tryonenow

The trouble is that even if these facts are unambiguously correct, their reporting can be misleading, by interpretation, implication, conjecture, selective reporting, and/or omission. That's how bias is injected even into "factual" reporting, and why reality's "liberal bias" may just be a reflection of the predominant institutional bias in popular media.

No, not every conjecture has been researched. But if you're at all familiar with editorial policy on wikipedia, you'll know that only mainstream sources are typically treated as WP:reliablesource (e.g. wapo, huffpo, cnn, nbc, occasionally salon and vox tier) and the vast majority of right leaning sources (aside from fox) are effectively blacklisted. Not to mention the regular editorial bullying on politically sensitive pages that reinforces the bias by chasing away neutral or non-progressive leaning editors with alternative points of view.

Also if the allegation is that wikipedia has an editorial bias, I wouldn't necessarily trust wikipedia's own evaluation of it's bias.

And how laughable, given wikipedia's heavy progressive bias. These people seek out and peddle victimhood as currency. Truly McArthy-esque, to see villains (in our times "oppressors") behind every shadow...

Even manufactured self righteousness must be addictive.

>Comvined with the fact that most EU countries have much lower crime rate than US and have no death penalty

Comparing US to EU is not valid in this context because we have different demographics and culture surrounding most criminality in the US. And deterrents have different levels of effectiveness depending on the individuals and cultures onto which they are introduced.

> And that iduotic because we know it doesnt work, it never did

I would question statistics on the subject given that, presuming "tougher" means more likely and longer imprisonment, literally reduces crime by removing criminals from society. There is an enormous confounding factor in that policing has been reduced, so it's going to be very difficult to tease out how much more (or less) crime would have increased without stiffer penalties.

Again this is not a value judgement, just pointing out that the fact that crime exists does not mean that deterrents don't work. That said, I presume the kind of person willing to commit a crime with punishment in range of the death penalty is probably not likely to be the kind of person who responds to deterrent - but I wonder how likely such a person can possibly be "rehabilitated".

The fact that crime still exists doesn't mean that public, extreme, and/or gruesome punishment doesn't act like a deterrent which reduces the frequency of crime. I'm not saying that inhumane punishments it necessarily justified, but this argument is fallacious.

It's a humorous allusion to the death penalty.

Come on...this is just money laundering...right?

Institutional and retail investors are just starting to pile on and there will be potentially massive gains to be had in the near to mid term before the bottom falls out.

Long term? Probably not smart.

Safe to get in now? Debatable, pretty high risk.

But if you have a bunch of coins laying around and you're willing to gamble a bit longer...

>This is a well-respected publication commenting on a matter of great importance that injected false information into it.

And the [likely politically deliberate] regularity with which this has been happening for years makes me very uneasy to read articles by the same outlets crusading against "misinformation". This movement isn't about combating misinformation, it's about combatting their misinformation, and ensuring that people only see our "true" information

I have very little long term faith in BTC at this point. It is effectively centralized, has limited capacity, outrageous fees when the network is busy, and then there are growing concerns over environmental impact...but I'm still holding on to my stash as the growing institutional momentum over the last year or so seems like it might have a significant positive influence on price, before BTC is eventually abandoned.

It's a gamble but it wouldn't surprise me if we saw $100k at this point, might as well let it ride if you've locked in whatever you originally paid for it.

>I often find it "justifying human exceptionalism" presented as science. The unstated assumption is that humans are somehow better than chimpanzee

You find it unscientific to observe that humans are exceptional for being the only known species with the ability to dominate and shape any environment, create, process, and communicate abstract thought, practice science, generate art, communicate across the planet instantly, travel to the bottom of the ocean and to space, with technology that other humans conceived of, designed, and built?

If that isn't scientifically provable exceptionalism, I don't know what is. "Better" is a loaded term because you can weasel in talk of destroying the environment and what not - but I don't think there's any argument against obvious and overwhelming human exceptionalism, the origin of which unquestionably begs exploration and explanation.

>I believe the bias generally comes from the sources - "reputable" (and generally liberal) English language sources tend to take a deferential tone towards Obama

It's much worse than that. The vast majority of sources that would potentially provide alternative [and valid, but right leaning] perspectives on basically any subject are effectively blacklisted as unreliable by somewhat of a cabal of heavily left leaning regular editors. Go to any talk page on any politically controversial subject and you'll see how the seasoned editors are almost all extremely left leaning and easily overwhelm anyone asking for a more neutral representation of facts. And let's not pretend that this has anything to do with "quality" or "factual reporting" when you'll find sources like Vox and Salon on some of these pages.

It's self reinforcing, in that such heavy editorial bias discourages neutral and right leaning people from making edits that they then have to defend publicly against virtual extremists.

It's pure cultural warfare. And in typical subversive fashion, they all play dumb and dance around the fact that the only approved sources are extremely biased towards their side.

I can see how it's "funny" if one is trying to minimize and deflect, but if they're hanging around characters like maduro then they're probably referring to more than just economic or government theory - these people see themselves as full blown subversive revolutionaries.

And then if you consider the spread of critical theory and postmodernism and the general influence of the Frankfurt school through our institutions, then the overtly "anti-establishment" protesting and rioting spearheaded by BLM and Antifa (which "doesn't exist", "isn't an organization", sure, how typically "revolutionary") starts to look very much like the start of a subversive, insurrectionist ploy, much like that of the bolsheviks that lead to the disaster of a government that my family fled.

And then it really isn't funny to me at all. And it also isn't funny to me when one considers that part of the rise of the Nazi party pre WWII can be attributed the behavior of very similar "revolutionary" communists who also were running destroying businesses and beating up citizens on the street for disagreement. No, I'd say such an overtly insurrectionist movement evolving openly in the US is not funny at all.

Because the only place you really need them is in mathematical/scientific computing, and while many scientists tend to pick up a little programming for their research, the vast majority of computer scientists and programmers, in particular the ones with the interest and ability to work on languages, are not concerned with mathematical modeling/processing. It is a fairly rare interdisciplinary combination.

This isn't whataboutism, it's a valid question considering BTC is touted as a replacement for the financial system and ostensibly performs a similar function with an alternative infrastructure. If the premise is that we should stop BTC mining and processing simply because it costs $X dollars (code pun intended) per transaction, then the price of alternatives is germane to the discussion.

In the experiment, the crystals were driven by RF excitation. Do time crystals generally require a constant energy source to oscillate? I would assume not, since they're called crystals...

Also, is the oscillation frequency temperature dependent?

>Because we have people pretending it's new so they can drum up outrage and gain power. Because we have people playing the victim after being fired for being intolerable to work with

This is the mindset at fault. This idea that intolerance is objective, when clearly it isn't. This idea that certain ideas, regardless of their merit, are simply intolerant and must be met with collective, unilateral intolerance, which typically aligns with progressive politics.

>Most importantly, we have politicians adopting authoritarian attitudes as a reaction to it

This is an ironic take, considering the entire premise behind cancel culture is a collective authoritarianism.

>Private companies have a right to "cancel" whomever they want, whether that takes the form of banning someone from a website or of canceling a contract.

And this is perhaps the most misleading part of the comment. This isn't strictly about private companies cancelling people (although that's also a problem when incentives are aligned to effectively remove cancelees from the public square). This is about rabid, authoritarian mobs attacking individuals for dissent, and the fact that loud minorities are dictating corporate action with a specific political slant.

People were complaining about cancel culture long before politicians. And possibly the most pressing issue is the fact that it isn't that these ideas themselves are intolerant, or even factually incorrect, it's the fear of some of their implications that is responsible for this conditioned suppression of their discourse, and unpersoning of anyone daring enough to ask certain questions. It's like banning research on fission because it could be used to create nuclear weapons. It's egregious anti-intellectualism to forbid certain questions or discussions strictly because of their worst implications.

>the world wants brainless consumers - what is better than someone with sensory disorders, who can be primed to get up and buy with a simple prick?

That's a pretty broad and inaccurate generalization of autism spectrum disorders. If anything I think people on the spectrum are far less likely to be convinced to buy products through advertisement. Autism is a sort of innate stubbornness.

Venting is healthy, the clip of the woman talking about being picked on seems pretty benign - honestly I'm sure many of the outraged parents have said and done worse things. I understand the optics are bad but maybe they shouldn't be, especially because there's likely some degree of truth in what was said.

>Facebook has come clean on a slight error in how it presented video view time on its platform. A mismatch in how average video view time is calculated and how it is defined — resulting in that number being reportedly inflated by a trivial 60 to 80 percent, for a short period of two years.

I don't understand - a "slight" error and 60-80% is "trivial" for a "short" period of two years? Is it just me or is this language excessively apologetic? Or is it meant to be ironic?

>I deeply failed as an ally during the unionization era at Gimlet,” he wrote. “I did not intend to stop the unionization effort, and I am very glad it succeeded … I’m not done working, but I don’t think anyone needs me taking up space right now.

This reads like a forced apology from someone who was bullied into submission by ideologues. I think language like "ally" and "taking up space" is toxic because it implies that non-minorities are forbidden from dissent and participation.

>We may see price inflation of consumer goods and labor too, although that is less clear.

How is inflation not inevitable given the massive amount of money the government has just printed in such a short amount of time? What's a safe hedge?

This is about as needlessly hyperbolic as claiming that everyone on the left wants to see the US turn to socialism complete with "reeducation" camps for anyone right of center.

You lack perspective.

A single cold snap is no more evidence for climate change than it is against global warming. The earth is huge, climate is chaotic and oscillatory with large variance, you need many data points over, at a minimum, decades (though centuries or millennia may be more appropriate) to determine with certainty that the climate is changing.

Depends on how much of a cushion you have saved. There's always a risk that you'll overestimate your value, or have more difficulty in interviews (which aren't quite like work) than you'd anticipate, or the market will turn suddenly - so it's a risk like any other.

That said, if you're planning on preparing for interviews, not having a full time job might be beneficial. If you're young and willing to live within your means, you can stretch 10s of thousands in savings quite far.

Tangent but probably related: it really bugs me that ceddit and removeddit both no longer function, and I suspect reddit deliberately changed its API to nuke that window into reddit's censorship.

>He clearly holds disgust for his subject, which ruins his ability to speak impartially about this topic

I wonder if you share the same disdain for these very same behaviors within modern "journalism" that Glenn discusses in the article, as they are increasingly ubiquitous.

This comment is deeply ironic.

I don't think those with neutral perspectives have much incentive to comment.

The fundamental problem with this article is that it restricts it's analysis to a model composed of a single neural network. Any "general intelligence" will undoubtedly come from a complex of neural networks, much like the human brain. I would argue on that front we are closer than the article implies.

Look no further than the derivatives of AlphaGo. Playing such games is a form of generalizable reasoning.

>Did you see any evidence of actual vote suppression

Well, first, the allegations being silenced are more than just vote suppression. Second, how can anyone expect to find evidence when news, entertainment, and tech companies who control the flow information in public media, private media, and de facto public squares, have colluded toward a particular outcome?

More importantly, how can you be so sure that 45 had "autocratic tendencies" when presumably your sources of information are controlled and manipulated by the same participants in this conspiracy? Bias may be unavoidable, but in "fortifying" the elections, what these people have really done is perpetrated a mass well poisoning, though IMO this started before even the first election.

I would further argue that manipulating the flow of information to suppress one side on a mass scale, particularly when these are not fringe ideas, does amount to a form of voter suppression. We should all be concerned by the notion that a handful of oligarchs flexed their technocratic muscle to effectively manipulate tens of millions of people. Bear in mind also that these oligarchs had non-political motivation to collude, given the adversarial relationship between trump and media, and the rumors of a possible crackdown on/breakup of Tech's dominance over modern discourse. This was an unprecedented flexing of soft power concentrated in the hands of a tiny fraction of the population, ostensibly in anticipation of undemocratic behavior. And as a bonus, it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy when this "cabal" can then unilaterally label any questioning of the results as damaging to democracy because by controlling the content and flow of information.

There's a far larger issue here than the results of a single election.