It’s just Maslow’s Hierarchy. The person who doesn’t have a job should be egocentric, at least in this narrow area of focus. If your position is that people should prioritize abstract societal benefits over their own security and well-being, I’m not sure what to tell you other than to prepare for a life of people disappointing you.
Many of the people who currently experience the privilege will be pissed off and view it as unfair. But in reality they’re getting a taste of what other minorities already experience.
There are two competing lenses we can view this kind of thing through, and both are valid. First, there’s the macro lens in which groups like women are significantly underrepresented, and most reasonable people believe that to be a problem we’ve created that we need to solve. It’s not that women are bad at this job. It’s that women have been pushed not to participate for reasons we think are bad. Through that lens, an obvious solution is to bias things in favor of women for some period of time to get to a steady state where the system won’t automatically fall back into gender-bias as soon as we take our thumb off the scale. That’s a reasonable theory, and pursuing it does a lot of good.
But there’s a second lens in which individual people with names are trying to participate in the labor market. The fact that men have had a built-in advantage does not imply that any man looking for a job would only be able to get one by leveraging an unfair advantage. If we think talent and hard work are equally distributed through the population, then temporarily biasing things away from men is, to the man currently trying to find a job, exactly as discriminatory as anything that prior generations have faced. The fact that there’s a societal good being pursued doesn’t make that harm go away either. It is unfair, and we should recognize that. We may decide we have to do it anyway, but I’m not a fan of the idea that “let’s mistreat them like other people were mistreated” is inherently a good thing.
I’ve been saying for a while now that the actual test should be that you miss a couple. If you can look at a this 4 nanometer picture of what is either a bird, a sofa, or the titanic, and correctly tell me if it has part of one pedal from a bicycle in it, you’re a robot.
I’m not sure “Twitter is not a backup service for your personal hard drive” is a point that needed to be made.
I don’t mean the spam filtering on received email. I mean the black hole lists and all the stuff that major email providers do to email you send. It’s possible to run your own SMTP servers, and it sounds like you do, but that’s extraordinarily difficult. The major email providers are much more likely to do things like just block all email from your domain if they don’t recognize whatever IP address your server is sitting on as being one of the big known players, that sort of thing.
Worth noting it’s probably more like $70 a year if it matters. A domain will cost $15 and up, and you’ll need to pay an email provider on top of that, and most run around $50 a year.
Basically, you buy a domain name through some registrar. I use hover.com and Cloudflare.com. Hover is more user-friendly, but really registrars are pretty much commoditized, so kind of whatever. The registrar will provide some function like “manage DNS" or “manage your domain” that lets you add and remove DNS records. You’ll use that to tell other people on the internet how to send you email.
But at this point you don’t actually have an email account anywhere. You need to buy one from a company like Proton Mail, Fastmail, Google, etc. that allow you to bring your own domain. Let’s say you pick Fastmail. They tell you what to type into those “manage DNS” boxes at your registrar.
Once you follow those instructions, you’re done. The only time you ever have to mess with it again is if you decide to change email providers. If you decide to move from Fastmail to Proton, you sign up for a Proton account, delete those MX and TXT records that Fastmail told you to create, and add the new ones Proton tells you to create.
You definitely should not run your own email servers, but he’s just saying to buy a domain and pay for a GSuite account (or Fastmail, Proton, whatever) to actually operate email on that domain. All those companies handle all the modern anti-spam functions for you.
Sure, but I stand by the fact that the problem is that the changes are random and crazy, not that he didn’t bullshit his way through an apology we all know he didn’t mean.
Look at it this way, if Bud Light had responded to the big protest by just putting out a statement that said nothing but “we stand by our decision”, most of us would have considered that to be pretty great.
Basically I guess I think a bad decision accompanied by a slimy attempt to tell me how it’s actually good or that it was really hard for you is worse than just making a bad decision and saying, “this is what I’m doing”.
The apology letter is a bug, not a feature. I want more companies to just openly and unapologetically say, “this is what we’re doing, and not everyone is going to like it, but it’s what we believe is the right thing, and we’re doing it.” No one needs more bullshit in their lives. I don’t mind that he isn’t giving me a bullshit apology. I mind that he’s a lunatic and his ideas are stupid.
I don’t know anything about any of these people one way or the other, but if you believe her account and just think the timing is opportunistic, then do you not also believe the part of her account that’s in, you know, the bigger more noticeable font at the top that says, “To stop the speculation and DMs I’m receiving…”.
As in, “I quit two years ago and didn’t say anything about it, but now this is all over the news and a million people keep asking and/or assuming things, so I guess I should address it”.
yeah, the smart teenager is going to be charging the adults in his life $50 to get their porn working again.
I don’t think it’s especially disguised…
It’s not like the Republican party was engaged in a large scale effort to cultivate disinformation from Russian trolls. The Russians were doing it on their own, and the GOP was just the beneficiary, playing up whatever random disinformation happened to pick up traction and occasionally reaching out to coordinate efforts.
And it wasn’t “a few dozen Facebook ads” – it was a pretty large amount of activity, including things like breaking into private systems and leaking information. But aside from that, you’re basically making the argument that astroturfing doesn’t work, and we know that’s just not true. Having a million “ordinary citizens” extol the virtues of some position often just works better as a persuasive argument than having one or two celebrity endorsers, or at the very least it adds credibility. That’s why people do it.
It’s going to be extremely hard to convince a court that the thing you’re making is both a parody and a legit competitor you believe users should switch to.
As you point out, parody has to be a comment on the thing you’re parodying. In the Hyundai example, the problem was that it was commenting on something else. The problem here is that it’s simply not a comment on anything. It’s a product you’re making to compete with the original.
Adobe also has some legal experience and an IP lawyer or 80. And they have common sense on their side. You can’t just say “parody” like a magic incantation. It’s not like calling dibs on the front seat. It actually has to be a parody. I can’t just release my own Guardians of the Galaxy 4 as a completely straight up movie with the same titles, characters, etc., and say it’s a parody.
He has no shot. He has less than no shot. There’s a better chance that his IP lawyer is disbarred than there is that he wins in this.
Yeah, that this is a name and logo that they even entertained for half a second is pretty strong evidence that they’re not up to this challenge. This is like starting a law firm and calling it “Buttfuckers”. No one is going to take you seriously, and you not seeing the problem means they shouldn’t.
I don’t think you understand how a research organization works. This isn’t three guys in a basement searching for child porn. It’s a research institute at Stanford University. They’ll have gotten funding to do the work by applying for federal grants, getting approval from multiple Institutional Review Boards who are charged with, among other things, making sure that the people involved in the research are appropriately taken care of. They’ll be required to have counselors on board. However “legit” you think such an outfit might possibly be, multiply that by three.
This is their job. It is the same as if they worked for a law enforcement agency. When someone gets arrested for child porn, we don’t also charge the police, prosecutors, and judges who might have to look at the material as part of prosecuting a case. I promise you Stanford isn’t paying a team of professors and postdocs to just diddle themselves to kiddie porn all day.
So your advice to any organization seeking to minimize illegal activity is to willfully ignore any trace of it?
There’s no real distinction between the two. We don’t have a definition of AI or intelligence — never have. Inside the field, ML has some recognized connotations, but outside of specialist literature, they’re just marketing fluff.
Exactly. Everyone complains about ad tech and enshittification until you point them to the conveniently located button that lets them pay for the service…