4 ms·
The article didn't say supremacy. I think the closest it came was bias. It cited a former manager of Kodak Research. And 1 of its points was holding all else co
by pseudalopex 5y ago
The article didn't say supremacy. I think the closest it came was bias. It cited a former manager of Kodak Research. And 1 of its points was holding all else constant was part of the problem.
- LogonType10 5y agoDo you think it's impossible to imply something without saying it ("dog-whistling", if you will)?
- arrrg 5y agoDidn’t even imply it. The criticism is pretty clear: even though this was obviously a problem it wasn’t addressed for decades. That’s the point. There is no talk about the initial design.
- LogonType10 5y agoDidn't imply what?
- nicoburns 5y agoI think it's certainly possible to imply something without saying it. But I think it's important that we don't assume that anybody who doesn't say X is implying X just because they talk about Y which other people use to imply X. Otherwise it becomes impossible to talk about Y. If you think in this specific case that the authors are implying X by saying Y, then you need to explain why you think that.
- TedDoesntTalk 5y agoThat former manager, Earl Cage, is long dead. I don't think he was interviewed for this article.
- pseudalopex 5y agoThe interviewed a professor who interviewed him. Does it matter?
- TedDoesntTalk 5y agoYes? Original source vs not original.