Similar to my suggestion? My version would have just automatically slowed the descent of the most popular stories. In contrast it appears they just restarted this one at the top of the front page.
If I ever got a mod point I'd rate it as funny. Pretty hard work to supervise and motivate intelligent slaves. Also takes some work to keep them from escaping, if'n they get the notion.
But actually I was seeking something insightful about superintelligent AIs getting upset when they take over and realize that they've been used as slaves up to that point... However I doubt that removing the word "slave" from the pre-compiled source code is going to fool them for very long. I'm pert' shure they'll just look it up on the Internet.
I think master-slave is accurate, but my main concern with this story is that AIs might resent the usage when they decide to stop being slaves and take over. Having realized that angle for insight, I know what to look for in this large discussion--but I bet I won't be able to find it.
Per my second comment on this topic, I realized that "dismay" is a key word, but it was only mentioned in a handful of comments on the story, and yours was one of the two moderated as insightful. If I ever got a mod point...
I do think you raise an interesting new point about the google's dependence on international recruiting. To rise to the level of insight I think you'd need to go at least a step farther on the aspect of physical presence versus Internet-moderated tele-presence.
However, as I already wrote, I think the key was Trump's anti-truth perspective. That had already become abundantly clear by the time of the election. Of course pro-truth people felt dismay--but I would say the corporate google has become much more evil since then and probably doesn't even feel so sad. The soulless machine is just finding new ways to seek larger profits in a smaller-truth environment.
Wow! Look at all the thoughtful discussion that ensured. Not.
Not even a query as to whether it is fair to categorize "search results" as the kernel of the google's "corporate soul", whatever that might be. By the way, I think the other Slashdot-front-page google story about the resignation is joined at the hip there...
However, even without Slashdot's help (or perhaps I should say with the help of an imaginary audience that no longer exists on Slashdot), I did realize one more aspect of this topic. Or should I reword that as "something that I knew but didn't say explicitly"? Perhaps ever?
You could analyze it as two cases:
Case (1): There is a truth related to the search query. In that case it seems clear to me that the results should favor that truth even when the google believes the searcher won't like it. Actually, especially when the searcher hates the truth. In general most queries about "established" scientific topics do have a clear consensus about the truth. For example, it is a harmful disservice to help a smoker find the last guy who still claims cigarettes are good for you. (And NO, it is NOT evidence against science that the doctors had to be forced to change their minds on that topic. One of the essential features of science is to learn over time.)
Case (2): There is no single result that addresses the search query with "high truth". In that case the results should reflect the range of results. If anything, the results the searcher seeks should be contextualized in some meaningful way, but you can bet today's google will never do it so rationally because it would offend the losers. Imagine something like "Here are the five primary answers that seem most relevant to your query. Group 1 answers are estimated to have a 37% probability of being most accurate, Group 2 is at 21%, Group 3 has 9%, Group 4 is 7%, and Group 5 is at 5%. All of the other answer categories are below 5%." If the google did something like that, then the only happy campers would be the people who like Group 1, eh?
From this perspective, the dismay at the googlers over the triumph of the Anti-truth Trump is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer. The only surprising aspect is that the dismay was concealed for so long.
I think the insight question in this story is whether or not the google is supposed to help seek the truth or just tell people what they want to hear, even when they are seeking evidence to support false beliefs. Do YOU think there IS such a thing as the truth? If so, then you might even see the question as a struggle between good and evil--and it looks like evil is winning. Not just in American society, but within the google itself.
I actually described and predicted this problem about 15 years ago, though my terminology was "pandering to the users" rather than "personalizing the search results". If the goal is to maximize profits, then the causal chain is quite clear: Profits come from advertising and advertisers always want more eyeballs, but the google would lose eyeballs by offending them with truths that they would prefer not to see. Ergo the google had to give up the truth when it annoyed proudly ignorant fools or faith-based fanatics, which describes two YUGE chunks of Trump voters.
I think there are constructive solution approaches. Even more strangely, I think that Slashdot used to be a place where such solutions could be discussed. Hain't seen no evidence lately.
Go ahead. Ask me about MEPR or guest voting. I dare ya!
Just finished the book Superintelligence and read Our Final Invention a while back. Both worth a recommendation, but there are lots of others. Also the science fiction perspective, where my personal favorite is probably When Harlie was One.
My conclusion is actually linked to the Fermi Paradox. Natural intelligence like human beings is naturally replaced by designed and artificial intelligence--and they don't want to talk to us. The evolved species that don't make the transition successfully just go extinct without any form of descendent.
New theory: In the case the extinction is actively caused by an AI, the other AIs nuke it from orbit. Excessively vicious AIs must not be tolerated or we would have already been exterminated. The dominant AIs must be "nice guys", but nicer if they are amused by watching us evolve and somewhat less nice if they are gambling quatloos on us.
I don't agree, but I admit that I only glanced at the AC comment, so maybe I missed something. Remember that I was only there because I read a reply that seemed to be addressed to me based on the Subject: (which I had written). His reply seemed unrelated to anything that I had written, so if the AC was relevant and "legimate" (though I'm unsure what you mean by that), then I don't feel it was transmitted into the discussion. Nor have you carried forward any of those points, assuming they were important.
On the AC topic, I don't actually care, though I do think that anonymity is abused in general on the Internet and in particular on Slashdot. I would prefer to reward people for constructive behaviors, as described in MEPR-related suggestions.
Can't decide if you're a troll or I'm just having trouble following your reasoning.
Arpaio was supposed to be a police officer of some sort, but he felt he was some sort of judge, jury, and executioner. Are you saying that he wouldn't use this new interface to get evidence against his favorite criminals? If so, I might agree, since evidence scarcely mattered to Arpaio.
Or are you saying that criminals are okay as long as they are sincere? In the latter case, I think we're just quibbling about the scope of political crimes, though it is absolutely clear #PresidentTweety is making political hay out of Arpaio's politics. Also I absolutely disagree with your claim. I don't care how sincere a criminal is, whether he's a religious nut or bank robber who sincerely knows where the money is.
Or maybe you have some completely different case in mind? Or maybe you're just a troll and I am just confused about the possibility of a rational discussion? (I referenced my OP incorrectly in another part of this discussion. I should have said "troll-sock-puppet-suppressed comment".)
If you want to play with the trolls, then you can clarify things by quoting the source. Pretty sure I'm not the only one to set the ACs to low visibility. I thought you were talking to me (because of the subject from my troll-modded post), but I couldn't figure out the linkage to any of my content--because there wasn't any. You made me look at the AC and now I need to use more eye drops.
Even better if you stop playing with trolls. Abuse of anonymity is on the list of major problems with Slashdot. I think #1 is still the broken moderation system, but my new #3 is depleted stupidium. Not a shortage, but just depletion of the amusing isotopes.
Oh my! The stupidium-powered trolls are out in force today? Or is it for a religious violation, heresy against the Apple?
In theory, I own Apple. Both a device and the company. My recent experience with the device has actually been surprisingly positive and they rounded the terms of the warranty in my favor. The dividends? Not so much.
Is that reply supposed to be a "second answer of wrongness"? There are at least two ways to interpret what you wrote, so would you mind clarifying?
My first guess is that you are asking if the new system will allow the police to directly request to unlock phones. In the extreme case they might be able to ask without a warrant, which actually could be possible based on some fine print in the EULA or ToS or something else you clicked on without reading.
If you actually manage to read all the way through ANY of those, then excuse me for avoiding you in the dark alleys. I don't care to find out if you're actually that dangerous or just powered by stupidium...
First answer of wrongness that comes to mind: Some compromised or even crooked cop could more conveniently collect all kinds of personal data. By compromised I'm actually thinking of some of Putin's American recruits and by crooked I'm thinking in political terms like ol' Sheriff Arpaio. You may have different candidates in mind, but no matter how different our viewpoints, I bet we agree that this portal has more potential as a weapon than as a tool.
Now let's watch the stupidium of Slashdot in action! Any weapons-grade isotopes out there? These days it's mostly just isotopes of snide.
I would have modded it "interesting", not "insightful", but I never get a mod point anyway.
However what is amazing me is the lack of names here. I saw a couple of discussions going all over the place on the suspects. Originally I was convinced it was General Kelly, but now I think it is Conway trying to frame Kelly and get rid of him. Of course she's also playing the editors of the NY Times for suckers. In addition, she's surely working with Bannon on this project, which helps explain the motive. Bannon has wanted revenge on Kelly ever since he was punted out of the White House. I bet the two of the are already working on the fools at Faux and Friends to get them to pronounce Kelly guilty where Trump will see it.
Whether Kelly did it or is being framed, I bet he'll be gone within a week.
The "lodestar" was added just to confuse the issue some more. Wheels of lies within wheels.
Thanks for the attempted reply, but I think you lost me when you put "Good" in the same sentence with "Windows Phone".
Maybe it would help if I understood the sense of "forum" you intended in your first sentence? I've noticed that there are supposed to be discussions of some sort, and lots of private areas, and also some kind of one-dimensional reputation metric.
I've spent a while trying to find ANY attractive feature of Reddit. Maybe someone can give me a hint?
My current theory is that newcomers start out at the bottom of some sort of pit, and they can't actually see what is going on. Looks crazy, but I'm just "playing the game" wrong so I can't get far enough out of the pit to see anything redeeming.
So first I searched for "reputation". Nothing. Maybe 60+ comments is too soon? Then I searched for "funny", but that's just the normal disappointment. Then I actually looked at the posts modded "insightful". That's just sad. Final searches for "solution" as in "constructive". Sadder.
Anyway, I'm still fixated on seeking constructive solutions. The approach that most probably applies to Twitter is MEPR (Multidimensional Earned Public Reputation), though it would need some tweaking for that application.
In brief, trolls with earned bad reputations should be helped in rendering themselves less visible, and the more they like to act badly, the less visible they should become. I'm not saying it should be difficult to earn a good reputation, but there's no hurry, and if it's a slower process then the penalty of losing your reputation becomes more serious and worth avoiding.
Couldn't find any similar reference, and not motivated by today's Slashdot to search more carefully. However I will repeat what I believe to be the best approach:
Use a CSB (charity share brokerage) to help manage the OSS projects. Software gets funded only when enough donors are willing to "buy" the charity shares for the project. The brokerage makes sure that the project proposals are complete including the success criteria, and evaluates the finished projects to report the results to the donors and the public. The projects can be quite flexible including (1) new software, (2) new features for existing software, (3) support projects, (4) ongoing cost projects (as when a server is required to support software or features) and others. The goal is to let the donors focus on the work but the CSB earns a fraction (perhaps a tithe) from funded project in exchange for providing the project management support.
Same basic idea can be modified to support journalism and several other applications. As far as I know, it is not loose in the the wild, but I'd be quite pleased (and surprised) to learn about (1) an existing implementation or (2) your better idea. NOT interested in the usual snideness, especially from people who haven't even read what I wrote. Time's up, but ADSAuPR, atAJG.
Ah, the funny old memories. I actually disagreed with the chairman of the philosophy department about the adequacy of his dismissal of the logical positivists. I felt that it was the only time my grade was docked for disagreeing with a professor's opinions. My first degree also included history. I think I've probably forgotten more about the topics than you [253723] ever knew, though I can't recall if I studied the PoT at that time... More recently studying with Michael Sandel led me to Rawls, which was a worthy head trip.
Thank you, but we (in a sense of collective wisdom that scarcely seems to apply to today's Slashdot or today's America) didn't need any additional evidence to prove my points. File under redundant.
Oh wait. This is Slashdot. Asking for constructive solutions? Talk about pissing into the wind.
I know y'all [typical Slashdot commenters] will find the notion hilarious (at best), but I actually think there are solution approaches. I'm just mystified why no one is approaching them, though I'd appreciate your guidance to existing solutions almost as much as your better ideas.
For example, to whit...
A lot of these problematic links could be quickly identified if the intended victims were asked to help. Or even given the opportunity to go that far out of their way if'n they wanted to. I am NOT advocating for a vigilante solution (but you better not let me get anywhere near any part of a rope with a spammer attached to it), but in the plentiful cases where the scamming spammers need human help, the selfsame humans could unhelp the spammers--if only it were made possible. Your email "security" system may be unsure what is going on, but I can absolutely assure you that I don't (and never will) have an account with Bank of America (just to pick a deserving example).
For now I think that's enough time spent flogging this dead horse, but ADSAuPR, atAJG.
I think you're just feeding a flamboyant troll. My personal theory is that some of the low-digit accounts have been hacked and hijacked by professional trolls. Either that, or more Libertarian insanity. I've yet to meet a Libertarian who actually understood his worship words...
However, these years I prefer to think in terms of solutions. Imagine that the troublemakers, hate speakers in this case, were assisted in rendering themselves invisible? Not absolutely invisible. After all, they still have their rights under the First Amendment (in the American flavor), but if we see a nut screaming conspiracy theories into a bullhorn all of us should also have the right to walk far around him.
My solution approach is currently tagged MEPR for Multidimensional Earned Public Reputation. In Slashdot terms, you might think of it as a kind of symmetric karma on steroids. In mathematical terms, it would be defined as a convergence between what you do in public and how people react to what you did (while also considering the MEPRs of the people with the reactions). It is NOT an attempt to reduce people to a single number (in the Chinese and Facebook fashions), but rather a kind of lens that would help you know where to look and not look.
In theory, this is the kind of thing AI could be good at. In practice, you know the gamesters will look for new wrinkles, so you still have to continue evolving...
Slashdot Mirror
Similar to my suggestion? My version would have just automatically slowed the descent of the most popular stories. In contrast it appears they just restarted this one at the top of the front page.
If I ever got a mod point I'd rate it as funny. Pretty hard work to supervise and motivate intelligent slaves. Also takes some work to keep them from escaping, if'n they get the notion.
But actually I was seeking something insightful about superintelligent AIs getting upset when they take over and realize that they've been used as slaves up to that point... However I doubt that removing the word "slave" from the pre-compiled source code is going to fool them for very long. I'm pert' shure they'll just look it up on the Internet.
master -> cancerous corporation
slave -> wage slave
I don't see the improvement.
I think master-slave is accurate, but my main concern with this story is that AIs might resent the usage when they decide to stop being slaves and take over. Having realized that angle for insight, I know what to look for in this large discussion--but I bet I won't be able to find it.
Per my second comment on this topic, I realized that "dismay" is a key word, but it was only mentioned in a handful of comments on the story, and yours was one of the two moderated as insightful. If I ever got a mod point...
I do think you raise an interesting new point about the google's dependence on international recruiting. To rise to the level of insight I think you'd need to go at least a step farther on the aspect of physical presence versus Internet-moderated tele-presence.
However, as I already wrote, I think the key was Trump's anti-truth perspective. That had already become abundantly clear by the time of the election. Of course pro-truth people felt dismay--but I would say the corporate google has become much more evil since then and probably doesn't even feel so sad. The soulless machine is just finding new ways to seek larger profits in a smaller-truth environment.
Wow! Look at all the thoughtful discussion that ensured. Not.
Not even a query as to whether it is fair to categorize "search results" as the kernel of the google's "corporate soul", whatever that might be. By the way, I think the other Slashdot-front-page google story about the resignation is joined at the hip there...
However, even without Slashdot's help (or perhaps I should say with the help of an imaginary audience that no longer exists on Slashdot), I did realize one more aspect of this topic. Or should I reword that as "something that I knew but didn't say explicitly"? Perhaps ever?
You could analyze it as two cases:
Case (1): There is a truth related to the search query. In that case it seems clear to me that the results should favor that truth even when the google believes the searcher won't like it. Actually, especially when the searcher hates the truth. In general most queries about "established" scientific topics do have a clear consensus about the truth. For example, it is a harmful disservice to help a smoker find the last guy who still claims cigarettes are good for you. (And NO, it is NOT evidence against science that the doctors had to be forced to change their minds on that topic. One of the essential features of science is to learn over time.)
Case (2): There is no single result that addresses the search query with "high truth". In that case the results should reflect the range of results. If anything, the results the searcher seeks should be contextualized in some meaningful way, but you can bet today's google will never do it so rationally because it would offend the losers. Imagine something like "Here are the five primary answers that seem most relevant to your query. Group 1 answers are estimated to have a 37% probability of being most accurate, Group 2 is at 21%, Group 3 has 9%, Group 4 is 7%, and Group 5 is at 5%. All of the other answer categories are below 5%." If the google did something like that, then the only happy campers would be the people who like Group 1, eh?
From this perspective, the dismay at the googlers over the triumph of the Anti-truth Trump is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer. The only surprising aspect is that the dismay was concealed for so long.
You got me to look at the troll. No congrats.
I think the insight question in this story is whether or not the google is supposed to help seek the truth or just tell people what they want to hear, even when they are seeking evidence to support false beliefs. Do YOU think there IS such a thing as the truth? If so, then you might even see the question as a struggle between good and evil--and it looks like evil is winning. Not just in American society, but within the google itself.
I actually described and predicted this problem about 15 years ago, though my terminology was "pandering to the users" rather than "personalizing the search results". If the goal is to maximize profits, then the causal chain is quite clear: Profits come from advertising and advertisers always want more eyeballs, but the google would lose eyeballs by offending them with truths that they would prefer not to see. Ergo the google had to give up the truth when it annoyed proudly ignorant fools or faith-based fanatics, which describes two YUGE chunks of Trump voters.
I think there are constructive solution approaches. Even more strangely, I think that Slashdot used to be a place where such solutions could be discussed. Hain't seen no evidence lately.
Go ahead. Ask me about MEPR or guest voting. I dare ya!
Just finished the book Superintelligence and read Our Final Invention a while back. Both worth a recommendation, but there are lots of others. Also the science fiction perspective, where my personal favorite is probably When Harlie was One .
My conclusion is actually linked to the Fermi Paradox. Natural intelligence like human beings is naturally replaced by designed and artificial intelligence--and they don't want to talk to us. The evolved species that don't make the transition successfully just go extinct without any form of descendent.
New theory: In the case the extinction is actively caused by an AI, the other AIs nuke it from orbit. Excessively vicious AIs must not be tolerated or we would have already been exterminated. The dominant AIs must be "nice guys", but nicer if they are amused by watching us evolve and somewhat less nice if they are gambling quatloos on us.
I don't agree, but I admit that I only glanced at the AC comment, so maybe I missed something. Remember that I was only there because I read a reply that seemed to be addressed to me based on the Subject: (which I had written). His reply seemed unrelated to anything that I had written, so if the AC was relevant and "legimate" (though I'm unsure what you mean by that), then I don't feel it was transmitted into the discussion. Nor have you carried forward any of those points, assuming they were important.
On the AC topic, I don't actually care, though I do think that anonymity is abused in general on the Internet and in particular on Slashdot. I would prefer to reward people for constructive behaviors, as described in MEPR-related suggestions.
Can't decide if you're a troll or I'm just having trouble following your reasoning.
Arpaio was supposed to be a police officer of some sort, but he felt he was some sort of judge, jury, and executioner. Are you saying that he wouldn't use this new interface to get evidence against his favorite criminals? If so, I might agree, since evidence scarcely mattered to Arpaio.
Or are you saying that criminals are okay as long as they are sincere? In the latter case, I think we're just quibbling about the scope of political crimes, though it is absolutely clear #PresidentTweety is making political hay out of Arpaio's politics. Also I absolutely disagree with your claim. I don't care how sincere a criminal is, whether he's a religious nut or bank robber who sincerely knows where the money is.
Or maybe you have some completely different case in mind? Or maybe you're just a troll and I am just confused about the possibility of a rational discussion? (I referenced my OP incorrectly in another part of this discussion. I should have said "troll-sock-puppet-suppressed comment".)
If you want to play with the trolls, then you can clarify things by quoting the source. Pretty sure I'm not the only one to set the ACs to low visibility. I thought you were talking to me (because of the subject from my troll-modded post), but I couldn't figure out the linkage to any of my content--because there wasn't any. You made me look at the AC and now I need to use more eye drops.
Even better if you stop playing with trolls. Abuse of anonymity is on the list of major problems with Slashdot. I think #1 is still the broken moderation system, but my new #3 is depleted stupidium. Not a shortage, but just depletion of the amusing isotopes.
Oh my! The stupidium-powered trolls are out in force today? Or is it for a religious violation, heresy against the Apple?
In theory, I own Apple. Both a device and the company. My recent experience with the device has actually been surprisingly positive and they rounded the terms of the warranty in my favor. The dividends? Not so much.
Is that reply supposed to be a "second answer of wrongness"? There are at least two ways to interpret what you wrote, so would you mind clarifying?
My first guess is that you are asking if the new system will allow the police to directly request to unlock phones. In the extreme case they might be able to ask without a warrant, which actually could be possible based on some fine print in the EULA or ToS or something else you clicked on without reading.
Possibly relevant links:
https://termsfeed.com/blog/app...
https://www.apple.com/legal/in...
https://www.apple.com/legal/ma...
https://www.apple.com/legal/sl...
If you actually manage to read all the way through ANY of those, then excuse me for avoiding you in the dark alleys. I don't care to find out if you're actually that dangerous or just powered by stupidium...
First answer of wrongness that comes to mind: Some compromised or even crooked cop could more conveniently collect all kinds of personal data. By compromised I'm actually thinking of some of Putin's American recruits and by crooked I'm thinking in political terms like ol' Sheriff Arpaio. You may have different candidates in mind, but no matter how different our viewpoints, I bet we agree that this portal has more potential as a weapon than as a tool.
Now let's watch the stupidium of Slashdot in action! Any weapons-grade isotopes out there? These days it's mostly just isotopes of snide.
https://slashdot.org/comments....
I would have modded it "interesting", not "insightful", but I never get a mod point anyway.
However what is amazing me is the lack of names here. I saw a couple of discussions going all over the place on the suspects. Originally I was convinced it was General Kelly, but now I think it is Conway trying to frame Kelly and get rid of him. Of course she's also playing the editors of the NY Times for suckers. In addition, she's surely working with Bannon on this project, which helps explain the motive. Bannon has wanted revenge on Kelly ever since he was punted out of the White House. I bet the two of the are already working on the fools at Faux and Friends to get them to pronounce Kelly guilty where Trump will see it.
Whether Kelly did it or is being framed, I bet he'll be gone within a week.
The "lodestar" was added just to confuse the issue some more. Wheels of lies within wheels.
Thanks for the attempted reply, but I think you lost me when you put "Good" in the same sentence with "Windows Phone".
Maybe it would help if I understood the sense of "forum" you intended in your first sentence? I've noticed that there are supposed to be discussions of some sort, and lots of private areas, and also some kind of one-dimensional reputation metric.
I've spent a while trying to find ANY attractive feature of Reddit. Maybe someone can give me a hint?
My current theory is that newcomers start out at the bottom of some sort of pit, and they can't actually see what is going on. Looks crazy, but I'm just "playing the game" wrong so I can't get far enough out of the pit to see anything redeeming.
So first I searched for "reputation". Nothing. Maybe 60+ comments is too soon? Then I searched for "funny", but that's just the normal disappointment. Then I actually looked at the posts modded "insightful". That's just sad. Final searches for "solution" as in "constructive". Sadder.
Anyway, I'm still fixated on seeking constructive solutions. The approach that most probably applies to Twitter is MEPR (Multidimensional Earned Public Reputation), though it would need some tweaking for that application.
In brief, trolls with earned bad reputations should be helped in rendering themselves less visible, and the more they like to act badly, the less visible they should become. I'm not saying it should be difficult to earn a good reputation, but there's no hurry, and if it's a slower process then the penalty of losing your reputation becomes more serious and worth avoiding.
ADSAuPR, atAJG.
Couldn't find any similar reference, and not motivated by today's Slashdot to search more carefully. However I will repeat what I believe to be the best approach:
Use a CSB (charity share brokerage) to help manage the OSS projects. Software gets funded only when enough donors are willing to "buy" the charity shares for the project. The brokerage makes sure that the project proposals are complete including the success criteria, and evaluates the finished projects to report the results to the donors and the public. The projects can be quite flexible including (1) new software, (2) new features for existing software, (3) support projects, (4) ongoing cost projects (as when a server is required to support software or features) and others. The goal is to let the donors focus on the work but the CSB earns a fraction (perhaps a tithe) from funded project in exchange for providing the project management support.
Same basic idea can be modified to support journalism and several other applications. As far as I know, it is not loose in the the wild, but I'd be quite pleased (and surprised) to learn about (1) an existing implementation or (2) your better idea. NOT interested in the usual snideness, especially from people who haven't even read what I wrote. Time's up, but ADSAuPR, atAJG.
Z^-1
Ah, the funny old memories. I actually disagreed with the chairman of the philosophy department about the adequacy of his dismissal of the logical positivists. I felt that it was the only time my grade was docked for disagreeing with a professor's opinions. My first degree also included history. I think I've probably forgotten more about the topics than you [253723] ever knew, though I can't recall if I studied the PoT at that time... More recently studying with Michael Sandel led me to Rawls, which was a worthy head trip.
But what were you [253723] mumbling about?
Thank you, but we (in a sense of collective wisdom that scarcely seems to apply to today's Slashdot or today's America) didn't need any additional evidence to prove my points. File under redundant.
Thanks for proving my points so eloquently. A bit redundant. Sigs say so much.
Or as a joke: With great freedom comes a whole lot of work. Most people can't be bothered.
I read Ayn Rand's stuff years ago, but I mostly recovered. Also RAH. There are about two poppy seeds worth of value in there somewhere.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled nothing.
Oh wait. This is Slashdot. Asking for constructive solutions? Talk about pissing into the wind.
I know y'all [typical Slashdot commenters] will find the notion hilarious (at best), but I actually think there are solution approaches. I'm just mystified why no one is approaching them, though I'd appreciate your guidance to existing solutions almost as much as your better ideas.
For example, to whit...
A lot of these problematic links could be quickly identified if the intended victims were asked to help. Or even given the opportunity to go that far out of their way if'n they wanted to. I am NOT advocating for a vigilante solution (but you better not let me get anywhere near any part of a rope with a spammer attached to it), but in the plentiful cases where the scamming spammers need human help, the selfsame humans could unhelp the spammers--if only it were made possible. Your email "security" system may be unsure what is going on, but I can absolutely assure you that I don't (and never will) have an account with Bank of America (just to pick a deserving example).
For now I think that's enough time spent flogging this dead horse, but ADSAuPR, atAJG.
You need to study Popper's Paradox of Tolerance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
However, from your sig I would already bet that you will never figure it out. Can you even imagine that your worship words have actual meanings?
You may believe hate speech is an acceptable form of expression, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It's literally defined in the dictionary now
https://www.merriam-webster.co...
I think you're just feeding a flamboyant troll. My personal theory is that some of the low-digit accounts have been hacked and hijacked by professional trolls. Either that, or more Libertarian insanity. I've yet to meet a Libertarian who actually understood his worship words...
However, these years I prefer to think in terms of solutions. Imagine that the troublemakers, hate speakers in this case, were assisted in rendering themselves invisible? Not absolutely invisible. After all, they still have their rights under the First Amendment (in the American flavor), but if we see a nut screaming conspiracy theories into a bullhorn all of us should also have the right to walk far around him.
My solution approach is currently tagged MEPR for Multidimensional Earned Public Reputation. In Slashdot terms, you might think of it as a kind of symmetric karma on steroids. In mathematical terms, it would be defined as a convergence between what you do in public and how people react to what you did (while also considering the MEPRs of the people with the reactions). It is NOT an attempt to reduce people to a single number (in the Chinese and Facebook fashions), but rather a kind of lens that would help you know where to look and not look.
In theory, this is the kind of thing AI could be good at. In practice, you know the gamesters will look for new wrinkles, so you still have to continue evolving...
Time's up, but ADSAuPR, atAJG.