This is about deciding if the data used is neutral and if the system is neutral. A system trained on data that is not neutral will not be neutral. For example, if an algorithm is set up to address policing because it is found the police have been biased, but it is trained using previous arrest records from the police, it would be biased as well.
This is the exact reason I own a plug in hybrid versus and electric vehicle. I am a single guy, so I have 1 car. If I want to take a road trip somewhere, I would be screwed with an electric vehicle. Sure it would be possible, but it would be a nightmare trying to find someplace to charge in the midwest where I live. Sure, down the line when electric vehicles are more common this won't be an issue, but charges are still uncommon here. So I went with the plug in hybrid and have only filled the tank 3 times in 16 months, with 2 of those coming after road trip that used 75% of a tank of gas.
There are a lot of things that are safe for me to drink but there is no way I would drink them. My own urine is safe for me to drink, but if you want me to drink it I'm going to have the same response as this guy. I know play doh is safe to eat, but if you ask me if I want to eat a jar of it, I'm going ot tell you know because I'm not an idiot. That doesn't make it unsafe, that makes your request stupid.
Well, there certainly is some evidence Trump ordered it. First, Cohen worked for Trump. Second, Trump paid him for this. Now, you can pretend Trump just gave him money to do anything he wanted, but that is a pretty thin thread to dangle from. There may be more than that we haven't seen yet. As for it being illegal, I can't say whether rigging the polls would be illegal, but doing it for an election advantage and not declaring the money spent for the campaign would be.
Cohen's lied before and you think NOW he's telling the gospel truth?
I agree, we shouldn't just trust Michael Cohen at his word. We should look at the evidence and base it on that. The evidence says he hired the firm he is claiming he hired. In fact the firm is saying he didn't pay them the full amount, which means they admit they did the work as well. Of course to know that you would have to go beyond the headline and care enough to reads the story.
And here we see part of the problem. No, bad reporting is not part of fake news. Is the corrections being downplayed a problem? Yes, absolutely. Are they part of the fake news problem? No. There is a world of difference between someone making a mistake and someone intentionally writing false information in an article. Sure, mistakes are a problem. Yes, biased reporting is a problem. But they are not a part of fake news or even on par with it. Part of the issue is that posts like this cause people to distrust the public media, so they see no difference between someone's blog and the mainstream media because "it's all the same". Bias and mistakes are not the same as fake news.
While I agree in theory with what you are saying, as the article says, this is a new thing for workers to ghost employers. In the past, most people have given notice and it is still not uncommon for companies to lay off/fire people without notice or severance. So the idea that people giving notice will make employers act better has been tried and failed. The fact is, companies can and do fire people without notice or severance, so why should employees not "fire" the companies in the same way?If a company is unhappy with you they just cut you off, if you are unhappy with your employer, you should be able to do the same.
I have no issue with this at all as this is exactly how it is supposed to work. They should go before a judge and prove they have enough evidence that supports their case that the judge feels ti is worth while to release the information. ISPs and other companies shouldn't release this information without a court order, but should comply with a court order if one is obtained.
Yes, the public will not be happy, but what are we going to do? TicketBastard pretty much has a monopoly on concert tickets. It's not like I can go to another ticket vendor to get tickets, if they are selling them they are the only one selling them. And it's not like bands have a lot of options because so many venues are owned by TicketBastard. Unless the government steps in and starts regulating shitty, scammy business practices (not likely, especially not with this administration) there is no consequences to being a shitty company.
It's funny, no one had an issue when a white guy replaced a white guy. When Bucky became Cap, no one was screaming. But when Sam Wilson does (the guy who actually makes the most sense) suddenly it is because of diversity. When white guy after white guy became Batman, no one complained. When white guy after white guy became the Flash, no one cared. When another white guy became Ant Man, no one cared. When Venom went from white guy to white guy, no one cared. But the minute it is someone other than another white guy, then suddenly it is only about diversity and it is a tragedy of epic proportions.
So I think it is fair to say you don't like Riri. I didn't read the series, so I can't say whether she was a good character or not.But I know there are a lot of diverse characters that are incredible that you are ignoring. The fact she was female and black is all you see (and may or may not be the reason she was as the replacement) but that in no way means she has to be a bad character because of that.
Ms. Marvel is arguable a replacement for Captain Marvel (even though she still exists) and is one of the best characters they have currently. Miles Morales is arguable a better Spiderman than Peter Parker. Amadeus Cho become the Hulk and it made perfect sense and was great. Sam Wilson as Captain America made perfect sense and was well done, even if people rejected him. Jane Foster as Thor was an incredibly well done story. Super heros changing is part of the comics and has been for years. There is no reason the replacement has to always be a white, straight male. You seem to think Riri was terrible because she was black and female, but there is no reason they couldn't have told a story to your liking with her having those traits. And there is no reason to think if they had replaced Tony with a white man the story still wouldn't have been terrible. If she was white and male and written the same way, you still wouldn't have like her (at least I hope not), so your issue is with the storytelling and not the character. Blaming the character for being poor written (at least in your eyes) is like blaming a painting because you don't like it.
Trump is one variable that changed, yes. Another is the collapse of the North's nuclear testing site. It's a lot easier to say you will stop testing weapons when you have no place to test them.
This is going to be a tough one to measure the effect of (or lack thereof) but I think more information in the hands of people is always better. I think the long term effect may be seen more in restaurant choice than choice at a restaurant. If you like Big Macs and go to McDonalds, chances are seeing the calorie count on the menu won't make you get a salad. What may happen though is the next time you are hungry, you remember the calorie count and decide to go somewhere else where you prefered meal isn't as high in calories.
This is completely useless without knowing how much of their content is originals. If originals only make up 5% of their total content, this is a freaking incredible number as it shows it is blowing out most of the other content. On the other hand, if it is 50% of their content, these numbers are terrible. As it is, this metric is useless without more information.
Well, except your version of events never happened. Gizmodo didn't steal an iPhone prototype from anyone. Some guy lost it by leaving it in a bar and they purchased the lost prototype from the guy who found it and did a teardown on it. They didn't steal it and they didn't try to destroy the career of the guy who lost it.
I wasn't a fan of them purchasing it at the time and I'm still not. But what happened is a far cry from your description of what happened. But don't let the facts get in the way.
While you are right, that isn't what they are alleging in the suit. According to the article, this isn't about white men, but white conservative men who espoused views different than Google's. So it isn't that they discriminated against "white men" but only a subset of white men, which means it wasn't race of sex discrimination. And the fact that they think the only people who could be discriminated against by Google for espousing views different than theirs are white men says a lot of about the complainants. They apparently believe only white men would hold views that would be discriminated against by Google. It's hard to say a place that is made up mostly of white men and pays white men as good or better than everyone else discriminates against white men. They are taking their issue and trying to make it about all white men, which is clearly is not.
This will be quickly followed by a Donald Trump tweet stating how much better the US is now because under him more people have broadband access than under Obama.
But why do you assume these changes were made for purely diversity? There was a story behind most of them (Monica Rambeau was trademark more than anything). There is a story reason why Jane Foster is Thor now. There is a storyline reason why Riri is Iron Man (well, Iron Heart). There is a storyline reason Amadeus Cho is the Hulk and why Jen Walters started referring to herself as Hulk instead of SheHulk. Hell, there is more storyline to most of these than things like the Flash going through so many people (and that is ignoring the golden age flash) or why Rhodey put on the armor. You assume if something changes it must be diversity, but the fact is, why not have the change also encompass diversity? There is no reason every Flash has to be a white guy. There's no reason every person to put on Batman outfit has to be a white man. If they are going to make a change for storyline purposes, why can't it be a diversity change as well?
Out of everyone you listed, I believe on Aquaman has been the same person from the beginning. There were 3 Captain Marvels (Mar-vell, Monica Rambeau, and Carol Danvers), at least 4 Iron Men (Tony, Rhodey, Riri, and Doom), about 5 Thors, 3 Spidermen that I can think of off the top of my head (and probably more), 4 Flashes, and at least 3 Hulks. But please tell me again how changing the character is something that just isn't done.
The bigger issue is that teachers don't have the things they need to teach, so they might feel the need to do this strictly for the money. The teachers aren't actually getting $100 to take home and spend how they want, they are getting $100 that will got to school supplies. School supplies they often have to buy out of their own pocket for their classrooms. If this is something that bothers you, the solution is to make sure all schools and classrooms are properly funded and supplied. Then the teachers wouldn't need to try and get $100 to spend on supplies.
So you think there are more Apple IDs in Lake Grove, New York with a population of 11,000 than there are in the Bronx with a population of 1.5 million people? Even if 1% of the people in the Bronx have Apple products, that is more than the entire population of Lake Grove. So I don't believe that is how they are making their decisions.
I just read this bit (http://www.cbr.com/marvel-solved-blade-runner-title/) on CBR. The comic book tried to put in an explanation for the phrase (and did a pretty good job of it), but of course that doesn't make it canon.
I think there is at least some truth to this study. It does make sense that businesses will automate whatever they can and raising the minimum wage may hasten that. But the thing not talked about is that as time goes on these technologies will come down in price and be cheaper than the current minimum wage and businesses will automate then anyway. So yes, it may hasten it a little bit, it certainly isn't the reason businesses are automating. So the choice is basically to keep the minimum wage where it is and have these jobs for an extra couple years while people still make less than they need to live or to raise the minimum wage and hasten the loss of these jobs but get everyone else closer to a wage they can survive on. If we wait, businesses will still save money with automation and will save money by continuing to pay wages people can't live on.
What needs to be addressed is how to help everyone who is pushed out of their job via automation. There needs to be some type of job training or something to help people adjust to the new economy, but that isn't happening. No matter what we do, people are going to lose their job to automation, it is just a matter of when. I think we should at least make sure that the people who don't lose their job to automation make enough money to live on.
This will be a big test for all those people who claim to block ads because they have gotten so bad. Yes, this will let google's ads through, as well as other well behaving ads. This is what many people claim they have wanted for a long time. Now that they have it, will they actually allow these ads through? I will happily jump on this train simply because there are too many problems with the other adblockers. There are too many time things won't load or play because the ads are blocked that I welcome a way to block only the unruly ads and let the others through. Plus, I have always felt bad about blocking ads on sites I like since I know it is a revenue source for them. But if this really works like they claim it does, it will be an easy way to stop the bad ads and leave the rest, which is really what I think people should be striving for. But I have a feeling people will block all the ads and say screw the sites.
Slashdot Mirror
This is about deciding if the data used is neutral and if the system is neutral. A system trained on data that is not neutral will not be neutral. For example, if an algorithm is set up to address policing because it is found the police have been biased, but it is trained using previous arrest records from the police, it would be biased as well.
This is the exact reason I own a plug in hybrid versus and electric vehicle. I am a single guy, so I have 1 car. If I want to take a road trip somewhere, I would be screwed with an electric vehicle. Sure it would be possible, but it would be a nightmare trying to find someplace to charge in the midwest where I live. Sure, down the line when electric vehicles are more common this won't be an issue, but charges are still uncommon here. So I went with the plug in hybrid and have only filled the tank 3 times in 16 months, with 2 of those coming after road trip that used 75% of a tank of gas.
There are a lot of things that are safe for me to drink but there is no way I would drink them. My own urine is safe for me to drink, but if you want me to drink it I'm going to have the same response as this guy. I know play doh is safe to eat, but if you ask me if I want to eat a jar of it, I'm going ot tell you know because I'm not an idiot. That doesn't make it unsafe, that makes your request stupid.
Well, there certainly is some evidence Trump ordered it. First, Cohen worked for Trump. Second, Trump paid him for this. Now, you can pretend Trump just gave him money to do anything he wanted, but that is a pretty thin thread to dangle from. There may be more than that we haven't seen yet. As for it being illegal, I can't say whether rigging the polls would be illegal, but doing it for an election advantage and not declaring the money spent for the campaign would be.
Cohen's lied before and you think NOW he's telling the gospel truth?
I agree, we shouldn't just trust Michael Cohen at his word. We should look at the evidence and base it on that. The evidence says he hired the firm he is claiming he hired. In fact the firm is saying he didn't pay them the full amount, which means they admit they did the work as well. Of course to know that you would have to go beyond the headline and care enough to reads the story.
And here we see part of the problem. No, bad reporting is not part of fake news. Is the corrections being downplayed a problem? Yes, absolutely. Are they part of the fake news problem? No. There is a world of difference between someone making a mistake and someone intentionally writing false information in an article. Sure, mistakes are a problem. Yes, biased reporting is a problem. But they are not a part of fake news or even on par with it. Part of the issue is that posts like this cause people to distrust the public media, so they see no difference between someone's blog and the mainstream media because "it's all the same". Bias and mistakes are not the same as fake news.
While I agree in theory with what you are saying, as the article says, this is a new thing for workers to ghost employers. In the past, most people have given notice and it is still not uncommon for companies to lay off/fire people without notice or severance. So the idea that people giving notice will make employers act better has been tried and failed. The fact is, companies can and do fire people without notice or severance, so why should employees not "fire" the companies in the same way?If a company is unhappy with you they just cut you off, if you are unhappy with your employer, you should be able to do the same.
I have no issue with this at all as this is exactly how it is supposed to work. They should go before a judge and prove they have enough evidence that supports their case that the judge feels ti is worth while to release the information. ISPs and other companies shouldn't release this information without a court order, but should comply with a court order if one is obtained.
Yes, the public will not be happy, but what are we going to do? TicketBastard pretty much has a monopoly on concert tickets. It's not like I can go to another ticket vendor to get tickets, if they are selling them they are the only one selling them. And it's not like bands have a lot of options because so many venues are owned by TicketBastard. Unless the government steps in and starts regulating shitty, scammy business practices (not likely, especially not with this administration) there is no consequences to being a shitty company.
It's funny, no one had an issue when a white guy replaced a white guy. When Bucky became Cap, no one was screaming. But when Sam Wilson does (the guy who actually makes the most sense) suddenly it is because of diversity. When white guy after white guy became Batman, no one complained. When white guy after white guy became the Flash, no one cared. When another white guy became Ant Man, no one cared. When Venom went from white guy to white guy, no one cared. But the minute it is someone other than another white guy, then suddenly it is only about diversity and it is a tragedy of epic proportions.
So I think it is fair to say you don't like Riri. I didn't read the series, so I can't say whether she was a good character or not.But I know there are a lot of diverse characters that are incredible that you are ignoring. The fact she was female and black is all you see (and may or may not be the reason she was as the replacement) but that in no way means she has to be a bad character because of that.
Ms. Marvel is arguable a replacement for Captain Marvel (even though she still exists) and is one of the best characters they have currently. Miles Morales is arguable a better Spiderman than Peter Parker. Amadeus Cho become the Hulk and it made perfect sense and was great. Sam Wilson as Captain America made perfect sense and was well done, even if people rejected him. Jane Foster as Thor was an incredibly well done story. Super heros changing is part of the comics and has been for years. There is no reason the replacement has to always be a white, straight male. You seem to think Riri was terrible because she was black and female, but there is no reason they couldn't have told a story to your liking with her having those traits. And there is no reason to think if they had replaced Tony with a white man the story still wouldn't have been terrible. If she was white and male and written the same way, you still wouldn't have like her (at least I hope not), so your issue is with the storytelling and not the character. Blaming the character for being poor written (at least in your eyes) is like blaming a painting because you don't like it.
Trump is one variable that changed, yes. Another is the collapse of the North's nuclear testing site. It's a lot easier to say you will stop testing weapons when you have no place to test them.
This is going to be a tough one to measure the effect of (or lack thereof) but I think more information in the hands of people is always better. I think the long term effect may be seen more in restaurant choice than choice at a restaurant. If you like Big Macs and go to McDonalds, chances are seeing the calorie count on the menu won't make you get a salad. What may happen though is the next time you are hungry, you remember the calorie count and decide to go somewhere else where you prefered meal isn't as high in calories.
This is completely useless without knowing how much of their content is originals. If originals only make up 5% of their total content, this is a freaking incredible number as it shows it is blowing out most of the other content. On the other hand, if it is 50% of their content, these numbers are terrible. As it is, this metric is useless without more information.
Well, except your version of events never happened. Gizmodo didn't steal an iPhone prototype from anyone. Some guy lost it by leaving it in a bar and they purchased the lost prototype from the guy who found it and did a teardown on it. They didn't steal it and they didn't try to destroy the career of the guy who lost it.
I wasn't a fan of them purchasing it at the time and I'm still not. But what happened is a far cry from your description of what happened. But don't let the facts get in the way.
Ending a case that electrified punctuation pedants, grammar goons and comma connoisseurs,
You're just trolling us now, right?
While you are right, that isn't what they are alleging in the suit. According to the article, this isn't about white men, but white conservative men who espoused views different than Google's. So it isn't that they discriminated against "white men" but only a subset of white men, which means it wasn't race of sex discrimination. And the fact that they think the only people who could be discriminated against by Google for espousing views different than theirs are white men says a lot of about the complainants. They apparently believe only white men would hold views that would be discriminated against by Google. It's hard to say a place that is made up mostly of white men and pays white men as good or better than everyone else discriminates against white men. They are taking their issue and trying to make it about all white men, which is clearly is not.
This will be quickly followed by a Donald Trump tweet stating how much better the US is now because under him more people have broadband access than under Obama.
But why do you assume these changes were made for purely diversity? There was a story behind most of them (Monica Rambeau was trademark more than anything). There is a story reason why Jane Foster is Thor now. There is a storyline reason why Riri is Iron Man (well, Iron Heart). There is a storyline reason Amadeus Cho is the Hulk and why Jen Walters started referring to herself as Hulk instead of SheHulk. Hell, there is more storyline to most of these than things like the Flash going through so many people (and that is ignoring the golden age flash) or why Rhodey put on the armor. You assume if something changes it must be diversity, but the fact is, why not have the change also encompass diversity? There is no reason every Flash has to be a white guy. There's no reason every person to put on Batman outfit has to be a white man. If they are going to make a change for storyline purposes, why can't it be a diversity change as well?
Out of everyone you listed, I believe on Aquaman has been the same person from the beginning. There were 3 Captain Marvels (Mar-vell, Monica Rambeau, and Carol Danvers), at least 4 Iron Men (Tony, Rhodey, Riri, and Doom), about 5 Thors, 3 Spidermen that I can think of off the top of my head (and probably more), 4 Flashes, and at least 3 Hulks. But please tell me again how changing the character is something that just isn't done.
The bigger issue is that teachers don't have the things they need to teach, so they might feel the need to do this strictly for the money. The teachers aren't actually getting $100 to take home and spend how they want, they are getting $100 that will got to school supplies. School supplies they often have to buy out of their own pocket for their classrooms. If this is something that bothers you, the solution is to make sure all schools and classrooms are properly funded and supplied. Then the teachers wouldn't need to try and get $100 to spend on supplies.
So you think there are more Apple IDs in Lake Grove, New York with a population of 11,000 than there are in the Bronx with a population of 1.5 million people? Even if 1% of the people in the Bronx have Apple products, that is more than the entire population of Lake Grove. So I don't believe that is how they are making their decisions.
I just read this bit (http://www.cbr.com/marvel-solved-blade-runner-title/) on CBR. The comic book tried to put in an explanation for the phrase (and did a pretty good job of it), but of course that doesn't make it canon.
I think there is at least some truth to this study. It does make sense that businesses will automate whatever they can and raising the minimum wage may hasten that. But the thing not talked about is that as time goes on these technologies will come down in price and be cheaper than the current minimum wage and businesses will automate then anyway. So yes, it may hasten it a little bit, it certainly isn't the reason businesses are automating. So the choice is basically to keep the minimum wage where it is and have these jobs for an extra couple years while people still make less than they need to live or to raise the minimum wage and hasten the loss of these jobs but get everyone else closer to a wage they can survive on. If we wait, businesses will still save money with automation and will save money by continuing to pay wages people can't live on.
What needs to be addressed is how to help everyone who is pushed out of their job via automation. There needs to be some type of job training or something to help people adjust to the new economy, but that isn't happening. No matter what we do, people are going to lose their job to automation, it is just a matter of when. I think we should at least make sure that the people who don't lose their job to automation make enough money to live on.
This will be a big test for all those people who claim to block ads because they have gotten so bad. Yes, this will let google's ads through, as well as other well behaving ads. This is what many people claim they have wanted for a long time. Now that they have it, will they actually allow these ads through? I will happily jump on this train simply because there are too many problems with the other adblockers. There are too many time things won't load or play because the ads are blocked that I welcome a way to block only the unruly ads and let the others through. Plus, I have always felt bad about blocking ads on sites I like since I know it is a revenue source for them. But if this really works like they claim it does, it will be an easy way to stop the bad ads and leave the rest, which is really what I think people should be striving for. But I have a feeling people will block all the ads and say screw the sites.