cbsmith

43 ms·

661.
by cbsmith 3y ago
> Do externalities not exist, or is the platform (and somehow, whomever leads YC) solely and completely to blame for the users? Why is Reddit to blame, rather than BBSes or Mosaic, without which a platform like Reddit wouldn’t have exist
662.
by cbsmith 3y ago
> Saying “rich people are all bad and have hurt way more people” is specious. > Implying that I can’t imagine it, when you are apparently incapable of being specific, is juvenile. I agree. I wasn't saying that, anymore than someo
663.
by cbsmith 3y ago
> The glibness of this superficial comparison doesn't change the fact that anyone who actually thought seriously about crafting laws to deal with both of those would find themselves dealing with very different scenarios, both from a
664.
by cbsmith 3y ago
I wasn't trying to suggest they were similar. It might be hard to imagine this, but it is possible that leading a company deploying billions of dollars might actually have a significantly larger potential impact on people's lives
665.
by cbsmith 3y ago
It makes sense. It's not like corporations have responsibilities that can have life & death impacts on people, or that can radically transform the lives of people who don't even work there. Oh wait...
666.
by cbsmith 3y ago
Exactly.
667.
by cbsmith 3y ago
"Of course none of this will happen to Google. You're too innovative." I would have had a hard time hearing that as anything other than sarcasm.
668.
by cbsmith 3y ago
The answer to that one is of indeed YES. It would appear that there are different rules when profit is involved, which ironically is exactly what OpenAI's nonprofit parent was intended to prevent.
669.
by cbsmith 3y ago
Unsurprisingly, there's some gross oversimplification going on here, but this is interesting stuff.
670.
by cbsmith 3y ago
I read that as, "we've already committed atrocities with more, why wouldn't we do the same with less"? ;-)
671.
by cbsmith 3y ago
First, let's be real here: it's not a mandate that every business decision be made with a racialized lens. It's a mandate that business decisions consider their potential impact on systemically disenfranchised groups that we
672.
by cbsmith 3y ago
You might feel bad for ISPs, but imagine having to operate under these conditions for decades. Think of all the banks who have had to give out loans in neighbourhoods where they knew the default rate would be higher. The horror. The horror.
673.
by cbsmith 3y ago
Yeah, that's part of why it threw me for a loop: it the right adjective for describing him, not his appetite.
674.
by cbsmith 3y ago
I have very different memories of the early 90's. While, even as a programmer, while I very much interacted with computers as a tool, I tended to treat interactions with it as a conversation with the engineer who designed the hardware
675.
by cbsmith 3y ago
https://zandarvts.blogspot.com/search/label/Linux https://zandarvts.blogspot.com/search/label/Ubuntu
676.
by cbsmith 3y ago
"veracious appetite" That'd drive him nuts.
677.
by cbsmith 3y ago
There's an extra level of irony here that I wrote "a totally an irrelevant" and didn't realize it until after the edit window had closed...
678.
by cbsmith 3y ago
That's not exactly accurate. Ad companies definitely need to train using large data sets, but they could infer with very little information, and in most cases, "unstructured" and "low quality" data was actually quit
679.
by cbsmith 3y ago
This is a totally an irrelevant nit, but I couldn't help but be disturbed by the "try and ship" phrasing instead of "try to ship" phrasing: https://www.grammar-monster.com/lessons/try_and_try_to
680.
by cbsmith 3y ago
Folks who deliberately violate laws are obviously not going to follow the rules, but that doesn't mean the GDPR & other privacy laws don't have teeth (in fact, they have specific rules about mitigations against bad actors). Ev
681.
by cbsmith 3y ago
The GDPR is really complicated. There's plenty of publicly available information you can use without explicit user consent. What's true is that many of GDPR's rules, particularly the disclosure of data sources and erasure req
682.
by cbsmith 3y ago
I'm not sure I understand the point of your question.
683.
by cbsmith 3y ago
The "automated way" is just a matter of perspective. What matters is that the more efficiently you can do it, the fewer resources you need to devote to "investigate" anyone. That can certainly create ethical quandaries.
684.
by cbsmith 3y ago
Your point stands, but the comment is misleading. The claim is birth date +zip+gender could uniquely identify 87% of the US population, and there are respectable studies to back this stuff up ( https://groups.csail.mit.edu/ma
685.
by cbsmith 3y ago
> Privacy isn't only about the method, it's also about scale and intent. I'm with you about the intent, but I don't follow the scale argument. It's not like it isn't a privacy violation if you only do it to
686.
by cbsmith 3y ago
> However, the fact that this hand labeling is possible indicates in itself that the issue isn't a pure privacy violation. It's more that automating this in bulk is now possible which was difficult before. Except that it was pr
687.
by cbsmith 3y ago
That's not in conflict with what I'm saying. Costs centers require a certain amount of investment to ensure the business runs efficiently. If you under fund it, the results are often catastrophic. However, if you over fund it (as
688.
by cbsmith 3y ago
> C-suites view support (IT in my case) as a cost-center, without seeming to understand that our infrastructure is what all revenue travels over. I think that's well understood as cost-centers go. What's also understood is that
689.
by cbsmith 3y ago
Here's my take at a summary: systems designed and implemented by the enfranchised, regardless of intent, invariably are biased against the disenfranchised.
690.
by cbsmith 3y ago
I would imagine this would increase the risks an employer would face for discriminatory compensation claims. If you're really saying that the range is that varied for the role and you don't have anything like a reasonable distribu

More ›