restingrobot

The neural network takes into account videos that other people who watched the same one you did watched. It's quite possible that the movie trailer you watched was popular among demographics that also watched those recommendations. If you don't have a lot of data for yourself, you will see a heavier bias towards other people's videos.

> Won’t youtube effectively shove the next recommended video to a user as long as auto-play is activated ?

You can very easily turn auto-play off. There is plenty of opportunity to switch videos. It would be different if youtube forced you to watch the next video in order to use the site.

>For the neutrality, if you recognize there are agreed upon rules, as you point out, the next question becomes who agreed on these rules, and who made them ?

Youtube made them. Those are pre-conditions for uploading videos. They don't have to have any reason why they made them, those are conditions that must be met in order to upload a video. So by uploading a video you are agreeing to them.

>Any rule in place is positive to a group and negative to another

I don't agree with this generality. However, this discussion is not about the legitamacy of the rules to use youtube, it is whether or not youtube should censor videos, (that meets basic rules of use). My opinion is no, your's as you stated above was:

>I personaly think anything dealing with human content can’t be left neutral, as we need a bias towards positivity.

I agree with you that Youtube should routinely challenge their own rule sets. That is not the same as censoring their content, or in this case modifying their recommendation algorithm.

To make my first point clear, here is a scenario:

I walk up to you on the street and suggest you give me a dollar.

vs

I walk up to you on the street and take a dollar from you by force.

Youtube is a platform, in order remain a platform it MUST remain neutral. You cannot have an open forum with bias. There are certain mutually agreed upon rules, (no nudity, extreme violence, etc.), those limitations are more than enough to handle the vast majority of "negative" content.

I whole heartedly disagree that we need a bias towards positivity. Who determines what that definition is? Something you see as negative, I might happen to enjoy. If Youtube begins to censor itself in that way it is no longer a platform and is now responsible for ALL of its content.

The semantics argument I was pointing out was in regards to "broader" vs "engaging". That's not what my statement was about, it was that no matter what the algorithm recommends to you, you still have the choice whether or not to watch it. The point you are making is purely anecdotal as I assure you the neural network is not simply showing you

>same genre as whatever I just saw, but with a clickbaitier title, flashier thumbnail, and overall poorer informational quality

Youtube is asserting on behalf of people who own the publishing rights and not on behalf of themselves. This is an important distinction. Youtube is not the same as a Newspaper in any way shape or form, I don't really understand your comparison.

I personally think this has deeper political motives as well, but yes I completely agree with you!

I would argue that your point is semantics, but even so you still have a choice of whether or not to watch the recommended more "engaging" material. It doesn't change the overall point of my statement.

That is an apples to oranges comparison, Youtube is a platform not an institution. It is open to all videos, provided they meet certain agreed upon guidelines, and should not be responsible for censoring content based on individual opinions.

I don't think that the recommendation is broken at all, in fact it works astonishingly well for the vast majority of people. The fact that there are a few bad actors is also present in the banking industry, (Wells Fargo for instance), to use your own bad comparison.

I completely disagree, my children have a wonderful time following the recommended videos that youtube provides. I'm interested to hear your reasoning on why it is "disastrous".

I don't think this is incentivizing bad behavior. It's merely showing the viewer more of what they are already watching with a gradual introduction to broader material. The example of a youtube serving content to "pedophiles" is borderline asinine. The neural network is just making suggestions on viewing, it's not telling people to watch. In regards to the complaint that "adult" content is being served to adolescents, there is an option to filter out sensitive content all together.

Also, as a parent to 4 children myself, the idea of letting my kids loose on the internet completely devoid of any supervision is ridiculous. When did it become youtube's responsibility to parent the children in its audience? Should we also ban HBO, Amazon, and Netflix from providing recommendations because it might be a child in front of the screen?

This is just another pointed attempt to censor free speech via the abuse of technology companies. The idea being that the platform will be restrictive if they are constantly badgered about it.

While I think the usage of a gif is awesome, I am a huge fan of actually allowing people to see what is happening. The purpose of the gif was to show how it works, but he moved so fast I could barely read anything or follow him.

This happens at any company with any product. Really being blown out of proportion because its facebook.

Hey man, you are loved. Wish I could have said this to my girlfriend. She used to say things like this in passing. I can tell you that the pain of missing her never goes away. Just remember that you are loved and don't be afraid to reach out to someone for help.

Keep in mind that 'Making a Murderer' is heavily dramatized for television purposes. Also the show purposefully leaves out information,

https://onmilwaukee.com/movies/articles/evidenceagainstavery...

I don't think you understand what the environmental concessions actually were. The article tries to make it sound like they were related to the dumping of heavy metals, but in reality they are just for the construction of the site and water usage, (e.g. For every of acre they fill to build, they have to create 1.2 acres of new wetlands). The company will still be held to the same pollution standards as every other company in the state.

If you read the article it explains that Foxconn changed their plans after Wisconsin refused to subsidize a necessary Corning factory.

I think that people are forgetting that this a subsidy to build. The state is not "giving" Foxconn money, it's just choosing not to collect taxes/permit fees/construction costs, for them to put in the factory. Once the factory is built, there is nothing stopping the state from modifying their corporate tax laws to recoup this investment much faster.

Also your last statement is just preposterous notion. Governor Walker is not personally gaining anything financial from this deal. It was a desperate bid to push his re-election campaign. Personally I think that the deal has soured so much that it should be cancelled, but the original $3 billion for jobs sounded very sound. Especially for a very economically repressed location like Racine.

Fellow Wisconsinite here. I went to UW Madison when the protests you mentioned were happening. The 100's of thousands of protestors you mentioned were bussed in from all over the country. Many of which were bought and paid for by all sorts of Political motivators. I literally would ask people why they were here and they would say "because I'm getting paid $10/hr to hold this sign".

If you are going to site examples of a states corruption, at least use concrete evidence rather than vague allusions. The only real corruption you listed was an on individual/(small group) basis. This is not an indicator of a corrupt system, but rather anecdotal evidence of a the most noteworthy bad apples.

Overall in my very humble opinion I have found that the Wisconsin government is fairly well run.

Finally I don't see how the name of a restaurant has anything to do with government corruption. The name is purely based on its location, (within 400 ft from the capitol), and has nothing to do with politics. Also they have great food, I would highly recommend trying it out!

I don't mean to sound elitist, but this isn't a Hackathon, its an idea-athon. Participants are limited to the small toolset of pre-built components provided to them, (Bubble in this case). The whole benefit of a hackathon is to think outside the box, but this actually encourages staying inside the box in order to produce a more polished product. You're getting a deep dive but completely missing any breadth.

I don't want to assume anything about your work history, but I have worked at 2 fortune 500 companies, and I can absolutely say that if its not in writing it didn't happen.

Perhaps these companies were outliers, and I don't think anything I experience was a result of malice. However, when the higher ups are looking for answers, middle management tends to put blame on the developers. I can't tell you how many times I had to dig up old email chains to essentially prove what was communicated. People forget, people misremember, and people will fabricate to avoid repercussions. I have found this to be a universal truth of business, so I can see why someone would say your comment is naive.

Also like the comment above yours states, there is literally no downside to re-affirming the discussed points. I've had instances where once things were put in writing, my manager noticed something that wasn't clear and we were able to circumvent issues.

To be fair, many of the problems you just described are specific to console games. But more specifically to your point this service would actually eliminate the need to keep the game up to date, as the centralized server would maintain an update product. So this might actually improve your game experience, as you would never have to wait for an update again!

Plus it runs in chrome so you don't even have to worry about installing/tweaking settings/finding the disk anymore either.

You already have to do this to play any AAA title? I really don't see the issue?

This is literally testing streaming to Chrome. I'm guessing that optimizing this required some serious client side support, so it would make sense why it would only work for Chrome. That being said if it takes off, I can easily other browsers supporting a standard.

Well since this is a streaming service, there is no such thing as an "offline" game as you need to be connected to the internet to stream it. I"m guess they will have some sort pay for play time model rather than a full game purchase. This would be the streaming equivalent of renting a red box title, but hopefully cheaper.

If this is what the author wanted, which I 100% agree with you it is, why didn't she just say that? Admittedly, I often find myself in the clueless husband role, but my wife has been making a huge effort to directly say what she wants. The result is that both of us are much happier. If the author of this article wanted her husband to do the legwork of finding a housekeeper she should have asked for exactly that.

I think you missed my point. You should not write a check for more money than you have, (you can but you are taking a risk that it will bounce). You do not need a buffer, you need to track your money better. The second that you write a check, it should be deducted from your, (your meaning the record you keep not the banks record), balance. In this scenario, when you wrote the check, the balance would be -$1. That is the problem here. The bank can clear or not clear things in any order, but if your recording is better, you will never have an issue. The benefactor you speak of is your own records, if you do not keep them, you are doing yourself a disservice.

Children are not usually the ones making difficult financial decisions. In this metaphor I am assuming you and I are both adults.

Being conditioned to believe something is not the same as being unable to form your own conclusions. Yes I agree parents have a huge influence on their children's values. However, at some point an adult must take ownership of their own life and their own values.

The metaphor was in regards to decision making and responsibility. It was not regarding being poor or in poverty whatsoever.

The flaw in your point is that you should not have $11 in checks clearing with only $10 in balance. This means that you wrote the check without enough money. People its your responsibility to keep track of your balance, not your banks. This seems to be a common misconception in modern times.

A late fee on a utility is ALWAYS better than an overdraft or a bounced check. I see this argument so much. I can only speak from my experience, but if I was ever short, I would call the company and explain, 9 times out of 10 I would be granted an extension. I found it especially likely if I simply explained that my check had not cleared. Many times, I was not even charged a late fee. Again this is my experience, and I can't speak for everyone.

A hurricane is hardly a good example. Its a tiny minority of people in the poverty discussion.