It's certainly a test case for the psychology of being on the dole. If people waste it all, it's not a good sign. but of course, we've already had those tests.

but they're not so much hoarding as they are investing their money into... owning businesses and such. That money is "in the economy" in the sense that a company has it to... do something. Investing in Apple doesn't really do much though.

Governments and financial types would prefer everyone invest all their money into businesses. that makes more money. Taking money out for... another yacht is wasteful. But to financial types, so is.... taking care of people who will never contribute to society. But a lot of econ majors will stress that keeping people from BECOMING those leeches on society is crazy hella valuable.

A certain percentage of people will simply be leeches. That sucks, but I don't see a way around it that isn't... absolutely dystopian. If we allow them to gorge on everyone elses's hard work, the system isn't going to work. .... I always thought that we'd simply fund UBI instead spending so much on the military. And consolidating all the other forms of welfare. That's going to screw over people with problems though.

Over on reddit there's a very blatant political divide between /r/hongkong and /r/hong_kong. Fun fact, if you ask what they think of police acting as agent provocateurs on /r/hong_kong, you get a free life-time ban. It might as well be an arm of the Chinese government.

Wow. Between this and that snafu with running proprietary telemetry harvesting on their site, GitLab is not having a good month.

Sure, other than the self-learning/machine learning ones. Those that learn on big sets of data are not human readable. The box is inherently black by nature. You can't open it up and deduce why the weight on node201 is 0.12412352. The AI itself certainly doesn't know why any more than you can explain what your 293,395th neuron does. The reason it's at that value is because it was better at identifying who to give loans to. For that given data set. And a healthy dose of rand() thrown in for good measure.

The fact that you could have different modules output different values is meaningless in this context.

It'll make it illegal to use machine-learning. But you know that banks will run these tools and then bullshit an excuse for why they do or don't give out a loan. If there's a tool that does a white-collar job instantly and better than people, every desk jockey will have one under the table and go play golf while billing you hours.

But I don't think it's a good idea to make machine-learning an illegal tool for... anything that people actually care about. Because we want unbiased judgment. As long as we don't feed into the black box anything that we've deemed is protected, then it literally won't know. Now, was pointed out, AI does a fantastic job of spotting those sort of gaps. It'll be able to deduce a swath of the populous is European because they like cheese. But so what? Unless cheese has an actual impact on the ability to pay back a loan, it shouldn't matter. Machine learning does induce superstition, for sure. Ice-cream and murder rate. But don't delude yourself into thinking people don't do the same thing. The goal is to be as fair as possible. We can control what information we dump into the black box. Just dumping someone's entire online profile is probably a terrible idea. If you want to regulate how these tools are used, ask for transparency into what was fed into them.

...Are you sure about that? It has to do with keeping your personal information protected. An obvious backlash against the data breeches that happened a few years ago. But... I don't think it says anything about knowing WHY they make decisions based on what information they have on you. As long as they ask you mother-may-I go get all your data to consider your loan... that's legal. You're informed and you gave consent for them to HAVE that data. That's all the GDPR is going for.

With a warrant, the "trusted organizations" can go get this data. It's still there. They can go get it.

What they CAN'T do is trawl everyone's data to profile likely criminals. Because the 4th amendment exists and we are supposed to be "secure in our papers". Because otherwise we'll have a society constantly afraid of acting out of line and getting black-bagged in the night for political dissent, similar to the Red Scare or the bad times in communist countries.

Oh hey, thought I hit this one. I actually defined bigot elsewhere in this thread:

Rude. But sure. I refuse to consider eugenics. Biology is a real thing, but the social ramifications for even starting to entertain directing human evolution is just... it vastly outweighs the gains. And the gains take a LONG time to bear fruit, while the world is torn apart from said policy within 5-20 years. It's just bad mojo to even start that conversation without leading with the social side of it and why it's a bad idea. That caveat though might give me an out when it comes to being called a bigot though. I HAVE considered it, but have justifications for why I don't consider it more.

Oooooooor, the target audience is primarily a target race. Hence the heros look like the target audience. You know, because America is 70% white. Having foreigners and colored people be the villains does sound pretty bad. An example of, not bigotry, but good ol' classic racism. ...But you're talking about Marvel? Of all the examples you could choose (and there's plenty) you went with Marvel!? Marvel has been a bastion of progressive views. And for a long long time. Have you ever heard of X-men? It's a not-so-subtle allegory about how racism sucks. And recently Black Panther made them a sweet bit of dosh. Really? "Always the villans"? Are you even trying?

I am against bigotry. I'm also against the blatant sexism Gillette pulled. More like a toxic sort of virtue signalling just to chase profits. Controversy is free marketing.

Agreed. Or sexism, or racism. See James Damore.

No, google has done the work of identifying these people already (Obviously they're choosing to to ban, somehow). The choice to advertise is as simple as a checkbox or a list of tags.

They should ALSO have the option of giving youtube a whitelist or a blacklist. You know, because not EVERY advertiser will agree with how google has labled videos and people with that checkbox. blah blah, power to the people, and all that.

That's the entire crux of the idea. Let them choose what videos to put their ads next to. Unless that whole "targeted advertising" thing was a big giant lie.

If you're concerned about an ad being next to one video, and the NEXT video they watch is some hideous shit. Then you ALSO LET THEM CHOOSE WHO they're displaying ads to. Like you said, google knows what you're watching. If advertisers don't want to be shown to people who choose pro-robo-hitler-SJW-lizardpeople videos.... they can choose not to. IE, the de-monetizing aspect follows toxic users. Their EYEBALLS are demonetized.

pft, just have a separate browser that doesn't track you. I run chrome and firefox. When I re-open firefox youtube has no idea who I am. And yeah, browse around a bit and youtube gets infuriatingly presumptive. And on a REALLY small dataset. It goes all over the damn place with what it thinks I want to watch.

The proles actually lived without telescreens in 1984. The main character was part of the.... middle class? Orwell had this sort of classist view where the lower class weren't able to think of big picture stuff and just accepted their lot.

But yeah, "complicit" sums up the joke.

The idea that "IT SUCKS THEREFORE ANY CHANGE WILL SUCK" and therefore should be avoided just leads to a shitty system staying a shitty system.

oh ho ho, so sorry I didn't get the exact right WORDING. Yes, that's definitely a reason to completely stop reading a post. The wrong wording.

But yes. I admit that could have been worded better. It's not just the bill of rights that restricts and not just the main body that grants. THAT SAID, most of the bill of rights is indeed restrictions on what they can do. Just like... squint a little dude. English isn't a perfect language. You blew a gasket over some wording nuance and it shut down all thought. You're either closed-minded or laughably biased. You're not contributing to the conversation you're just bitching about tangents.

So if it can be shown that plants that are damaged have not just responses to pain, but lasting altered behavior? Then that'd suffice? (Otherwise, then wtf is psychology of a cow?)

Because they enjoy the "common carrier" defense of being a hands-off third-party not responsible for the content that they deliver. Can you find an ISIS video or pirated material on Youtube? Can you sue Google corporate for hosting that video? No? That's because they're claiming that it's not their responsibility and are foisting it off onto the users. As they should.

But as soon as they start policing SOME of their content that they don't like, they lose that common carrier defense. Now they are inspecting all the packages you send them and are giving it an implicit approval stamp when they let it through. Now they are responsible. They can't have it both ways.

There's a lot of forced speech when it comes to commercial speech. IE, advertising can't lie. That's fraud. And neutral platforms can't arbitrarily choose to not ship goods sent by black people. Bus's can't refuse patronage to Muslims. The DMV must issue licenses to atheists.

Why not just flag it as "Biggoted bullshit" when they present it to advertisers and LET THEM CHOOSE what they put their ads on. And let them have their own white-list/black-list of channels or videos. And let users know just who is buying ad-space on any given video.

I think Youtube should be a more or less impartial platform and let people decide what is wrong-think rather than enforcing it themselves.