Yes, things are now so good for the average person that you can create mass hysteria over mean words. Not a satanic child murdering panic, not teenage violence, sex and substance abuse... just words.
Once you stop consuming the outrage crack pipe, it all goes away. It's all a big game of signaling and sophistry. Ask yourself why the average journalist is qualified to whip you into a frenzy on topics that should rightly require years of study to become authoritative on.
You can be trusted, you just gotta turn your brain back on. When there is a breakdown in the accepted mechanisms for spreading social consensus, you go back to primary sources. It shouldn't be a surprise: nature has told us that monocultures are eminently vulnerable. The solution is always diversity, the actual kind, not the ideological puritanism that has appropriated that concept for themselves.
A narrator doesn't tell you "what to feel or think", they piece together what you're looking at and go deeper into concepts, whereas this quote after quote stream doesn't go very deep into anything.
In fact, I'd say it is currently telling you what to feel and nothing more, because most of the quotes in the first 10 minutes are derivations of "technology is scary, you should be scared".
This doc definitely gave me the heebie jeebies. But I don't think the point is necessarily to go deeper into these problems. Most will watch this and finally gain the intuitive sense of how intertwined intelligent machines are in our lives. It isn't just smartphones and laptops, but everything from the military to health, and in between. It gives a good light overview of what professionals are thinking. Most people are not afraid of AI, but I think we should be, to the point that we start making changes to how we develop it.
Not really. The octahedron defines the positions you pre-render the impostors from. The actual rendering uses a flat plane (like a regular billboard) but with a parallax shader and depth offset to make it look bent.
I'm not OP, but... The fact that it is not consistently connected to other instances of political campaigns previously is a big one. The narrative is that the West is radicalizing to the right because of the evil propaganda, unlike the pure and virtuous honest reporting that brought us "change we can believe in" or "Clinton is 95% sure to win" and so on.
When the good tribe does it, it's "remarkable insight into the political base and clever use of modern technology", when the bad tribe does it, it's "disturbingly sophisticated targeting and an automated violation of consent". Really, go read the write ups about previous democrat campaigns, the narrative was of tech savvy modern progressives leaving the conservative old timers in the dust.
Russel conjugation is the favorite trick or the press today as they hawk their narratives:
"I am trying to get an important message out. You are running a political campaign. They are spreading harmful propaganda."
But 99% of harvested data is gathered with only proxy consent of 1% of the users, and most of either group is unaware of what's happening. Ignoring this ratio in order to haggle about exactly how the 1% was or wasn't tricked is entirely beside the point.
The bigger problem with this whole affair is that people correctly diagnose a breakdown in the mechanisms for forming consensus reality, which makes a lot of information suspect. This should make you question your in-groups' world view as much as the out-group. But instead of going back to primary sources and reevaluating what they know, people only double down on it more, and use it to justify why the out group is even more clueless/insidious than before. But one of the biggest hallmarks of propaganda is that the enemy is both horribly inept and terrifyingly powerful at the same time, swapping between the two seamlessly to serve the current narrative.
This is a very US-Centric view. I suppose that's the root of the disagreement here - a misunderstanding of each other's starting points.
The coverage in my country has been more about castigating Facebook et al and both major parties have copped flack for their voter-intelligence operations.
I have the exact opposite experience. If you find yourself annotating your variables and methods with extra adjectives and nouns, your code isn't simple enough. Those explanations go in code comments.
Often it means you can refactor it so that there is only one of any "thing" so there is no need to clarify which version or role this "fooBarThing" is serving to disambiguate it from the other "bazBarThing".
Functional composition and well structured data is the key to this. It's basically halfway to point-free style.
The variable name can just be fooBar, and bazBar, and organized/namespaced such that you could have Thing.fooBar and Thing.bazBar (assuming you want those exposed to the rest of the application).
Readable variable names doesn't mean wordy names. I would avoid using more than 2 words in a variable name.
People are made to feel personally affected because the sin has been lain on team Trump, who has become a symbol of the end of democracy and a return to fascism. Even if Trump is mostly more of the same.
Worse, the same media power that turned the election into a reality show is now aimed at tearing down its results, washing their hands in innocence and tagging it Resistance.
If they weren't upset before, then they're not upset now because it happened, they're upset the "bad" people used it to accomplish the "wrong" goals.
The main reason that "playpen" is the way it is, is because the default news and politics subs went full Clinton, with moderator and admin approval. It's also an open secret that SRS and its friends brigade the rest of the site, and again, admins allow their rule violations to continue.
Reddit is not interested in being a neutral platform, and the constant scapegoating of the people they drive into containment subs as being the cause rather than the result is both tiresome and idiotic. If you don't want people to isolate themselves and radicalize, don't drive them away from mainstream channels.
One if my main gripes with the current American left is their inability to see themselves as agents who cause the things they hate.
>It's also an open secret that SRS and its friends brigade the rest of the site
Haven't been there in a while, but an invariant of scrolling through SRS was that the linked posts had a high upvote count, before and after being linked from SRS page.
Which is the entire point of SRS - to show what kinds of things that that group finds objectionable gets upvoted on reddit.
I know that SRS is reddit's favorite bogeyman, but personally, I just haven't seen any evidence to the claim you made.
Note, I am not saying this to argue with you. I am writing this to provide a piece of anecdata to the person scrolling through this thread not much aware of the things being talked about.
I'm somewhat surprised the term "help vampire" didn't appear in the original post. It's not just that some people ask for homework help. It's that some people's entire repertoire of problem solving skills well into adulthood only consists of asking others.
Good questions ought to lead to better problem solving skills. Often they don't.
Yes, things are now so good for the average person that you can create mass hysteria over mean words. Not a satanic child murdering panic, not teenage violence, sex and substance abuse... just words.
Once you stop consuming the outrage crack pipe, it all goes away. It's all a big game of signaling and sophistry. Ask yourself why the average journalist is qualified to whip you into a frenzy on topics that should rightly require years of study to become authoritative on.
You can be trusted, you just gotta turn your brain back on. When there is a breakdown in the accepted mechanisms for spreading social consensus, you go back to primary sources. It shouldn't be a surprise: nature has told us that monocultures are eminently vulnerable. The solution is always diversity, the actual kind, not the ideological puritanism that has appropriated that concept for themselves.