pannSun

12 ms·

61.
by pannSun 4y ago
That book has been largely debunked [1], and mostly concerned itself with science that was outdated even at the time of its publication. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/science/14skull.html
62.
by pannSun 4y ago
> OpenAI put a truly remarkable amount of effort into making a chatbot that would never say it loved racism. This is what that looks like by the way: https://postimg.cc/d7p8Qw50
63.
by pannSun 4y ago
It's both censorship, you just like the excuse/justification given in one case. > all you’ve shown is that Twitter And Google, and reddit. Somehow, when shown the gatekeepers of online attention all censoring in concert with ea
64.
by pannSun 4y ago
> we're talking about Twitter and Mastodon, not any of those other things. I don't view things so narrowly. If you want to limit yourself to only Twitter and Mastodon, you are free to do so, but that does not make similar cases
65.
by pannSun 4y ago
And the internet isn't print journalism, yet it struck a near-fatal blow to newspaper budgets. That's the economic side of it. The other side is, as you say, established media discreetly [1] censoring alternatives that don'
66.
by pannSun 4y ago
Censoring competition/alternatives.
67.
by pannSun 4y ago
This has been standard operating procedure at Twitter long before Musk: https://reclaimthenet.org/twitter-censors-all-links-to-bitch... And at Google as well: https://reclaimthenet.org/google-play-bans-bitch
68.
by pannSun 4y ago
Now ask yourself why other alleged shadowbans, pre-Musk, weren't so credulously (or at all) reported on. I guess they weren't "newsworthy".
69.
by pannSun 4y ago
There are plenty of limits on what contracts may contain*, so the "it's legal if both parties sign the dotted line" is, for now, fiction. It's also what every entity able to compel people to agree to its contracts is lob
70.
by pannSun 4y ago
"Good fences make good neighbors." But you're conflating nationalism with imperialism, as is so common these days. And somehow you think that in the current system where multinational corporations sneak anti-consumer legislat
71.
by pannSun 4y ago
> This post seem to blame victims for the problem I interpreted the parent post as describing a mere "contributing cause", but you seem to be saying the post is assigning moral guilt to the victims. Why? And how can we discus
72.
by pannSun 4y ago
It is deeply concerning that the FBI would want to conduct surveillance on such a scale, that targeted operations (planting a keylogger, recording password entry, etc.) cannot support them.
73.
by pannSun 4y ago
> ban trade Yes those are the only two options, totally unrestricted free trade*, or a total ban on trade. There's no middle ground, no spectrum. *Except for what restrictions "free trade" agreements place on national legi
74.
by pannSun 4y ago
To be clear, the "reasonable policy" is "don't let your ads reveal how invasive our spying is"?
75.
by pannSun 4y ago
And they were only able to get Capone on tax evasion. Yet we all recognize tax evasion as totally incidental to what he did. And that power of the courts you mention would never have come to pass if discrimination was only criticized via so
76.
by pannSun 4y ago
I think we're misunderstanding each-other. My point is that prominent institutions object to surveillance mostly on grounds of discrimination (and this is reflected in the masses, such as the comment I replied to). So examples of those
77.
by pannSun 4y ago
Those are all examples of stories complaining specifically about facial-recognition working worse for some races. The quantity, and prominence of the institutions spouting them, is the point.
78.
by pannSun 4y ago
It doesn't involve any cutting into the eye, as with regular lasik, just laser?
79.
by pannSun 4y ago
> We don't regulate companies to prevent "the worst of the greed" except by some naive definition. We regulate them so they mop up or don't leave messes in their wake, be these messes social or environmental. Those me
80.
by pannSun 4y ago
I've seen more criticism of facial recognition surveillance on the grounds that it is less accurate for some races, than on the grounds that, if it worked perfectly, it would result in a massive loss of freedom, so this is no strawman:
81.
by pannSun 4y ago
> There is a great reason that companies are freed from the requirement to be morally good - because human instincts are not calibrated to run an 8-billion-strong postindustrial globe. Yet they are bound by many laws and regulations, bey
82.
by pannSun 4y ago
Is "discrimination" really the only evil we can think of these days? The surveillance dystopia we are racing towards is only criticized if the facial recognition cameras spying on our every move work slightly worse on black people
83.
by pannSun 4y ago
It would clash with the zeitgeist currently prevalent in Hollywood. If they decided to pursue it, it would be from a "subversive" angle, as they like to boast.
84.
by pannSun 4y ago
Advertises, not sells. In fact, according to the article, Hikvision has been blacklisted by the US, and now the UK. So we can all breathe a collective sigh of relief in knowing that the growing surveillance state won't be racist. There
85.
by pannSun 4y ago
Do the car manufacturers themselves also need to abuse a vulnerability to access this data that normally only the car owner has access to? Or can we trust our benevolent corporate overlords to keep this data safe on our behalf, and not abus
86.
by pannSun 4y ago
Or to ensure that consumers get at least a refund when denied the goods they paid for. Or you can insist on the most uncharitable interpretation of my comment, sure.
87.
by pannSun 4y ago
Like we just stopped buying toys with lead paint? Or just stopped buying cars that voided warranty if you used an independent mechanic? Or just stopped patronizing businesses that have a willfully unsafe working environment? There's a
88.
by pannSun 4y ago
> When people start demanding refunds or even start a class-action suit You can thank a clever lawyer for thinking of mandatory arbitration clauses that are making class-actions a thing of the past.
89.
by pannSun 4y ago
Funny. One would naively assume that administrators are there to make the faculty's job easier . To take care of administrative work so that you can focus on teaching and research. Instead they think their role is to create administ
90.
by pannSun 4y ago
Other than this strawman mischaracterization of the article*, the rest of your comments seem almost entirely unconcerned with whether the author's allegations are true . Are you hoping that, if you can associate him with the wrong peo

More ›