2 ms·

You're making a distinction without a difference -- whether it's because of "caution" or whatever, no progress will be made if you have your way. According to

You're making a distinction without a difference -- whether it's because of "caution" or whatever, no progress will be made if you have your way. According to you the solution lies in "politics". Yet, this law is the product of California's government, a political body -- is that not legitimate "politics"? So what would make for a "political" solution that would qualify for your stamp of approval? Chasing a consensus with the "tough on crime" crowd who benefit from felony disenfranchisement disproportionately suppressing minority votes? No such consensus will ever happen.

cgriswald 8y ago
Again, you either misunderstand or misrepresent my points. > According to you the solution lies in "politics". My post was critical of the role of politics in determining the fairness of the algorithm. It removes the human lives factor and provides a platform for politicians and ideologues ("tough on crime" or otherwise) to either do nothing, argue about the ideology of fairness, or ignore ground truth about outcomes and pre-existing bias in the system.