I was pointing out the hypocrisy and the double standard.
Twitter has been in the news cycle for censoring/manipulating tweets of Trump. On HN I see a lot of people defending this decision by noting they are a private company and you can switch social media services if you want.
It seems you cannot switch services, the mob will always find you and push their "ethics" and "facts" onto you.
There's nothing strange about it at all. If you want to sell securities on public markets you have to abide by certain rules. It's completely reasonable, and I know that corporations and their apologists like to throw around "private" as a buzzword and pretend like they should have free reign, but they do not.
There is no such thing as a "private" publicly traded company.
Wow. Without some additional arguments backing that up, this looks really disgusting and misogynistic.
I look forward to seeing some evidence that Diary of a Future President is a cynical piece of propaganda designed to aid the fortunes of Michelle Obama, in order to restore a bit of my faith in humanity.
No, but saying "Diary of a Future President" must be propaganda for Michelle Obama does indeed smack of woman-phobia. "yikes, someone's giving girls the idea that they could be politically powerful. it's probably a secretive social manipulation cynically run by the most powerful woman I can think of off the top of my head."
Also, the only two people listed were Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton? All the powerful people in Washington that you could accuse of shadowy conspiracies to control the media, and they picked two women, and one of them is black (ooooh, I get it, the little girl in the TV show is cuban, so also a person of color?)? Considering the demographics of US politicians, yeah - that comes off a little prejudiced. But hey, maybe it's a huuuuge coincidence. /shrug.
I warned the other account rather than banning them because, even though they've broken the site guidelines badly on more than one previous occasion, we hadn't warned them before.
We've banned your account because you've broken the site guidelines badly on many occasions and because we've asked you more than once to stop.
funny how you didn't call out the OP and ask them for "some additional arguments backing" up their claim that the Iranian TV show was propaganda, but here you do when its American politicians.
Isn't that a bit hypocritical?
as for context, a good book on the subject is "manufacturing consent" by Noam Chomsky. In it he details how american media of all forms is used as a propaganda vehicle in order to shape and create the american public's politics.
The TV shows linked are just applications of that strategy.
You're trying to spread misogynistic conspiracy theories and comparing that to Iranian propaganda... That's absolutely a false equivalency. You had a chance to make an argument to support your position but...
Everyone has been spamming "Manufacturing Consent" like crazy recently. Just telling people to read it doesn't support any argument, it's just an attempt to appear high-brow because Chomsky. You need to specify how Chomsky supports your argument.
This sort of flamewar comment is unacceptable on HN, and I'm afraid you've posted like this in the past as well. Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stop doing that on HN?
it is entirely possible that you have been radicalized from a normal moderate folk to a "crazy libtard" by watching whatever channels you watch, and, i suspect, this is a broadly true statement amongst a very large swatch of the millenial generation.
(note: using "crazy libtard" here not as a personal insult, but because it is the right's version of "crazy consipiracy people").
anyways, take the speck out of your own eye before complaining about the beams in your parents eyes.
> <economic statistic that is rarely cited and no one has cared about before> post biggest drop in more than <arbitrary time frame>"
I recall seeing job opening changes regularly cited in the news for pretty much as long as I've been an adult (around 40 years)...it was probably cited before that too but I didn't pay much attention to the news when I was a kid.
It's really difficult from my arbitrary perspective to read it as anything other than click-bait sensationalism.
Anything that can be cited as "the biggest" negative movement or trend since any point in the past can be used to signal to our survival mechanisms, "it is important to your survival to click through to this article"
Just like money needs taken out of politics, ad revenue needs taken out of news reporting. I just wish I had a solution to propose ...
I mean, if you're going to wax lyrical about how what your making should support that basics, you should at least first make sure you're doing the same thing.
Otherwise, you're just demonstrating exactly why Roku doesn't have a way to input a URL to play media.
JS can be a highly supported tool, but it isn't itself a primitive use-case. It is an enabler of use-cases and, to OP's point, JS for the sake of loading JS isn't useful if the content of the site really didn't need it.
The very purpose of JavaScript is to be dynamic and changing. "Primitive" and "Basic" are not apt adjectives, especially when the page in question is entirely static.
If workers are 5x more productive and wages are flat after inflation, why are profits also flat (after inflation and population growth)? This isn't a case of the corporate oligarchs taking a larger share, this is the pie not growing as fast as that 5x productivity improvement would imply.
Sure, but how do we used to share the increase in productivity ? How do we share it now ? How should we share it ?
;
My feeling is workers had been the "loser" those last 30 years in how are shared the productivity gain.
Ethically I find it wrong.
Economically this did not seemed to offer more growth or positive outcome...
This is grossly simplified, but I feel like I'm responding in kind.
The fundamental nature of a non-co-op business is that the company gets more value per person than it costs to employ that person. Companies have been "stealing" wealth from employees since they've existed.
I really don't think that it becomes stealing until the wealthy are pulled down below the poor - and that isn't anywhere near being on the table, most of the wealth tax options would just shrink the band between the super rich and the rich. It's not clear if this survey laid out a starting point but Warren's proposal is to only tax excess wealth above 50mil and such a tax would almost certainly be graduated (so a 51M person would pay tax on 1M and a 52M would pay tax on 2M (probably double?)) either way the worst that happens is that unearning trustfunders are slowly reduced to 50M in assets over time which is more than enough money for anyone... and I'd hope that as inflation/cost of living rose that level would be adjusted - being a millionaire today is hardly rare with most people who own a house in a metro area easily falling in that range.
Nearly everyone pays a form of wealth taxes in the form of property taxes. I see no reason why it should be different for the Rembrandts and the diamonds (if, of course, they could somehow be assessed at a level that exceeds ~$32 million to $50 million and more).
They're trying to recapture their economic contributions. Companies won't pay more, so they're doing it via other means. When salaries were rising such actions were not popular.
I dont get how the purpose of a warrant is relevant to the discussion about the effects of actions. We are faced with the issue, that technological development has created new opportunities for mass surveillance. Some people might think mass surveillance is a good idea, others dont. Both have their reasons, both are convinced they are right. It has been like this for ever, the only thing new is that new opportunities present themself. Everyone thinks they are right, but some think this means they can tell others what to do. You have pushes of authoritarianism and antiauthoritarianism in every society, depending on your moral believes you will either be in favor or against it. So far goes human history.
>In fact, you might not even have a problem with involuntary brain scans, provided they were proven accurate. As long as the rule of law is strong and the materials were used only for a defined and limited purpose, you might think it would be better if the government could compel the true personal perspective of the accused.
Hits it right on the nail how the argument goes, but i dont see how its related to the question of the true original meaning of a warrant. Its a moral question if you think it should be allowed or not. And since we are stuck together, at least some of us, this means its a political question. Do more of us think its good or bad, and can the other side prevent or do it either way? Can we compel the government to stop this? But framing this as a question of constitutional law instead of a moral question misses the point from my perspective. The point isnt if warrants should cover digital age surveillance. Why would anyone care about this who isnt a fundamentalist proponent of the status quo? Its not the dictatorship of the eternal legal code. Which of course would also just another motivation for your morals and thus your actions.
This just sounds like a religious discussion to me. Similar to, what does the bible say about flying planes? Allowed on Sunday? I first thought people in the discussion were just being pedantic, but i dont get how this changes someones view on the world.
To me its just same old same old, this stark difference has to be interesting to figure out.
Attempts to make a system more 'legible' often ignore (or don't fully comprehend) why they exist in a certain way. Remaking the system without understanding these aspects leads to something that makes more sense 'on paper', but undermines the complexities and nuances of the original system.
Example (from the text):
- British implementation of a 4-tier caste in India, as their way of comprehending what was (allegedly) a much more complex social structure. It's now the default caste system in the nation.
- Turning forests into agriculture-like rows of trees creating a fatal monoculture.
- Spanish colonization of the Philippines. In an effort to make records/taxes easier, the Spanish created the "Alphabetical Catalogue of Surnames", restricting the number of assumed names. This countered Filipino culture, which had both assumed Christian names, and siblings having different last names.
Exactly, legibility is an explanation for why such practices are adopted. They kill morale and productivity yet they must be optimizing for something or else nobody would do them. That something is legibility.
This is a very confusing conversation with a lot of ambiguous referents.
I think Scott's theory, as outlined in the OP, is for why the sorts of practices closeparen listed (KPI's etc) won't work well, will have problems. Scott does not advocate for them, but against them.
Whereas closeparen's comment may have implied the opposite. I'm not sure if it's (eg) "KPIs" or "mushy human judgement" you are calling a "tired, old, worst practice".
Apparently it is me that was was still ambiguous and unclear.
> > [closeparen]: Instead of management by mushy human judgement, hold people accountable for KPIs.
> [coldtea]: So it mostly advises for tired, old, worst practices?
I believe closeparen meant that (and the other examples), of what Scott's legibility theory is _critiquing_, not advising for. Using KPIs instead of human judgement is an example of what Scott's theory says will have problems, not examples of what Scott's theory calls for or advises people to do. (I agree with that read of Scott's theory).
But I believe coldtea was calling (eg) KPIs a "tired old practice", and misreading to think closeparen was saying Scott's theory advised for them. (Although I may have this backwards?)
Perhaps it is me who is misreading? It is hard to be sure, because closeparen wasn't clear on if those were examples of what Scott was calling for or critiquing (I can see how it would be 'unambiguous and clear' to read it as saying Scott's theory called for using KPIs instead of "mushy human judgement", but since I am familiar with Scott's argument, I doubt closeparen meant it that way, since it's not Scott's argument); and then coldtea wasn't clear on whether it's the left or right clauses in the sentances they were calling "tired, old practices".
And this is now entirely too many words about this.
"Demolish the centre of Paris and replace it with tower blocks" is exactly the sort of failure of high modernism that the article talks about.
Present day examples of legibility center around ID (cards, Aardhar, biometrics, cameras etc) but also financial legibility (KYC), surveillance, and so on.
Scott's book is about how bottom-up complex systems are destroyed and reconstructed as top-down centrally planned organized systems in order to become more "legible" for the destroyer (the state). The general theme is the state can't understand how certain traits of the system are actually adaptive because it views from the outside. These traits are seen as irrational, so the state destroys the system and rebuilds it in order to make it rational, and thus understandable and legible in order to optimize for extracting a resource of some sort. Legibility in this context is used almost pejoratively to say most beneficial elements have been destroyed to optimize for one parameter, often ineffectively in the long term. Scott Alexander has a pretty good review if you want a deeper dive into the book's examples of this process.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/03/16/book-review-seeing-lik...
IIUC legibility of a system is pretty much understandability of that system with a focus on the "purposes" of the components. There's some subtext (which is why it's its own word) but that's my reductionist version.
