This may be an unpopular opinion, but I'm not sure where bias even enters into it.
Isn't the point of any algorithm to make a choice? Like "this face matches sample A to a larger degree than it matches any other sample", in the case of a facial recognition algorithm? If so, then shouldn't the one and only criteria be "does this algorithm, as it is programmed, return the most correct answer with the highest probability and lowest probability of false positives?"
Now, if the data/choices the algorithm uses/makes causes a HUMAN to act in a discriminatory manner, shouldn't the bias be considered on the part of that human?
Example: Algorithm says "based on my data, Asians are 80% less likely to buy anything in this store than other demographics are", and human decides to bar Asians from their store or to have their sales staff pay less attention to Asian customers who enter the store, I blame the human that made that decision.
Counterexample: Algorithm says "based on my data, Asians are 80% less likely to buy anything in this store than other demographics are", and there's an automated system that uses this analysis as a basis to bar Asians from the store, or treat them differently once they're in the store, then that's a systematic issue and is indeed a problem with the automated system - but not necessarily with the original analysis algorithm.
They're either finding customers for these bundles (in which case I agree with you - they're free to carry on), or they won't find customers, the service will be unprofitable, and it'll fold, in which case the whole thing becomes a non-issue.
I'd be curious to see the results of that journalism, though!
That's not correct. It is an over-the-internet service. From the linked article: "Like other OTT services, TVision Home requires an existing wired broadband connection".
I hear you and I'm not saying you're wrong hoping that companies will do so (or wanting them to do so). But the reality is that they're corporations, and will most likely concentrate on whatever is going to make them the most profit. Until it's more profitable to fix the actual problems than it is to do other stuff, they won't fix 'em. It's unfortunate, but it's a fact of life.
More likely, they do understand but just don't care. As long as the masses are willing to pay large amounts for bundled entertainment, perhaps because that's a good deal easier than any other option, the companies will continue to make lots of profit. And that's the only thing they care about.
I gotta agree with the AC here. If your SSL cert is invalid, then you're the one teaching people to proceed to unsafe as muscle memory reaction, unless you're the only one using that site.
If you are the only one using the site, you're expecting a browser customization to make your life less annoying by allowing you to disable a feature that benefits most users. The Big G ain't gonna do that.
Because I don't feel like having 10 different places to go to manage it if I ever decide to change things, or have my CC bill 10x as long when I look through it. Yes, I actually audit my CC bill to make sure there's nothing funny on there.
I agree with your analysis 100%! It just seems to me that the first one to give consumers what they want at a reasonable price will be wildly successful.
Why oh why does Google think that they know better than everyone? Give a warning, sure, and then let the user decide. Just the same way it handles an HTTP page vs an HTTPS page.
Do you seriously think this offends me even a little, or that anyone with a brain reads your reply and thinks "oh, yeah, I agreed with that flippy guy at first, but once an AC called him a faggot, now I don't?"
Actually, they know _exactly_ that you want TV a la carte -- the thing is they don't care. What are you going to do? They know they have you over a barrel.
A few piddly people "cutting the cord" isn't going to get them to stop.
If people were smart they would **cooperatively organize** a month of no cable / streaming to send a message. But they won't so nothing will change with licensing shenanigans like this.
What I'm going to do is exactly what I've been doing - refusing to subscribe to / pay for such services, until they're willing to offer me what I want. I vote with my wallet.
They can't because they have no incentive to do so. I'd actually be willing to pay a bit more if I got to choose.
If a channel needs to be subsidized to survive, that channel has no place in the commercial environment. If it's truly something that's needed for society or for the public discourse, let it move to PBS.
the argument then morphs to "this wouldn't have occurred if the government didn't grant the ISPs monopolies". It's a strange point to make because it mostly talks about what should have been done YEARS and YEARS ago but not what should be down NOW. Just because something was born out of a flawed process doesn't mean you should surrender to making improvements.
How about not surrendering to the idea that the flawed original idea (granting the ISPs monopolies) is permanent and that we can't fix that?
It's not popular, in the sense that consumers want it. It's just that no one is offering an alternative, other than subscribing to a bunch of different smaller services resulting in a bunch of smaller bills every month.
I'd gladly pay $50/month in a single bill if I got to choose what I got - but no one seems interested in providing that.
Give me an option where I can choose exactly what channels I want, and exclude the channels I don't want, and I'll be more than happy to pay for it.
I want a single place where I can have a single bill, not 17 monthly bills from 17 different services. I don't even care if the cost is the same. I want the simplilcity.
I think the AC is implying that if votes were secret, then the politicians would be inclined to vote their conscience (against the big donors) even after taking giant bags of cash from those same donors.
Slashdot Mirror
This may be an unpopular opinion, but I'm not sure where bias even enters into it.
Isn't the point of any algorithm to make a choice? Like "this face matches sample A to a larger degree than it matches any other sample", in the case of a facial recognition algorithm? If so, then shouldn't the one and only criteria be "does this algorithm, as it is programmed, return the most correct answer with the highest probability and lowest probability of false positives?"
Now, if the data/choices the algorithm uses/makes causes a HUMAN to act in a discriminatory manner, shouldn't the bias be considered on the part of that human?
Example: Algorithm says "based on my data, Asians are 80% less likely to buy anything in this store than other demographics are", and human decides to bar Asians from their store or to have their sales staff pay less attention to Asian customers who enter the store, I blame the human that made that decision.
Counterexample: Algorithm says "based on my data, Asians are 80% less likely to buy anything in this store than other demographics are", and there's an automated system that uses this analysis as a basis to bar Asians from the store, or treat them differently once they're in the store, then that's a systematic issue and is indeed a problem with the automated system - but not necessarily with the original analysis algorithm.
They're either finding customers for these bundles (in which case I agree with you - they're free to carry on), or they won't find customers, the service will be unprofitable, and it'll fold, in which case the whole thing becomes a non-issue.
I'd be curious to see the results of that journalism, though!
That's not correct. It is an over-the-internet service. From the linked article: "Like other OTT services, TVision Home requires an existing wired broadband connection".
I think the point of the article was that the hotels weren't trying to share the information, they leaked it by accident.
Yeah, they're that bad. They do the exact same thing with set-top boxes.
I hear you and I'm not saying you're wrong hoping that companies will do so (or wanting them to do so). But the reality is that they're corporations, and will most likely concentrate on whatever is going to make them the most profit. Until it's more profitable to fix the actual problems than it is to do other stuff, they won't fix 'em. It's unfortunate, but it's a fact of life.
More likely, they do understand but just don't care. As long as the masses are willing to pay large amounts for bundled entertainment, perhaps because that's a good deal easier than any other option, the companies will continue to make lots of profit. And that's the only thing they care about.
There isn't such an assumption. The original post is about an internet-based TV service, not about a bundle of internet service and TV service.
lol I'll gladly own that weirdo label!
I gotta agree with the AC here. If your SSL cert is invalid, then you're the one teaching people to proceed to unsafe as muscle memory reaction, unless you're the only one using that site.
If you are the only one using the site, you're expecting a browser customization to make your life less annoying by allowing you to disable a feature that benefits most users. The Big G ain't gonna do that.
They're welcome to it! When I tire of the entertainment I get from poking at them, I'll stop poking at them ;)
Because I don't feel like having 10 different places to go to manage it if I ever decide to change things, or have my CC bill 10x as long when I look through it. Yes, I actually audit my CC bill to make sure there's nothing funny on there.
I agree with your analysis 100%! It just seems to me that the first one to give consumers what they want at a reasonable price will be wildly successful.
I might have a stalker troll. I've been poking at them a lot the last few days. The entertainment helps me get through my work day.
But, now that I can put your response into its proper context, well done. Read the right way, it did give me a chuckle.
100%. I get that they want to try to protect people from their own mistakes, but just outright disallowing stuff isn't the way to do that.
Have you not yet learned from experience? I enjoy poking at you. It's entertaining to me.
Why oh why does Google think that they know better than everyone? Give a warning, sure, and then let the user decide. Just the same way it handles an HTTP page vs an HTTPS page.
Do you seriously think this offends me even a little, or that anyone with a brain reads your reply and thinks "oh, yeah, I agreed with that flippy guy at first, but once an AC called him a faggot, now I don't?"
Actually, they know _exactly_ that you want TV a la carte -- the thing is they don't care. What are you going to do? They know they have you over a barrel.
A few piddly people "cutting the cord" isn't going to get them to stop.
If people were smart they would **cooperatively organize** a month of no cable / streaming to send a message. But they won't so nothing will change with licensing shenanigans like this.
What I'm going to do is exactly what I've been doing - refusing to subscribe to / pay for such services, until they're willing to offer me what I want. I vote with my wallet.
They can't because they have no incentive to do so. I'd actually be willing to pay a bit more if I got to choose.
If a channel needs to be subsidized to survive, that channel has no place in the commercial environment. If it's truly something that's needed for society or for the public discourse, let it move to PBS.
the argument then morphs to "this wouldn't have occurred if the government didn't grant the ISPs monopolies". It's a strange point to make because it mostly talks about what should have been done YEARS and YEARS ago but not what should be down NOW. Just because something was born out of a flawed process doesn't mean you should surrender to making improvements.
How about not surrendering to the idea that the flawed original idea (granting the ISPs monopolies) is permanent and that we can't fix that?
It's not popular, in the sense that consumers want it. It's just that no one is offering an alternative, other than subscribing to a bunch of different smaller services resulting in a bunch of smaller bills every month.
I'd gladly pay $50/month in a single bill if I got to choose what I got - but no one seems interested in providing that.
These companies just don't get it, do they?
Give me an option where I can choose exactly what channels I want, and exclude the channels I don't want, and I'll be more than happy to pay for it.
I want a single place where I can have a single bill, not 17 monthly bills from 17 different services. I don't even care if the cost is the same. I want the simplilcity.
I think the AC is implying that if votes were secret, then the politicians would be inclined to vote their conscience (against the big donors) even after taking giant bags of cash from those same donors.
I'm also pretty sure that notion is laughable.
LOL yeah but sometimes it's fun to poke at them and let them show how monumentally incapable of making an actual point they are.