6 ms·
Other coverage, like CNN, made it sound like the layoffs were concentrated along annotators. But your comment made me double-check the original reporting[1], wh
by wutbrodo 4y ago
Other coverage, like CNN, made it sound like the layoffs were concentrated along annotators. But your comment made me double-check the original reporting[1], which AFAICT says that the layoffs were both data evaluators and annotators.
Granting you the pedantry point here, I hereby happily amend my comment to refer to "data [evaluators] and annotators", with zero impact on my point.
> So, who is being dishonest?
Not sure if you're actually familiar with the definition of the word? Being potentially technically wrong on a pt that doesn't change the overall claim is enormously different from the core of a claim being wrong (eg the implication that "supposedly important people haven't been laid off" when they demonstrably focused the layoffs on the most commoditizable and replaceable labor in the industry).
[1] https://archive.ph/i6BCD https://archive.ph/i6BCD
- ncmncm 4y agoIf you complain about the quality of discussion, the onus is on you to be better. But, you are not better, or even as good. My original "important" was more accurate than your criticism taking it as an example of unfair dialog and, supposedly, correcting it. But you do prove your point: discussion of the topic was here, with your comments, overall only a little better than your own contribution. Without, though, substantially better.