like_any_other

5 ms·

1.
Anthropic's AI architect argued that discrimination could combat stigmas(europesays.com)
1 points by like_any_other 2d ago|2 comments
2.
by like_any_other 3d ago
> I corrected the actual misconception in another comment: CBP is not hiring noncitizens. If you want to imply that what I corrected wasn't a misconception, why don't you say so directly? Is it because doing so would make it to
3.
by like_any_other 3d ago
I'll summarize the conversation up to this point to you: The story is about a Chinese national working as a supervisor in CBP. geetee asked why is CBP hiring foreign nationals. jeffbee answered that it's because the US is a "
4.
by like_any_other 3d ago
> Their comment didn’t mention whiteness at all. Yes, that was the misrepresentation.
5.
by like_any_other 3d ago
> But, yes, most immigration was Europeans and African slaves but probably that was because it was expensive unless you effectively sold yourself. You don't think it had anything to do with the Naturalization Act of 1790 that limite
6.
by like_any_other 3d ago
Correcting jeffbee's misrepresentation of history is important for the same reason they felt the need to misrepresent it in the first place.
7.
by like_any_other 3d ago
> for centuries until very recently most Americans readily recognized the value and necessity of recruiting foreign people into various posts. You forgot to mention that, for those centuries, US immigration was effectively whites-only, u
8.
by like_any_other 4d ago
> an advertising profile It's going to be so easy to determine who you voted for, given a record of every TV show and news programme you've watched, to 90% accuracy. Or to determine if you'd be a "corporate culture fi
9.
by like_any_other 4d ago
It's not about the money. It's the thin edge of the wedge, separating you from control over your own property - and handing that control to someone else. Arguing about what a reasonable price is, or how they can use vs. abuse that
10.
by like_any_other 7d ago
> It baffles me that anyone still uses Mercator projection for any serious purpose. The article is just strawmaning our past, as is fashionable. Ironically the same author published an article warning against misinformation just a week p
11.
by like_any_other 7d ago
From the article: Minister for Communications Michelle Rowland explained why the government was planning to introduce a digital duty of care: "What’s required is a shift away from reacting to harms by relying on content regulation alo
12.
Australia to impose digital duty of care on tech companies to reduce online harm(thetimes.com.au)
4 points by like_any_other 7d ago|1 comments
13.
by like_any_other 8d ago
Don't hold your breath on "culture/media/literary theorists" mentioning that . Nor the fact that "the odds of success were identical for every group at every job" is a completely unrealistic assumption.
14.
by like_any_other 9d ago
> In a consultation this year, the UK government said it would consider legislating should the platforms not act to prioritise trustworthy content. To get an idea of what the UK government considers "trustworthy", consider this
15.
by like_any_other 9d ago
> Even though no reasonable person would believe such a thing would be in the TOS Even if they did, it's a bad to let clickthrough TOS subvert laws and privacy. This idea that contracts can dismiss all other considerations needs to
16.
by like_any_other 9d ago
> How do you know that TV you bought is untampered? Many rooted devices display during boot a warning that they have been rooted. This is a problem that has been solved for more than a decade, but manufacturers pretend not to know the so
17.
by like_any_other 9d ago
Yes there is. It's much easier to enforce laws if everyone's electronics tattle on them, or if they are otherwise sabotaged, as with DRM, than if citizens have tools that answer to and obey only them. If there were no other power
18.
by like_any_other 10d ago
'Power' in this case is hardware and software under your control.
19.
by like_any_other 10d ago
The lesson is you can't pay the danegeld to make a problem go away - the only lasting solution is to get the power and sovereignty to do it yourself. Or as Kipling put it - "But Iron – Cold Iron – is master of them all."
20.
by like_any_other 10d ago
I will remind everyone again that weev was raided by the FBI, arrested, and had all electronics seized, before getting a chance to defend himself in court, all for the crime of publishing emails he found on unsecured URLs he was able to g
21.
by like_any_other 13d ago
> politically impossible Is it? Are tech companies so popular that voters would revolt if politicians proposed break-ups? They would not be the first - Standard Oil and Bell were also powerful corporations that got split.
22.
by like_any_other 15d ago
'Despite'? I thought the theory of evolution was widely accepted.
23.
by like_any_other 15d ago
> the “smart” aren’t necessarily having fewer kids than the “idiots.” They are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence There are some confounding factors, like education and income also affecting f
24.
by like_any_other 16d ago
"Ex" FBI and CIA officials in key social media posts, and running "harmful content" teams, is covert, and targets US's own citizens, so yes, it is exactly the same thing. That's not even all of it, e.g.: The P
25.
by like_any_other 17d ago
Nothing new: Spooks infiltrate Silicon Valley: Facebook is riddled with ex-CIA agents – including President’s briefer who now runs 'harmful content' team – so many ex-FBI work at Twitter they have Slack channel and Google is rife
26.
by like_any_other 17d ago
> The point is that to justify the concentration of capital Why does that need additional justification, beyond investor confidence? And why does "justification" take the form of paying money? That's not any kind of moral
27.
by like_any_other 17d ago
That's unrelated to my question.
28.
by like_any_other 17d ago
> de facto realize their gains in the form of collateral for loans that allow them to live without ever realizing their gains from the perspective of the tax code. Can you explain how this works? I have my wealth in stocks, I use those s
29.
by like_any_other 17d ago
So what's the point of taxing unrealized gains specifically? Why not wait until the gains are realized, tax them then, and still collect on average the same tax income? This would result in the same yearly tax income for the governme
30.
by like_any_other 18d ago
But they're not saying "bad thing is worse for some people than others", they're saying "thing is bad because it treats people differently and sometimes malfunctions". What will happen when those faults are c

More ›