I suspect many are defensive on this as this topic is littered with misinformation from activists. This isn't the first study to come out against it, but I hesitate to call those studies as they were basically propaganda that didn't hold up on closer inspection. I've already seen enough here on this study to highly question it and I have no horses in this race.
No, the real problem is hate speech is totally subjective. People can find the exact same statement innocuous or hateful so it is no shock that computers can't figure it out as we can't figure it out. Hell, just look at the most recent 'monkey it up' controversy. Many see this as a highly racist and hateful statement. Others see no racism in it at all. And this why people say it doesn't exist as they say there is no objective standard for such, and there isn't. Now, I don't think that logic follows, but there is a truth to it that policies and laws shouldn't be made around such incredibly subjective things. It would be like making a law that only beautiful paintings should be displayed. Sure lots will agree X painting is beautiful, but lots won't as well.
If you truly have no data cap, then it could be considered unlimited. However, it is very likely you actually do have a datacap, it is just rather large and not well known. My ISP for instance, last I checked, gives us a 500 GB/month allowance with a couple 100 GB/month overflows with extra charges, but you never hear about it in any of the advertising. You have to dig into your agreement, or their website to find out about such.
My thought exactly. What does this have to do with net neutrality? There is no guarantee of speed in net neutrality, only that any valid network request will be given equal access to the system. If you're throttled across the board it is still neutral. Hell, one could easily argue that net neutrality would be a BAD thing here as it is easy to argue that emergency services should be given preferential access to the network (although in this case they obviously weren't, but in general).
It's not necessarily shenanigan's even then, just a conflict of rules and goals, a very common thing in governing. It is actually quite rare when pushing one principle does not force compromises in others. Something always has to give. Here the conflict seems to be between making the rule making process transparent verses the privacy of the individuals in the studies. Both a things to strive for, but they are directly at odds here.
Ah... no. That would only hold true if the groups in comparison were known to be otherwise identical in distribution of all traits, something we DEFINITELY know is not true between sexes (hell it doesn't hold for pretty much all demographic group comparisons). It is impossible to tell from these aggregate statistics if any discrimination is going on or not precisely because of this. In fact, these exact same statistics could be equally well argued to show the demographics are not equivalent. That's the problem. These are useless numbers to use to look for discrimination.
Well, the Internet Explorer case shows that having the technical ability to install other products does not negate the anti-trust issues. Also, Google is already in the social media biz so this could easily be argued to be them using their Android position to push out competition in the social media sphere. I'm sure Google will counter argue they carry many other competitors in their store in their defense though. Whether that will hold up though is questionable.
At one time I might have put up a defense for them, but not anymore. Far too much BS coming out of Google these days, and they good and cleanly shot themselves in both their feet with the Memo fiasco.
Yep, this exactly. It is also important to note diversity and equality are OPPOSING objectives. An absolutely equal society would have no diversity at all. An absolutely diverse society would have no real equality. While these two objectives can meet in the middle and shakes hands for good effect, pushing for both simultaneously doesn't even make logical sense.
Considering IT was a relatively new field in 1978, at least compared to now, this change doesn't really mean anything. It is just as possible that the young field looked interesting enough to attract women, but as it grew the requirements of the field and changes in the needs of such could have shifted altering the demographics of who was most interested in it. Things that are young tend to undergo rapid change like this, and it isn't unexpected or nefarious. That doesn't mean there isn't an issue, just that pointing to this difference means nothing by itself.
Engineers generally don't work that low level. If you were able to move into the apartment/house at all the engineer has done their job as it hasn't fallen over. Interior designers and just plain builders do the work you'd generally go WTF about, and in particularly serious cases ignore the engineering good sense (like deliberately not implemented build code to save a buck or such). Now if the house falls over, or burns down then you can bitch at the engineer.
If I'm reading this right, this wasn't merely looking at who has properties X and Y and drawing the correlation, but they also analyzed experimental data where people had artificial sweeteners add to their diet and it didn't have any significant good effects and in some cases resulted in bad outcomes BMI wise, although modest.
No because it is in a near vacuum. They are aiming for.1% air pressure of sea level which means you need about huge amount of volume of space to get breathable air, not to mention having to cycle the air in the tunnel as well to keep it at safe oxygen and CO2 levels. It makes no sense to do this when you could just carry the air with you.
You're right... you'd have about 15 seconds of useful consciousness and death in a minute or two, and you're not going to get rescued in that minute or two, sorry. But don't worry, this isn't a very likely scenario. Far more likely is the vacuum of the tube being compromised, in which case the on rush of air will hit you at approximately mach 1 and you'll likely be dead instantly as it is basically like getting hit by a bomb's shock wave. Worse case you survive long enough to realize you're now the bullet in a very large gun that is capped at either end... and then you die on impact.
For the transition I would assume they are planning that normally they would use an airlock, either an airlock that completely encapsulates the pod, or one that connects to the pod. As to your other questions, who knows. Lots and lots of issues with this hyperloop design right now.
The airplane method of generating breathable atmosphere in the cabin wouldn't work in the hyperloop. The sled neither have the jet engine needed for the compression, nor even the surround air volume to compress. The hyperloop is in a near total vacuum meaning there is no where near sufficient air in the tube to compress to a breathable level. That said, they could carry compressed air in tanks on the sled and refuel them at each end. Small submarines do this method, so no reason they can't do the same here. Only issue is how much compressed air would be needed.
The Plane's engines are used to compress surrounding air outside the plan, but this won't work in the hyperloop as their is simply insufficient air to do this with (not to mention the needs of the engine to do such would be HUGE). As someone else has probably already suggested, they are probably going for more of the small submarine route which is to carry compressed air on the sleds which will be refueled at each end of the run.
At a university level, I hope a teacher is competent enough in the subject they are teacher to handle any challenge and show why said individual is wrong. Hell, that happened all the time in my science classes. Not just science either, all of them. Ethics discussions were awesome, so much so I took two versions of it. At a university you're not just there to memorize stuff, you're their to develop a good methodology to thought itself. If you're just unquestioningly accepting everything a teacher tells you, you're in trouble.
Not really. There is several ways we can look at this, but none of them lead to the government censoring those blocked. The first is Trump is using Twitter as an individual, in which case he has all his rights as an individual including the right to not listen to you. Freedom of association. The second is Trump is acting as public official, but in this still doesn't get us there as he is on a private platform. Just like a speaking event can deny you access to the president, Twitter can do the same. It is not interfering with your right to speak as you don't have a right to Twitter's platform as it were. Even if we consider Trump in control here (which he isn't but regardless lets consider it as he has some control) it still wouldn't get us there as freedom of speech is not the right to be heard by a particular party, only the right to be able to speak. Even as a public official, Trump doesn't have to listen to you, and thus there is no violation. You're still allowed to say anything about Trump yourself, even on Twitter, just it wouldn't be carried on his feed. The closest I can see we can get is that these twitter posts could be seen as matters of public record, and therefore accessible by the public which Trump is interfering with by blocking users. However, I don't think this will hold as many public records have blocks to getting them. It is enough that they are accessible via some means through freedom of information requests.
The usual thing appealed to is diversity of thought, but they constantly ask for diversity of demographic, which are not the same thing in the slightest. Diversity of thought lets you look at a problem from a wide variety of angles, potentially identifying new solutions or problems that you would not have with a more homogeneous group. However, diversity of demographic is at best a very clumsy way to fake diversity of thought and unfortunately it is becoming all too common that it actually acts counter to diversity of thought as activists demand the removal of the infidels... I mean the wrong thinkers... I mean the problematic types... yes, yes that's the appropriate euphemism. Anyway they demand the removal of problematic types in the name of supporting demographic diversity, but that actually causes more homogeneity in the group thought wise.
What really gets me is that so many go on about diversity and equality at the same time, when these are opposing concepts. If you truly believe that different demographics bring different assets to the game as it were, then you cannot expect equal results for the various group, yet people constantly do. Likewise if you do get equal results without outside pressure to force such, you can be assured the group essentially homogeneous and not really diverse.
They didn't need to change their vote to Trump, just not vote. That alone does serious damage to the democratic camp. I know I will never vote for someone who plays this game because they are every bit as toxic as Trump is.
Given this is presented simply as an alternate hypothesis, there is no need for proof. All this shows is that the 'proof' of the original assertion that there is a gender bias based simply on gender of the submitter can just as easily be explained by there being a gender bias in the quality of the work. Without further info, the original information does not lead us much of anywhere.
An objective algorithm is pretty much impossible on this topic, at least one that does anything useful. Hate speech itself, for instance, is subjective, so ANY judgment on such will also have to be subjective. Fake news is also a problem as there is no way for the system to know what is not fake in an objective way. Since political bias is so big a component of fake news, you can't really trust any organization as a source as we all have political leanings. You can trust that which is repeated the most, but that just means the lie that gets repeated the most gets trusted as well. Trying to be an arbiter of Truth is a lost cause from the start.
Slashdot Mirror
I suspect many are defensive on this as this topic is littered with misinformation from activists. This isn't the first study to come out against it, but I hesitate to call those studies as they were basically propaganda that didn't hold up on closer inspection. I've already seen enough here on this study to highly question it and I have no horses in this race.
No, the real problem is hate speech is totally subjective. People can find the exact same statement innocuous or hateful so it is no shock that computers can't figure it out as we can't figure it out. Hell, just look at the most recent 'monkey it up' controversy. Many see this as a highly racist and hateful statement. Others see no racism in it at all. And this why people say it doesn't exist as they say there is no objective standard for such, and there isn't. Now, I don't think that logic follows, but there is a truth to it that policies and laws shouldn't be made around such incredibly subjective things. It would be like making a law that only beautiful paintings should be displayed. Sure lots will agree X painting is beautiful, but lots won't as well.
If you truly have no data cap, then it could be considered unlimited. However, it is very likely you actually do have a datacap, it is just rather large and not well known. My ISP for instance, last I checked, gives us a 500 GB/month allowance with a couple 100 GB/month overflows with extra charges, but you never hear about it in any of the advertising. You have to dig into your agreement, or their website to find out about such.
My thought exactly. What does this have to do with net neutrality? There is no guarantee of speed in net neutrality, only that any valid network request will be given equal access to the system. If you're throttled across the board it is still neutral. Hell, one could easily argue that net neutrality would be a BAD thing here as it is easy to argue that emergency services should be given preferential access to the network (although in this case they obviously weren't, but in general).
It's not necessarily shenanigan's even then, just a conflict of rules and goals, a very common thing in governing. It is actually quite rare when pushing one principle does not force compromises in others. Something always has to give. Here the conflict seems to be between making the rule making process transparent verses the privacy of the individuals in the studies. Both a things to strive for, but they are directly at odds here.
Ah... no. That would only hold true if the groups in comparison were known to be otherwise identical in distribution of all traits, something we DEFINITELY know is not true between sexes (hell it doesn't hold for pretty much all demographic group comparisons). It is impossible to tell from these aggregate statistics if any discrimination is going on or not precisely because of this. In fact, these exact same statistics could be equally well argued to show the demographics are not equivalent. That's the problem. These are useless numbers to use to look for discrimination.
That's what I'm leaning to at the moment too. Power of suggestion is not to be underestimated.
Well, the Internet Explorer case shows that having the technical ability to install other products does not negate the anti-trust issues. Also, Google is already in the social media biz so this could easily be argued to be them using their Android position to push out competition in the social media sphere. I'm sure Google will counter argue they carry many other competitors in their store in their defense though. Whether that will hold up though is questionable.
At one time I might have put up a defense for them, but not anymore. Far too much BS coming out of Google these days, and they good and cleanly shot themselves in both their feet with the Memo fiasco.
Yep, this exactly. It is also important to note diversity and equality are OPPOSING objectives. An absolutely equal society would have no diversity at all. An absolutely diverse society would have no real equality. While these two objectives can meet in the middle and shakes hands for good effect, pushing for both simultaneously doesn't even make logical sense.
Considering IT was a relatively new field in 1978, at least compared to now, this change doesn't really mean anything. It is just as possible that the young field looked interesting enough to attract women, but as it grew the requirements of the field and changes in the needs of such could have shifted altering the demographics of who was most interested in it. Things that are young tend to undergo rapid change like this, and it isn't unexpected or nefarious. That doesn't mean there isn't an issue, just that pointing to this difference means nothing by itself.
Engineers generally don't work that low level. If you were able to move into the apartment/house at all the engineer has done their job as it hasn't fallen over. Interior designers and just plain builders do the work you'd generally go WTF about, and in particularly serious cases ignore the engineering good sense (like deliberately not implemented build code to save a buck or such). Now if the house falls over, or burns down then you can bitch at the engineer.
If I'm reading this right, this wasn't merely looking at who has properties X and Y and drawing the correlation, but they also analyzed experimental data where people had artificial sweeteners add to their diet and it didn't have any significant good effects and in some cases resulted in bad outcomes BMI wise, although modest.
No because it is in a near vacuum. They are aiming for .1% air pressure of sea level which means you need about huge amount of volume of space to get breathable air, not to mention having to cycle the air in the tunnel as well to keep it at safe oxygen and CO2 levels. It makes no sense to do this when you could just carry the air with you.
You're right... you'd have about 15 seconds of useful consciousness and death in a minute or two, and you're not going to get rescued in that minute or two, sorry. But don't worry, this isn't a very likely scenario. Far more likely is the vacuum of the tube being compromised, in which case the on rush of air will hit you at approximately mach 1 and you'll likely be dead instantly as it is basically like getting hit by a bomb's shock wave. Worse case you survive long enough to realize you're now the bullet in a very large gun that is capped at either end... and then you die on impact.
For the transition I would assume they are planning that normally they would use an airlock, either an airlock that completely encapsulates the pod, or one that connects to the pod. As to your other questions, who knows. Lots and lots of issues with this hyperloop design right now.
The airplane method of generating breathable atmosphere in the cabin wouldn't work in the hyperloop. The sled neither have the jet engine needed for the compression, nor even the surround air volume to compress. The hyperloop is in a near total vacuum meaning there is no where near sufficient air in the tube to compress to a breathable level. That said, they could carry compressed air in tanks on the sled and refuel them at each end. Small submarines do this method, so no reason they can't do the same here. Only issue is how much compressed air would be needed.
The Plane's engines are used to compress surrounding air outside the plan, but this won't work in the hyperloop as their is simply insufficient air to do this with (not to mention the needs of the engine to do such would be HUGE). As someone else has probably already suggested, they are probably going for more of the small submarine route which is to carry compressed air on the sleds which will be refueled at each end of the run.
I deeply apologize for my fellow countrymen and women being morons.
At a university level, I hope a teacher is competent enough in the subject they are teacher to handle any challenge and show why said individual is wrong. Hell, that happened all the time in my science classes. Not just science either, all of them. Ethics discussions were awesome, so much so I took two versions of it. At a university you're not just there to memorize stuff, you're their to develop a good methodology to thought itself. If you're just unquestioningly accepting everything a teacher tells you, you're in trouble.
Not really. There is several ways we can look at this, but none of them lead to the government censoring those blocked. The first is Trump is using Twitter as an individual, in which case he has all his rights as an individual including the right to not listen to you. Freedom of association. The second is Trump is acting as public official, but in this still doesn't get us there as he is on a private platform. Just like a speaking event can deny you access to the president, Twitter can do the same. It is not interfering with your right to speak as you don't have a right to Twitter's platform as it were. Even if we consider Trump in control here (which he isn't but regardless lets consider it as he has some control) it still wouldn't get us there as freedom of speech is not the right to be heard by a particular party, only the right to be able to speak. Even as a public official, Trump doesn't have to listen to you, and thus there is no violation. You're still allowed to say anything about Trump yourself, even on Twitter, just it wouldn't be carried on his feed. The closest I can see we can get is that these twitter posts could be seen as matters of public record, and therefore accessible by the public which Trump is interfering with by blocking users. However, I don't think this will hold as many public records have blocks to getting them. It is enough that they are accessible via some means through freedom of information requests.
The usual thing appealed to is diversity of thought, but they constantly ask for diversity of demographic, which are not the same thing in the slightest. Diversity of thought lets you look at a problem from a wide variety of angles, potentially identifying new solutions or problems that you would not have with a more homogeneous group. However, diversity of demographic is at best a very clumsy way to fake diversity of thought and unfortunately it is becoming all too common that it actually acts counter to diversity of thought as activists demand the removal of the infidels... I mean the wrong thinkers... I mean the problematic types... yes, yes that's the appropriate euphemism. Anyway they demand the removal of problematic types in the name of supporting demographic diversity, but that actually causes more homogeneity in the group thought wise.
What really gets me is that so many go on about diversity and equality at the same time, when these are opposing concepts. If you truly believe that different demographics bring different assets to the game as it were, then you cannot expect equal results for the various group, yet people constantly do. Likewise if you do get equal results without outside pressure to force such, you can be assured the group essentially homogeneous and not really diverse.
They didn't need to change their vote to Trump, just not vote. That alone does serious damage to the democratic camp. I know I will never vote for someone who plays this game because they are every bit as toxic as Trump is.
Given this is presented simply as an alternate hypothesis, there is no need for proof. All this shows is that the 'proof' of the original assertion that there is a gender bias based simply on gender of the submitter can just as easily be explained by there being a gender bias in the quality of the work. Without further info, the original information does not lead us much of anywhere.
An objective algorithm is pretty much impossible on this topic, at least one that does anything useful. Hate speech itself, for instance, is subjective, so ANY judgment on such will also have to be subjective. Fake news is also a problem as there is no way for the system to know what is not fake in an objective way. Since political bias is so big a component of fake news, you can't really trust any organization as a source as we all have political leanings. You can trust that which is repeated the most, but that just means the lie that gets repeated the most gets trusted as well. Trying to be an arbiter of Truth is a lost cause from the start.