This is also covered here by “People make games”
1,167 karma · joined December 23, 2019
Yes, there’s a lot there to be worried about.
The reason child labor is illegal is not because we’re under the wrong assumption that work experience itself is bad for them.
But if LEGO started coming with lottery tickets in the kids sets, had adds for exploitative devs that ran real businesses with 7year olds on payroll in “pretend money” that can be exchanged on black sites that LEGO approved of by not taking any actions, well you start to get in to problems.
The thing is that Roblox is not just a unsuspecting pawn here. They are deliberately fostering this, they know about the toxic development environment, so they closed their own forums to avoid legal implications, they knowing promote gambling to kids, they allow sites that exchange in game currency for money because it helps grow their game.
> It also lets kids learn a lot of entrepreneurial skills if they have that bent, which I view as a massive plus.
I’m sure the experience of working as an underage kid for a grown man sexually targeting underage girls will very valuable in the startup world, especially the part where the company gets informed and doesn’t do anything more than the bare minimum because his child labor ring is making them money.
It’s a game for kids, but it’s not made or owned by kids. We can hold them to a higher bar of responsibility.
It’s really held back society that we haven’t been able to verify diplomas issued by centralized trusted institutions in a decentralized trustless fashion. /s
So natural question, how long until they start squeezing more money out of users and how severe will it be for hobbyists and small companies?
It feels wrong to call it misuse when you’re literally using it the way Tesla has previously, is currently, and will continue to market it.
There’s no grand conspiracy or evil masterminds here, and teens aren’t being exploited. It’s just marketing targeting the target audience.
If we bought into the premise that adverts for teens where bad for them or that Facebook itself is harmful. We should not be discussing which ways they carried out their advertisement, we should be discussing how the government outlawed all forms of advertisement, print and media for teens and children and shut Facebook down along with all other social media.
If you buy the Mona Lisa and get a certificate of ownership with a reference to the painting, you would not say that this certificate was art.
Movies that have strategic product placement isn’t “mostly product placement free” it’s just plain marketing, and should own up to it.
I don’t understand why it’s even there, it doesn’t seem to tie into anything and is a sharp contrast to the rest of the content which actually references studies and actual results, and then it just switches to “Oh, and there’s this product the owner claims works” seems very odd unless it’s a paid add, but it seems unlikely to be a paid add due to placement and context.
Throughout the pandemic numbers have reported how many people where hospitalized with Covid. Because that is the important number to be concerned about, since this is the number that is pressuring the hospital system. This articles is Henrik Qi’s personal “gotcha” saying “haha, I told you so, actually only 3/4 of those hospitalizations are because of covid!!” And then trying to paint a picture of the media collectively having failed the readers for not “discovering” this earlier.
Now this is a lie for two reasons, it implies incorrectly that there was previously a statement that 100% the people in the hospital with covid where there solely because of covid, which was never the case. And secondly it is a lie because the hints that covid is actually 27% less severe is an implicit accusation that someone who has covid and heart failure and is admitted does not stress the system exactly as much as someone admitted only because they have covid.
The punkis wasn’t lied to by the government. The media didn’t fail the people. What actually happened was that the most important number was reported accurately and now Henrik Q finally got another number that he thinks is more important. Why does he think that one is more important? Because he doesn’t care about the healthcare system failing, what he cares about is only his personal risk of ending up hospitalized if he gets covid. And that’s fine, it’s not illegal to be selfish, but it’s not a failing of the government for not focusing on metrics you personally align with your own hypothesis.
It was quite clearly communicated and makes perfect sense that during covid we where looking at number of hospitalizations with covid compared to the capacity to support hospitalizations with covid, and lockdowns and other actions where planned based on ensuring those didn’t collide.
If the hospital system had broken down, it would have helped no one that Henrik could jog along and go “Well actually 27% of the people that can’t get treatment for covid or other illnesses only need that because of the other illness not because of covid”
Anyways I appreciate your perspective but I’ll stand by my viewpoint. The truth contained in this reporting is incidental to their agenda, it’s not the focus of it at all.
This doesn’t mean they don’t have truth in their reporting, only that whatever truth is there is accidental and just seen as a tool to get attention or exact revenge on the governments which he has a personal vendetta against.
No footgun potential, and as others have mentioned the “good usage” would often be bad simply because it ends up looking like a mistake even if it’s intentional.
True, but if you exclude any evidence that is “far from an accurate representation of events” then we have no legal system left. Eye witness reports isn’t reliable, DNA evidence isn’t reliable. A case is built on the sum of many unreliable parts, and there a smartphone video or photo is at least significantly more reliable than eye witness accounts.
This sentimental reminds me of a talk given by a government bomb expert where a naive student asked “why do we allow the ingredients for bombs to be sold in store, shouldn’t we ban them all?”
The answer of cause is that if we do that, then we suddenly don’t have gasoline, orange juice, basic electronics, fertilizer or even just basic sanitation products available anymore, but of cause anyone who wanted to make a bomb would still be able to do so easily.
If it really is the case as pitched that 1000$ gets you a virus that will bring down nations, why on earth would we leave the field only to bad actors? Would that not just make it ever so more important that such researched happened openly and under well funded, strictly controlled conditions so we know what to expect and so we can start to develop plans for counter measures for when the next 9/11-like fanatic driven attack comes along?
- Google will buy Tiktok
- Meta/Facebook will release some VR solution that fail to gain traction
- Roblox will face legal pressure due to its use of child labor and child gambling
Over time we got management to change this, but not enough that they wanted accurate data based estimates which we could of cause calculate from the well known distributions, but instead they just always added a buffer they pulled out of thin air. Why you ask? Because they felt that the original state of “half the orders taking longer than average” showed that “you can’t always trust the data”
But since they want to leave and can’t find a good reason or don’t feel that they can stand by whatever reasoning they have, it becomes “We have to break up because you’re yellow and I’m red” rather than: “we have to break up because I’m shallow and your body doesn’t look like it did when we met” or “we have to break up because after you got fired you haven’t been able to spend as much money on me”. Etc.
But it’s true that those who opposed him tried to paint his criticism as a if it had been denial because that’s a strawman that is easier to argue against.
If someone comes out saying “climate change is man made and unless we do something the Oriana going to boil away in 2 years, our only option is to start throwing ice cubes into the ocean!” Then it’s perfectly resonable to argue that the prediction is wrong, and that even if it was accurate the proposed solution isn’t cost effective and that better solutions exist, that doesn’t mean you are arguing against the main premis of manmade climate change.
Now the meat of the debate around Lomborg is really if his predictions stack up against the predictions he criticized.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The most relevant part for you is:
> Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."
But i suggest reading the entire thing, there are a lot of good points.
So for most its better to take two jobs at 50% the effort at 75% the pay each.
I think we should start somewhere more practical first. Did you know that Walmart designs their store layout and inventory to maximize purchases? They deviously use our own shopping patterns to manipulate us!! We need to stop retailers from being able to analyze what people are buying right now!
ok, so this is definitely hyperbole, but come on, the fact that Facebook builds its product such that they optimize for the chance that you want to spend time on their platform is not itself evil. If the same sort of simplistic logic had been driving policies back in the “video games are making kids I to violent criminals”-days, the narrative had been just “Evil game developers are making games entertaining in order to get kids to play them! We need to stop this!” And furthermore they would have won that political battle and video games would have been forever outlawed, because apparently the narrative that anything that causes a kid to look at a screen is inherently evil has becomes a given these days, and you don’t even need to argue for anymore you can just assume it.
Now don’t get me wrong, I think that stronger private data laws are a great thing, but you can’t just argue that companies using engagement data to optimize their services is itself evil. They are businesses, of cause they want the better product and of cause the better product is the one that provides what people want. We don’t want congress making it illegal for Walmart to stock more food during Christmas because they know from data that they sell more during Christmas. Now if walmart was asking to see your social security information during checkout, that would of cause be an issue, but that’s an entirely different thing.