cmiles74

38 ms·

511.
by cmiles74 6y ago
In my opinion, things are working as expected. The US federal and state level governments are not supposed to regulate speech, per the US Constitution. In this case they are not regulating speech. Private companies are regulating speech (in
512.
by cmiles74 6y ago
And, let's note that torrent sites are still widely available. Most torrent sites are simply better constructed for their niche than Parler was.
513.
by cmiles74 6y ago
When Parler became a liability for any company associated with it, to their shock, it turned out no company wanted to be associated with it. In a world where people "vote with their wallets" companies like Amazon, Google and Apple
514.
by cmiles74 6y ago
I disagree with the idea that people, on average, take the word of business or corporate entities on faith. In the US we have organizations that vet drugs and medication (FDA) as well as to verify the safety of foods (USDA). I believe most
515.
by cmiles74 6y ago
I don't think any consumer is buying a smart phone with the expectation (or intent) that it's recording them all the time, or sometimes, or at the behest of law enforcement, etc. They aren't really thinking about this when th
516.
by cmiles74 6y ago
In my opinion, the difference is the amount of social pressure that is bearing down. Deciding to avoid products like the Echo and it's not a big deal. My mother-in-law will roll her eyes when I remind her we don't want for Christm
517.
by cmiles74 6y ago
This is a good point, I had suspected that the mute function was, in fact, implemented in software. That they went ahead and implemented in hardware is encouraging. Someone over there took the feature seriously enough to take it this far. I
518.
by cmiles74 6y ago
Twitter is a for-profit US corporation. If you have enough money they will literally do anything you want, as in this case. In my opinion, if they need to update their terms of service in order to make that easier they certainly will do so
519.
by cmiles74 6y ago
The Reuters article says exactly the opposite. If you have documentation that this policy has been in place but ignored, I think that would have a big impact on this unfolding story, it definitely strike me as newsworthy. The Reuters articl
520.
by cmiles74 6y ago
When an graduate school advisor provides feedback on a paper, the goal is to improve the quality of the paper. The peer review process also has the same goal in mind: produce a better paper. According to this Reuters article, Google's
521.
by cmiles74 6y ago
I agree that Google may have been interested in hiring these researchers to help "direct Google down the right path". That seems reasonable to me. I'm not seeing where I confuse "the ideas with their presentation" o
522.
by cmiles74 6y ago
Perhaps researchers who accepted these positions with Google were naive. That is certainly possible but it can't be argued: Google hired these people under the pretense of letting them do their research free of censorship and, now that
523.
by cmiles74 6y ago
This seems very different to me than hiring researchers doing work in fields that directly impact your business and telling them their work will not be censored. And then censoring them from a position of power, since you now provide their
524.
by cmiles74 6y ago
Sorry, I'm having trouble following this comment. In a public institution (as well as at Google) research papers are subject to peer review before publication. Now Google is adding _another review process_ after peer review, I don&#x27
525.
by cmiles74 6y ago
If Google did not want to fund research that conflicted with their bottom line, they could have avoided hiring researchers interested in that kind of work. Instead they hired these people and told them they would be free of censorship. Now
526.
by cmiles74 6y ago
In my opinion, this is different: Google is hiring research scientists and telling them that Google would like to pay for their research. When hired, Googled told these people that they would be free to conduct research in their field witho
527.
by cmiles74 6y ago
My understanding is that the Google is pressuring it's employees (who are research scientists) to refrain from publishing papers that Google management believes casts a negative light on a Google product. It's not theoretical, res
528.
by cmiles74 6y ago
It's odd, I remember the Department of Defense complaining about the L-band auction back in April[0] but I don't see anything about them opposing C-band auction. [0]: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020&#
529.
by cmiles74 6y ago
I really enjoyed the James Gleick book, "The Information", that covered a lot of this material. It spent time on both Shannon and Weiner, as well as what was happening at the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki&#x2
530.
by cmiles74 6y ago
In my case it was the anesthesiologist who was out of network. Looking at the bill, they looked like just another practice. When I found their phone number and address, however, it turned out that their practice was part of the hospital. I
531.
by cmiles74 6y ago
They were made aware of their woefully insecure FTP server last year (November 2019). This FTP server had access to (or was used as) the update server for SolarWinds products. In my opinion, they likely started looking at their security pra
532.
by cmiles74 6y ago
Many of them were also imaginary, as history has made clear.
533.
by cmiles74 6y ago
I did find a Reddit post with the abstract and some discussion from a person who claims to be a reviewer. https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/k69eq0/n_t... In my opinion, it seemed pretty l
534.
by cmiles74 6y ago
Agreed, there's even an article floating around that purports to summarize the most offensive tweets. In my opinion, this whole thing is being vastly blown out of proportion.
535.
by cmiles74 6y ago
I've heard myself and other say many times, "the kind of work they have you do in the technical interview is rarely the kind of work you'll actually do". This so often true, I think many of us take it for granted. Odds a
536.
by cmiles74 6y ago
I have to disagree. I read the article posted above and this strikes me as an excessively critical view. I don't see Dr. Gebru acting in bad faith although they are clearly frustrated with the exchange. > Virtually all of her replie
537.
by cmiles74 6y ago
I have to disagree, isn't this exactly the sort of thing Google hired them for? Wikipedia lists their job title as "technical co-lead of the Ethical Artificial Intelligence Team at Google."
538.
by cmiles74 6y ago
Was this a Google internal blind peer review? It sounds more like management pushing back for management specific reasons. I'm not sure it's the same thing, or that management should expect to be able to roadblock publication at t
539.
by cmiles74 6y ago
I think it's worth highlighting that Google's internal review of papers is probably significantly different than what we'd expect in an academic setting. I'm not big corporate entity expert, but I wouldn't be shocke
540.
by cmiles74 6y ago
I'm curious about this "submitted paper for review 1 day before publication" assertion. From my reading, it sounded like work on this paper had been going on for a while. The email quoted on "Platformer" makes it so

More ›