Being from NJ, I never understood the confusion of out-of-state drivers regarding "jug-handles." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... All you need to understand is "no matter what direction you need to turn, get in the right lane." It may be the only thing I miss about NJ.
I think the really interesting data would be the content, especially in state/local politics. You could do a breakdown of "main issues" - by region to zero in on what the politicians *believe* are the issues, then cross-reference that with issue polls - by party, to determine whether parties are more interested in presenting a monolithic agenda or an agenda based on constituents - by key words used in ad, to get a big picture of the political zeitgeist. (Looks like you can only for specific candidates and advertisers.)....
If you can only search for candidates and advertisers, it seems like this would only be useful for activists with axes to grind. Aren't there a million interesting things this could be used for?
In the "real world," you probably would not survive longer than a day or two, regardless of the content of your speech, because you would be stalking and abusing a school-aged girl, which would not be looked upon kindly by any parent. Stop trying to make an anti-free-speech argument with such a stupid example.
Words are not equal to violence; and abhorrent *behavior* should not be tolerated in civilized society. This applies to your comment, the larger context of the article, and comments in this thread of people who are way more concerned with hurting feelings than actual events in the world.
This is capitalism working (and a rare example of its defeating corporatism). This is allowing actual competition in an industry, aka the free market. Imagine if government- and law-sanctioned broadband monopolies disappeared and there were *more of this competition* and you would be imagining capitalism. I dare say folks might enjoy that (especially if there were a few more companies like this offering service in the region so that you could buy service that more suits your tastes and/or budget).
Although your characterization is very one-dimensional and, frankly, racist (which is a truly "f'd up" value), I can point out a very important difference between welfare and Wall Street:
Welfare money originates from people coerced by the government to hand it over. Wall Street money originates from the free market/capitalism, and (partially) from elites who are rich enough to bribe other elites to maintain legal loopholes to line their elite pockets (corporatism).
These are the same elites who socially convince you that you should feel bad if you pay fewer taxes because, despite the fact that taxes are essentially theft that victimizes *you*, you are somehow victimizing welfare recipients by not wanting to hand your money over to the government muggers.
Meanwhile, how the heck do welfare recipients have vehicles to put these license plates on? Isn't welfare supposed to be a safety net to ensure that folks can eat and assist with their ability to keep a roof over their heads?
It's apparently not so easy to investigate voter fraud, at least at the federal level. All it does is generate lawsuits... https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...
There is one big problem with your argument: The notion of "credibility" might *seem* objective. However, there is a little cottage industry ("fact checking") that *asserts* credibility while pushing misleading or false information (e.g. Snopes). Social media is such a new and powerful paradigm shift in human communication that the knee-jerk reaction by well meaning folks to "stop false information" is understandable, but also extremely naive. Of course the algorithm and/or human beings will inevitably consider > to be false and the source of the > to be non-credible. So, the only *free* thing to do is let information flow, allow people to decide for themselves, and allow things to happen as they happen. The only "destruction" of democracy that I see is that > are losing their ability to shape public opinion because human beings are able to share information more quickly and easily with each other. I presume (hope?) that, if non-censorship prevails, we'll have a nice average of really really stupid and really really intelligent people who steer us approximately toward the improvement of humanity. My hope for the immediate future is that we all stop fanning the flames of far-left and far-right voices.
I keep seeing this term "free ____," as though it is real. There is no such thing as "free" as in "cost." Addressing the issue of cost, in fact, is probably the most important part of any argument like, "____ should be available for free." Part of the cost argument has to address the issue of incentive for people to become professionals in a given field, such as mental health professionals (i.e., if mental healthcare is "free," that means "a cost to the taxpayers," which really means "at the whim of the government," which means "getting paid the minimum amount possible"). This is the Achilles heal of public education. Teachers under that system will never be paid enough. Professors under that system would never be paid enough. Being subject to the whim of government is the opposite of freedom, and has many bad downstream effects. So, your call for mental healthcare makes sense, but you've got a bit more explaining to do regarding the cost.
>> It's that he has little interest in actually becoming informed.
So, he didn't know about something. Then he asked about it. Now he knows about it. That seems like the opposite of your claim. In fact, I can only imagine that this practice has been a major ingredient of his (and many others') success in life.
Do you refrain from asking about things that you don't know about to avoid looking "stupid"? That seems like an excellent way to remain ignorant of things.
>> it feeds the ego of those better off to look down their noses at people in poverty
So essentially, your characterization of people in the US is that, in order to feed our egos, we ignore homelessness? That is such a very ignorant, bigoted, and childish statement that it nullifies any other point that you have made. Maybe you were joking or using hyperbole to make a point?
Either way, your one-dimensional framing of this is sad.
You can (and people do) digitally reproduce analog gear pretty much perfectly. Professional music engineers even concede this. However, analog gear will never reproduce digital. Its audio domain is limited by its very nature.
So what is the process for identifying and fixing the issue that caused this death? and how do you QA test that fix? In general, human drivers have a "main algorithm" when driving, but can easily switch to a "person in front of my car" subroutine. Arguably, in a high-pedestrian area, a human will load the "person in front of my car" subroutine into memory for quick access, anticipating unexpected humans. Human beings know that the assumption other humans will follow pedestrian laws is dumb. AI/self-driving car does not. Also, you can take a human being's driver's license away if they prove to be poor drivers. What is the recourse for the AI/self-driving car? Remotely disable all self-driving cars running on the same version of the software after a catastrophe? Close down the entire car company? Or, just do nothing except add a visible "self-driving-car" indication to the car so that pedestrians know to be cautious?
Of course lumping any group into one pile is grossly oversimplifying the complexity of humanity. Unfortunately, the mass-hysteria anti-Trump crowd comprises two piles that are mashed together: Those with malice and an overt agenda of censorship and brainwashing; and, the useful idiots who mindlessly virtue signal with nothing substantial to back up what they are saying.
It's disheartening to see the useful idiots spouting the empty rhetoric of "Nazi, xenophobic, homophobic, misogynist," from an imaginary morally superior pedestal. Those uttering such things at this point are revealing themselves as resentful, ugly, thoughtless, infantile lost souls.
... Use your own brain, your observations of the world, and others you trust, to seek out the video content you want.
I did an experiment a couple of weeks ago with Netflix: I watched only its recommendations for a few days. The actual annoying thing wasn't that the recommendations were "bad" in the entertainment sense. They were pretty good. The annoying thing was that, because I watched one thing with subtitles, by the time a couple of days had passed, I was no longer watching shows in English.
I take from this that any recommendation engine can only choose from a finite number of characteristics, and that they will always be "dumb." I think recommendation algorithms inevitably devolve into meaningless absurdity.
As soon as you are working for the government, it really doesn't matter if you are a "scientist" or an "expert," because your primary role is that of a bureaucrat. Removing, as much as possible, bureaucracy (and, therefore, inevitably political outcomes), is removing the impediments of doing the proper job of experts and scientists.
Slashdot Mirror
Being from NJ, I never understood the confusion of out-of-state drivers regarding "jug-handles." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... All you need to understand is "no matter what direction you need to turn, get in the right lane." It may be the only thing I miss about NJ.
I think you have that backwards; people who want to steal my money to redistribute it to others who did not earn it are the douchebags.
We're not smart enough to make up our own minds.
I think the really interesting data would be the content, especially in state/local politics. You could do a breakdown of "main issues" ....
- by region to zero in on what the politicians *believe* are the issues, then cross-reference that with issue polls
- by party, to determine whether parties are more interested in presenting a monolithic agenda or an agenda based on constituents
- by key words used in ad, to get a big picture of the political zeitgeist. (Looks like you can only for specific candidates and advertisers.)
If you can only search for candidates and advertisers, it seems like this would only be useful for activists with axes to grind. Aren't there a million interesting things this could be used for?
In the "real world," you probably would not survive longer than a day or two, regardless of the content of your speech, because you would be stalking and abusing a school-aged girl, which would not be looked upon kindly by any parent. Stop trying to make an anti-free-speech argument with such a stupid example.
Words are not equal to violence; and abhorrent *behavior* should not be tolerated in civilized society. This applies to your comment, the larger context of the article, and comments in this thread of people who are way more concerned with hurting feelings than actual events in the world.
This is capitalism working (and a rare example of its defeating corporatism). This is allowing actual competition in an industry, aka the free market. Imagine if government- and law-sanctioned broadband monopolies disappeared and there were *more of this competition* and you would be imagining capitalism. I dare say folks might enjoy that (especially if there were a few more companies like this offering service in the region so that you could buy service that more suits your tastes and/or budget).
Although your characterization is very one-dimensional and, frankly, racist (which is a truly "f'd up" value), I can point out a very important difference between welfare and Wall Street:
Welfare money originates from people coerced by the government to hand it over. Wall Street money originates from the free market/capitalism, and (partially) from elites who are rich enough to bribe other elites to maintain legal loopholes to line their elite pockets (corporatism).
These are the same elites who socially convince you that you should feel bad if you pay fewer taxes because, despite the fact that taxes are essentially theft that victimizes *you*, you are somehow victimizing welfare recipients by not wanting to hand your money over to the government muggers.
Meanwhile, how the heck do welfare recipients have vehicles to put these license plates on? Isn't welfare supposed to be a safety net to ensure that folks can eat and assist with their ability to keep a roof over their heads?
The leading cause of death is birth. That said, I'd rather die of free-market causes, not for disagreeing with a despot.
It's apparently not so easy to investigate voter fraud, at least at the federal level. All it does is generate lawsuits... https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...
Coupled with all of the illegal immigrant (plus corpse) votes for Dems, all legal US citizens can now just stay home. Super efficient.
There is one big problem with your argument: The notion of "credibility" might *seem* objective. However, there is a little cottage industry ("fact checking") that *asserts* credibility while pushing misleading or false information (e.g. Snopes).
Social media is such a new and powerful paradigm shift in human communication that the knee-jerk reaction by well meaning folks to "stop false information" is understandable, but also extremely naive. Of course the algorithm and/or human beings will inevitably consider > to be false and the source of the > to be non-credible.
So, the only *free* thing to do is let information flow, allow people to decide for themselves, and allow things to happen as they happen. The only "destruction" of democracy that I see is that > are losing their ability to shape public opinion because human beings are able to share information more quickly and easily with each other.
I presume (hope?) that, if non-censorship prevails, we'll have a nice average of really really stupid and really really intelligent people who steer us approximately toward the improvement of humanity. My hope for the immediate future is that we all stop fanning the flames of far-left and far-right voices.
Isn't it the act of *meeting the need* that (rightfully) results in profit?
"I live in a free nation" as in "free to follow politically correct compelled speech laws." No thank you, I'll stick to the *actually free* country.
http://www.star-telegram.com/n...
I keep seeing this term "free ____," as though it is real. There is no such thing as "free" as in "cost." Addressing the issue of cost, in fact, is probably the most important part of any argument like, "____ should be available for free." Part of the cost argument has to address the issue of incentive for people to become professionals in a given field, such as mental health professionals (i.e., if mental healthcare is "free," that means "a cost to the taxpayers," which really means "at the whim of the government," which means "getting paid the minimum amount possible").
This is the Achilles heal of public education. Teachers under that system will never be paid enough. Professors under that system would never be paid enough. Being subject to the whim of government is the opposite of freedom, and has many bad downstream effects. So, your call for mental healthcare makes sense, but you've got a bit more explaining to do regarding the cost.
>> It's that he has little interest in actually becoming informed.
So, he didn't know about something. Then he asked about it. Now he knows about it. That seems like the opposite of your claim. In fact, I can only imagine that this practice has been a major ingredient of his (and many others') success in life.
Do you refrain from asking about things that you don't know about to avoid looking "stupid"? That seems like an excellent way to remain ignorant of things.
I heard the best alternate name for man-bun the other day: Twat knot.
>> it feeds the ego of those better off to look down their noses at people in poverty
So essentially, your characterization of people in the US is that, in order to feed our egos, we ignore homelessness? That is such a very ignorant, bigoted, and childish statement that it nullifies any other point that you have made. Maybe you were joking or using hyperbole to make a point?
Either way, your one-dimensional framing of this is sad.
You can (and people do) digitally reproduce analog gear pretty much perfectly. Professional music engineers even concede this. However, analog gear will never reproduce digital. Its audio domain is limited by its very nature.
minds.com
So what is the process for identifying and fixing the issue that caused this death? and how do you QA test that fix?
In general, human drivers have a "main algorithm" when driving, but can easily switch to a "person in front of my car" subroutine. Arguably, in a high-pedestrian area, a human will load the "person in front of my car" subroutine into memory for quick access, anticipating unexpected humans.
Human beings know that the assumption other humans will follow pedestrian laws is dumb. AI/self-driving car does not. Also, you can take a human being's driver's license away if they prove to be poor drivers. What is the recourse for the AI/self-driving car? Remotely disable all self-driving cars running on the same version of the software after a catastrophe? Close down the entire car company? Or, just do nothing except add a visible "self-driving-car" indication to the car so that pedestrians know to be cautious?
Okay, I'll bite.
>>Cool, thanks for lumping us all into one pile.
Of course lumping any group into one pile is grossly oversimplifying the complexity of humanity. Unfortunately, the mass-hysteria anti-Trump crowd comprises two piles that are mashed together: Those with malice and an overt agenda of censorship and brainwashing; and, the useful idiots who mindlessly virtue signal with nothing substantial to back up what they are saying.
It's disheartening to see the useful idiots spouting the empty rhetoric of "Nazi, xenophobic, homophobic, misogynist," from an imaginary morally superior pedestal. Those uttering such things at this point are revealing themselves as resentful, ugly, thoughtless, infantile lost souls.
... Use your own brain, your observations of the world, and others you trust, to seek out the video content you want.
I did an experiment a couple of weeks ago with Netflix: I watched only its recommendations for a few days. The actual annoying thing wasn't that the recommendations were "bad" in the entertainment sense. They were pretty good. The annoying thing was that, because I watched one thing with subtitles, by the time a couple of days had passed, I was no longer watching shows in English.
I take from this that any recommendation engine can only choose from a finite number of characteristics, and that they will always be "dumb." I think recommendation algorithms inevitably devolve into meaningless absurdity.
As soon as you are working for the government, it really doesn't matter if you are a "scientist" or an "expert," because your primary role is that of a bureaucrat. Removing, as much as possible, bureaucracy (and, therefore, inevitably political outcomes), is removing the impediments of doing the proper job of experts and scientists.
>> you are losing your government. You will end up in feudalism.
Hmm, pick one or the other. Bigger governments lead to feudalism.