News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Progress on addressing online abuse. Parent comment

Re:Progress on addressing online abuse by nailer on Wednesday November 16, 2016 @02:27AM (#12965155)
The inclusion of example values was to act as an example. Nothing was stated about where they were derived from. It would be logical to derive them from actual frequency in real life moderation scenarios. Please don't make bad faith assumptions.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Progress on addressing online abuse by leereeves on Wednesday November 16, 2016 @02:45AM (#12965211)
Nothing in your post suggested that they were merely examples, nor that they would be derived empirically.

And in any case, a Bayesian approach would require more than a handful of criteria.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Progress on addressing online abuse by nailer on Wednesday November 16, 2016 @06:44AM (#12966172)
> Sorry, I didn't mean to presume they weren't based on values extracted from real data. I'm worried about people misusing CS terms, but I can see I kind of jumped the gun there.

No problem, happens to the best of us.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Progress on addressing online abuse by leereeves on Wednesday November 16, 2016 @09:28AM (#12967032)
Now you should apologize for putting words in my mouth, as well as for wording your post poorly.

I'm not going to apologize for reading the words you wrote, nor for not being able to read your mind.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Progress on addressing online abuse by nailer on Wednesday November 16, 2016 @08:36PM (#12973424)
I didn't expect you to read my mind, just the actual post ;)
[ Parent | on HN ]