> New York politicians are slapping a badge on my chest. A law going into effect Saturday requires social-media networks, including any site that allows comments, to publish a plan for responding to alleged hate speech by users.
> The law blog I run fits the bill, so the law will mandate that I post publicly my policy for responding to comments that “vilify, humiliate, or incite violence against a group” based on “race, color, religion, ethnicity, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.” It also requires that I give readers a way to complain about my blog’s content and obligates me to respond directly.
Wouldn't be a generic response solve this? For complaints setup a contact mail address and as strategy some evasive non-binding flower words? Preferably with some malicious compliance in the most non-attached way possible.
In addition to gaining a strong foundation in math and computer science, there are a few other things you can do to get started in the field of AI. One is to start building your own projects and experimenting with AI technologies. This can be a great way to gain practical experience and develop a deeper understanding of how AI works. There are also many online resources, such as tutorials and courses, that can help you learn about AI and get started with building your own projects. Finally, networking with others in the field and staying up-to-date with the latest developments in AI can also be incredibly valuable. Participating in online communities, attending conferences and workshops, and even collaborating with others on AI projects can all be great ways to learn and grow in the field.
While we've all heard the theory that poor spelling can be a tactic used to make their communication seem less credible and make it easier for them to trick people, I'm skeptical.
Many scammers may not be native English speakers and may not have a strong grasp of the language. Another possibility is that scammers simply don't put a lot of effort into their spelling and grammar because their primary focus is on making money, rather than creating well-written communications.
I completely agree with this. The best leaders are those who have proven themselves to be great individual contributors before moving into a management role. This gives them a deep understanding and appreciation for the work that their team members do, which is crucial for effective leadership. Professional managers, on the other hand, may not have the same level of experience and can sometimes struggle to effectively support and lead their team.
Yes, but, the problem with ic becoming managers is that they are too involved with eng work. Often dictating how things should be done. Also, they have hard time letting their beloved legacy code go.
Best managers are IC who have the ability to trust their eng to do the work. Their main role should be “advice”, provide context and connections within the company.
This is disturbing news about New Zealand's access to the Facebook takedown portal for censorship. It's alarming that the government has such direct control over what content is allowed on the platform and raises concerns about freedom of speech. This is yet another example of the need for more transparency and accountability in the relationship between tech companies and governments.
Freedom is defined differently in different countries, in New Zealand the general rule is you have freedom to do what you want as long as it doesn't impact on the freedom of others.
Therefore, you can have freedom of speech but you can't live stream a terror attack, which is what happened. A foreign terrorist live streamed an attack on Facebook.
Despite this, NZ ranks as the second freest country in the world, and has much less censorship than other countries like the US who don't even crack the top 10.
I would be wary of a government telling me that a horrible terrorist attack has taken place, that a video exists with clear evidence of who did it and why, but that I'm not allowed to view it or show it to others.
Why would you want to see it? How could viewing it improve your life? There are things in life you can't unsee. Like, really unsee. Awake at 3am can't unsee.
They don't want people to see it because it will motivate copy cats. People get perverse enjoyment from it, like that white supremacist from Christchurch who put a kill counter on it.
What do you think the survivors think about that video being out there for you to enjoy? The victims families?
At the very least we have the right to privacy here, you can't legally film people on private property without their consent.
> They don't want people to see it because it will motivate copy cats.
The problem with that line of argument is that even if it's true, it undermines democracy. Democracy is based on the equality of all citizens. But you're segmenting people into two groups: those with superior intrinsic qualities and moral and intellectual strength that they can watch the problematic video without turning into copycats. People usually include themselves in that group and believe this group can work in the censorship office.
And then the other group, which is perceived as weak and in needs of protection (usually included: people we don't like).
Note that you must make the judgement who belongs in which group before anyone is allowed to see the problematic video. Note who makes the official judgment.
New Zealand has one of the strongest democracies on earth. It’s hard to square that reality with the fear that we are weakening it by blocking this sort of content.
Arguing that we would have an even strong democracy if we could watch a video of that nut job shooting people is quite the claim. The killer has inspired other hate crimes, and I believe his video is a big part of his way of spreading his message.
Yes, we have laws that's why we live in a society.
People that work in the censorship office don't make calls based on morals, that make calls based on policy, they also face mental health challenges and get the support needed to a look at this content without radicalising or breaking down.
While pushing for your right to view the video, you're also ignoring the rights of the victims. How is it that you're right is more important than theirs?
Wow, I had no idea you could do multiple aggregates in a single query like that. I've always used the SUM(CASE...) method, but the COUNT(x=y) way is much cleaner and more efficient. Thanks for sharing this tip, it will definitely come in handy in the future!
I thought the ad was creepy and weird, but you're lying here. There was no " child in BDSM gear" in the photo. Why lie to make a point? That's creepy and weird, too
I made a mistake but everyone knows what picture I'm talking about. It's not a lie.
So it was a child carrying a doll that had BDSM gear. But that's funny cus if the girl was the one in BDSM gear, that would make it wrong? Is that the line?
I'm curious why, if you believed you made a mistake, you didn't edit your comment at the time to avoid propagating misinformation (as the 2 hour edit window was still open when you made this response acknowledging it as a mistake)?
I personally am not familiar with this photo and don't really want to see it, so yes, your comment could have mislead me.
There's no ulterior motive. I just messed up. I fixed it as soon as I got called out on it without objection and I left it there so people can see what the issue was.
If you are going to participate in this discussion, you need to keep up. You're attributing malice where there is none. That means you have to see the picture.
I'm not saying you can't say anything, just that I'm going to dismiss you out of hand.
None of Theranos enablers seemed to suffer at all after Theranos went down. Why do any of their board members still have careers? Why is Stanford's Channing Robertson still advising companies?
I presume the dozens of people, news organizations, celebrity endorsers, politicians, and investment gurus who hyped FTX won't suffer a bit either. And I think that's wrong.
your problem is that you are a minority (in a society where those with the right information and ability to act on it actually think its a-ok). It is also called moral bankruptcy and is closely associated with financial bankruptcy.
> The law blog I run fits the bill, so the law will mandate that I post publicly my policy for responding to comments that “vilify, humiliate, or incite violence against a group” based on “race, color, religion, ethnicity, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.” It also requires that I give readers a way to complain about my blog’s content and obligates me to respond directly.