ANPEQ-1

5 ms·

1.
by ANPEQ-1 7y ago
If the partnership between tech and the US government were as tight as you might think, we wouldn't be losing so badly on the information warfare front. The fact is that the United States has such a massive bureaucracy between itself p
2.
Ask HN: How do you define a toxic workplace?
9 points by ANPEQ-1 7y ago|6 comments
3.
by ANPEQ-1 7y ago
"Learning Experience" vs. "Permanent, intractable and public Scarlet Letter" :|
4.
by ANPEQ-1 7y ago
"Newspapers have always had an agenda" I'm fine with this, so long as they don't insist on their objectivity. Otherwise everything they say must be filtered through an undefined lens that readers either a) don't hav
5.
by ANPEQ-1 7y ago
As a former NYTimes employee, I can assure you that 99% of the work is not done in good faith. It's all activism now, top to bottom. There's a few good eggs granted, but the newspaper has an agenda and uses their pseudo-objectivit
6.
by ANPEQ-1 7y ago
It is always entertaining when the 'newspaper of record' shames other publications for their mistakes and failings.
7.
by ANPEQ-1 7y ago
Thank you. There is such thing as legitimate secrets. The threat of jail for wholesale and thoughtless release of top secret information... is a good threat. Professional journalists know this and shouldn't jump on the Assange bandwago
8.
by ANPEQ-1 7y ago
The CJR skirts this issue by simply ignoring it. Color me surprised...
9.
by ANPEQ-1 7y ago
God forbid we do our best to seek objectivity /s
10.
by ANPEQ-1 7y ago
I mean, I'd argue that journalism as it should be is focused on truthfulness, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness and public accountability - all standards one would assume are important given The Markup's stated missi
11.
by ANPEQ-1 7y ago
Ahhh okay, interesting. I guess that is interesting news for all the racist and sexist small business owners out there barf
12.
by ANPEQ-1 7y ago
I'm 100% positive that quality journalists can research quality stories irrespective of their background. It happens all the time.
13.
by ANPEQ-1 7y ago
Seems pretty clear cut that Sue Gardner was making hiring decisions based on practices prohibited by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The CJR article says she sent them the spreadsheet herself... https://www.eeoc
14.
by ANPEQ-1 7y ago
"Non-white" "Non-male" How does this spreadsheet not represent practices prohibited by the EEOC? https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/index.cfm
15.
by ANPEQ-1 7y ago
False equivalence. It's more like if I build a house based on someone else's plans, and then declare myself an architect. AKQA is happy to make themselves sound smart in their video, when in fact all they did was run someone else&
16.
by ANPEQ-1 7y ago
It's not impressive. They didn't even build the tool, they just snagged the code from GitHub, said "This is AI!!!!" and without attributing it to the builder. It's cynical marketing ploy.
17.
by ANPEQ-1 7y ago
By performing a self-promotional stunt? This isn't solving problems, it's riding the AI wave - and claiming the capability - while leveraging the work of others, without attribution. I mean they even use the damn program in their
18.
by ANPEQ-1 7y ago
A lot of digital agencies claim they have AI/ML capabilities and are really just using others' tools. It's a shame they lacked the integrity to attribute you.