1) Their users provide the feed. Facebook just displays it. 2) It isn't 'for free' as Facebook uses the data to advertise to you, and thus earns money on the content you generate. 3) The example I gave was explicitly not bullshit - if it were, why would anyone interfere with it?
Facebook's efforts to manipulate the feed are really disappointing. If they'll do it for jollies, then they'll damn sure do it if someone pays them to or if the government orders them to.
Imagine an 'American Spring'. Imagine the government not only spying on Facebook users communicating about it, but requiring that Facebook actively suppress any positive comments about it.
It happens because there was something wrong with the zygote sufficient that the body aborted it on its own.
I covered that part already.
"Just leave it alone and give it a chance" isn't so difficult a standard for reasonable people to apply. Note, too, that this doesn't inhibit contraception in any way.
If your pill only targets those zygotes that would have been lost anyway, then I can see no problem with it.
I'm willing to limit the conversation to 'in the womb', but the point still applies. Also, we don't allow the killing of unwanted infants, so your logic stumbles a bit.
The defaults alone weren't the problem. The groupthink and perverse psychology of the private sector was the problem. Government just wanted to help people get homes. The greed of the private sector created such a mess that everything crashed because of their shenanigans.
This assumes that either:
A) Government is immune from private sector influence. or B) The private sector's behavior was in any way surprising.
Both are pretty naive. At least we all know better now, right?
You're focusing on the wrong aspect. It isn't about potential, but human potential. The same as eating meat is allowed, but eating human meat is not. This is largely because nobody wants to be eaten.
However rudimentary it is, if left alone it will most likely develop into a human. Same as you did when you were in that rudimentary stage because nobody interfered with your genetic material.
Note, too, this is why many of us don't object to funding primary education even though we don't all have kids. We received such an education, and wouldn't have wanted it taken away due to lack of funding.
So while the nervous system makes a fine line for certain arguments, in general it's the 'what if this happened to me' angle that makes human-material issues most unique.
I think he was differentiating because you can not create an experiment that would be neanderthals living in a population so that you could observe and see the results. He was saying with this idea, all you can do is look for things left behind and observe.
Observational sciences are always weaker than experimental sciences for exactly this reason. Today we debunk the previous assumption that cave men only ate meat. How did we come to that conclusion in the first place? Wild ass guess, most likely.
Put it this way - we know 'they ate plant matter'. We might (according to the study's conclusions) be able to determine 'how much' with further study. But I imagine we're quite a ways away from 'what plants'. We're also still making WAGs about how they got those plants, vis-a-vis hunter gatherers.
They could have farmed them.
They COULD have used biodegradable tools, sustainable farming, etc, and we'd never know they did 50,000 years later because those things don't leave behind fossils.
Pay attention: 1) Electric current encountering resistance generates heat. Falsifiable, and tested. 2) The VAST majority of heat from electrical resistance is generated by humans. Falsifiable, and tested. 3) Man's use of electricity correlates directly with the hockey-stick. Falsifiable, and tested.
Unplug your computer to save the planet!!!
(By the way, don't you mean VERIFIABLE? Wouldn't it weaken the argument to use falsified data?)
It could be that in a system as vast and complex as the Earth's atmosphere, you probably can't draw up a bulleted list to explain all the reasons we're observing what we're observing. Unless you're God, you're just guessing along with everyone else. It isn't like you have a series of scale model Earths you can use to run your tests.
Here's another list... A) We've (supposedly) been hotter than we are before, when there were (supposedly) no humans around to blame. B) The Sahara (supposedly) used to be fertile. C) Humans are extremely resilient creatures. D) The Earth is quite likely more resilient, and is unlikely to explode in a ball of fire if it gets too hot. It may require some adapting, but life WILL go on. E) Polar bears are down, but sharks are up. See D, above. F) The impact of changing the entire human energy experience is not insignificant, and could well upend society itself if not managed properly. G) Every government on the planet is currently ran by complete idiots, and even if they knew EXACTLY what to do, they'd still fuck up the implementation. H) It is entirely possible that 'humans > polar bears' is a valid opinion to have.
Imagine a secret raid about to be conducted on a property. One where they would rather you not call any of your buddies and warn them that you've been attacked. They can quietly shut down every phone in the building right before they throw in the flashbangs. They can do this on a phone-by-phone basis, and without involving the phone company since their rubberstamp FISA warrant has already given them complete access to the phone.
I grew up in the 80s under that same concept as well: "equality means everyone is treated equally"
But again, we're in a different world today. The fresh crop feels that a special status called 'privilege' exists, and that anyone who even tangentially benefits from that status is less of a person because of it.
And in fact, they probably don't realize what a piece of shit they actually are, until they shed their 'privilege' and join the war against the machine.
Or something.
These are the kinds of people who wonder why too few Google employees have thrown themselves off cliffs in order to bring the gender gap down.
I had one just the other day telling me that being able to succeed in IT meant I had "won the genetic lottery". So my career isn't my doing, it was my genes.
A tiny bit of research shows most women decided to study something other than tech after high school. So there's a cause closer to the root right there.
If Google/Yahoo is supposed to hire qualified workers and only 20% of tech grads are women, how do they get their number higher than 20%?
Further if the decision is between a man with a tech degree and a woman without a tech degree, all else held equal, why is it appropriate to select the woman?
But no, no, facts be damned, it's the toxic environment. Go with that.
Along these lines I've suggested my wife change to IT many, many times. She's smarter than I am and would be better at it, I'd think. Then we could both be making double her salary, instead of just me.
She won't bite. There's just no passion there, for her.
The judge is considering the needs of an individual, and attempting to find a way to protect him/her/it, for reasons that are private to that individual - and I hope shall forever remain private to that individual - from juggernaut corporations who have basically become a small monopoly in what was an open, equal-footing system
Isn't the better remedy to remove the web content, though, rather than the search results leading to the content?
Slashdot Mirror
had something like the NSA mass surveillance been used against the founders
Had this been the case, there Revolution would have been depressingly short and unsuccessful.
Because the opinions of AC's matter...
Well, three problems:
1) Their users provide the feed. Facebook just displays it.
2) It isn't 'for free' as Facebook uses the data to advertise to you, and thus earns money on the content you generate.
3) The example I gave was explicitly not bullshit - if it were, why would anyone interfere with it?
Facebook's efforts to manipulate the feed are really disappointing. If they'll do it for jollies, then they'll damn sure do it if someone pays them to or if the government orders them to.
Imagine an 'American Spring'. Imagine the government not only spying on Facebook users communicating about it, but requiring that Facebook actively suppress any positive comments about it.
That shit ain't right.
It happens because there was something wrong with the zygote sufficient that the body aborted it on its own.
I covered that part already.
"Just leave it alone and give it a chance" isn't so difficult a standard for reasonable people to apply. Note, too, that this doesn't inhibit contraception in any way.
If your pill only targets those zygotes that would have been lost anyway, then I can see no problem with it.
I'm willing to limit the conversation to 'in the womb', but the point still applies. Also, we don't allow the killing of unwanted infants, so your logic stumbles a bit.
The defaults alone weren't the problem. The groupthink and perverse psychology of the private sector was the problem. Government just wanted to help people get homes. The greed of the private sector created such a mess that everything crashed because of their shenanigans.
This assumes that either:
A) Government is immune from private sector influence.
or
B) The private sector's behavior was in any way surprising.
Both are pretty naive. At least we all know better now, right?
Right?
Anybody?
You're focusing on the wrong aspect. It isn't about potential, but human potential. The same as eating meat is allowed, but eating human meat is not. This is largely because nobody wants to be eaten.
However rudimentary it is, if left alone it will most likely develop into a human. Same as you did when you were in that rudimentary stage because nobody interfered with your genetic material.
Note, too, this is why many of us don't object to funding primary education even though we don't all have kids. We received such an education, and wouldn't have wanted it taken away due to lack of funding.
So while the nervous system makes a fine line for certain arguments, in general it's the 'what if this happened to me' angle that makes human-material issues most unique.
How will the Repubmocrats keep 100% power against independents, tea party and other radical despots competing against the chosen ones?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It's called 'First Past the Post', and Facebook has nothing to do with it.
I thought the assumption was that had apes learned to fish as humans did, they would have evolved brains like ours.
Well, now, I'm an ameteur, but isn't the assumption that brain development required to be a higher mammal requires gigantic amounts of protein intake?
I think he was differentiating because you can not create an experiment that would be neanderthals living in a population so that you could observe and see the results. He was saying with this idea, all you can do is look for things left behind and observe.
Bingo
Observational sciences are always weaker than experimental sciences for exactly this reason. Today we debunk the previous assumption that cave men only ate meat. How did we come to that conclusion in the first place? Wild ass guess, most likely.
Put it this way - we know 'they ate plant matter'. We might (according to the study's conclusions) be able to determine 'how much' with further study. But I imagine we're quite a ways away from 'what plants'. We're also still making WAGs about how they got those plants, vis-a-vis hunter gatherers.
They could have farmed them.
They COULD have used biodegradable tools, sustainable farming, etc, and we'd never know they did 50,000 years later because those things don't leave behind fossils.
TLDR - Pics or it didn't happen
Let's try this, then:
Pay attention:
1) Electric current encountering resistance generates heat. Falsifiable, and tested.
2) The VAST majority of heat from electrical resistance is generated by humans. Falsifiable, and tested.
3) Man's use of electricity correlates directly with the hockey-stick. Falsifiable, and tested.
Unplug your computer to save the planet!!!
(By the way, don't you mean VERIFIABLE? Wouldn't it weaken the argument to use falsified data?)
It could be that in a system as vast and complex as the Earth's atmosphere, you probably can't draw up a bulleted list to explain all the reasons we're observing what we're observing. Unless you're God, you're just guessing along with everyone else. It isn't like you have a series of scale model Earths you can use to run your tests.
Here's another list...
A) We've (supposedly) been hotter than we are before, when there were (supposedly) no humans around to blame.
B) The Sahara (supposedly) used to be fertile.
C) Humans are extremely resilient creatures.
D) The Earth is quite likely more resilient, and is unlikely to explode in a ball of fire if it gets too hot. It may require some adapting, but life WILL go on.
E) Polar bears are down, but sharks are up. See D, above.
F) The impact of changing the entire human energy experience is not insignificant, and could well upend society itself if not managed properly.
G) Every government on the planet is currently ran by complete idiots, and even if they knew EXACTLY what to do, they'd still fuck up the implementation.
H) It is entirely possible that 'humans > polar bears' is a valid opinion to have.
Lists are fun. I could go on and on... :)
So you had the citation you requested, but didn't think he had it? /boggle
Imagine a secret raid about to be conducted on a property. One where they would rather you not call any of your buddies and warn them that you've been attacked. They can quietly shut down every phone in the building right before they throw in the flashbangs. They can do this on a phone-by-phone basis, and without involving the phone company since their rubberstamp FISA warrant has already given them complete access to the phone.
This is exactly right, and I believe this is the exact reason they so very much want this technology on phones and in cars.
Maybe they got the idea from TV, if you want to go there, but the idea being on TV doesn't automatically make it impossible.
Why solicit my opinion at all? Why is this my (or Google's) problem?
I grew up in the 80s under that same concept as well: "equality means everyone is treated equally"
But again, we're in a different world today. The fresh crop feels that a special status called 'privilege' exists, and that anyone who even tangentially benefits from that status is less of a person because of it.
And in fact, they probably don't realize what a piece of shit they actually are, until they shed their 'privilege' and join the war against the machine.
Or something.
These are the kinds of people who wonder why too few Google employees have thrown themselves off cliffs in order to bring the gender gap down.
I doubt they'd ever recognize "earned".
I had one just the other day telling me that being able to succeed in IT meant I had "won the genetic lottery". So my career isn't my doing, it was my genes.
S'alright, she's more autistic than me, too. :)
A tiny bit of research shows most women decided to study something other than tech after high school. So there's a cause closer to the root right there.
If Google/Yahoo is supposed to hire qualified workers and only 20% of tech grads are women, how do they get their number higher than 20%?
Further if the decision is between a man with a tech degree and a woman without a tech degree, all else held equal, why is it appropriate to select the woman?
But no, no, facts be damned, it's the toxic environment. Go with that.
Along these lines I've suggested my wife change to IT many, many times. She's smarter than I am and would be better at it, I'd think. Then we could both be making double her salary, instead of just me.
She won't bite. There's just no passion there, for her.
I think your definition of "massive fucking problem" is different than the one commonly used.
Where are the women who aren't getting the tech jobs they want? If they're rallying in the streets, the news sure isn't covering it.
No, I suspect this is just another chapter in the Millenials' war on 'privilege'.
The judge is considering the needs of an individual, and attempting to find a way to protect him/her/it, for reasons that are private to that individual - and I hope shall forever remain private to that individual - from juggernaut corporations who have basically become a small monopoly in what was an open, equal-footing system
Isn't the better remedy to remove the web content, though, rather than the search results leading to the content?
Aren't they shooting the messenger?