Really? (Alex Jones: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver)
Although based on the phrase "African American" it sound to me like you have strong us-vs-them "enemy" point of view that you have incorporated into your identity and are unable and unwilling to change.
Add to that the well document FACT that transgendered people commit suicide at a far greater rate than the average person...
Comparing against "average person" (assuming whole population either including or excluding transgender people) is in absolutely no way a valid comparison. In this case men in age military service versus transgender of same age should be compared (ignoring biases introduced by all men versus those that join the military, etc).
According to CDC suicide for men all ages is "just" 2.5% while for ages 15-34 is between 16-20%. And suicide rates for men are much higher than for women. So "average person" rates are extremely misleading.
You left out an very important factor here. Mobile phone software become obsolete because the manufacturer does not bother to update it any longer. If however you are able to repair it yourself by updating the software this would then be less of a problem. And in fact this is the case, I am running the very latest Android 7.1 release though LineageOS on a older tablet.
This is where such a law would works, BUT, it would make those handset much more expensive: the software development costs would skyrocket, and as such the handset makers will have to charge more.
...
In summary: a law like this will ensure that your devices will double or triple in price.
You seem to have little knowledge of software development. How much expensive do you think phones become by making the bootloader unlockable and providing some basic device configuration information?
Take a step back and consider the role of politicians in the society.
Should politicians set minimum requirements for safety on products instead of just letting the companies themselves decide how safe they want to make their products? Yes, of course. Even if it could make some products more expensive? Yes.
Should politicians set minimum requirements for energy efficiency on products (e.g. cars/vacuum cleaners) instead of just letting the companies themselves decide how efficient they want to make their products? Yes, of course. Even if it could make some products more expensive? Yes.
Should politicians set minimum requirements for repairability on products instead of just letting the companies themselves decide how easy to repair (if at all!) they want to make their products? Yes, of course. Even if it could make some products more expensive? Yes.
Problem is you will always get the rationalists bleating on
Ahh, now I finally understand AmiMoJo. Being rational is a negative in your opinion.
It seems to me that you are either intentionally misunderstanding or actually do not (want to) understand. Let's face it: all people are both rational and irrational. I am, you are, AmiMoJo is, everybody is. For instance, the rational thing is to treat one's body well and both eat healthy and exercise enough. Yet most people do not do that. Because for whatever "irrational" reason people choose not to. My understanding of AmiMoJo's complaints about rationalists is about people for instance claiming that eating healthy and exercising is just a rational choice.
Or, to address the giant irrationalism elephant in the room: humans have an extremely irrational relation to fear. I do, you do, everyone does. Example: when you ask people what they fear most in their life, death comes on second place! Think about that for a moment, what could possibly be worse than that? Well, guess what, the answer is public speaking. Is that a rational rank? And people spend an irrational amount of effort worrying over things that never will happen. Some people fear flying, even though that is actually one of the safest modes of travel and the rational thing would be to rather fear getting to and from the airport which is magnitudes more dangerous. If someone claims that people fearing flying should just be rational about it, that is a problem. Are you such a person?
Actually, this does happen. Look into what has happened with acid rain the last couple of decades. USA has seen a significant reduction and Europe has seen a massive reduction. This is the result of dedicated political effort into solving this problem. Has it been easy? Of course not. Is the problem gone? No it is not. Has this been free or cheap? No, there have been costs involved for this, including losing jobs for someone, which have had to be spread onto multiple receivers, some possibly unfairly hit. But just because a 100% perfect and fair solution is not possible does not mean that we should not try to do our best.
Of course you have a point in that this is by no means a simple problem, and to some degree possibly unsolvable due to human nature. But framing this as a
problem consisting of individual actions is missing the point. Both that industry is a much bigger contributor to pollution than consumers, and that solutions have to be political, giving incentives for wanted behaviour and punishment for unwanted behaviour. Of course that is much simpler in theory than in practice, but that is no excuse for not trying.
Because when engineers had found this safe, non-toxic and stable gas they and the industry were all like hurray, let's use this like crazy because there are no negative consequences. Until many years later scientists start discovering that while locally, CFC is harmless enough, but on global scale it is very negative for the ozone layer.
And it's not because the engineers were careless, stupid or did not care. They genuinely believed that CFC was a safe and harmless product. It was just because no one thought about the potential connection with the ozone layer (and granted, CFC were discovered before the basic physical and chemical processes that lead to the formation of an ozone layer). And while if CFC turned out to be relatively harmless locally, it's not like history is lacking examples of products that are initially considered safe, only to later be discovered to be anything but.
There is exactly zero chance that similar oh, we did not think of that issues will pop up for attempts to "positively" modify the earth's climate on global scale.
The core of the problem is that humans are polluting. We should stop polluting.
The algorithms themselves are actually the least important aspect. As I have said before, even if the algorithms are 100% open and transparent, that means nothing if the data feed into them is poor. If the bank uses an algorithm to determine if it want to lend money to you, how is the data about you collected? Who decided to classify you as a say medium risk person? What cirterias did he/she/they use for that? How thorogh were he/she/they in gathering decition material? What did he/she/they miss/ignore/misunderstood?
Unless there is full and complete transparency and accountability for data collection, the transparency for just the algorithms is without value.
Trying to come up with an exact definition of socialism is a completely meaningless exercise. Let me explain why.
If you look at a world wide religion like Christianity, how uniform is that religion? Not very much actually. There are the catholic, protestant, orthodox, baptists churches, salvation army, and countless other divisions within and outside of what I already mentioned. Some things are fairly common but then they differ somewhat or fundamentally on other things. There are even some groups that claim they are Christian, but are so different that most other Christians would not include them (Are they Christian then? Depends on who you ask.). It should be fairly obvious that trying to come up with an exact definition of what it means to be a Christian is a completely meaningless exercise.
By the way, the same diversity applies to Islam as a world wide religion also. If you only know that someone is Muslim, you know virtually nothing about their practice of religion (in addition to the fact that most people living in mostly Christian countries knows next to nothing about Islam as a religion (or Buddhism, Hinduism, etc)).
So I started by analysing diversity in religion, but it should be relative clear that the same applies to a world wide political movement/idea/whatever classification to put on socialism. It is impossible to give any meaningful definition of socialism that is not very generic and vague (at which point it has very little weight and substance).
So please stop trying to define socialism exactly in a discussion. It is a bad idea. Let's kill it.
I don't have any good predictions for the year 2047 on that subject.
Really? Why not? Because you claim today, with absolute certainty, that the Armenian genocide is non-relevant information (because of age). If that is a valid argument then it must be universally applicable. When you argue "if event X if older than Y years then it is non-relevant information" you cannot cherry pick values for X for which the argument should be true and "uncertain" for others. There are no reasons why that argument should not be applicable for the Nazi's killing of jews, Stalin's killing of Gulag prisoners, or other historic events if it is a valid argument.
It is not a valid argument, which is why I pick on it to expose it as such. Deep in your heart you know this as well I assume. I find it sadly disturbing that instead of admitting this you choose to try to deflect and thereby not agreeing on that calling the Nazi killing of jews during WW2 non-relevant information (when discussing history) will never be acceptable.
The (implicit) argument "nothing can be predicted about the future" is not valid either. Of course many things are difficult or impossible to predict about the future, but not everything. Example: I claim today that a man that never admits mistakes is a dishonest man, and I will most certainly continue to do so in 2047 as well.
I do not understand why you engage the way you do. Could you help me understand by trying to explain what you lay down as problem and cause for your action?
What is the problem?
...
What is the cause?
...
What is the solution?
Emotionally engage in advocating that the Armenian genocide can be ignored.
Thank you very much for your post. You are making the world a better place by showing that admitting mistakes is not such a big deal that unfortunately some people make it. Again, thank you.
That was a complete non-answer not even remotely related to what I asked for. Will you in 2047 start classifying the Nazi killing of jews during WW2 as "non-relevant information" because the condition "100 years passed" is true?
Have you not called for
nottalkingabout
the Armenian genocide several times?
But people who weren't alive and making decisions at the time are innocent of what happened. They should be free from dealing with it if they choose.
The first sentence is a truly valid argument. Although not very relevant. Because the question is not whether people living today are responsible for things that happened 100 years ago (of course they are not), but the question is how people are dealing with the history they have inherited from their ancestors. No one is free to ignore history.
Compared to the above two, Armenian massacre is small.
You are making up a false dilemma here. If is not either the two examples you gave or the Armenian massacre, is is both.
All wrongdoings by any country should be openly discussed, be it Japanese war crimes during WW2, human rights violations by the CIA, the Bosnian genocide, etc. Trying to downplay any such event as "not important" or "not as bad as something else" is being dishonest and respectless.
Leg me tell you what the big deal is by "not bothering to say". In the very best case, it will be a passive aggressive way of denying that it happened. Denying what happened is being dishonest. A man or a country that never admits mistakes is a dishonest man or country. Why do you not care about honesty?
doesn't support digging up 100-year-old grievances to use against people who weren't alive 100 years ago.
That argument is invalid. The mass killing of jews by the Nazis happened over 70 years ago. Are you saying that 30 years from now talking about that should stop?
Slashdot Mirror
Pai said .. protect consumers, ..
But in his mind, FCC's customers to serve are corporations.
Really? (Alex Jones: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver)
Although based on the phrase "African American" it sound to me like you have strong us-vs-them "enemy" point of view that you have incorporated into your identity and are unable and unwilling to change.
"Data can be useful or anonymous, but never both" - Paul Ohm
And Paul is not just anyone, he has done a lot of research and publications about privacy.
This does not come as a surprise for anyone that has not ignored privacy issues the last couple of decades. There are countless examples of the fallacy of we can just "anonymize" data and then there are no longer any privacy problems, like AOL search data leak, 87% of USA's population is uniquely identified by birth date, sex and postal number/zip code (backstory), etc.
But the p-values, why does not the summary mention the p-values?
Add to that the well document FACT that transgendered people commit suicide at a far greater rate than the average person ...
Comparing against "average person" (assuming whole population either including or excluding transgender people) is in absolutely no way a valid comparison. In this case men in age military service versus transgender of same age should be compared (ignoring biases introduced by all men versus those that join the military, etc).
According to CDC suicide for men all ages is "just" 2.5% while for ages 15-34 is between 16-20%. And suicide rates for men are much higher than for women. So "average person" rates are extremely misleading.
Cellphones become obsolete due to software
You left out an very important factor here. Mobile phone software become obsolete because the manufacturer does not bother to update it any longer. If however you are able to repair it yourself by updating the software this would then be less of a problem. And in fact this is the case, I am running the very latest Android 7.1 release though LineageOS on a older tablet.
This is where such a law would works, BUT, it would make those handset much more expensive: the software development costs would skyrocket, and as such the handset makers will have to charge more.
In summary: a law like this will ensure that your devices will double or triple in price.
You seem to have little knowledge of software development. How much expensive do you think phones become by making the bootloader unlockable and providing some basic device configuration information?
Take a step back and consider the role of politicians in the society.
Should politicians set minimum requirements for safety on products instead of just letting the companies themselves decide how safe they want to make their products? Yes, of course. Even if it could make some products more expensive? Yes.
Should politicians set minimum requirements for energy efficiency on products (e.g. cars/vacuum cleaners) instead of just letting the companies themselves decide how efficient they want to make their products? Yes, of course. Even if it could make some products more expensive? Yes.
Should politicians set minimum requirements for repairability on products instead of just letting the companies themselves decide how easy to repair (if at all!) they want to make their products? Yes, of course. Even if it could make some products more expensive? Yes.
Problem is you will always get the rationalists bleating on
Ahh, now I finally understand AmiMoJo. Being rational is a negative in your opinion.
It seems to me that you are either intentionally misunderstanding or actually do not (want to) understand. Let's face it: all people are both rational and irrational. I am, you are, AmiMoJo is, everybody is. For instance, the rational thing is to treat one's body well and both eat healthy and exercise enough. Yet most people do not do that. Because for whatever "irrational" reason people choose not to. My understanding of AmiMoJo's complaints about rationalists is about people for instance claiming that eating healthy and exercising is just a rational choice.
Or, to address the giant irrationalism elephant in the room: humans have an extremely irrational relation to fear. I do, you do, everyone does. Example: when you ask people what they fear most in their life, death comes on second place! Think about that for a moment, what could possibly be worse than that? Well, guess what, the answer is public speaking. Is that a rational rank? And people spend an irrational amount of effort worrying over things that never will happen. Some people fear flying, even though that is actually one of the safest modes of travel and the rational thing would be to rather fear getting to and from the airport which is magnitudes more dangerous. If someone claims that people fearing flying should just be rational about it, that is a problem. Are you such a person?
Yeeeeah, never going to happen.
Actually, this does happen. Look into what has happened with acid rain the last couple of decades. USA has seen a significant reduction and Europe has seen a massive reduction. This is the result of dedicated political effort into solving this problem. Has it been easy? Of course not. Is the problem gone? No it is not. Has this been free or cheap? No, there have been costs involved for this, including losing jobs for someone, which have had to be spread onto multiple receivers, some possibly unfairly hit. But just because a 100% perfect and fair solution is not possible does not mean that we should not try to do our best.
Of course you have a point in that this is by no means a simple problem, and to some degree possibly unsolvable due to human nature. But framing this as a problem consisting of individual actions is missing the point. Both that industry is a much bigger contributor to pollution than consumers, and that solutions have to be political, giving incentives for wanted behaviour and punishment for unwanted behaviour. Of course that is much simpler in theory than in practice, but that is no excuse for not trying.
Because when engineers had found this safe, non-toxic and stable gas they and the industry were all like hurray, let's use this like crazy because there are no negative consequences. Until many years later scientists start discovering that while locally, CFC is harmless enough, but on global scale it is very negative for the ozone layer.
And it's not because the engineers were careless, stupid or did not care. They genuinely believed that CFC was a safe and harmless product. It was just because no one thought about the potential connection with the ozone layer (and granted, CFC were discovered before the basic physical and chemical processes that lead to the formation of an ozone layer). And while if CFC turned out to be relatively harmless locally, it's not like history is lacking examples of products that are initially considered safe, only to later be discovered to be anything but.
There is exactly zero chance that similar oh, we did not think of that issues will pop up for attempts to "positively" modify the earth's climate on global scale.
The core of the problem is that humans are polluting. We should stop polluting.
The algorithms themselves are actually the least important aspect. As I have said before, even if the algorithms are 100% open and transparent, that means nothing if the data feed into them is poor. If the bank uses an algorithm to determine if it want to lend money to you, how is the data about you collected? Who decided to classify you as a say medium risk person? What cirterias did he/she/they use for that? How thorogh were he/she/they in gathering decition material? What did he/she/they miss/ignore/misunderstood?
Unless there is full and complete transparency and accountability for data collection, the transparency for just the algorithms is without value.
Trying to come up with an exact definition of democracy is a completely meaningless exercise.
So please stop trying to define democracy exactly in a discussion. It is a bad idea. Let's kill it.
What? How did you miss using "was" instead of "is" in your signature?
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!
-- Upton Sinclair
Trying to come up with an exact definition of socialism is a completely meaningless exercise. Let me explain why.
If you look at a world wide religion like Christianity, how uniform is that religion? Not very much actually. There are the catholic, protestant, orthodox, baptists churches, salvation army, and countless other divisions within and outside of what I already mentioned. Some things are fairly common but then they differ somewhat or fundamentally on other things. There are even some groups that claim they are Christian, but are so different that most other Christians would not include them (Are they Christian then? Depends on who you ask.). It should be fairly obvious that trying to come up with an exact definition of what it means to be a Christian is a completely meaningless exercise.
By the way, the same diversity applies to Islam as a world wide religion also. If you only know that someone is Muslim, you know virtually nothing about their practice of religion (in addition to the fact that most people living in mostly Christian countries knows next to nothing about Islam as a religion (or Buddhism, Hinduism, etc)).
So I started by analysing diversity in religion, but it should be relative clear that the same applies to a world wide political movement/idea/whatever classification to put on socialism. It is impossible to give any meaningful definition of socialism that is not very generic and vague (at which point it has very little weight and substance).
So please stop trying to define socialism exactly in a discussion. It is a bad idea. Let's kill it.
I don't have any good predictions for the year 2047 on that subject.
Really? Why not? Because you claim today, with absolute certainty, that the Armenian genocide is non-relevant information (because of age). If that is a valid argument then it must be universally applicable. When you argue "if event X if older than Y years then it is non-relevant information" you cannot cherry pick values for X for which the argument should be true and "uncertain" for others. There are no reasons why that argument should not be applicable for the Nazi's killing of jews, Stalin's killing of Gulag prisoners, or other historic events if it is a valid argument.
It is not a valid argument, which is why I pick on it to expose it as such. Deep in your heart you know this as well I assume. I find it sadly disturbing that instead of admitting this you choose to try to deflect and thereby not agreeing on that calling the Nazi killing of jews during WW2 non-relevant information (when discussing history) will never be acceptable.
The (implicit) argument "nothing can be predicted about the future" is not valid either. Of course many things are difficult or impossible to predict about the future, but not everything. Example: I claim today that a man that never admits mistakes is a dishonest man, and I will most certainly continue to do so in 2047 as well.
I do not understand why you engage the way you do. Could you help me understand by trying to explain what you lay down as problem and cause for your action?
What is the problem? ... What is the cause? ... What is the solution? Emotionally engage in advocating that the Armenian genocide can be ignored.Thank you very much for your post. You are making the world a better place by showing that admitting mistakes is not such a big deal that unfortunately some people make it. Again, thank you.
That was a complete non-answer not even remotely related to what I asked for. Will you in 2047 start classifying the Nazi killing of jews during WW2 as "non-relevant information" because the condition "100 years passed" is true?
I have taken no side.
Why are you not honest about you absolutely having taken a side?
No one called for "not talking about it".
Have you not called for not talking about the Armenian genocide several times?
But people who weren't alive and making decisions at the time are innocent of what happened. They should be free from dealing with it if they choose.
The first sentence is a truly valid argument. Although not very relevant. Because the question is not whether people living today are responsible for things that happened 100 years ago (of course they are not), but the question is how people are dealing with the history they have inherited from their ancestors. No one is free to ignore history.
So you are saying that 30 years from now, you will classify the Nazi killing of jews during WW2 as "non-relevant information" as well?
Exactly what criteria do you use to classify the Armenian genocide as "non-relevant information"?
Compared to the above two, Armenian massacre is small.
You are making up a false dilemma here. If is not either the two examples you gave or the Armenian massacre, is is both.
All wrongdoings by any country should be openly discussed, be it Japanese war crimes during WW2, human rights violations by the CIA, the Bosnian genocide, etc. Trying to downplay any such event as "not important" or "not as bad as something else" is being dishonest and respectless.
So where is the big deal in saying...
Where's the big deal in not bothering to say it?
Leg me tell you what the big deal is by "not bothering to say". In the very best case, it will be a passive aggressive way of denying that it happened. Denying what happened is being dishonest. A man or a country that never admits mistakes is a dishonest man or country. Why do you not care about honesty?
doesn't support digging up 100-year-old grievances to use against people who weren't alive 100 years ago.
That argument is invalid. The mass killing of jews by the Nazis happened over 70 years ago. Are you saying that 30 years from now talking about that should stop?
What you write resonates with the summary I just read at How trolls like Milo Yiannopoulos monetize your hate, and what to do about it. I have not read the book or heard the podcast yet, but they are both on my pending list.