diputsmonro

Unless you think that every single child was previously slacking off and is capable of effectively working double time without getting overwhelmed, then it's still a problem to be concerned about.

>> the alternative is one must simply be skeptical of the good judgment of one's neighbors, and people don't want to live like that.

People love being skeptical of their neighbors' judgement, what they're afraid of is being skeptical of their own. They can't handle backing the wrong horse, so instead they declare that the system is wrong

Their point is that the average CNN viewer might be willing to pay for a service with different content. CNN+ did not serve the content they were referring to, so your flippant footnote does not apply.

Well, the reddit thread is referencing a 4chan post that is much older. Looks like this is a screenshot of the original post, from 2013: https://m.imgur.com/dgGvgKF

So the patent still predates the joke by a few years, but not by that much.

Why are you jumping to judge her? Is totally reasonable for someone in a relationship to want to spend time with their partner, and be upset if they literally never get to. What's even the point of a relationship if there's no companionship?

All of those things that make it easy to move money out of authoritarian regimes also make it easy to move money into them - see the recent North Korea hack.

Turns out that when you purposefully build a system without any guardrails or oversight, then bad actors will find exploits and there will be no way to stop them. Regulation and oversight might be good things, actually.

or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Panopticon

What strikes me about that graph is that the entire group is likely to be more skilled than the general population. The selection only of people who have the interest and means to attend higher education seems like a narrow window at the furthest edge of the true graph. So I wonder what it would look like if we included people of all education levels and social strata?

My gut, based on this article, is that it would look generally the same but with a larger spread at the lower end of the scale. But I don't think we can truly say we've disproved the Dunning-Kruger effect without a more varied dataset.

Cool story bro.

I could also write up paragraphs of text filled with vague generalizations and prejudices about people living in the rural countryside, and paint up a picture that all the people who live there are abominations who uniquely suffer from the negative aspects of the human condition..

But I won't, because this and that are both mindless factionalist drivel.

With crypto you pay the additional overhead of gas fees, which are often unpredictable and may cost more than the item itself.

Have you considered that maybe it's not the lawyers that are out of step with the American people, but that maybe the American people are out of step with how to effectively conduct a democracy?

For example, lawyers should be aggressively secular. The separation of church and state is one of the most important pillars of a fair democracy, and should be steadfastly defended by our legal professionals regardless of the current ebbs and flows of culture and religion.

Personally, I think that the Reagan Era ushered in a wave of cultural conservatism that is far out of step with a healthy democracy, and lead to a toxic abundance of corporatism, deregulation, and rugged individualism, and that the "woke wave" that conservatives complain about is in many ways really just a cultural pendulum swing back to a healthy center.

Democrats are to the right of most lawyers, sure - but the Democratic party would be considered right wing in most other western democracies. America is so right-leaning that being a centrist in a global sense makes you more to the left than our left wing party.

So I don't think this data shows that our legal system is being corrupted by a sudden surge of radical leftists. I think it shows that American culture is going off the deep end and that our lawyers are trying to keep us tethered to the realities of democracy. These people get decades of education about the concrete function of legal institutions, and undoubtedly know much more about what is actually effective than your average American that just spews their untested opinion at a polster.

> this assumes that there was due process, presumption of innocence and a "rule of law" to start with.

>truth is, rich people can afford the best lawyer, poor people have to take a 10 years plea deal.

Exactly this. The author does a lot of hand-wringing about the loss of the current institutional practices, but never stops to consider that maybe those institutional practices were never as good as they were sold to be anyway.

Justice has never been truly blind, for exactly the reasons you note. In a society that is structurally, historically biased (based on race, wealth, etc.), any institution that pretends that bias doesn't exist will simply allow that bias to be continue. This new generation has seen the flaws in that mentality and has chosen to fix them instead of continuing the problem.

To put it another way: "evil prevails when good men do nothing". The system effectively "does nothing" now by ignoring existing structural bias, and thus allows the existing evils in society - racism, classic, etc. - to affect its outcome. It doesn't matter if the system isn't designed to be "evil", or that the people acting within it don't consider themselves to be evil - The evils in society will persist if they are not actively opposed.

A change in mentality has occurred among the profession (and also as a wider cultural movement) that societal evils need to be actively called out and opposed rather than quietly tolerated. And honestly, I find it hard to disagree.

You mean an event that occurred nearly an entire generation ago, and for which almost none of those responsibile are still living?

Kinda shitty to hold that legacy over the heads of an entire people. You're not really making a good case for your supposed moral superiority.

People always be conjugating "be" incorrectly. It's actually hallmark of a very common English dialect, which people speak and understand all the time without issue:

https://abagond.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/ebonics-time-and-te...

Then you can still go over to rt.com and check that out for yourself. With your knowledge that it is half lies, you can be actively engaged and discerning. But those lies should not be easily accessible for the uninitiated who are just casually curious about current events.

Propaganda can be useful to analyze, yes. But only if you know that it's propaganda. Most people casually searching DDG are probably not aware of that. If you know enough to know that some news source is spreading propaganda and you want to study it, then you know enough to be able to access it directly. Propaganda wants to be found, and you can always just go to RT yourself.

Propaganda should be treated as a hazardous material. Yes, it can be studied, and there is value in studying it, but there are safety protocols that should be followed to protect yourself and others. Uranium is very useful and scientifically valuable, but it shouldn't be on the shelves at your local Walmart where people can stumble upon it, unaware of the dangers.

Propaganda is an infohazard and should be treated as such; an information retrieval service should not surface it readily for a casual search.

Is propaganda a "genuine result"? Yeah yeah, one person's truth is another person's propaganda and sometimes the lines are blurry. But cases like RT are pretty clear cut. Sometimes people actually do lie, and those lies are verifiable. Verifiable lies, and the sources who create them predictably and consistently, should not be considered a "genuine result" for a query regarding things that are happening right now.

Pretending that both sides are equal is not always helpful. Bad actors do exist, and pretending that everything is equally indeterminate is a fatally nihilistic and dangerous view. Sometimes we actually can tell when something is a lie, and we should treat it appropriately. For a tool that retrieves genuine results matching a query, that means down-ranking them.

For the purposes of current event queries, disinformation is certainly spam. The purpose of spam is to fool you into doing something you probably wouldn't otherwise do, usually based on false pretenses. Disinformation is the same. The action it promotes is more indirect - it seeks to influence beliefs, and therefore voting patterns and soft power - but it is still spread with a purpose that is disingenuous. It disguises it's true intent and is dangerous to the user. It is effectively spam applied to the domain of politics and current events, and should be treated as spam is. It should not be a valid result in an information retrieval service.

I agree that this ranking could be the start of a slippery slope. But DDG is being transparent, and you can still get to RT if you disagree. This is a good measure for people unfamiliar with Russia news sources and propaganda networks, who are the people most likely to be susceptible to Russian propaganda.

If DDG can overhaul the worldwide education system, I'm sure we'd all be in favor of that.

But since the best solution is impossible, at least right now, a half measure like this seems reasonable to offer some amount of protection.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. We should do what we can now, and keep pushing for better solutions. Holding out for perfection does nothing to help people now, or possibly ever, depending on your definition of "perfect".

> It does if you hold the view that teaching someone to speak and write is teaching them *them think*.

> If that is correct *than* if someone does not know how to speak and write in a grammatically correct fashion then the implication is that they do not know how to think properly.

And you immediately defeat yourself with your own argument.

Nobody ever has, nor should strive to, follow every grammatical rule perfectly. Errors only matter if they create actual ambiguity; if you understand my intent, then I have used language effectively.

As human thought evolves, language should too. Poets are always breaking rules in the name of art, and many of those changes get codified as new rules. Shakespeare simply made up dozens of words that we use today without a second thought. Over the last decade, modern poets steeped in the culture of sarcasm have given the word "literally" a new meaning. Those deviations and inventions made sense, both to the speakers and listeners, so new words, rules, and understandings were created. The only people left confused are the prescriptionists who cling to outdated rules that describe how people used to talk.

As long as humans can turn these AI assistants off and share their imperfect creativity, I'm not too concerned.

So I assume that you have never told your child no before, then? When they want to touch a hot stove, eat an entire gallon of ice cream, or paint on the walls, you give complete deference to them, because to restrict them in any way would be an unforgivable infringement of their intrinsic liberties, is that right?

Context matters - situations dont become identical just because you can switch out a few nouns to make an edgy analogy.

You seem to have missed the section where they assigned point values to Legos and let the children create rules. The author clearly states that they had intended for the children to criticize the system for being unfair, but instead criticized the people within the system. The teachers wanted the children to challenge them, and they didn't!

And yes, at the end of the day, the teachers always have the final authority. Do you think it's a good idea for a group of children to never be told "no?"

> Conversely, I would not share my politics with children, even abstractly

Every human interaction is politics. It's not just about leaders, governments, and parties - it's about who gets what, and when, in a world where we can't all get what we want. Managing how power and resources are shared is the fundamental idea of politics.

If you don't teach kids about politics, they will be lost in the world - unable to advocate or negotiate for themselves, understand the situations of others, or question the systems that have been built around them. This article describes children learning all that and more.

Essentially all schooling is a series of forced conversations. I know a lot of kids who didn't want to talk about math or Shakespeare, but our society has decided that it's important for people to learn those things.

It's definitely valid to question what those things should be, but some conversations need to be "forced" in order to educate children about things they don't know and likely won't discover easily for themselves.

I feel like I'm the only person who hates ligatures in coding fonts, but I agree that these whitespace ligatures are (mostly) a good compromise.

I'm not at all surprised that an overworked employee wouldn't talk back to their unreasonable boss. They need their next paycheck to eat and pay rent, and they don't want to risk getting immediately fired for "insubordination", or whatever other bullshit a power hungry sociopath might pull out of their ass in retaliation.

Yeah, that might have something to do with a major global pandemic, the response to which we completely bothched in our country.

Let's see, who was the party in charge then, hmm...

Could you explain that then, because honestly I can't fathom how a "hard left" pendulum swing has created our current issues. The US has arguably been swinging to the right for decades, and certainly is pretty right-wing compared to most other western democratic nations.

And it was true

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_C....

The efficiency of a government is determined by those who direct it, it's not inherent to the structure.

The Manhatten Project, the New Deal, and the Space Race were remarkably efficient and productive, back in the time that we believed that governments can and should do things, and politicians worked together in good faith.

Then corporate lobbyists bought our politicians and convinced us that governments are evil and inept, and that they shouldn't have to pay taxes because the government will just waste it. So we deregulated everything, and now billionares just waste their record profits on low orbit joyrides instead, while average Americans die preventable deaths because they can't afford healthcare (which the governments of every other developed nation manage to provide their citizens for free).

The reality is that marketing is a fundamental part spreading ideas, which is a fundamental part of democracy (and politics in general).

It doesn't really matter if housing as a human right doesn't fit some narrow implied definitions of 18th-century philosophers or statesmen. We live in a different world now, with technology, possibilities, and circumstances that are wildly different. People can no longer simply homestead out on the open land; everything is already owned by someone else, and the cost to buy/rent it is far outpacing the reach of the average person. The deprivation of physical space is a direct threat to a person's livelihood, and this simply wasn't a problem in the age of the manifest destiny.

A new age comes with new problems which require new solutions, which must be implemented by spreading new ideas. Changes occur when a critical mass of people and politicians believe that change is possible and required. So yes, calling it a "right" is marketing, because in a democracy that is how you get things done.

Those who work to produce housing would still be compensated, as are all government employees. The money would come from taxes, and taxes would be increased on those who are obscenely wealthy in excess of their needs or realistic aspirations.

To make it more apt, if a commodity such as housing is declared to be a human right, perhaps all those who own the commodity in excess of their needs should be taxed heavily to pay for homes/shelters for the unsheltered. It is, after all, their opulent greed that is strangulating the market and making home ownership difficult to begin with.