Yeah, I'm not talking about you, stupid. You're just barely above notice.

I do have a life outside of Slashdot, dimbulb.

I'd call what Charlie Hedbo did hate speech, myself.

I hope people refuse to work for them, myself. Professional antagonists who got what they deserved.

Your approach requires billions to willingly agree to put my head in the sand in order to work. This simply isn't going to happen.

My approach involves giving people greater intel systematically. This can happen, and if it does happen, it will make everyone stronger and able to make better informed decisions.

Yes, the inside of my head is a strange place. "Gifted", "Genius", "Freak", "Monster", "Idiot", take your pick, I've heard it all.

I'm being stalked right now, by people who don't like the shit I write. They don't do anything, they just follow me around because they're bored.

Do I wish I'd self-censored myself? No. Do I wish I could look at my phone and have the conclusive evidence I need to confront the guy face to face and use physical measures to make him stop? Damn right I do.

And, frankly, the more information everyone has, the better I can trust them to participate in a democracy with me. If you're inclined to willfully stick your head in the sand, why would I want to participate in a consensus style system of decision making with the likes of you? That's like having the car break down with 3 toddlers in the back seat and having a vote on what we ought to do... no thanks.

You're totally ignoring the fact that they already can. You don't need technology to stalk someone.

If someone wants to stalk me, all they need is a car. If I want to catch them, and be warned soon enough to stay safe, I need to be constantly vigilant.

Allowing technology to be vigilant for me makes me safer, even if it makes finding me easier.

Worked out in this case

Well, what if we made it so things were even more transparent, and we were able to bring pressure against the "doxer".

I had someone engage in character assassination against me based on a wilful misinterpretation of what I said. Rather than taking my post down, I left it for all to judge for themselves.

Apparently ordinary people who saw what this person did, under their real name, and started sending threats. Or so I overheard when i was recognized, prompting a conversation I could overhear.

More transparency fixes most objections to problems with transparency.

Example: Woman is being stalked. Wants to keep her privacy because shes scared. Solution: He sees her movements by expending effort. She doesn't want to make that effort to track his movements, it makes her a prisoner. So, make it easy for her to see her stalker as he moves around, and move to safety, and prove to the rest of us that it's going on.

Transparency. Just add more.

As others have said, there's no way for you to know what the other player (in this case the other computer) holds, so you can't have any additional data with which to make a different decision. All you know is whether they bet, call, raise, or fold.

I had friends over for Texas Hold'em last night. When I picked up my chips as though I was going to raise substantially, I watched his face in the reflection off the glass table, and when it twitched towards a smile for a split second, I knew he had the straight, and knew to fold.
 
Real Texas Hold'em, where you're sitting with real cards in your hands looking at the faces of the other players, involves a lot more than game theory. I'm by no means a great poker player, but I'm good enough to know that much.

Real democracies represent the people exercising their collective will to direct their society.

Real democracies don't immediately hand the reigns over to rich and cruel capitalists and surrender their hard won influence.

Anywhere you see Capitalism, you know you're not looking at a real democracy.

That's the way it SHOULD be.

Performances are naturally scarce, and can provide all the necessary funding.

Making things that are naturally abundant artificially scarce is wrong. It is economically wrong because it reduces our return on an already sunk investment, it is morally wrong because it causes needless hardship to massive numbers of people, and it is strategically wrong because cultured neighbours are safer neighbours to have than culturally starved savages.

There are valid arguments on the "for" side, but, in my judgement, they don't carry enough weight to overcome the "against" arguments.

No, its a system I built to fix a problem, and if it's not working precisely like it does in my minds eye, then it's wrong because I made a mistake, and I'm ok admitting that.

It's either a feature or a bug.

I understand what you are saying, but language that makes the computer sound like an out of control actor makes me sound like I'm not in control of my job and my dog ate my homework, so I make an effort not to use it. I think it makes me look less professional. Language that involves me saying things like "I designed it that way for these justified reasons, but we can discuss changing it", or "I'm not sure why it's responding this way, but it's my screw up and these are the resources I need to try and fix it and this is my confidence that I will succeed, do you want me to try." project a better image.

"The program doesn't know to check for the start date of a new lease when the old one expires, it just thinks it should activate it regardless."

What's wrong with "The program wasn't designed to check for the start date of a new lease when the old one expires, it just activates it regardless."

More accurate, less words, and no shifting responsibility for the situation to a "naughty program" in a manipulative subconscious effort to evade responsibility for what you built.

If someone is a celebrity, they get to have an ongoing dialog with the public. If you create an ugly first impression around a person by cherry picking their lives for dirt, they don't have the same opportunity. Don't you think that's an important difference?

Having a criminal record that can be checked by those who have a personal interest in researching your character isn't the same as having someone run around shouting that you are a thief to everyone. Maybe it happened a long time ago and you're a changed man.

But generating shame by focusing busy strangers attention on an ugly part of your life, causing an impression to be formed in a vacuum by people who had no interest in knowing the details in the first place and who will never learn when and why to let go of that... That is truly horrible, and we need to put a stop to it.

Openness in general makes everyone safer, but people who shame others by name make life worse for us all.

I don't want to maximize the number of good books at all cost, and I don't want people writing for a living and neglecting everything else, and I don't lie.