amirmc

6 ms·

1.
by amirmc 5y ago
I see. It seems that I was getting the empty page half an hour ago for just that link. Now it’s taking me to the full page.
2.
by amirmc 5y ago
Interesting. That specific page is blank but others redirect to a more useful 404 https://www.ft.com/thispagedoesnotexist
3.
Game ‘pre-bunks’ Covid-19 conspiracies(cam.ac.uk)
3 points by amirmc 6y ago|0 comments
4.
by amirmc 7y ago
Of course FB wants to control content. It helps them increase engagement and also monetise.
5.
British Member of Parliament publishes 250 pages of damning Facebook documents(boingboing.net)
2 points by amirmc 8y ago|0 comments
6.
BIOS (W17) raises $4.5M to further develop its neural interace(techcrunch.com)
1 points by amirmc 8y ago|0 comments
7.
by amirmc 8y ago
‘Willingly’? I think unwittingly is more likely.
8.
by amirmc 8y ago
I’d argue it’s not the same. It certainly gives you a very close and stark window into what it’s like, but it doesn’t compare to the lived experience.
9.
by amirmc 8y ago
> Companies are hardly going to make tons of money on unapproved therapies anyway, because the word will get out if x patients tried it and had no benefits. That seems wildly optimistic to me. Companies, especially pharma, will alway
10.
by amirmc 8y ago
IIRC WhatsApp also cared a lot about making the app available on all kinds of phones. Not just iOS/Android. So all those people in the rest of the world could start using it and bring their families on board.
11.
by amirmc 8y ago
> But I guess asking logical questions is frowned upon... I did not consider the questions to be particularly ‘logical’ at all. Naive , perhaps, but not logical. There’s presumably 30 years of knowledge you could look up to formulate be
12.
by amirmc 8y ago
You seem to be trying to refute models of complicated atmospheric processes based on (necessarily) over-simplified high school physics. I’m sure there much more reading material out there than just the two Wikipedia pages you linked. Try th
13.
by amirmc 8y ago
> * The scientific method is such that Science is never wrong. It's god-esque.* You've misunderstood my point. The scientific method is such that 'Science' is always wrong. It's a method to continually try to
14.
by amirmc 8y ago
> However, Science makes no effort to own those mistakes. That sounds ludicrous to me. The entirely of the scientific method is about generating hypotheses, testing them out, finding out you're wrong , and then refining/rewr
15.
by amirmc 8y ago
> Science is science reporting. No, it is not. This is why I drew the distinction in the first place. > Normal people can only understand what is reported. Which backs up my point that sensationalised reporting is a problem. Peer
16.
by amirmc 8y ago
> (e.g., consuming Y is safe only to find out it causes birth defects, cancer,etc.) Science blames the customer/consumer. It feels like there's a conflation of science and science reporting in here somewhere. Most of the ac
17.
by amirmc 8y ago
Except that’s not what happened here. In this analogy, that engineer made public statements before the investigation was completed and then the investgating group told them to leave.
18.
by amirmc 8y ago
> "Respondents were asked to score how each of the social media platforms they use impact upon issues such as anxiety, loneliness and community building. The site with the most positive rating was YouTube, followed by Twitter. Face
19.
by amirmc 8y ago
The section of the Wikipedia page probably needs updating. The very next section describes how they went from 50 people, to 150, then lifted the limits entirely. > ...which might explain why there wasn't as much benefit from it as
20.
by amirmc 8y ago
I don't think this would work since users would protest and the limits would be eventually be lifted. I have friends who already purge their FB lists now and then, so people who want to do that already can. Also, Path [1] was social
21.
by amirmc 8y ago
> It depends when and what was done and at what age, what happened before and after. I can see being forgiving some thing up until the early 20s. People are still developing and personality could change I suppose. I don't think Zu
22.
by amirmc 8y ago
There’s something particularly creepy in what Zuckerberg said and what the folks in Myanmar claim. Zuck says “we detected”, whereas the folks in Myanmar say they explicitly tried to raise the issue. Having a ‘report and moderate’ capability
23.
by amirmc 8y ago
I think ‘the sharing economy’ already did that.
24.
by amirmc 8y ago
> The people who built the radio didn't get called before an international criminal tribunal; it was the broadcasters who did. FB is both though. They built the system & tech (the ‘radio’), and via their algos/policies al
25.
by amirmc 8y ago
> Therefore, it's hypocritical to warn against smart homes unless you also don't have a smartphone. It's not hypocrisy to warn of dangers, regardless of being exposed in other ways. Also, your comment here equates 'sm
26.
by amirmc 8y ago
You're basically saying that you don't believe advertising (or influence) works at all — which is bullshit. CBS and its ilk probably made a big difference compared to what was there before (radio?) and FB has has made an even bigg
27.
by amirmc 8y ago
Consumer tech corporations, do seem to end up with monopolies — and they'll fight, lobby, and pay (through acquisitions) to keep them. It's a complete red-herring to argue that they don't last forever since that's utt
28.
by amirmc 9y ago
It's not just about languages. Try out both communities and see which you might prefer to interact with in the medium/longer term. As you suggest, small side projects with each would be a good way to go.
29.
by amirmc 9y ago
Nice idea but I think this is only really going to change when either the incentives change (i.e. not ad-based) or there’s legislation/regulation of some kind. Until then, the BigCos will keep doing what they’re doing, because that’s h
30.
by amirmc 9y ago
Rationale here: https://reasonml.github.io/guide/what-and-why

More ›