Tesla's twitter account produces and publishes media for the public to consume.

Why not label Tesla's account as "corporate funded" media as opposed to "state funded" media for something like NPR?

Are corporate interests not likely to bias content as well in a way that would be worth being aware of? If so, why not be consistent about labeling for potential sources of bias consistently.

If not, what criteria should be met for being considered media that Tesla's twitter account does not meet?

NPR (and every other company) that relies on US roadways is giving the US govt levarage over the organization no?

It's a 2 hour video essay that covers psychometry generally as a lens to understanding a book called the Bell Curve that was a flashpoint for questions about the validity of IQ science generally (but most especially how it applies to race). It took a good chunk of my Sunday to get through it, but it was really enjoyable and gave me a ton of insight into a ton of buzzwords and studies I had heard of but couldn't really dig my teeth into.

I think with this topic, getting a briefer, less nuanced summary than something like this would be a mistake because of how much misunderstanding of these topics permeates popular culture. The video also provides a number of studies and books to keep going beyond the relatively breif 2 hours of content it provides.

It uses the famed/infamous book the Bell Curve as a case study and delves into how they were originally created, how they are updated, how the term hereditery when used in genetics means something that is sometimes counter-intuitive to the definition used in popular culture (for example whether someone wears earings has high heritability, whereas having 2 arms has effectively zero herritability) the statistical meaninfullness of factorization (G-factor) of domains of IQ into a single numerical value, how these domains came to be defined, the current state of understanding regarding the local vs enviornmental source of IQ for individuals, how the Flynn effect was observed, etc.

But to answer a bit of your earlier question. When IQ tests are created, they create a set of questions, test it on a sample group, and set the average value to 100 and higher/lower scores depending on what the distribution of correct answers is. The Flynn effect happened because researchers noticed while the average for new tests always is set at 100, people scoring 100 on a more recent test were generally scoring even higher on previous years tests. The article of the reverse Flynn effect is a little bit sensationalist because as it mentions while some areas (like Spatial Reasoning) are improving, others are apparently starting to get lower. This calls into question a bit the idea of a G-Factor which is an assumption that their is a common factor of intelligence that covaries across all IQ domains (spatial reasoning, reaction time, etc... ) which is the theoretical reasoning behind IQ being meaningfully represented as a single numerical value rather than a multi-dimensional value.

It's just such an excellent example of the potential of interactive articles. And, it did manage to go modestly viral.

She calls them explorable explanations. If someone is going to go to the relatively great effort of making interactive articles, she has linked some articles on the creative process for interactive formats that can really help play to the strengths of the format (or maybe better put as lack of format).

This is a blog that investigates ai eyes and particular and how to distinguish them from human artist made eyes.

  *However, in the case of AI painting, it will almost certainly change the coloring of the left and right eyes and how to add highlights . Humans can understand that ``the left and right eyes have the same physical shape and are placed in the same situation, so there is naturally a consistency there. '' I don't understand the theory "I don't really know what an eye is, but it's something like this that's placed around here, isn't it?" Still, it looks like it, so humans can recognize it as eyes, but there are still many defects in the details.

  Among them, the most distinctive feature is the “ highlight that melts into the pupil and breaks the pupil ”. Humans know that ``first there is the eyeball, there is the pupil in it, and then the surrounding light is reflected to form a gloss'', so ``the highlight does not block part of the pupil. It can be understood as a matter of course that the shape of the pupil itself does not collapse, even if the AI     does the same, but AI that learns only by looking at the final illustration can understand the ``logical relationship between the whites of the eyes, pupils, and highlights''. I don't recognize anything . Or rather, I can't. I didn't give it as data.

  The unnatural deformation of the pupil is also one of the judgment materials. Humans know that "the pupil is originally a perfect circle", but AI trained by looking only at the final completed illustration does not know "the original shape of the pupil" . Therefore, such an error occurs.

  Another feature of AI drawings is that they often subtly change the color of the left and right eyes . Of course, there are characters with different eye colors on the left and right (heterochromia), but in most cases , characters designed that way can be clearly recognized as having different colors . It is one of the criteria for judging that the colors are similar at first glance, but if you take a closer look, they are different.

  However, even if there is such a character, it is not strange, so it is not an important basis. Also, it is natural for the color of the left and right eyes to change depending on the surrounding environment, so be careful not to make a mistake.*

If PARODY between PARODY every PARODY word PARODY the PARODY text PARODY "PARODY" must PARODY be PARODY displayed PARODY that PARODY would PARODY be PARODY a PARODY really PARODY good PARODY way PARODY to PARODY ensure PARODY nobody PARODY was PARODY confused PARODY as PARODY to PARODY what PARODY was PARODY and PARODY what PARODY was PARODY real.

- Elon PARODY Musk PARODY

-- END PARODY SEGMENT --

There's naturally gonna be a lot of places parody isn't labeled parody in blinking lights. It's comedically necessary. Ultimately if it is trivially easy for an average person to realize an account is not authentic (like the twitter handle being different) I think that's a fair and reasonable burden for anyone who imagines Twitter as a place where "humor is legal".

Structurally CNN could never claim to have video of "literal vampire pot-belly goblins" coming to steal their children like Jones has. When it comes to this topic, the two just are not counterparts in any sense worth considering morally or otherwise.

The underlying stucture the author describes simply notes that both CNN and Infowars use narrative. True, but this observation could be applied to virtually any public facing commercial enterprise (not just news) both present and past.

In the context of this piece (even after the author's self-aware qualification) its a glaring mistake to describe Infowars and CNN as each others "counterpart" regarding making Reality into a game. Infowars does so with far greater intensity and impact to the point where comparison much less equivalence feels like a disengenous attempt to "both sides" their way out of coming across as partisan. Up to now, a left-wing counterpart with remotely the reach and intensity of things like Infowars, OAN, or even Fox news has simply not immerged. To treat this topic seriously acknowledgement of the partisan imbalance is necesary and shouldn't be ignored/side-stepped.

There does not exist left-wing counterpart to Jan 6 and the subsequent acceptance of it on the right. There does not exist a left-wing counterpart to the belief that Obama was a succesfully installed manchurian candidate from Kenya (of all countries). There does not exist a left wing counterpart to Fox News' political comic section on a daily basis promoting for over a year (still ongoing) a conspiracy that Joe Biden finds nourishment drinking literal children's blood from a sippy cup. There does not exist a left-wing counterpart to contesting deeply understood physical phenomena like climate change fueled by human produced CO2. But we don't blink at these things, because it's "normal" for rightwing outlets to do this in a way it simply is not for left wing outlets.

The steele dossier finds its counterpart not in Jan 6 as the piece seems to suggest with it's a or b "pick one" offering, but the far lesser scandal of Hunter Biden's laptop. Both are tainted wells of genuine and partisan injected scandal. And its worth acknowledging, the left abuses objectivity occasionally like with their floating of the Steele Dossier. Still, the left has never so much whispered something so politcally scandolous as abandonment of parliamentary democracy. The Republican party, after failing to do so on Jan 6, continues pursuing just that within state legislatures as its main political project at the moment. Chalking up Jan 6 and Steele Dossier as essentially the same thing at heart just dialed to different degrees really misunderstands the techniques, technologies, and structures at play.

This imbalance has to be reckoned with for a serious attempt to better understand the "gamefication of reality" occuring foremost within both mainstream and fringe Republican realms and to an almost incomprably diminished degree on the left.

Some really interesting reads. I especially appreciated his articles on the passing of Douglass Adams (apparently a close friend of his!) and Then vs Zen.

By removing the federal governments negative power, the states have de facto been given a positive one to decide whether people receive abortions, rather than people deciding themselves if they will get abortions.

But the power to ban abortions has not been moved from the Federal government to States, because the Federal government never had that power to begin with.

Rather the power to decide to have an abortion has been moved from the individual to the state.