jiojfdsal3

Don't Asians have higher math scores than whites? Or do Asians not count as people of color anymore?

This is like saying YC should give their money to the poor instead of investing it in privileged entrepreneurs from Ivy League universities

"There was nothing for money to trickle down to."

Wasn't the money reinvested to create those jobs in the first place?

Strangely enough, Twitter's former CEO Dick Costolo said this in October:

"Me-first capitalists who think you can separate society from business are going to be the first people lined up against the wall and shot in the revolution. I'll happily provide video commentary."

@dickc was never suspended. He still has his account.

I didn't have to read the article. I just watched the leaked video with my own eyes in its entirety.

Yeah, but this directly has ramifications for our democracy, doesn't it? It looks they're actively trying to prevent certain content from being seen while exposing the content Google executives feel the masses 'should' see. This doesn't seem very neutral to me. The leaked video is quite disturbing.

"(00:54:33) An employee asks what Google is going to do about “misinformation” and “fake news” shared by “low-information voters.” Pichai responds by stating that “investments in machine learning and AI” are a “big opportunity” to fix the problem."

Anyone find this disturbing? They're trying to use AI to manipulate what users 'should' see?

I added more search terms. Here are the results for "white inventor" on Google Images for example.

https://www.google.com/search?q=white+inventor&tbm=isch

I'd assume the greatest search engineers in the world would know how to distinguish people searching between the two phrases.

To me, this is a strong sign of Google manipulating search results.

https://www.google.com/search?q=american+inventors

https://www.google.com/search?q=american+mathematicians

https://www.google.com/search?q=american+scientists

Image results:

https://www.google.com/search?q=european+art+history&tbm=isc...

https://www.google.com/search?q=white+couple&tbm=isch

https://www.google.com/search?q=white+inventor&tbm=isch

There are multiple service providers that provide similar internet download speeds (AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile). In your view, would it be okay for these companies to restrict content?

The definition of an "internet service provider" is "a company that provides subscribers with access to the Internet". Almost every American has access to AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile for their mobile internet. Should these companies be allowed to block content?

Except Apple receives tons of subsidies.[1] Apple is much more of a monopoly than the ISPs in my local area. I can choose between Google or Apple. On the other hand, I can choose between Sprint, AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Sonic, or T-Mobile.

[1] https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/07/03/google-tesla-apple-fa...

I can switch my ISP from Verizon to AT&T or Comcast with a single phone call tomorrow. Apple is far more of a monopoly than the ISPs in my area. Should we regulate Apple as a public utility?

The definition of "freedom of speech" is "the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint" (Oxford Dictionary). It does not say anything about the 1st Amendment.

In my area, I have access to Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile and many other smaller ISPs. Since there is no ISP monopoly in my area, should these ISPs be allowed to block content?

So you support the idea that Verizon and AT&T should be free to block whatever content they wish, correct?

Nor is LGBT

Thoughts on net neutrality?

32 dogs shot a day? There are 1,100,000 police officers in the USA. The vast, vast majority of police officers aren't shooting dogs.

Latin American countries aren't producing terrorist sleeper cells. You don't hear about suicide bombings in Venezuela or Cuba or the many other countries the US has meddled in. There are many former French colonies and you don't hear about these colonies producing homegrown terrorists to attack France. We shouldn't confuse correlation with causation.

The US has "invaded" several countries in Latin America and East and Southeast Asia (Japan, South Korea, Vietnam). Where are these terrorist networks?

The US has "invaded" several countries in Latin America like Chile and Venezuela. Why aren't these countries producing crazed terrorists like what you see in the Middle East? Britain "invaded" Hong Kong until 1997. Where are the terrorist networks in Hong Kong?

Why have we never seen Cubans commit terrorist attacks against Americans because the US "invaded" them in the 50s?

Why doesn't Latin America countries with oil have constant suicide bombing incidents like what you see in the Middle East?

How do you convince network giants like IBM, Intel, Cisco, Nokia, Qualcomm, Broadcom, Juniper, D-Link, among others, that net neutrality regulations are a bad idea? They currently support what Ajit Pai is doing. They have even have gone as far as crediting his repeals for greater investment into their network infrastructure.