Gunax

> So if you ask a very small area “do you want more housing or less?” a lot of people will say that they think the local harms exceed the local benefits, and the division will basically come down to aesthetic preference for more or less density. But if you ask a large area “do you want more housing or less?” the very same people with all the same values and ideas may come up with a different answer because they internalize a much larger share of the benefits.

That seems so simple, and I dont know why it never occured to me.

It's literally in the acronym NIMBY. As in: yes, I want it, just not in my backyard.

Im not smart enough to know if this is the same thing as what you're saying, but it just doesnt seem like there are millions of writing styles. There might just be too many literary doppelgangers.

But police (well, anyone, really) can still take a photo of protestors and examine it manually, right?

The technology is just a tool that makes it easier, but in principle changes nothing.

I guess my point is that there isn't any fundamental change here, we have just made things easier. Maybe before, compiling facial databases if everyine was just impractical, and now it's easy.

On a scarier note: anyone can do this. You can tell the police to pinky-promise they wont use it, but nothing stops me or you or a corporation from taking photos and identifying the people on them.

Well since we are getting political, how about the left-wing tactic of always needing more money. Just a little bit more and everything would be better.

I am being a bit pithy, but I think these sort of opinions are based in ideology, and not experience. If you are untrustful, you will always be skeptical of government, and too trustful, will always accept that more money is the answer.

Admittedly I did not watch the debate (perhaps tomorrow), but I think the crux of this disagreement seems to be the essence of what diversity statements are, and whether we believe the institution's stated goal.

Proponents are arguing they are mundane statements aligned with the goals of the institution. But opponents are skeptical--they see it as a motte and bailey. They are, in reality, a test of politico-ideological adherence. The institutions only use the 'we just want to ensure we have fairness and equality' as a fallback, according to detractors.

What they are actually asking is not what is being asked. Following up on their war analogy, it is as if the university asked 'How have you contributed to your society and neighbourhood?' but in reality, only accepting contributions related to the war effort. Writing about generic charitable efforts does not count--and definitely don't mention any anti-war contributions.

Allegedly of course--I have no particular knowledge in this area.

Yea so I think we might just end up getting into more discussion on the definition of dark pattern than discussing the issue at hand.

I think I agree with you that this isn't strictly a dark pattern. And dark patterns are generally not tricks per se, just... subtle differences. Putting the unsubscribe button in a 2nd level menu is a classic. I happen to know someone who was tasked with ordering pizza toppings selection in a way to encourage people to choosing the cheaper options.

But whatever we call it, I think this journalist is making a strong point, which is basically hypocrisy.

The media has decided that technology is bad now. So it's just desserts to call NYT on their hypocrisy.

I dont want to make this too political, but I think they project their vulnerability onto technology for their industry's downfall, Trump's win, and cap it off with the racist and sexist 'techbro' slur. They are upset to not be the arbiters of truth any longer.

I am struggling to understand how they are earning so much.

They mention getting between $1 to $40 per thousand ad views. Let's say on average $10.

A video that gets 165000 views is only earning $1,650--not bad for a days work, but not millionaire potential.

Unless I am reading it wrong and '165m' means 165 million but that just doesn't seem possible that one in five English speakers on Earth would watch one video.

Either way, I am very happy for his success. It's clear he found a particular niche to fulfill.

It's official: anyone not claiming minority status on your application is a fool.

I don't like it either, but if they are going to be racist, just do what you need to do.

That is their stated reason, because the only legally acceptable discrimination is for bona fide educational purposes. That is, they cannot discriminate to right historical wrongs, but only because having a diverse student body is part of the education.

I have doubts that this is the real reason, but legally they need to cloak it as that.

What happened was racism became acceptable in society, so long as you were using the rural hick stereotype, aka 'deplorables'.

We should be asking what the hell is up with society.

Yall are missing the root argument.

Drinking is correlated with others drinking. It's a sort of community effect. Cowen's argument is to stop because it's contributing to problematic drinking.

In general, the system supports perseverance over any sort of ostensible values like veracity or brevity.

I think this is what OP finds frustrating.

There may be a way to get truth in the end, but it's often more work than many people are willing to provide. Especially since most edit wars are so much smaller in attention than something like the Azov Battalion.

But the purchaser exchanged money for property. The transaction did not alter their wealth.

I understand that we typically think of owning property as a means of increasing wealth, more so than renting. But this is only true because we let home values increase.

And it might not even be true now, if renters places their savings other investments.

So without getting into whether we actually want that, how is that achievable?

In a sense, every house is unique, and land is certainly unique by it's location and also finite. There really are some number of acres within a particular distance of a city centre.

I guess my gut reaction is that your comment might be right (I am not sure) but strikes me as idealistic.

Admittedly this is tough for me to read, as there is nothing I can do to change my height.

Of course they are trying to answer the entropy question. I find page 264 particularly interesting [1].

So basically, breast cancer isn't caused by obesity per se. But just having more breast cells. Or atleast that's my interpretation.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2393304/?page=6

I like that it's extensive, but a bit too extensive to answer the original question: what is the replacement for an electric drill?

The standard crank drill is clearly the alternative [1]. Most home users should not purchase an electric drill IMO. They dont need it. It will likely never drill more than a few dozen holes.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Frylr-Speedy-Powerful-Manual-1-5MM-10...

It makes me think there isn't any reason old languages cannot adopt these.

Or even, come up with a new, batteries included version.

Eg. keep the Java syntax, but add one standard package manager (instead of ant, mvn, gradle), one standard test framework, standard formatter, etc. Call it 'Java++' or whatever.

I have ranted about this before: but it all feels pointless.

The information is out there. You can make it illegal to look, but it doesn't matter.

Consider that a shopkeeper can recognize frequent customers by their face. Our brains are made for face recognition.

Now obviously that's at a different scale than automated plate readers, but the information is there. We just took for granted that no one had the willpower to memorize a million faces. Our privacy was guaranteed not in law, but in practicality.

You can try to ban it, and you can maybe ban municipalities from using it, but the information is there. Anyone can just set up a camera by their house or business and collect the same info.

It's not God given, but it is the law. The problem with having unwritten rules is that we don't know what they are.

Do we have a right to free association? A right to body integrity? A right to death?

I would be very careful about conjuring up rights.

Yea so I thibk that's a readonable argument. And I recognize this is a news article, and not like... constitutional law discussion.

But I think the real origin of this article is: the author is upset about FOSTA, a view I happen to share. But it's out of the news cycle. So he draws a tenuous connection to a current event, making it both relevant again, and stirring some telelogical history.

But the recent decisions are not really based on FOSTA, and as far as I can tell there was no legal precedent set by these acts that had anything to do with the recent decisions.

Nonsense. There was no stage-setting.

I think it's unfortunate that one can write for Wired, yet not even mention that the word 'privacy' does not appear in the constitution. Again, the media does a poor job of educating the public, and conveniently avoids inconvenient facts.

It's perfectly reasonable to want to have or add a right to privacy --but then the author should simply write that. No need to make this tenuous connection to FOSTA.

When Obama's campaign used Facebook in 2008, he was visionary. 'A groundswell of support' writes US News.[1] When right-wingers did the same thing, they are destroying democracy.

When the election commision restricted the release of a documentary critical of Ms. Clinton, how many left-wingers cared? In my opinion, the national media has basically failed to ever properly address this issue fairly or honestly. Instead we have a sort of reverse-Fox news occurance (that is, left-wing half truths and misdirected outrage).

Justice Ginsberg spent 3 decades eviserating the constitution, picking and choosing on a whim what laws to uphold. But a few justices have the gall to actually read the constitution at face value, and suddenly it's the end of America?

I think the biggest problem we have is the unwillingness and inability to alter the constitution. The courts are correctly deciding based on the constitution. But because the constitution is so difficult to change, the courts decision is being over-weighed. Who sits on the court should be completely boring. Average people shouldn't care anymore than who heads the department of energy.

But instead of fixing the constitution, the people are using the courts as a run-around.

Noah mentions popular support, but the court has never worked on popular support (was Brown popular? I dont know, but it doesnt matter).

You cannot get everyonento agree. But the best political fix is imo to make constitutional amendments much easier. This is in agreement with the late Justice Scalia.

Of course, that would itself require an amendment.

[1]https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2008/11/19/barack-ob...

Someday someone is going to invent a way to sample your DNA for under 1 USD, and all of this will be moot. Further, they will probably be able to do it by touch or by air.

Our problems stem because we take certain privacies for granted by the nature of them being impractical.

Humans are excellent at facial recognition. Yet it was inly when face recognition became automated that people cared. Yet there was no reason (legally) that someone couldnt have hired a mass of people to learn the faces of their customers. It was just impractical.

Same for license plate readers. We could just hire people to stand in street corners and log each livense plate number as it drives by--we just assume no one will do that.

Instead it seems we want to blame the technology--yet it seems to me we never had that privacy to begin with--we just assumed no one could gather it at scale.

It wouldn't surprise me if at some point, these the things become open secrets. That is--they are legally confidential, but in reality broadly known by anyone who is willing to ignore the law (sort of like how Americans social security numbers are all leaked). I don't know what the solution is.

Meanwhile publications love calling White culture ugly. Shows you who the real racists are.

I am not convinced by any answers. They are predictions--that's great for talking and might make a good road trip argument.

But I think this really has to be tested. Someone call the MythBusters back.

Did anyone actually care about the ethics exam?

I think we all know what it's for: so the institution can either check some requirement that an accreditor has placed upon them, or simply so that they can claim 'every accountant goes through ethics training' whenever some bad news hits the media.

My guess is the students know this, and cheat because they have real things to study.

(Sorry of it's mentioned, cannot read the article and not going to bother finding s way around it).

It's a boring movie. It's not a very good plot (and even has some weird coincidental plot holes).

But I think it's well regarded because of the world building, set design, costumes, and music.

Videogames are oddly the most secure of all.

I don't know why (maybe criminals are more likely to go for your WoW account assuming the legal consequences are less) but I would advise all companies to examine how Blizzard, Valve, and others handle account security.

The more I read about phones and texting, the more I realize that they were never intended to be used as security verification.

It just was not one of the design goals. My understanding of caller id is that anyone can put anything there--it was made decades ago to serve as convenience--not to verify.

Likewise with the sender id in SMS.

It's a good lesson on how protocols are hijacked. Someone thought it was a good idea to send text messages. Another person decided to leverage it for security. Ét voila, we have a security apparatus that isn't very secure.

Unfortunately I don't think that will work because the attacker is in the middle. They can request the verification number, then forward it to the victim.

It sounds like we want identity verification, which while solved for computers, is much harder for humans.