ddiq
ddiq on Hacker News
I see what you're saying, but it's just a bit naive. It's not that easy to create a new provider to help political dissidents. A number of web services have been started to do so, and forced to shut down by being cut off by upstream providers. "Just make your own ..." at some point isn't viable, because other companies at every level are making sure you don't succeed.
It's ok to go after the free speech of political dissidents if you slander them with generic insults first?
Doesn't seem to matter, since that comment is getting downvoted as well.
I guess technologists don't want to see the future they're creating, and would rather just come up with tactics that barely defend against the surveillance we have now.
If you think this story is limited to, or even about, political correctness, you are mistaken. It could be your insurance rates going up for jaywalking, even with no cars around. It could be your credit score dropping if you have too many drinks at a bar. It's about your personal activities all being tracked, measured, and in the end, controlled by corporations.
It's the year 2027. You get a notification from the H8Watch™ by the ADL app, default installed on every phone, and can't be deleted without jailbreaking. You open the notification, and it shows a video of you from 2 weeks ago, from a camera embedded in the table of the fast food restaurant from where you were eating lunch with your friend. Your voice has been reconstructed through lipreading software and played back to you. "You're such a feandra, I paid last time!" you said to your friend playfully, using the new insult people just started using to refer to someone thrifty.
After the video and reconstructed voice plays back to you twice, it changes to a message. "Minor class-based insult detected." The nonsense word "feandra" had been added to the H8Watch™ database 2 hours ago, and your offense had come up as part of their program to catch racists and classists retroactively. This prevents the use of new words or euphamisms that may otherwise be used to bypass H8Watch™ detection.
Moments later, you get more notifications. Twitter: account suspended for 1 day, your bank: $25 has been deducted from your account for terms of service violation, Facebook: 2 offenses so far this month, 1 more and all three videos will be posted to your Facebook feed.
You quickly swipe away the rest of the notifications, you'll deal with them later, and text the friend you were going to meet for dinner. "Hey John, I can't make it tonight. Cash is a little tight after another violation, and I can't risk a public conversation this week."
An oft-overlooked aspect of Fahrenheit 451 is that it's everyday people that report others to the firemen in the book, very similar to how content is censored these days.
Goodreads will list any book for the time being, even ones banned from Amazon. One example is The Culture of Critique - the link to Amazon goes to a broken page, but links to buy it from other vendors remain.
Link to the book - https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/182136.The_Culture_of_Cr...
Out of curiosity, would you be ok with a non-citizen Japanese person lecturing you on why Americans are bad because they don't have the exact same outlook and attitude as Japanese people?
Because that's what the author of this article is doing.
There's always an explanation where the answer is racism, even if it isn't the correct explanation.
Wider than the average Japanese person and crowding the seat(s) next to you? They must not sit next to him because he's black.
Of course, I commented on his picture and it would be pretty hard to notice his width and not his race. I don't see why this is pertinent, though, he's not Japanese and I was commenting on the fact that he's not Japanese, not on what race he was.
Likewise Amazon removing books from its site is much more effective than any book burning.
Do you not think studying gravity lead to predictive value before we reached a point of being able to compute orbital dynamics of a spacecraft?
Those are flawed studies, as different names is as much a class distinction as a racial one. Even if it were true, however, a white candidate will on average be better than a black candidate with the same resume, because the white candidate had to pass higher standards to get into the same university.
No CEO would say this, even if they thought it, because it could be used in evidence in a diversity lawsuit under the 80% rule of diverse impact, because the CEO was intentionally using neutral rules of hiring that ended in "discriminatory" results.
That doesn't really follow. We don't need to have a complete map genotype to phenotype in order to have an understanding of the weight of genetic component of certain traits. Just because we don't know exactly which genes cause a certain hair color doesn't mean we can't guess which parents are more likely to have children with that hair color. The same goes for behavior that can be measured and predicted. As long as that prediction is more accurate than a random guess, the prediction has value.
Can you look at the data and come to a different conclusion rather than attack the paper ad hominem?
Can you find something wrong with the research itself in any of the papers that I linked?
Do you want your system to be "nice" or do you want it do be effective?
Machine learning will find these patterns all on their own. They're not worried about being ostracized for seeing the world for how it is.
It's a perfectly reasonable stance in a war. Better to have 10,000 people interned than to risk a few more Takeo Yoshikawas running around.
Racial profiling is just a slur for pattern recognition. If it turns out that 95% of Chinese scholars in the US are more loyal to China than to America, and that when given a chance, will illegally send information back to China, what are you supposed to do?
It's fine if you don't want to have a racial bias yourself, but it doesn't mean you need to ignore the fact that (in this hypothetical) the vast majority of Chinese are highly ethnocentric.
You'd think that someone with an IQ of 139 would be able to see why the example of his failure to capitalize on his own intelligence doesn't discount the value of IQ as a measurement of general intelligence.