croniev

It's good at presenting existing arguments in a good way. But the problem is that such models can only give back what they have seen, consolidating the status quo. There can be no reflection and no outside of the box thinking.

In my perspective this derives from the fact that "knowledge" itself is not some abstract, immaterial thing in the brain, but rather thinking and knowing works through the body and the practical application. Hence the saying "hands-on". Understanding something requires experiencing it, as experience (sensation) is inseparable from consciousness. (We call this phenomenological Emboiment, feel free to check it out!)

You cannot build an ideal society in theory as it will not be realisitic in practice, and you cannot explain reason and feel with words alone, but others need to walk the same experiential path as you did. But since you already figured it out you can help them walk it faster. Thats why we now learn in primary school what originally took a long time until some greek matematician worked it out.

I agree that there is a lot of blabla and that is not beneficial to anyone. But sometimes things that may seem as blabla actually may not be. You say that you care about technical information and every paragraph should contain some. But there is more than just tech, and it is important to motivate why we should care about the tech topic we are reading about. This will require paragraphs here and there that deal with ethical, social, philosophical considerations, and they may seem like space-fillers, however the contents are not trivial. Maybe you know that recommendation algorithms can have negative impacts, still it cant hurt to see arguments for this position. And other people besides you may not think so, and thus it is important to present them with such positions so that there can be a discussion. Whatever "average intelligence" is supposed to mean, not everyone knows the same things I do, no matter how "smart" they are.

> Having motivated, happy teammates is critical to getting things done.

Here it is, in case anyone was looking for a good reason to care about people's happiness

Separation of politics from economy is an impossibilty, and the company that you are describing is only turning a blind eye to its responsibilities to society. You want to make profit the only relevant variable, denying any moral or political factors? What you will end up with is a company that is blind to the effect it has on society and to the reasons of how and why it works. For example, say you have a lot of Nazi customers, for whatever reason (maybe you first openend in a nazi neighborhood and they like you). They say that they want you to stop selling immigrants, and following your profit maximation rules you are happy to accept, as immigrants are a minority here and would not give as much profit as the nazis. However, your opposition has to close shop because every nazi has now flocked to you and the immigrant customers are not enough to keep it running. You end up with extreme polarisation and a lack of freedom for a group of people. This example is super simplified and perhaps not satisfying, but in the complexity of the real world and of online businesses etc. there are so much more mechanisms that can lead to discrimination, especially if they are not reflected upon. This phenomenon, where complete rational focus on one variable is disastrous for other factors that are very important in different ways, is also known as the rationality of irrationality. Please read more about it here [1], you may find that your view of society is quite naive. I don't want to diss you, but I would not be surprised if you reckon its strictly the politics job to care about gender equality, antiracism, etc., and that you like yo blame incompetent politicians for the problems rather than rationalist business people who do not see the consequences of their actions. While profit profit profit may have kind of worked in the sixties, it is time to use our new gained knowledge about societal mechanisms and put them to good to fight more pressing problems than growing gdp.

[1]: https://www.everydaysociologyblog.com/2012/09/the-rationalit...

Didn't know this journal does clickbait

> I feel that bikes and electric scooters are more dangerous than cars.

How do you get this idea? In a collision with a pedestrian, the person on the scooter/bike will come to harm more likely than the pedestrian. But such collisions do not happen too often, and when they do, they don't go as bad as car crashes. I live in a German City (Darmstadt) where next to the big roads as well as in the city centre bikes and pedestrians share a lot of place, and it is not a big problem that people keep getting hurt because of this. Most accidents in these places are because bikers had accidents due to bad roads, hidden stairs, car drivers, bad bike lanes, etc. If you ask me, making a city nore bike friendly, also close to pedestrian areas, decreases the chances of bikers getting hurt.

The argument that everything got more complex and bugs are harder to find now, so fun is avoided, does seem convincing, but I believe it does not account for everything. For a philosophical take: the kind of positive effects that easter eggs have, such as joy at work, team cohesion, flimflam - they are not physically measurable. They are immaterial. And the managers who are interested in making a profitable product will be focused on material measures, since at the end of the day that is what seems to be whats important on the market. To put it briefly, I believe that the materialistic world-view inspired by natural sciences and inscribed into our economies is not able to deal with more abstract benefits such as fun.

Or educated researchers with empirical studies and legit concerns

Not a fan of grabbing into the 'ole anti-communist propaganda box. I'm not saying communism is a great ideology, I'm saying that we are far from bolshevism, and calling people that have gotten used to fighting privilege and have thus become ideological 'bolsheviks' is unoriginal and boring. I do think that if you were born with privilege, you don't lose it. Can't undo the past. So yes, even if you give your money away, you are still the 'inheritor of privilege'. It's not about trying to lose that title, it's about what you do with the title. If you donate it all, that's great! But gotta acknowledge where it came from, and not pretend like it was only "habits and hard work". Face the fact that you are privileged, it's not shameful. Another Comment in this thread already explained that it's not about this guy in particular, but the people who pretend like privilege is not a thing.

TLDR: No matter how much you donate, don't deny your privilege if you don't want to be called out for it.

More often than not its "take this abusive offer or starve to death". Not much of a choice there. The way I see it, what you're describing is an outdated ideology, which does not apply in practice in most parts of the world, except for a few privileged places.

I'm sure you're right. But it makes no difference, because when the facial recognition is applied, I think the likelyhood that people will have the same "grooming cues" as they do in their profile pictures is pretty high. If I have short hair in my profile pic, I probably have short hair in my everyday life, in the moment that my face is recorded and processed, as well. Yes, I choose how my face looks myself. But that does not mean anything, as objectively it is the same, whether I intended to or not.