Like the UK that just convicted someone of hate speech for rap lyrics from a Snap Dogg song she posted on Instagram to pay tribute to a boy who died in a car crash?
In this case the implication is clear. It is saying that representative training data exists, and that white male programmers purposefully choose training data that is not representative. Otherwise, this would be a straight criticism of the training data, where the race of the programmer (which, let's be honest, is just as likely to be Asian or Indian) didn't matter. Who makes the training data source? What's the available composition? It's a huge leap to 'white men are only picking pictures of other white men'.
People like you are the other side of the problem, excusing comments that clearly are calling white men racist/sexist when there's no cause. Keep it up, I'm sure it won't have any consequences say, 2 years from now.
IQ tests are an extremely small part of the picture. And you clearly are just repeating sjw propaganda and are unfamiliar with the actual research you're criticizing, or IQ tests in general let alone group comparisons. IQ tests weren't made to prove some people are subhuman, that's ridiculous (all tests show differences). You know the evil racist white men don't even score the highest right? And if the problems you described were significant, the test wouldn't have the same predictive power. And no matter what, one thing it doesn't predict is who is a good person.
But anyway, that's only one small point. There's all sorts of ways different groups, and sexes, are on average psychologically different, mostly in areas where you can't even make value judgements.
It's not racist because genetics stops at the neck. Claiming that somehow genes might influence how brains work, now that's just racist. And sexist. Any science that says any group might have a genetic variation resulting in a cognitive difference is racist and sexist, and any evidence saying that is just white male supremacy. But of course genetics influences physical differences.
(This stupidity is really what some people think, even some people here)
All of that is leading to not only an end to the sexual revolution, but back towards gender segregation.
-A lot of professional men won't take private meetings with female suborbinates, and forget any kind of business travel where it's a man and woman coworker. Some women have noticed this and tried to say "Don't avoid women just don't sexually harass!" after they so thoroughly obliterated the line that asking for confidence it won't be crossed by something innocuous is a joke.
-I can't imagine being a male on a college campus these days. Just about any alcohol is grounds for 'I was too drunk' (no matter how drunk the guy also is, he's always at fault*). 'Affirmative consent' is an absurd minefield 'Can i touch your breast now? Can I touch your butt now?'. Consent can be retroactively withdrawn years later. And it's guilt upon accusation with virtually no due process, judged by someones whose mandate is 'believe the victim no matter how many problems the story has', punished by expulsion, which is a major life destroying consequence. How long until college men avoid college women entirely?
-At first, #metoo exposed some awful perverts doing some awful stuff. But, surprising no one, people soon were getting their careers destroyed over incredibly trivial stuff, and vague recollections of things decades old. A lot of guys suddenly thinking Mike Pence doesn't seem so crazy after all with his 'never alone with a woman besides his wife' rule.
While I'm sure some of the rabidly man-hating women welcome it, I gotta think most women don't want a world where men and women are terrified of being alone with eachother. But it's still heresy to suggest any solution other than forcing men to walk blindly through the minefield.
*- My all time favorite case: A girl goes into a guys room, he's black out drunk and mostly unconscious. She proceeds to give him a blowjob. Texts her friends about it, confirming this version of events, then goes back out partying and gives another guy head. Almost 2 years later, *she* files a Title IX complaint against the blacked out dude, claiming that because she had had a couple beers, he had assaulted her. Despite seeing the texts confirming he just laid there passed out, he was found responsible for sexual misconduct and expelled (eventually, a judge in a real court overturned it). That's right, the college said he had sexually assaulted her by receiving oral sex while unconscious.
The religious right and SJWs have a lot more in common than anyone wants to admit. At least on this one I even think "its a sin" is better than "because you're being exploited no matter what you say".. Empowering women right up until they make a 'bad' choice, then its 'we're stopping this for your own good' just like the right.
SAS: It's been decades coming. Broke down into small phases, with only Phase 1 completed and absolutely no target for even starting on Phase 2. Phase 1 was $500m over budget and totaled $4.5bn, for only 3 new stations, when a good portion of the tunneling was already done decades ago.
7 train extension: An single extra station that hardly anyone uses (watch at 42nd st, on a packed rush hour car maybe 1-2 people continue to hudson yards); with the plan for a 2nd station axed, an even more useful plan to extend to NJ axed, 2 years late, at a cost of $2.4 billion for that single station.
L train: Nothing new is getting built (they're not even making the stations handicap accessible while they're shut down), and it's shaping up to be a shitshow of epic proportions, because they just had to go with the full shutdown options.
Rebuilds: The ones already in progress had such serious cost overruns the others scheduled have been postponed indefinitely.
Just to be pedantic and make a point of fact (hey, after all it's/. if there's a place to be pedantic it's here), the amount of cocaine at the highest levels was only 9mg per glass, and oral bioavailability is very very low, so it's FAR below the level that would cause addiction, much less physical addiction (it's mainly psychological, physical requires a huge habit).
A conspiracy theory involving dozens of police from several different agencies all knowingly and without knowledge leaking allowing someone to go on a shooting rampage in a highschool is modded +4 Interesting and Insightful? You have got to be kidding me. This is the kind of bullshit they put on InfoWars.
And another big fat [citation needed] on Fast & Furious being motivated by helping gun control (a program, by the way, started under George W. Bush in 2006).
That this isn't modded down or at least Funny makes me more disappointed in the direction the comments section here is heading more than anything else, and there's heavy competition, even though I do agree that violence is way down and our government is becoming a hostile occupying force, not to mention fully support the 2nd.
With alcohol, if you go back to Prohibition, it teaches that trying to take the right away by force of law will actually result in more death than just letting people have the right. This is a lesson we've sadly forgotten, as both right and left cheer for longer sentences, torturing pain patients and keeping them bedridden- sometimes ending in suicide, and the massive spike in overdose deaths from black market substitutes all so that we could "do something" about opiates being overprescribed in a medical setting. People have forgotten that not only does having a right require paying a price, but taking rights away can have an even steeper price.
99% of criminals fall into the 'dumb ones' category. They will use whatever is default and even if their interest in something more secure was piqued, they couldn't get the other dumb criminals they talk to about their crimes to go along with it. So whether encryption is unbreakable by default actually does have huge significance to law enforcement. It still should be since that's by far outweighed by the privacy benefit to non-criminals, but as out of touch/. is with normal people, it pales in comparison to how far removed from typical criminals it is, and there seems to be this mistaken belief that the percentage of criminals that will "just" set up a secure alternative to bad defaults is in some way significant.
Just to make sure you're ideologically consistent, you support businesses being able to refuse service based on race too right? The cake maker could refuse a cake for an interracial wedding too? Don't forget, we have had laws against that in the past, so it being a deeply held conviction is possible.
It absolutely is a free speech issue. What it's not is a 1st Amendment issue. But it's rapidly becoming one, even though we're talking about private entities. The government threatens ruinous investigations, forcing self-censorship (following the news this week?), that's a valid 1A issue.
Like SESTA being passed 97-2 in the Senate, this is a massively bipartisan attack on liberty. The campaign against Backpage in particular was predominantly led by Kamala Harris, the (D) CA AG (now Senator), who is a hero to the progressive left, who fully supports this nonsense just as strongly as the religious right (for different reasons, but the outcome is the same: women are not permitted to make this choice). There's a laundry list of things to pin on the right, but like the surveillance state and war on drugs, this massive violation of liberty is brought to you by bipartisan consensus because both (D) and (R) are branches of the Authoritarian Party.
They all voted for it. 388-25 in the House and 97-2 in the Senate. Despite opposition from every stakeholder on both the internet and sex trafficking advocacy side. Good luck tearing down the anti-freedom supermajority.
But it was an improvement over not having such a service. You're spewing LE propaganda and obviously have zero contact with the population you're talking about nor any clue whatsoever about this topic.
The answers of the people you're talking about are delusional, and your assessment of them is correct? Right. Just because *you* don't know doesn't mean other people don't either. The researchers who surveyed hundreds of sex workers, the groups working with the street level drug abusing ones (whom I know a number of personally)... they know. What you describe is fantasy. It's a tiny minority, and pretending otherwise is maintaining ignorance to promote propaganda. And it's harmful. People like you hurt this at risk population. You are what my thread is about. And what about Lawrence Taylor? Sincerely doubt it was a girl younger than late teens or being held against her will.
Wow, someone has listened to too much LE propaganda. There's a lot of drug abuse for sure, but 'pimp beatings' and sex slavery? You're delusional. That's a tiny, tiny minority. It turns out, most men aren't evil, and if they encountered an abused or imprisoned women when paying for sex, they're not going to ignore it. And even doubting prohibition isn't exacerbating the problems like that is even more deluded. Talk to any sex worker, Backpage et al. let them get away from people like pimps. Go beyond that, look at the recent survery of sex workers, your perception is wildly different from the reality as described by the people you're talking about.
As is the notion that the FBI has no choice in this; you have any idea how much they don't bother enforcing? Backpage was made a priority political target. Progressive hero Kamala Harris led the charge.
So they get to send the message that they're doing something even though it won't actually do anything AND stomp on the smaller entity with unpopular views? Win Win.
It doesn't make the "shopping" portion harder because LE is lying through it's teeth about there being child sex trafficking on Backpage. The reality is there were a few 16-17 year olds, voluntarily engaged-- even when nobody else is involved in any way, they're still labeled as 'trafficked', pretending to be over 18. In cases where police suspected that was the case, Backpage was very cooperative in helping to locate the individual, so this actually makes those 'children' less likely to be tracked down as the market is forced farther underground where no such cooperation will be forthcoming. It should make you uneasy at every level, not only because of the obscene overreach, but because absolutely no one is made safer by this, and a lot of people are made less safe.
This is about punishing adult prostitution full stop. And it's going to make both providers and clients less safe (as every organization actually representing sex workers makes clear), and make it harder to track down the very small number of coerced women and slightly underage teenagers (they deliberately use language to make you think of actual children, not the 16-17 year olds doing it themselves, who are already legal for non-paid sex in 31 states, that make up 99.9999% of 'child sex trafficking victims' on backpage-- it's not that this is ok, but it's hardly the same as under 12 as the language implies), where Backpage was very helpful in assisting LE.
But that's the point. To the right, selling sex is an immoral sin. To the left, any woman that chooses prostitution is suddenly without agency, and therefore being exploited, her opinion on it being irrelevant. Either way, it's not a decision that an adult should be free to make. So they punish these human moral failures by increasing suffering all around, all while grandstanding about how they're "saving" people when in fact they're doing the opposite. It's the same exact thing as the drug war. You take a dangerous activity that's conducted among consenting adults, prohibit it by force of law, and in doing so "send the message" that you stand against it and are fighting it, but you're actually greatly increasing the harm instead of decreasing it.
It's called sadomoralism, and the left and right are both guilty of it, just with different justifications and trappings around the edges. No matter how many people you lock up, you're never going to stop it, and by going that route, you maximize the harm. But of course, regulating such things in a manner that actually reduces the harm means accepting that some people can then engage in the activity without being able to punish them for it-- and that's too high a price to pay no matter how devastating the alternative, whether it's hard drugs or prostitution, and whether you're talking about team (R) or team (D); because a utopia where drug abuse and prostitution vanish from the earth forever can always be achieved if we just refuse to give in and punish a little more.
Until they're teens, letting them go out and play in the neighborhood is now risking having CPS and the police show up, charge you with neglect, and take your kids. Ask the Metievs, who thought letting their kids walk 2 blocks to the park (at the same age you and I likely had run of the neighborhood) would be good for them. Police and CPS disagreed. Utah just passed a law to clarify that letting kids walk places wasn't neglect, in response to all these ridiculous incidents where busybodies call 911 to report kids not being hovered over, and instead of recognizing there's no issue, CPS gets involved. Free play around town is a freedom todays kids no longer have, until they're so old it holds no interest anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Like the UK that just convicted someone of hate speech for rap lyrics from a Snap Dogg song she posted on Instagram to pay tribute to a boy who died in a car crash?
In this case the implication is clear. It is saying that representative training data exists, and that white male programmers purposefully choose training data that is not representative. Otherwise, this would be a straight criticism of the training data, where the race of the programmer (which, let's be honest, is just as likely to be Asian or Indian) didn't matter. Who makes the training data source? What's the available composition? It's a huge leap to 'white men are only picking pictures of other white men'.
People like you are the other side of the problem, excusing comments that clearly are calling white men racist/sexist when there's no cause. Keep it up, I'm sure it won't have any consequences say, 2 years from now.
IQ tests are an extremely small part of the picture. And you clearly are just repeating sjw propaganda and are unfamiliar with the actual research you're criticizing, or IQ tests in general let alone group comparisons. IQ tests weren't made to prove some people are subhuman, that's ridiculous (all tests show differences). You know the evil racist white men don't even score the highest right? And if the problems you described were significant, the test wouldn't have the same predictive power. And no matter what, one thing it doesn't predict is who is a good person.
But anyway, that's only one small point. There's all sorts of ways different groups, and sexes, are on average psychologically different, mostly in areas where you can't even make value judgements.
It's not racist because genetics stops at the neck. Claiming that somehow genes might influence how brains work, now that's just racist. And sexist. Any science that says any group might have a genetic variation resulting in a cognitive difference is racist and sexist, and any evidence saying that is just white male supremacy. But of course genetics influences physical differences.
(This stupidity is really what some people think, even some people here)
And the Democrats could have filibustered it had they not been wildly in favor of it.
All of that is leading to not only an end to the sexual revolution, but back towards gender segregation.
-A lot of professional men won't take private meetings with female suborbinates, and forget any kind of business travel where it's a man and woman coworker. Some women have noticed this and tried to say "Don't avoid women just don't sexually harass!" after they so thoroughly obliterated the line that asking for confidence it won't be crossed by something innocuous is a joke.
-I can't imagine being a male on a college campus these days. Just about any alcohol is grounds for 'I was too drunk' (no matter how drunk the guy also is, he's always at fault*). 'Affirmative consent' is an absurd minefield 'Can i touch your breast now? Can I touch your butt now?'. Consent can be retroactively withdrawn years later. And it's guilt upon accusation with virtually no due process, judged by someones whose mandate is 'believe the victim no matter how many problems the story has', punished by expulsion, which is a major life destroying consequence. How long until college men avoid college women entirely?
-At first, #metoo exposed some awful perverts doing some awful stuff. But, surprising no one, people soon were getting their careers destroyed over incredibly trivial stuff, and vague recollections of things decades old. A lot of guys suddenly thinking Mike Pence doesn't seem so crazy after all with his 'never alone with a woman besides his wife' rule.
While I'm sure some of the rabidly man-hating women welcome it, I gotta think most women don't want a world where men and women are terrified of being alone with eachother. But it's still heresy to suggest any solution other than forcing men to walk blindly through the minefield.
*- My all time favorite case: A girl goes into a guys room, he's black out drunk and mostly unconscious. She proceeds to give him a blowjob. Texts her friends about it, confirming this version of events, then goes back out partying and gives another guy head. Almost 2 years later, *she* files a Title IX complaint against the blacked out dude, claiming that because she had had a couple beers, he had assaulted her. Despite seeing the texts confirming he just laid there passed out, he was found responsible for sexual misconduct and expelled (eventually, a judge in a real court overturned it). That's right, the college said he had sexually assaulted her by receiving oral sex while unconscious.
The religious right and SJWs have a lot more in common than anyone wants to admit. At least on this one I even think "its a sin" is better than "because you're being exploited no matter what you say".. Empowering women right up until they make a 'bad' choice, then its 'we're stopping this for your own good' just like the right.
I assume the same reason as everywhere else; because Jared got caught diddling kids and having an HD full of kiddie porn.
SAS: It's been decades coming. Broke down into small phases, with only Phase 1 completed and absolutely no target for even starting on Phase 2. Phase 1 was $500m over budget and totaled $4.5bn, for only 3 new stations, when a good portion of the tunneling was already done decades ago.
7 train extension: An single extra station that hardly anyone uses (watch at 42nd st, on a packed rush hour car maybe 1-2 people continue to hudson yards); with the plan for a 2nd station axed, an even more useful plan to extend to NJ axed, 2 years late, at a cost of $2.4 billion for that single station.
L train: Nothing new is getting built (they're not even making the stations handicap accessible while they're shut down), and it's shaping up to be a shitshow of epic proportions, because they just had to go with the full shutdown options.
Rebuilds: The ones already in progress had such serious cost overruns the others scheduled have been postponed indefinitely.
Yeah great progress.
Just to be pedantic and make a point of fact (hey, after all it's /. if there's a place to be pedantic it's here), the amount of cocaine at the highest levels was only 9mg per glass, and oral bioavailability is very very low, so it's FAR below the level that would cause addiction, much less physical addiction (it's mainly psychological, physical requires a huge habit).
A conspiracy theory involving dozens of police from several different agencies all knowingly and without knowledge leaking allowing someone to go on a shooting rampage in a highschool is modded +4 Interesting and Insightful? You have got to be kidding me. This is the kind of bullshit they put on InfoWars.
And another big fat [citation needed] on Fast & Furious being motivated by helping gun control (a program, by the way, started under George W. Bush in 2006).
That this isn't modded down or at least Funny makes me more disappointed in the direction the comments section here is heading more than anything else, and there's heavy competition, even though I do agree that violence is way down and our government is becoming a hostile occupying force, not to mention fully support the 2nd.
With alcohol, if you go back to Prohibition, it teaches that trying to take the right away by force of law will actually result in more death than just letting people have the right. This is a lesson we've sadly forgotten, as both right and left cheer for longer sentences, torturing pain patients and keeping them bedridden- sometimes ending in suicide, and the massive spike in overdose deaths from black market substitutes all so that we could "do something" about opiates being overprescribed in a medical setting. People have forgotten that not only does having a right require paying a price, but taking rights away can have an even steeper price.
99% of criminals fall into the 'dumb ones' category. They will use whatever is default and even if their interest in something more secure was piqued, they couldn't get the other dumb criminals they talk to about their crimes to go along with it. So whether encryption is unbreakable by default actually does have huge significance to law enforcement. It still should be since that's by far outweighed by the privacy benefit to non-criminals, but as out of touch /. is with normal people, it pales in comparison to how far removed from typical criminals it is, and there seems to be this mistaken belief that the percentage of criminals that will "just" set up a secure alternative to bad defaults is in some way significant.
Just to make sure you're ideologically consistent, you support businesses being able to refuse service based on race too right? The cake maker could refuse a cake for an interracial wedding too? Don't forget, we have had laws against that in the past, so it being a deeply held conviction is possible.
It absolutely is a free speech issue. What it's not is a 1st Amendment issue. But it's rapidly becoming one, even though we're talking about private entities. The government threatens ruinous investigations, forcing self-censorship (following the news this week?), that's a valid 1A issue.
Like SESTA being passed 97-2 in the Senate, this is a massively bipartisan attack on liberty. The campaign against Backpage in particular was predominantly led by Kamala Harris, the (D) CA AG (now Senator), who is a hero to the progressive left, who fully supports this nonsense just as strongly as the religious right (for different reasons, but the outcome is the same: women are not permitted to make this choice). There's a laundry list of things to pin on the right, but like the surveillance state and war on drugs, this massive violation of liberty is brought to you by bipartisan consensus because both (D) and (R) are branches of the Authoritarian Party.
They all voted for it. 388-25 in the House and 97-2 in the Senate. Despite opposition from every stakeholder on both the internet and sex trafficking advocacy side. Good luck tearing down the anti-freedom supermajority.
But it was an improvement over not having such a service. You're spewing LE propaganda and obviously have zero contact with the population you're talking about nor any clue whatsoever about this topic.
The answers of the people you're talking about are delusional, and your assessment of them is correct? Right. Just because *you* don't know doesn't mean other people don't either. The researchers who surveyed hundreds of sex workers, the groups working with the street level drug abusing ones (whom I know a number of personally)... they know. What you describe is fantasy. It's a tiny minority, and pretending otherwise is maintaining ignorance to promote propaganda. And it's harmful. People like you hurt this at risk population. You are what my thread is about. And what about Lawrence Taylor? Sincerely doubt it was a girl younger than late teens or being held against her will.
Wow, someone has listened to too much LE propaganda. There's a lot of drug abuse for sure, but 'pimp beatings' and sex slavery? You're delusional. That's a tiny, tiny minority. It turns out, most men aren't evil, and if they encountered an abused or imprisoned women when paying for sex, they're not going to ignore it. And even doubting prohibition isn't exacerbating the problems like that is even more deluded. Talk to any sex worker, Backpage et al. let them get away from people like pimps. Go beyond that, look at the recent survery of sex workers, your perception is wildly different from the reality as described by the people you're talking about.
As is the notion that the FBI has no choice in this; you have any idea how much they don't bother enforcing? Backpage was made a priority political target. Progressive hero Kamala Harris led the charge.
So they get to send the message that they're doing something even though it won't actually do anything AND stomp on the smaller entity with unpopular views? Win Win.
It doesn't make the "shopping" portion harder because LE is lying through it's teeth about there being child sex trafficking on Backpage. The reality is there were a few 16-17 year olds, voluntarily engaged-- even when nobody else is involved in any way, they're still labeled as 'trafficked', pretending to be over 18. In cases where police suspected that was the case, Backpage was very cooperative in helping to locate the individual, so this actually makes those 'children' less likely to be tracked down as the market is forced farther underground where no such cooperation will be forthcoming. It should make you uneasy at every level, not only because of the obscene overreach, but because absolutely no one is made safer by this, and a lot of people are made less safe.
This is about punishing adult prostitution full stop. And it's going to make both providers and clients less safe (as every organization actually representing sex workers makes clear), and make it harder to track down the very small number of coerced women and slightly underage teenagers (they deliberately use language to make you think of actual children, not the 16-17 year olds doing it themselves, who are already legal for non-paid sex in 31 states, that make up 99.9999% of 'child sex trafficking victims' on backpage-- it's not that this is ok, but it's hardly the same as under 12 as the language implies), where Backpage was very helpful in assisting LE.
But that's the point. To the right, selling sex is an immoral sin. To the left, any woman that chooses prostitution is suddenly without agency, and therefore being exploited, her opinion on it being irrelevant. Either way, it's not a decision that an adult should be free to make. So they punish these human moral failures by increasing suffering all around, all while grandstanding about how they're "saving" people when in fact they're doing the opposite. It's the same exact thing as the drug war. You take a dangerous activity that's conducted among consenting adults, prohibit it by force of law, and in doing so "send the message" that you stand against it and are fighting it, but you're actually greatly increasing the harm instead of decreasing it.
It's called sadomoralism, and the left and right are both guilty of it, just with different justifications and trappings around the edges. No matter how many people you lock up, you're never going to stop it, and by going that route, you maximize the harm. But of course, regulating such things in a manner that actually reduces the harm means accepting that some people can then engage in the activity without being able to punish them for it-- and that's too high a price to pay no matter how devastating the alternative, whether it's hard drugs or prostitution, and whether you're talking about team (R) or team (D); because a utopia where drug abuse and prostitution vanish from the earth forever can always be achieved if we just refuse to give in and punish a little more.
Until they're teens, letting them go out and play in the neighborhood is now risking having CPS and the police show up, charge you with neglect, and take your kids. Ask the Metievs, who thought letting their kids walk 2 blocks to the park (at the same age you and I likely had run of the neighborhood) would be good for them. Police and CPS disagreed. Utah just passed a law to clarify that letting kids walk places wasn't neglect, in response to all these ridiculous incidents where busybodies call 911 to report kids not being hovered over, and instead of recognizing there's no issue, CPS gets involved. Free play around town is a freedom todays kids no longer have, until they're so old it holds no interest anyway.
Well, actually you can. There's more than one strain; HIV-1, HIV-2, and subtypes.