nabajour

not one website raising Labrador Retrievers ?

It's probably also important from an information bubble point of view: you selected those accounts you follow and with time you start to know them, so you have an idea of their opinions and biases and you can probably better judge of trends of opinion in a specific context.

With an algorithmic feed, it's probably easier to get biased into thinking that what is shown to you is representative of trends in the rest of the world. (even if we are conscious of the information bubble, our brain probably makes this construction).

It might be both, some sort of feedback loop.

My take on this is that in a small company, the individual with his morals and values can still have an impact on the behaviour of a company. Above a certain size, when the company is public, the individual has less impact on the company, and there is an emergent behaviour that is only driven by the incentive to "enhance shareholder value", and all moral values that the company could follow, and that come from individuals in the company, disappears.

A company's social role is to provide jobs and goods for the society to work well. But this is not aligned with the survival incentive of the company, to "enhance shareholder value", which becomes it's only role.

I think also that the format is different, the link between people is not the same on social media posts. There is a difference between seeing something interesting, thinking of a friend who might be interested and sending it to him with a personal message like "check this out, it made me think of you, you might like it" and just putting something on display for people to see it, and add like to it to give you some small pride and some endorphin reinforcement of the posting behaviour.

It seems to me that the direction of the thinking goes the other way: in one, you think of a friend and contact him, in the other, you think of yourself, show yourself to the world and people send you likes.

When I thought of this, it seemed to me that social media is often some sort of "narcissistic exposure of oneself" and encourages this type of behaviour from me and I didn't like it. This plus the fact that I didn't like Facebook's behaviour with it's user's data made me delete my account, and I didn't miss it since. If I think of friends, I have other means of contacting them that have a more personal feel.

I think this comes from the theory of general artificial intelligence where your AI would have the ability for self improving. Hence it could develop any capability given time and incentive for it.

There are interesting videos on the subject on Robert Miles channel on AI safety: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLB7AzTwc6VFZrBsO2ucBMg

If the issue is a lack of way to structure the explanation or missing the justification to go from one step to the next, having a structure that forces one to be explicit helps.

Other than sympy, a technique for formal proof might help.

One of my buddies showed me this talk from Leslie Lamport that I found interesting [1], albeit in french. I think this one [2] is an english version. And the paper behind is here [3], linked from Lamport's website [4].

Lamport makes a structured way to write proof so that all details can be written down. It seemed to me that a lot of knowledge and steps stay implicit in proofs. So if you're not familiar with the subject, you easily get lost.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-i7y0R_-KE

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBiJpip9NVc

[3] http://lamport.azurewebsites.net/pubs/proof.pdf

[4] http://lamport.org/

edit: fixed links and text structure