esja

27 ms·

241.
by esja 6y ago
Daszak and EcoHealth have been working with Shi Zhengli for over 15 years[0]. He is not a neutral observer on this particular issue. And this year he has made a number of statements (like the one you quote) which do nothing to refute the la
242.
by esja 6y ago
The companies giving this away at cost are obviously doing something good for the world. That's not my point. I just find it odd that companies like Pfizer and Moderna are about to lift the world out of a catastrophe in unprecedented f
243.
by esja 6y ago
They are all incredibly affordable, measured against the benefits to individuals and society.
244.
by esja 6y ago
In my experience, a surprising proportion of people who get involved in these "ethics" initiatives are mostly there to force their own personal ethics onto the machine, even if it means training the machine to ignore reality and
245.
by esja 6y ago
Very similar to Lehman's Repo 105 maneuver: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repo_105
246.
by esja 6y ago
It's classic malinvestment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malinvestment
247.
by esja 6y ago
Part of their problem is that they don't seem to have a clear definition for hate speech... or at least not one that is public and that their entire user base can understand and accept. And for the same reasons, it's impossible to
248.
by esja 6y ago
It's sowing discord everywhere, because the design is the same everywhere, and humans have the same psychological vulnerabilities everywhere. Maximum profit requires maximum engagement. This requires creating filter bubbles and priorit
249.
by esja 6y ago
It would be wonderful if epistemology was taught in schools and universities. But it would need to be embedded into every subject and focused on practical exercises. Whenever I've seen this sort of thing taught, the students learn abo
250.
by esja 6y ago
Filter bubbles existed before, but they were nowhere near as narrow as they are today. Only fifteen years ago it was normal for most people to either watch or at least be aware of the same shows (including nightly news) as their neighbours,
251.
by esja 6y ago
One day it will be commonly accepted that these ML recommenders have played the same role in this social crisis as the Gaussian copula did in the financial crisis.
252.
by esja 6y ago
One day it will be commonly accepted that these ML recommenders have played the same role in this social crisis as the Gaussian copula did in the financial crisis.
253.
by esja 6y ago
There is another option: use anti-trust enforcement or similar regulatory actions to ensure a competitive market, so people can be always get access to information, and no single private provider can become a universal censor.
254.
by esja 6y ago
Of course we can, because it's a law of nature. Whereas man-made laws are subject to human action and interpretation, so outcomes are far less predictable.
255.
by esja 6y ago
I already said it was off topic... it was a hypothetical.
256.
by esja 6y ago
I'm not trying to persuade you that your specific personal preferences for a "Safe Mode Internet" are wrong. I'm saying that just because you are personally comfortable with Google's current set of moderation ch
257.
by esja 6y ago
I'm not arguing Google are censoring legal documents. But let's take this trend in that direction... 1. How would the average person find that website? A search engine perhaps? 2. How many search engines does the average person us
258.
by esja 6y ago
Very interesting, thank you.
259.
by esja 6y ago
Fair enough, I shouldn't have argued the semantics. I agree with your general point.
260.
by esja 6y ago
I don't think "the court of public opinion" is a high enough standard for a prospective world-wide monopolistic censor of information. Such an authority needs to be completely rigorous, completely fair, completely objective,
261.
by esja 6y ago
I agree but that's not really my concern. I am most concerned about granting Google (or anyone) the power to decide what is true or false, and to prevent individuals from seeing the information used to make those judgements, or to deci
262.
by esja 6y ago
My concern is that you as an individual have used your personal judgement to come to the conclusion that these cases are batshit (as have I incidentally), and in this specific case you are most likely correct. But had Google prevented you
263.
by esja 6y ago
Is that true? Doesn't he have the right to ask the governors to do this, or to ask them to buy him an ice cream, or to sing him a love song? They have the right to decline - he can't compel them to do anything. Whether he should
264.
by esja 6y ago
It is literally pre-judging. You are deciding the outcome of a case that has not occurred, based on cases that have. I've replied in more detail to your other comment which said much the same thing.
265.
by esja 6y ago
You seem to be arguing that because cases 1-9 were without merit, case 10 and beyond are too. That may turn out to be true, but it is also quite literally pre-judging. Your argument also accepts that the courts judged these cases to have
266.
by esja 6y ago
How should we decide whether to believe your comment? By appeal to some authority?
267.
by esja 6y ago
It's even worse than you describe. Hyperbole is being flagged as "disinformation" or "lies". All the nuance of human communication is being squeezed into a lowest-common-denominator straight-jacket, based on what&#x
268.
by esja 6y ago
As a matter of principle , do you believe Google staff (or their outsourced contractors) can and should pre-judge the outcomes of US court cases? I ask about principles because it's very easy to focus on the specific details of these
269.
by esja 6y ago
Do you believe Google staff (or their outsourced contractors) can and should pre-judge the outcomes of US court cases? Editing to make this a bit clearer: As a matter of principle , do you believe Google staff (or their outsourced contra
270.
by esja 6y ago
I never suggested raising rates.

More ›