|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 11 2016 07:53 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 06:59 Excludos wrote:I absolutely love the idea of a Technocracy. Unfortunately I would assume people who doesn't have a higher education might not share my enthusiasm  It's also completely untried so whether it works or not is uncertain at best. The most obviously apparently potential problem of a technocracy is that a lot of people with great technical expertise tend to be very bad administrators. They're very different skillsets even though there's some common ground and you want generally intelligent and experienced people doing them.
Yeah if you've ever worked in a tech company it's painfully obvious what the big drawback of a technocracy could be. At the same time a skilled administrator who carefully listens to technology minded people (and knows when to ignore them) should be more or less a no brainer for the modern world.
Instead we get Internet Tubes.
|
On November 11 2016 07:48 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 07:45 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 11 2016 07:41 LegalLord wrote:
In hindsight I think we underestimated the effect of the October surprise that Assange gave us. The Podesta emails didn't look so great at first but they are a gift that keeps on giving. Not looking to reignite old discussions, but I give it every bit as much to Comey's letter. Didn't quite a few states early vote under the impression that HRC would be investigated anew ? Oh, I'm not talking about just the election. There is stuff we don't like about Hillary, but in this case they just randomly gave us more with which to bury the DNC leadership that Hillary helped to create. A good chance to clean house.
Fair enough, if you're talking about Debbie Wassermann Schulz, Donna Brazile, et alumni, I'm with you. There is technically a chance they hang on till next midterms though.
On the subject of Wikileaks and possible meddling by foreign agencies, the possibilities a couple years from now are mind-boggling. Realistic speech synthesis is coming fast, realistic video re-enactment as well ; it is completely possible that soon enough you'd be able to create and upload a realistic fake speech video by any politician from apps in your living room. Hell of a game changer.
|
On November 11 2016 07:54 Logo wrote:
Yeah if you've ever worked in a tech company it's painfully obvious what the big drawback of a technocracy could be. At the same time a skilled administrator who carefully listens to technology minded people (and knows when to ignore them) should be more or less a no brainer for the modern world.
Instead we get Internet Tubes.
This is in some part a generation gap where the majority of politicians tend to be a generation above most tech professionals, and they end up not crossing social/intellectual circles. Someone like Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump finding a technology expert would require crossing several degrees of separation. So the end result is on the one hand you have the woman who put government data at risk through incompetent use of a private e-mail server, and on the other you have the guy who literally doesn't know what cybersecurity is.
|
On November 11 2016 07:55 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 07:48 LegalLord wrote:On November 11 2016 07:45 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 11 2016 07:41 LegalLord wrote:
In hindsight I think we underestimated the effect of the October surprise that Assange gave us. The Podesta emails didn't look so great at first but they are a gift that keeps on giving. Not looking to reignite old discussions, but I give it every bit as much to Comey's letter. Didn't quite a few states early vote under the impression that HRC would be investigated anew ? Oh, I'm not talking about just the election. There is stuff we don't like about Hillary, but in this case they just randomly gave us more with which to bury the DNC leadership that Hillary helped to create. A good chance to clean house. Fair enough, if you're talking about Debbie Wassermann Schulz, Donna Brazile, et alumni, I'm with you. There is technically a chance they hang on till next midterms though. On the subject of Wikileaks and possible meddling by foreign agencies, the possibilities a couple years from now are mind-boggling. Realistic speech synthesis is coming fast, realistic video re-enactment as well ; it is completely possible that soon enough you'd be able to create and upload a realistic fake speech video by any politician from apps in your living room. Hell of a game changer.
Which is probably why people protesting (who by all rights should be and continue to do so) also need to protest the democratic party. Unfortunately I'm guessing a lot of people who are the most active politically see no fault of the democratic party and will continue on blissfully.
|
On November 11 2016 07:52 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 07:49 LegalLord wrote:On November 11 2016 07:44 Logo wrote:https://theintercept.com/2016/11/10/facebook-im-begging-you-please-make-yourself-better/
THE ARTICLE THAT scared me most this election cycle appeared in the Washington Post, documenting how Melanie Austin, a single western Pennsylvania Trump supporter, gathered information about the world around her: almost exclusively vacuuming falsehoods via Google and social media. She is one among millions. You can blame Facebook outright for Trump’s victory, or not. But at the very least, we should demand from them some accountability for their role in spreading the present toxic sea of deliberate misinformation and non-factual chaos.
After the election I had a really strong anti-Facebook gut reaction because I knew of how much misinformation (both ways) gets spread around there. I've cooled off emotionally since then, but still feel rationally strong about being really anti-Facebook. The thing is with Twitter, Reddit, et al. as awful as they are about the very same thing you can be pretty insular and spread misinformation, but it is at least open to counter opinions, outside fact checks, and a bit more of a lack of repetition. But with Facebook if your only around like minded people there's no one to call you out or maybe even both fact checking. Then on top of that there's like zero effort for these companies to improve (why would they, they profit off the traffic). So idk I'm pretty tempted to delete my Facebook account, the only real use I have for it to begin with is the messenger since no one uses other IM clients anymore. Meh, the only reason I use FB for is to have contacts for a lot of friends I don't see often anymore. FB wants to be more than that and to have people use it and give them tons of ad money, but it seems most people just aren't too fond of it anymore. yeah people hate it, but still constantly use it. But because they keep using it it keeps making money so it keeps going. And as it keeps going it's spitting out tons of misinformation (even if you tried to argue one side had more than the other long term you'd imagine it'd even out). At some people for it to stop existing or change people are actually going to have to abandon the platform. It should also be especially vulnerable the more people that are using it to keep loose contacts since losing those people will ruin their only reason for using it.
I do increasingly find that I had a reason for losing contact with 95% of the people who I friended on FB, and I have no need to keep any contacts with them. I don't have any reason to delete mine but I just have barely any reason to use it. For all intents and purposes it's a glorified IM to me.
FB has seen this issue and they have to constantly "reinvent themselves" to maintain relevance. People get bored and it's time to blow another few billion dollars on buying some new app. This focus on news is part of that. But the quality of coverage is lacking and I'd rather debate the issues on even YouTube or Reddit. People will give it a chance but ultimately they will get bored of this relevance ploy like every one before it.
|
On November 11 2016 07:57 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 07:54 Logo wrote:
Yeah if you've ever worked in a tech company it's painfully obvious what the big drawback of a technocracy could be. At the same time a skilled administrator who carefully listens to technology minded people (and knows when to ignore them) should be more or less a no brainer for the modern world.
Instead we get Internet Tubes. This is in some part a generation gap where the majority of politicians tend to be a generation above most tech professionals, and they end up not crossing social/intellectual circles. Someone like Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump finding a technology expert would require crossing several degrees of separation.
Respectfully disagree with the newly breaking possibility of Peter Thiel leading Trump's transition team. That kind of pragmatic signalling is definitely very helpful. And it would put most of the Valley two degrees of separation away from the White House.
|
On November 11 2016 07:59 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 07:52 Logo wrote:On November 11 2016 07:49 LegalLord wrote:On November 11 2016 07:44 Logo wrote:https://theintercept.com/2016/11/10/facebook-im-begging-you-please-make-yourself-better/
THE ARTICLE THAT scared me most this election cycle appeared in the Washington Post, documenting how Melanie Austin, a single western Pennsylvania Trump supporter, gathered information about the world around her: almost exclusively vacuuming falsehoods via Google and social media. She is one among millions. You can blame Facebook outright for Trump’s victory, or not. But at the very least, we should demand from them some accountability for their role in spreading the present toxic sea of deliberate misinformation and non-factual chaos.
After the election I had a really strong anti-Facebook gut reaction because I knew of how much misinformation (both ways) gets spread around there. I've cooled off emotionally since then, but still feel rationally strong about being really anti-Facebook. The thing is with Twitter, Reddit, et al. as awful as they are about the very same thing you can be pretty insular and spread misinformation, but it is at least open to counter opinions, outside fact checks, and a bit more of a lack of repetition. But with Facebook if your only around like minded people there's no one to call you out or maybe even both fact checking. Then on top of that there's like zero effort for these companies to improve (why would they, they profit off the traffic). So idk I'm pretty tempted to delete my Facebook account, the only real use I have for it to begin with is the messenger since no one uses other IM clients anymore. Meh, the only reason I use FB for is to have contacts for a lot of friends I don't see often anymore. FB wants to be more than that and to have people use it and give them tons of ad money, but it seems most people just aren't too fond of it anymore. yeah people hate it, but still constantly use it. But because they keep using it it keeps making money so it keeps going. And as it keeps going it's spitting out tons of misinformation (even if you tried to argue one side had more than the other long term you'd imagine it'd even out). At some people for it to stop existing or change people are actually going to have to abandon the platform. It should also be especially vulnerable the more people that are using it to keep loose contacts since losing those people will ruin their only reason for using it. I do increasingly find that I had a reason for losing contact with 95% of the people who I friended on FB, and I have no need to keep any contacts with them. I don't have any reason to delete mine but I just have barely any reason to use it. For all intents and purposes it's a glorified IM to me. FB has seen this issue and they have to constantly "reinvent themselves" to maintain relevance. People get bored and it's time to blow another few billion dollars on buying some new app. This focus on news is part of that. But the quality of coverage is lacking and I'd rather debate the issues on even YouTube or Reddit. People will give it a chance but ultimately they will get bored of this relevance ploy like every one before it.
Is that in reference to: http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/10/13586862/facebook-fake-news-statement-trump ?
Personally I'm assuming the real harm has more to do with Facebook enabling a sort of hidden viral nature to certain stories through people posting to their own wall rather than the site's aggregate & trending functions. The sort of thing where some Breitbart reader posts a bunk meme and then people repost and share it all within an insular community where no one is particularly motivated to debunk it (or don't want to put their neck out to do so). So the stuff that travels friend to friend semi-privately rather than site wide.
|
On November 11 2016 07:57 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 07:55 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 11 2016 07:48 LegalLord wrote:On November 11 2016 07:45 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 11 2016 07:41 LegalLord wrote:
In hindsight I think we underestimated the effect of the October surprise that Assange gave us. The Podesta emails didn't look so great at first but they are a gift that keeps on giving. Not looking to reignite old discussions, but I give it every bit as much to Comey's letter. Didn't quite a few states early vote under the impression that HRC would be investigated anew ? Oh, I'm not talking about just the election. There is stuff we don't like about Hillary, but in this case they just randomly gave us more with which to bury the DNC leadership that Hillary helped to create. A good chance to clean house. Fair enough, if you're talking about Debbie Wassermann Schulz, Donna Brazile, et alumni, I'm with you. There is technically a chance they hang on till next midterms though. On the subject of Wikileaks and possible meddling by foreign agencies, the possibilities a couple years from now are mind-boggling. Realistic speech synthesis is coming fast, realistic video re-enactment as well ; it is completely possible that soon enough you'd be able to create and upload a realistic fake speech video by any politician from apps in your living room. Hell of a game changer. Which is probably why people protesting (who by all rights should be and continue to do so) also need to protest the democratic party. Unfortunately I'm guessing a lot of people who are the most active politically see no fault of the democratic party and will continue on blissfully.
Agreed. The same people will scream at pollsters for failing to account for turnout-opinion correlation in a robust manner, and they will be right ; but will not see that indeed the DNC has a huge responsibility in the unprecedented collapse of Democrat turnout we have witnessed.
|
On November 11 2016 08:00 MyLovelyLurker wrote:
Respectfully disagree with the newly breaking possibility of Peter Thiel leading Trump's transition team. That kind of pragmatic signalling is definitely very helpful. And it would put most of the Valley two degrees of separation away from the White House.
Peter Thiel is still on the administrator end of things, not the tech professional end. He's still 1-2 degrees of separation from actual tech professionals. None of his actual training is in anything technology-related, and he's mostly in the business of moving money around. While I'd expect him to be more in touch with technology than Trump or Clinton, he'd by no means be an expert.
|
On November 11 2016 08:03 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 07:59 LegalLord wrote:On November 11 2016 07:52 Logo wrote:On November 11 2016 07:49 LegalLord wrote:On November 11 2016 07:44 Logo wrote:https://theintercept.com/2016/11/10/facebook-im-begging-you-please-make-yourself-better/
THE ARTICLE THAT scared me most this election cycle appeared in the Washington Post, documenting how Melanie Austin, a single western Pennsylvania Trump supporter, gathered information about the world around her: almost exclusively vacuuming falsehoods via Google and social media. She is one among millions. You can blame Facebook outright for Trump’s victory, or not. But at the very least, we should demand from them some accountability for their role in spreading the present toxic sea of deliberate misinformation and non-factual chaos.
After the election I had a really strong anti-Facebook gut reaction because I knew of how much misinformation (both ways) gets spread around there. I've cooled off emotionally since then, but still feel rationally strong about being really anti-Facebook. The thing is with Twitter, Reddit, et al. as awful as they are about the very same thing you can be pretty insular and spread misinformation, but it is at least open to counter opinions, outside fact checks, and a bit more of a lack of repetition. But with Facebook if your only around like minded people there's no one to call you out or maybe even both fact checking. Then on top of that there's like zero effort for these companies to improve (why would they, they profit off the traffic). So idk I'm pretty tempted to delete my Facebook account, the only real use I have for it to begin with is the messenger since no one uses other IM clients anymore. Meh, the only reason I use FB for is to have contacts for a lot of friends I don't see often anymore. FB wants to be more than that and to have people use it and give them tons of ad money, but it seems most people just aren't too fond of it anymore. yeah people hate it, but still constantly use it. But because they keep using it it keeps making money so it keeps going. And as it keeps going it's spitting out tons of misinformation (even if you tried to argue one side had more than the other long term you'd imagine it'd even out). At some people for it to stop existing or change people are actually going to have to abandon the platform. It should also be especially vulnerable the more people that are using it to keep loose contacts since losing those people will ruin their only reason for using it. I do increasingly find that I had a reason for losing contact with 95% of the people who I friended on FB, and I have no need to keep any contacts with them. I don't have any reason to delete mine but I just have barely any reason to use it. For all intents and purposes it's a glorified IM to me. FB has seen this issue and they have to constantly "reinvent themselves" to maintain relevance. People get bored and it's time to blow another few billion dollars on buying some new app. This focus on news is part of that. But the quality of coverage is lacking and I'd rather debate the issues on even YouTube or Reddit. People will give it a chance but ultimately they will get bored of this relevance ploy like every one before it. Is that in reference to: http://www.theverge.com/2016/11/10/13586862/facebook-fake-news-statement-trump ? Personally I'm assuming the real harm has more to do with Facebook enabling a sort of hidden viral nature to certain stories through people posting to their own wall rather than the site's aggregate & trending functions. The sort of thing where some Breitbart reader posts a bunk meme and then people repost and share it all within an insular community where no one is particularly motivated to debunk it (or don't want to put their neck out to do so). So the stuff that travels friend to friend semi-privately rather than site wide.
Thanks for the link, the most shocking indictment of Facebook news manipulation I've seen so far is here, a very solid read on how the media machine was gamed : www.bloomberg.com
|
Management prowess is the last thing you want to import from Silicon Valley. Theirs is nothing short of awful. Not that most legislators know that to be true.
|
On November 11 2016 08:06 LegalLord wrote:
Management prowess is the last thing you want to import from Silicon Valley. Theirs is nothing short of awful. Not that most legislators know that to be true.
Pretty much this.
The handful of successful companies in the valley lie in the wake of dozens of awfully mismanaged ones that failed through no shortcoming on their tech end.
|
On November 11 2016 08:06 LegalLord wrote:
Management prowess is the last thing you want to import from Silicon Valley. Theirs is nothing short of awful. Not that most legislators know that to be true.
Doesn't silicon valley have a serious problem with the amount of hours you need to work to try to be competitive? I remember reading something like that.
also wish Facebook had a way to somehow let you filter out political stuff because It's so annoying and I don't want to try to correct everyone and get in a fight with them.
|
On November 11 2016 08:05 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 08:00 MyLovelyLurker wrote:
Respectfully disagree with the newly breaking possibility of Peter Thiel leading Trump's transition team. That kind of pragmatic signalling is definitely very helpful. And it would put most of the Valley two degrees of separation away from the White House.
Peter Thiel is still on the administrator end of things, not the tech professional end. He's still 1-2 degrees of separation from actual tech professionals. None of his actual training is in anything technology-related, and he's mostly in the business of moving money around. While I'd expect him to be more in touch with technology than Trump or Clinton, he'd by no means be an expert.
Of course, but he could call up any Palantir guy overnight, or any CTO of his fund's startup portfolios, and get any kind of hard tech answers he'd need readied within a couple days. Granted he's no specialist, but he's one of the top 10-20 names in tech today, has written one of the most respected startup playbooks, and has easy worldwide access in consequence. He is also accustomed to talking to engineers and sharing their perspective. Whether it's 2 or 3 degrees is already much, much, better than having career politicians and realtors grappling by themselves with the tech side of things.
|
Silicon Valley has basically all the faults of a "blind idiot" approach to management, including the assumption that more hours means more productivity. They basically believe that real people write code and management and other administrative work of value is "what stupid people do." And guess who ends up being in management with that situation?
|
On November 11 2016 08:15 LegalLord wrote:
Silicon Valley has basically all the faults of a "blind idiot" approach to management, including the assumption that more hours means more productivity. They basically believe that real people write code and management and other administrative work of value is "what stupid people do." And guess who ends up being in management with that situation?
This looks more like a caricatural, damning indictment of Dilbert's mid-manager, than anything else. I'm not saying bring back the Peters principle guys, just that the government could use more talented figures like Thiel, Musk, or Zuckerberg, given their background as overachievers, rather than the Gingriches and Giulianis of this world.
|
On November 11 2016 08:03 Logo wrote:
The sort of thing where some Breitbart reader posts a bunk meme and then people repost and share it all within an insular community where no one is particularly motivated to debunk it (or don't want to put their neck out to do so).
The correction: they don't know that it's bunk.
|
On November 11 2016 08:19 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2016 08:15 LegalLord wrote:
Silicon Valley has basically all the faults of a "blind idiot" approach to management, including the assumption that more hours means more productivity. They basically believe that real people write code and management and other administrative work of value is "what stupid people do." And guess who ends up being in management with that situation? This looks more like a caricatural, damning indictment of Dilbert's mid-manager, than anything else. I'm not saying bring back the Peters principle guys, just that the government could use more talented figures like Thiel, Musk, or Zuckerberg, given their background as overachievers, rather than the Gingriches and Giulianis of this world.
Don't give them more credit than they are due. At the end of the day they are just a class of moneyed elite who found a fantastic source of profit and used it to become wealthy. They may be more in tune with software design than the average bear but they're not much different from hiring someone like a Goldman Sachs director to your cabinet.
Also, one of those guys has yet to prove that his many wide ranging ventures aren't just a scam. There's that.
|
My school is disgusting. I'm by no means a trump supporter or happy with the results of the election, but this is pathetic.
Students,
Please feel welcome to come down to the Counseling Center at anytime today to speak to a counselor if you need some support as you process the election results.
If your assigned counselor is unavilable, please feel free to see any other counselor.
All the conservative kids at my school are shunned if they try to speak out, so I can never truly understand their point of view. I can usually identify kids who are conservative by their silence and stony faces during discussions, which gave a tendency to become circles of "fuck Republicans."
|
Another day of protests and some severe freeway slowdown. These people need to get over themselves. Throwing fits is exactly how you remind people that their Trump vote was absolutely necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
