lerpa

8 ms·

31.
by lerpa 9y ago
It's not like NN would make them have more competition, either. Which, if they are greedy bastards that make anything for a profit, would make instead of charging to access some websites, get that same money from raising prices to ever
32.
by lerpa 9y ago
So maybe you found the actual problem. And forcing anyone providing network services to be common carrier just makes it less likely for competition to happen.
33.
by lerpa 9y ago
This is like Internet Explorer way of doing things all over again. Instead of following the standard, just try to guess what people wanted to do, so you create a new standard.
34.
by lerpa 9y ago
> The idiocy is accepting that researching extreme content is evil. It is not. The Govt people don't believe that, otherwise they would need to arrest themselves. They just want to do some terror on the populace to the extent that m
35.
by lerpa 9y ago
> as much as I agree with the policy position So do I. But that is irrelevant. > I detest the "scientific consensus" speak Same here, specially when implying that health researchers talking not about their actual results but
36.
by lerpa 9y ago
> If you can reasonably assess that your process is fair, I don't think anyone should care how the numbers bear out. Because it goes against the results they wanted to arrive at.
37.
by lerpa 9y ago
> she hired at least a few women over men which she thought were better candidates simply because "we have to". That's a problem. I don't have any problem with people having arbitrary standards which guide their hirin
38.
by lerpa 9y ago
Exactly, but in a world where people desire facebook and others to have "truth checking authorities", I don't expect things to get much better.
39.
by lerpa 9y ago
> Google failed at doing this. Implying they cared about false stereotypes. They only failed if they actually wanted to do that. My bet is this gives them negative PR to their target market, end of story.
40.
by lerpa 9y ago
Well it's better to have a job that to don't have one, right? But being treated as less capable thus requiring lower barrier of entry to women is just plain old sexism.
41.
by lerpa 9y ago
> In an exam where an upper caste person might have to score 100 to get in, the reserved caste person would have to score 70. And we all know that the way to treat people with respect is to deal with them as if they were handicapped.
42.
by lerpa 9y ago
> What I don't understand is why this is so bad? It's the idea that it would be unfair that on average women cannot do as well in things men do, ignoring basic biology that genders are different and that there are things that a
43.
by lerpa 9y ago
> what happen if less than 40% want to be in the profession? Are you going to force them to join non-desire careers? "Nah, we all know CS is the best, and the only logical possibility is that women are being discouraged to do it, b
44.
by lerpa 9y ago
> I'm a proponent for an "early bias" theory Or maybe women just enjoy doing different kind of things than men.
45.
by lerpa 9y ago
One thing that solves this is stating the obvious, something getting hacked means someone was incompetent.
46.
by lerpa 9y ago
ISPs have a lot to win with keeping their monopolies as it is. Given the amount of alarmism it actually seems to me there is heavy propaganda advocating for the status quo, for some reason, perhaps they want further regulations that can be
47.
by lerpa 9y ago
If there are bad players, why instead don't you get rid of the legislation that gives them monopolies, so other people can offer better services? Instead you're just giving the bad apples your money. Oh how awful for them... and t
48.
by lerpa 9y ago
Net neutrality just helps the status quo, and forces the "evil greedy ISPs" to take your money. Yeah let's show them by giving them money and no competition to their business... wait. Vote for less regulation, not just gettin
49.
by lerpa 9y ago
It would if you were explicitly told to do it without automation. Otherwise you're paid to do a job, and you did it, so all good.
50.
by lerpa 9y ago
Sure, and I think they should also fine for a couple of thousands the evil people that are supporting that monopoly and making it possible, by using such sickening services Google provides.
51.
by lerpa 9y ago
Applying well documented authoritarianism doesn't make it less so.
52.
by lerpa 9y ago
What market, do people have contracts with Google that I am not aware of? Oh right, no, and what they have in their website promises no expectation of doing what you need.
53.
by lerpa 9y ago
Twice wrong, doesn't make it right.
54.
by lerpa 9y ago
> It doesn't work like that. Then don't use any. You are not entitled to it, nobody has any obligation to have a service that does what you want.
55.
by lerpa 9y ago
Google doesn't have to fulfill any interests of yours, though.
56.
by lerpa 9y ago
It's actually called authoritarianism - when pushing what government wants violates other people's rights to do business as they please even if it isn't criminal activity.
57.
by lerpa 9y ago
People like the guy you replied to would only start to question things, once the EU decides they cannot keep working the way they want to. They live under some sort of bubble of selfishness, where they believe others have to change in order
58.
by lerpa 9y ago
Either you have the right to privacy or you don't. It's just double speak to say the government can violate any right, then either the government is acting criminally and people involved should be personally punished as such, or y
59.
by lerpa 9y ago
That's like saying light worked different on the time of the Greeks because they thought our eyes shoot beams. Face palm Their understanding of the thing was different, and wrong, the thing in of it self wasn't.
60.
by lerpa 9y ago
Explanations. That there exists more than one explanation for a phenomenon, like ethics and moral values, doesn't mean that choosing any of those at random yields a good explanation. It also doesn't mean that there is no valid exp

More ›