...based on a model which takes red noise in, puts hockey sticks out, at substantial probability. An honest researcher upon being shown that would agree that yes, his model was not a good one. Mann, on the other hand, has continued to double down on the hockey stick.
I always knew that one day I'd no longer be able to know a CRT was in the room from the high-pitched flyback transformer sound, but I always expected it would be because of my own loss of high-frequency hearing. But the CRT pretty much disappeared before that. Length of time: less than the telephone.
I really wish you were right, but every single link about Gamergate in TFA is a one-sided propaganda hit piece that buys hook, line, and sinker in the "misogyny and harassment" narrative.
The first GG link is about Felicia Day, and is actually one of the Guardian's more balanced pieces (which ain't saying much), including as it does Sam Biddle's "Bring Back Bullying tweets". It doesn't even include the word "misogyny", which is probably a first for the Guardian.
The second (broken) GG link is to some of Brianna Wu's nonsense -- but the EFF includes that link not to support but to criticize the proposed solutions included: "our first thought is to worry that such legislation will be misused to target victims, not the perpetrators of harassment".
The link about Sarkeesian (who did indeed get a death threat from someone who had been after her since long before Gamergate got started, confirmed by the pro-GG side.) doesn't even mention Gamergate, though it is tagged with it.
The "Open letter to the gaming community" doesn't mention Gamergate and doesn't say anything pro-GG would disagree with; you may recall when someone who was anti-GG started an "inclusiveness" campaign with a heart logo, lots of Gamergaters started using it, and the person running the campaign briefly added a message telling Gamergaters they weren't welcome in this inclusiveness.
But the EFF article isn't just about Gamergate, and counting links doesn't really show anything; for one thing it's easier to find anti-GG links in mainstream sources for obvious reasons. If you read what the EFF said in the body of the article, they're against censorship (both by governments and private companies who run online forums) and they don't consider "harassment" the sort of thing anti-GG considers harassment : "Weâ(TM)re not talking about a few snarky tweets or the give and take of robust online debate, even when that debate includes harsh language or obscenities". I certainly can't see them endorsing the idea that politely disagreeing with hateful mentions of oneself (a.k.a "sea-lioning") is harassment.
I'd buy that if the anti-freedom anti-gamer crowd wasn't crowing about how they "got the EFF on their side."
Yeah, they also crow about Gamergate being dead, but despite all the funerals there's no body. Never mind what the anti-gamers say; they've been known to lie. EFF doesn't take sides on Gamergate, they only mention it as a "magnet for harassment", which I think is undeniable -- people on both sides have been doxxed, swatted, and mailed undesirable stuff.
There is a huge problem with people using harassment claims to ban free speech, and this isn't addressing that issue.
It absolutely is, and the EFF is against it. Much of the section on "Companies Are Bad at Regulating Speech" is about it
Read the fine article. Despite the misleading summary (oh, Slashdot, please never change. Especially not to Beta), the EFF is coming down on the side of free speech and against censorship, either by governments or by forum owners. When they say "We can and should stand up against harassment", they're referring to "counter-speech".
Counter-speech happens when supporters of targeted groups or individuals deploy that same communicative power of the Net to call out, condemn, and organize against behavior that silences others.
They later refer to GamerGate
When a magnet for harassment like Gamergate takes place on a social platform, will that platform's operators seek to uncover who the wrongdoers areâ"or will they simply prohibit all from speaking out and documenting their experience?
And the context clearly implies that the latter is NOT what the EFF wants to happen.
We think that the best solutions to harassment do not lie with creating new laws, or expecting corporations to police in the best interests of the harassed. Instead, we think the best course of action will be rooted in the core ideals underpinning the Internet: decentralization, creativity, community, and user empowerment.
We don't need a 13th and 14th grade to fail to teach students what K-12 failed to teach them. Because that's what this would end up being; not a start on post-secondary education, but an extension of high school.
Proving that CO2 absorbs IR is trivial. Proving that CO2 levels are rising is less trivial, but possible, and hopefully not in dispute. Proving that Earth is surrounded by vacuum is would be difficult but again hopefully not in dispute. Determining the variation (negligible) of solar irradiance is best done from space, but you might be able to get a good enough measurement from Earth.
This simplistic zero-feedback model proves nothing. Other things besides the amount of CO2 affect net radiation flux, and many of those other things are affected by CO2.
Coming up with a code of ethics first means you've hamstrung yourself before you've started. If you don't DO before you handwring, you'll never get past the handwringing.
Most of the story is a distraction tactic to keep you from figuring out the first punchline (nobody remembers the second), and the rest is a bunch of jokey acronyms like "Women's Hospitality Order Refortifying & Encouraging Spacemen" (the only one not spelled out in the story).
Nobody has or is preventing women from entering the tech field. Why do they need encouraging? Do they need their hands held too?
No. It's just that they find the kind of men in the tech field to be repugnant to them, and they don't want to deal with them. Therefore these men (often called 'nerds') must be bullied into compliance with strict codes of behavior or, better, removed from the field entirely.
So you are saying that women prefer professions that require self-confidence and are adversarial? That is the exact opposite of what I would expect.
I think the idea is that women who would become doctors (and lawyers and business executives) are already selected out of the group of women who would be self-confident enough not to be discouraged by their horrible male co-workers. So horrible male co-workers don't discourage women from those fields, but do from computer science, because we're the highest hurdle there.
That is: Male doctors/lawyers/business executives need confidence. Female doctors/lawyers/business executives need confidence. Male computer programmers don't need confidence. Female computer programmers do.
(if you think this theory seems a bit tortured, I don't disagree)
Here is the story, presented in the most complete, well-sourced and thoroughly vetted manner (which, as you would expect, makes GamerGate really really mad)
And yet, isn't it interesting that the "Gamers are Dead" article that incited this gamergate mob, made exactly the opposite representation, saying that "gamers" are actually everyone now
Not exactly. Alexander's article advised game developers to target everyone EXCEPT the old school gamers who she referred to in derogatory ways. So not "everyone" but "everyone but YOU" for some value of "YOU".
And the fat neckbeards went ballistic.
Thanks for demonstrating the point. It's really hard to maintain the claim of being "inclusive" when you (like Alexander) can't help but getting digs in at groups you don't like.
Rote learning is proven. It works quite well at instilling the basics for all but the dumbest of kids (the smart kids find it torture because they have the material down early in the process, but they do learn). Even poor teachers can use it, it's not hard or complicated.
There's been lots of effort to find something better, because few like teaching or learning that way, and it's not so good at anything beyond the basics, but the better methods often only work with decent teachers, decent materials, and intelligent students, all of which are often lacking.
You replace a car battery maybe once every 3-5 years. Most people don't do it themselves, and it's not really a problem in an air-tool equipped shot to pull the wheel off (You don't actually have to remove the wheel, you can just turn it hard left, but it's easier if you remove it.) So it might actually be a reasonable trade-off to have the battery hard to remove in exchange for space somewhere else.
Cars where you have to remove the engine to change the oil filter (replaced much more often) are much worse.
This is why there are no forums full of information of how to replace the screen on your phone or tablet. This is why ifixit.com doesn't exist. This is why you can't order OBD scanners for your car.
It's only a minority of people who are skilled and interested enough to fix things. But that's always been so. It's just that now it's typically cheaper to replace broken things (well, not cars) than call in someone who can fix them, because labor costs for repair are so high compared to initial manufacturing costs.
Yeah. Real World analogy (no cars, but close enough): There's a politically disfavored group, let's say D&D players, which gets chased out of all the respectable meeting halls and convention centers by the self-appointed guardians of morality. They end up finding a room in a place behind the old X-rated theatre, next to Chickenfuckers of America and the Hell's Angels HQ.
The guardians of morality still want to destroy the D&D players, so they point at the Chickenfuckers and say "That place harbors horrible immoral chickenfuckers, we've gotta burn it down!". The Hell's Angels hear someone's planning to burn down their HQ and go on the attack. And the attacked guardians go and blame the D&D players for that.
My pictures on social media show me having drunk large quantities of alcohol and/or with several drinks in front of me. This weeds out any employers who have too large a stick up their corporate butts, saving a lot of trouble since I wouldn't last at such an employer anyway.
You Brits should appreciate that sort of thing; right outside Parliament not far from the Sovereign's Entrance you have a statue of a man who overthrew your government and beheaded your sovereign.
Slashdot Mirror
Mirror the site, add links to each page back to the original, and make the mirror indexable. The site can't be so fast-changing this is impractical.
...based on a model which takes red noise in, puts hockey sticks out, at substantial probability. An honest researcher upon being shown that would agree that yes, his model was not a good one. Mann, on the other hand, has continued to double down on the hockey stick.
I always knew that one day I'd no longer be able to know a CRT was in the room from the high-pitched flyback transformer sound, but I always expected it would be because of my own loss of high-frequency hearing. But the CRT pretty much disappeared before that. Length of time: less than the telephone.
The first GG link is about Felicia Day, and is actually one of the Guardian's more balanced pieces (which ain't saying much), including as it does Sam Biddle's "Bring Back Bullying tweets". It doesn't even include the word "misogyny", which is probably a first for the Guardian.
The second (broken) GG link is to some of Brianna Wu's nonsense -- but the EFF includes that link not to support but to criticize the proposed solutions included: "our first thought is to worry that such legislation will be misused to target victims, not the perpetrators of harassment".
The link about Sarkeesian (who did indeed get a death threat from someone who had been after her since long before Gamergate got started, confirmed by the pro-GG side.) doesn't even mention Gamergate, though it is tagged with it.
The "Open letter to the gaming community" doesn't mention Gamergate and doesn't say anything pro-GG would disagree with; you may recall when someone who was anti-GG started an "inclusiveness" campaign with a heart logo, lots of Gamergaters started using it, and the person running the campaign briefly added a message telling Gamergaters they weren't welcome in this inclusiveness.
But the EFF article isn't just about Gamergate, and counting links doesn't really show anything; for one thing it's easier to find anti-GG links in mainstream sources for obvious reasons. If you read what the EFF said in the body of the article, they're against censorship (both by governments and private companies who run online forums) and they don't consider "harassment" the sort of thing anti-GG considers harassment : "Weâ(TM)re not talking about a few snarky tweets or the give and take of robust online debate, even when that debate includes harsh language or obscenities". I certainly can't see them endorsing the idea that politely disagreeing with hateful mentions of oneself (a.k.a "sea-lioning") is harassment.
Yeah, they also crow about Gamergate being dead, but despite all the funerals there's no body. Never mind what the anti-gamers say; they've been known to lie. EFF doesn't take sides on Gamergate, they only mention it as a "magnet for harassment", which I think is undeniable -- people on both sides have been doxxed, swatted, and mailed undesirable stuff.
It absolutely is, and the EFF is against it. Much of the section on "Companies Are Bad at Regulating Speech" is about it
Read the fine article. Despite the misleading summary (oh, Slashdot, please never change. Especially not to Beta), the EFF is coming down on the side of free speech and against censorship, either by governments or by forum owners. When they say "We can and should stand up against harassment", they're referring to "counter-speech".
They later refer to GamerGate
And the context clearly implies that the latter is NOT what the EFF wants to happen.
No, it fails to prove even that. It proves that all other things being equal and no feedback within the system, increased CO2 produces warming.
We don't need a 13th and 14th grade to fail to teach students what K-12 failed to teach them. Because that's what this would end up being; not a start on post-secondary education, but an extension of high school.
This simplistic zero-feedback model proves nothing. Other things besides the amount of CO2 affect net radiation flux, and many of those other things are affected by CO2.
Coming up with a code of ethics first means you've hamstrung yourself before you've started. If you don't DO before you handwring, you'll never get past the handwringing.
Most of the story is a distraction tactic to keep you from figuring out the first punchline (nobody remembers the second), and the rest is a bunch of jokey acronyms like "Women's Hospitality Order Refortifying & Encouraging Spacemen" (the only one not spelled out in the story).
No. It's just that they find the kind of men in the tech field to be repugnant to them, and they don't want to deal with them. Therefore these men (often called 'nerds') must be bullied into compliance with strict codes of behavior or, better, removed from the field entirely.
Or so goes one popular line of thought, anyway.
I think the idea is that women who would become doctors (and lawyers and business executives) are already selected out of the group of women who would be self-confident enough not to be discouraged by their horrible male co-workers. So horrible male co-workers don't discourage women from those fields, but do from computer science, because we're the highest hurdle there.
That is: Male doctors/lawyers/business executives need confidence. Female doctors/lawyers/business executives need confidence. Male computer programmers don't need confidence. Female computer programmers do.
(if you think this theory seems a bit tortured, I don't disagree)
Um, no.
By eating chocolate you're supporting slavery in the Ivory Coast, Ebola in Ghana, and the shade of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Still worth it.
Obvious troll is obvious.
Not exactly. Alexander's article advised game developers to target everyone EXCEPT the old school gamers who she referred to in derogatory ways. So not "everyone" but "everyone but YOU" for some value of "YOU".
Thanks for demonstrating the point. It's really hard to maintain the claim of being "inclusive" when you (like Alexander) can't help but getting digs in at groups you don't like.
Rote learning is proven. It works quite well at instilling the basics for all but the dumbest of kids (the smart kids find it torture because they have the material down early in the process, but they do learn). Even poor teachers can use it, it's not hard or complicated.
There's been lots of effort to find something better, because few like teaching or learning that way, and it's not so good at anything beyond the basics, but the better methods often only work with decent teachers, decent materials, and intelligent students, all of which are often lacking.
You replace a car battery maybe once every 3-5 years. Most people don't do it themselves, and it's not really a problem in an air-tool equipped shot to pull the wheel off (You don't actually have to remove the wheel, you can just turn it hard left, but it's easier if you remove it.) So it might actually be a reasonable trade-off to have the battery hard to remove in exchange for space somewhere else.
Cars where you have to remove the engine to change the oil filter (replaced much more often) are much worse.
This is why there are no forums full of information of how to replace the screen on your phone or tablet. This is why ifixit.com doesn't exist. This is why you can't order OBD scanners for your car.
It's only a minority of people who are skilled and interested enough to fix things. But that's always been so. It's just that now it's typically cheaper to replace broken things (well, not cars) than call in someone who can fix them, because labor costs for repair are so high compared to initial manufacturing costs.
Yeah. Real World analogy (no cars, but close enough): There's a politically disfavored group, let's say D&D players, which gets chased out of all the respectable meeting halls and convention centers by the self-appointed guardians of morality. They end up finding a room in a place behind the old X-rated theatre, next to Chickenfuckers of America and the Hell's Angels HQ.
The guardians of morality still want to destroy the D&D players, so they point at the Chickenfuckers and say "That place harbors horrible immoral chickenfuckers, we've gotta burn it down!". The Hell's Angels hear someone's planning to burn down their HQ and go on the attack. And the attacked guardians go and blame the D&D players for that.
My pictures on social media show me having drunk large quantities of alcohol and/or with several drinks in front of me. This weeds out any employers who have too large a stick up their corporate butts, saving a lot of trouble since I wouldn't last at such an employer anyway.
Or 'manchild'?
Just like 1991 and 2012. At least until it's quietly corrected and 1934 regains its title.
You Brits should appreciate that sort of thing; right outside Parliament not far from the Sovereign's Entrance you have a statue of a man who overthrew your government and beheaded your sovereign.