upshot is that the US poverty rates actually greatly overestimate actual poverty.
Having lived on both sides of the big pond, it's clear that it's Europeans who are brainwashed. You illustrate that with your absurd beliefs.
Brits in particular are so brainwashed that they actually trust the BBC. At least, as the same survey shows, they are not trusting their government anymore.
Actually, I moved to the US to get away from European authoritarians.
Now let's look at you: in 2011, you decided to move to Goldman Sachs, a company that had made billions from the taxpayer funded bailout at the time and lied about it to Congress, a company that was in bed with Hillary Clinton and paid her massively inflated speaking fees, getting reassurance and insider information. And then you joined Credit Suisse and moved to an enclave of the super rich and since that was long before his election, you don't even have Trump's election as an excuse. And Hillary, of course, was in bed with Swiss banks and the Swiss government too.
So spare me your self-righteous trolling about "Russian trolls". You are part of the corrupt, privileged elite of Americans that voters rebelled against, and good for them. I almost regret that I didn't vote for Trump. Almost.
I was born in Europe, and unlike you Brits, have first-hand experience with the tender mercies of socialism, democratic and otherwise.
Ah, yes, the ignorance and anti-Americanism so typical of educated Europeans. As I was saying: I encourage you to vote for Corbyn and see what happens!
Corbyn is a self-described socialist. In light of that and the history of socialism, the rest of your comment is profoundly ironic.
But Americans need object lessons in real-world socialism and fascism again, now that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany are gone. So go for it! It's not my life you're wrecking.