curiousgeorgio

8 ms·

31.
by curiousgeorgio 4y ago
> That they're not alive humans Science (and God) would disagree with you there, but I suppose you're entitled to your own opinion – wrong and barbaric as it may be.
32.
by curiousgeorgio 4y ago
> It's great to care for things that are not physical, but pretty sad not caring about anything once it actually exists. Are you implying that fetuses don't exist, aren't physical, or that they just aren't human? Or a
33.
by curiousgeorgio 4y ago
Also known as fetal safe zones
34.
by curiousgeorgio 4y ago
> How else are you solving this problem? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Pe7jtFvMYA (Portlandia sketch)
35.
by curiousgeorgio 4y ago
Even putting the graph aside, could we really expect anything other than high inflation when the U.S. gov't has been injecting trillions (much of which is deficit spending) into the economy for the past couple of years?
36.
by curiousgeorgio 4y ago
Any significant feature in a data set is going to look (relatively) smaller when you include that in a much larger data set. You can argue that M2 is more relevant to inflation (I'd disagree), but it doesn't change the fact that M
37.
by curiousgeorgio 4y ago
Why, of course it's Russia's fault. Couldn't be related to this: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL [1] /s [1] Keep in mind, the effects of these changes are often not felt in everyday prices f
38.
by curiousgeorgio 5y ago
Best part of the interview was when Mark asked Lex what he'd do if he were in Facebook's position of dealing with misinformation and free speech. _________________________________________ Mark: I mean, well, how would you handle t
39.
by curiousgeorgio 5y ago
I'm glad they're careful not to oversell this finding, but it's a little discouraging how far we are from the phrase we want to hear: "Mars has life" "We've found past life on mars" " Rover fi
40.
by curiousgeorgio 5y ago
> Longer lives translates into fewer deaths per year. Are you sure about that?
41.
by curiousgeorgio 5y ago
To summarize: A lot of correlations between negative things happening and increased levels of air pollution, very little of which is rigorously causally linked. Case in point: > Stock market returns are lower on days with higher air poll
42.
by curiousgeorgio 5y ago
Good article, but I'm skeptical of the point raised in the "P.S." section (which leads me to doubt some of the other points in the article): > aspartame has basically zero negative effects ...diet cola is much safer than r
43.
by curiousgeorgio 5y ago
> It is not matter of belief, it is a matter of understanding, wrapping theorems and facts. That's true of most of the "hard sciences" like physics and chemistry. Climatology, however, is unfortunately full of beliefs and
44.
by curiousgeorgio 5y ago
> The truth is there is no consensus so censoring half (or more) of the discussion is downright absurd. I agree with your point, though even if there is consensus on a topic, we should still be able to have open discussion without ce
45.
by curiousgeorgio 5y ago
I don't doubt they're doing a lot to take down spam already. I understand the scale. I'm know they deal with a huge amount of it, and as you say, we only see the failures. I completely agree. However, the type of spam I'
46.
by curiousgeorgio 5y ago
I don't buy it. For a lot of spam, yes - I'm 100% in agreement. But in the cases I've seen recently, it's like Google isn't even trying, and this isn't some kind of "grey area" spam where it's ha
47.
by curiousgeorgio 5y ago
> Your spam reports are not part of the algo If you have first-hand knowledge that this is true, then I should inform you that this behavior is a bug in your system. There's no conceivable way someone would want to see more of somet
48.
by curiousgeorgio 5y ago
Nope - I'm not going to start subscribing to channels. Their algorithm has plenty to work with based on my watch history and my spam reports (I've reported every single one of these scams I've come across, usually directly fr
49.
by curiousgeorgio 5y ago
I don't subscribe to any channels. Up until this point, their recommendation algorithm has been great, and I'd love for it to stay that way. Major problem? No. Increasing annoyance? Absolutely. > The scams seem super obvious Ex
50.
by curiousgeorgio 5y ago
> And if you did find a half decent algorithm that worked, the spammers would just iterate again to make spam that doesn't trip it. So, the solution is not to even try? How has that worked out for other platforms?
51.
by curiousgeorgio 5y ago
It's probably been removed since I posted the image, but I think that's what the scammers are doing: posting them so frequently that when they get taken down, another one takes its place - hence the need for something to algorithm
52.
by curiousgeorgio 5y ago
https://imgur.com/a/vzGvyvS Even if spam detection didn't flag this stuff, their content ID system should be able to identify it as content stolen from other channels (with a fake tweet added at the top), then cal
53.
by curiousgeorgio 5y ago
Yes, I understand that a regex isn't a long-term solution, but if you've actually seen any of these pop up on YouTube (they're on the front page of my recommendations right now; I've seen probably 30 just today), you&#x2
54.
Tell HN: YouTube has a spam problem, and it's getting worse
95 points by curiousgeorgio 5y ago|68 comments
55.
by curiousgeorgio 5y ago
How is this okay, people? Seriously, how can people turn a blind eye to this, when it's not even a secret operation or a conspiracy theory? When the administration openly describes how they're colluding with a private company to c
56.
by curiousgeorgio 5y ago
It sounds like you're conflating market incentives with government misconduct. Governments "can do this" because we're letting them get away with it. Plain and simple. The money is mostly irrelevant in the matter. The fa
57.
by curiousgeorgio 5y ago
People arguing about Twitter being a private company with the freedom to censor content are missing the point. Yes – that's true, but the disturbing thing here is the fact that governments are increasingly pressuring them to do it (a
58.
by curiousgeorgio 5y ago
That's a fair point, though I'd still wager that for those of us not cooking over open fires, those effects are likely very minimal - at least in contrast to the people mentioned earlier.
59.
by curiousgeorgio 5y ago
Having lived in Central America, I can tell you that almost none of the recommendations[1] here are relevant, at least in relation to the kind of air pollution that kills the numbers of people shown in those graphs. Smoky fires (mostly for
60.
by curiousgeorgio 5y ago
Never been much of a fan of Facebook, but at this point it's basically turned into the McDonald's ball pit: A pile of colorful, air-filled items (mostly ads) that lures certain people into coming back because they have nothing bet

More ›