greatgirl

5 ms·

1.
by greatgirl 6y ago
Most hard problems are not solved simply by creating a technically superior product, they are often unsolvable due to mundane factors like user adoption, distribution, financial issues, server issues, etc.
2.
by greatgirl 6y ago
We have been attempting our best to come towards the most correct answers for everything, since forever. To suggest all of a sudden that this method is irrelevant is odd. It is to suggest that we should no longer pursue truth and instead la
3.
by greatgirl 6y ago
> Show me a rigid decision procedure proving it right or misinformation. You and another commenter missed a crucial part of my sentence: dialectics. The method of isolating the contradictions of a system so as to arrive at the best possi
4.
by greatgirl 6y ago
Dialectics. Immanent critique. The method of isolating the contradictions of a system so as to arrive at the best possible answer. No one said there is a quick formula for this, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.
5.
by greatgirl 6y ago
I don't make policy proposals, I just want people to think about whether deliberate misinformation infringes upon the rights of others.
6.
by greatgirl 6y ago
> Could you show me such a decision procedure? Sure, it's called reason, philosophy, and the scientific method, all of which influence a dialectic which is a method of arriving at the truth.
7.
by greatgirl 6y ago
It's not a person, it's philosophy, logic, science, etc.
8.
by greatgirl 6y ago
If you only believed lies, your thoughts can never truly be free. However if you believe some truths, your thoughts as expressed and built on top of those truths are free, whereas those built on top of lies are not. Freedom here means freed
9.
by greatgirl 6y ago
Something i rarely see come up: misinformation is itself an assault on free speech. You are confusing the minds of people who have a right to the truth and therefore the freedom to express themselves. If someone believes a lie that was told
10.
by greatgirl 6y ago
I've always felt this, I've never seen a business actually _do_ this. Why don't businesses just stop employing so many people? Stop expanding? Stop trying to acquire more users? I mean, I know from my economics studies that b
11.
Are Your Findings ‘Weird’?(apa.org)
2 points by greatgirl 6y ago|0 comments
12.
by greatgirl 6y ago
So what's your solution then? Would you be in favour of democratising the workplace so the workers own and have a say in the company?
13.
by greatgirl 6y ago
It's pretty naive to think this is the extent of it. They didn't make a billion dollars by sending people information about how much time you spent on the app. They analyse your chats and posts to see what kinds of things you&#x27
14.
by greatgirl 6y ago
I am for legalising drugs if the evidence suggests it works. I'm not for legalising drugs because of some free market ideology.
15.
by greatgirl 6y ago
> Only 2% of federal criminal defendants go to trial, and most who do are found guilty From pew research
16.
by greatgirl 6y ago
That's about where i expected it to be actually, and that's about 200k people, so it's pretty bad.
17.
by greatgirl 6y ago
Eh, plenty of studies I've seen, from economics to environmental science, has some policy recommendations at the end. It's a problem but if you're going to discard this study you have to discard many others.
18.
by greatgirl 6y ago
I am not insulting you, and I think you are smart. I'm saying that it's unreasonable to expect that banning people is a slippery slope unless you already think corporations and government have too much power, in which case the con
19.
by greatgirl 6y ago
This is literally how it used to work before the FCC removed the FCC fairness doctrine in 1987. Fox news was then founded in 1996.
20.
by greatgirl 6y ago
Or... competition responds to other competition. If your competition fires 50 employees, you no longer have the pressure to keep an extra 50 employees just to compete with them. Same principle here, that's why all these bans are happen
21.
by greatgirl 6y ago
Liberals own the media companies that are doing the banning. The government has no role in this. My claim is that if you don't like what the companies are doing, you don't like free markets. If you don't like that the governm
22.
by greatgirl 6y ago
Read what you just wrote 3 or 4 times over. Who is the mob? Stripe? A billion dollar company who has one small board of directors who made this decision? What am I underestimating? The power of a company to deprive people of their income? O
23.
by greatgirl 6y ago
I'm tired of people who have only read one book in their entire lives (1984) trying to explain to me how banning Trump is going to lead to an angry leftist mob throwing me in jail (because leftists have power right?) for speaking.
24.
by greatgirl 6y ago
I have seen this exact phrase like 500 times in the past week. Do you guys all read the same books or something? It's such a huge exaggeration to say that stripe's decision was motivated by a 'mob'... Wait, it was motiva
25.
by greatgirl 6y ago
This isn't even arguing with what I said. I said at the point of starvation, being obese is only going to let you live for a few more days longer than a skinny person assuming you dont get any more food until death. This paper is argui
26.
by greatgirl 6y ago
Being obese doesn't allow you to outlast starvation longer than a skinny person by more than maybe a few days.
27.
by greatgirl 6y ago
I doubt that https://github.com/cabal-club/commons/blob/master/values.md#...
28.
by greatgirl 6y ago
Not user friendly. Not everyone is an internet nerd like us.
29.
by greatgirl 6y ago
That is the market deciding. Twitter's market is liberals and leftists, so twitter changes the platform based on their demand. If you don't like this, then you don't like free markets.
30.
by greatgirl 6y ago
That is how the market works. Nothing in capitalism says 'you must be transparent in how you conduct business'... in fact, it's literally the opposite! Most things must be kept secret if you don't want your business to g

More ›