I'm not sure it's a middlebrow dismissal, it's well-timed sarcasm which points to an important issue: Facebook deciding which emotions and expressions are first class citizens and which aren't is troubling.
It's a little more subtle. and subtle is the point. Human emotion, heck, all of human experience is analog. Love for a child is different than love for a parent, for example. And it's fractally complicated. If you look at how a word, phrase or novel matches up to an emotion you'll see the flaws where it doesn't quite match up at every scale.
So, anyway, discretizing these 6 states and fast tracking them is ok, i guess. It certainly allows people to shade their like in an interesting way, but it blows away complexity. The simple like can convey more meaning, imho, based on the sender. A like from an ex-lover, for example has a different meaning than from grandma. In some sense, they're both "i'm thinking of you" but they're nuanced based on sender.
It's not super clear to me that providing the 6 states will actually convey more information. Really it just requires a bit more effort on the user. A guy hits like on a pretty girl's photo because of love or lust, same guy hits like on a fast car because of awe. The context is more than enough to infer the meaning. It does make the sympathy connection explicit, so that's something. The sad face is probably much quicker than typing in "sucks about the cancer, bro". Is optimizing that case for speed better for humans?
"Everybody else is doing it" isn't doing it for me right now. Facebook has ~1.4 billion monthly active users and, somehow, no real competitors at the moment.
Facebook's COO, Sheryl Sandberg, has tried in the past to change how society functions by limiting vocabulary[0].
Facebook's product is their userbase, they make money by monetizing their userbase.
Ideally there would be enough competing chat/message services that you could always switch when you're unhappy. That's not the case here. Facebook has an enormous amount of power over how the world communicates and I think the intentional and unintentional effects of any bias they introduce should be discussed.
> Of course the US is so far beyond any reasonable protest culture that you might as well not protest at all.
Really? It seems like it's all some people do anymore. You can even become a professional activist and monetize your own victimhood. In the past year we've had people literally rioting and burning down buildings while the intelligentsia provided apoligies for them. "This is self-expression of a voiceless people, that burning car is a statement...."
Are you upset that you're not allowed to stop traffic during rush hour and chant slogans at people? Name one thing you can't do in the US that's part of a "reasonable protest culture"
Your not really offering any arguments to this discussion. If you're interested you can compared the student tuition protests in the US and Canada[0]. Violent or non-voilent, no protest can occur if people don't believe in the right of making your voice heard. In the US you are very good at rationalizing away those rights. I would do that to if I faced the US justice system and frankly that's why I don't spend a lot of time in the US. Plenty of incidents have been written about, from unlawful arrests to free speech zones and jail time for simple Internet attacks.
The pepper spray incident you linked was just about the best thing that could happen to those protesters. It was the plan, and then after it happens you go "oh my god we never saw this coming!" It's political theater - they got pepper-sprayed while trying to get arrested. Yeah, the cop was a jerk, but I'm not sure what linking the article is supposed to prove.
I have no idea why the Quebec students were even protesting - you're getting tuition subsidized so much that it's cheaper than the areas that are subsidizing it? Unless it's a remarkably worse education that doesn't any sense to me.
Seriously, don't just wave your hands at somebody asking you to back up a serious claim you made. This is why you're so easy to write off. You said we're so far beyond a reasonable protest culture that we shouldn't protest at all. You posted two links - one showing political theater is alive and well in the US and the other showing what look like some unreasonable students getting their way in Quebec. If that's your idea of "reasonable protest" then why should we even want it?
A reasonable protest culture is where people step up to defend others right to protest even if they don't agree with them.
Protesting in the US means potentially facing physical harm, detention, bail you can't pay, overworked public defenders, overzealous prosecutors, civil forfeiture, court fees, harsh sentencing, plea bargains, restrictive parole and being discriminated again because of your record. And most of that even if you don't go to prison. Of course you don't even have to be protesting, just be close enough to one and panic when the police, maybe even undercover, comes to abuse you and you'll be just another footnote in the history of the US justice system.
What happened in Montreal was that when the police tried to crack down on the protests everyone who remotely agreed started protesting too. When the government then went on to enacted a new law to limit the protests, even the people who didn't agree with the original protests started protesting. Then the government was subsequently voted out in the next election. That is a culture where it's reasonable to protest. Because even if worst comes to worst, you at least have some chance of people coming to your aid. Instead of rationalizing what you had to go through by proclaiming essentially "you shouldn't have been protesting".
So in Quebec there was no physical harm, detention, high bail, etc? I think you like Quebec's way because the protesters "won"
You've yet to name, specifically, one thing you can't do in the US that you think you should be able to do. You just use a blanket term "protesting" like anything under that umbrella should magically be OK. You're like a child complaining that the ice cream isn't there. But when you're talking about intentionally damaging property (spraypainting, breaking windows, burning cars and buildings) or disrupting infrastructure yeah you don't get to do that.
If you want to deal with the paperwork you can get 10,000 people and walk down major streets with a police escort even if the police don't like what you stand for. But you can't do it on a Tuesday when other people need to go to work. You can't force people to listen to your ideas.
In the history of the entire world has it ever been easier to have not only a voice but a LOUD voice than in modern day US? In the 1800's maybe they'd shut down your printing press and literally prevent you from distributing information. Today that's not the problem. Today people are sick of hearing it.
Plus Canada has a much smaller population than the US. You have 35 million people total - we have 46 million people living below the poverty line. We have more illegal immigrants in our country than you have people in Quebec. Quebec doesn't have problems America has because it's 90% white people with the same religion living in a large area. Our major cities have 4-10 times the population density of Quebec City. Overall the US has 5 times the population density of Quebec. We have one state (of 50) with a GDP as small as Quebec's. It's an apples and oranges comparison.
"You've yet to name, specifically, one thing you can't do in the US"
What makes you think it would be about one thing? One thing doesn't make the difference. It's overall climate that matters. If you can't de facto exercise your right as much as in another country that right isn't worth as much.
"You're like a child complaining that the ice cream isn't there"
Of course you have to resort to calling names when you can't make a good argument, who's really the child here?
"disrupting infrastructure yeah you don't get to do that"
In many countries you can disrupt traffic because of a protest without the need for a permit. Now you have your one thing. I'm guessing you're now going to tell me how it doesn't matter?
"You can't force people to listen to your ideas."
You've made that point very clear. I've stated repeatedly the differences between protesting in the US and elsewhere and you keep changing the question to something that suits your own thinking and rationalizing the problems.
"a police escort even if the police don't like what you stand for"
The US police are no exactly known for being unbiased.
"You have 35 million people"
No "we" don't since I'm not from nor have ever been to Canada. I have friends and can read material from there though.
"In the history of the entire world has it ever been easier to have not only a voice but a LOUD voice than in modern day US? [...] Today people are sick of hearing it"
I quite specifically talked about protest culture i.e. how people care about other peoples voice and your "counter" argument is that "people are sick of hearing it"? Some great logic right here.
"It's an apples and oranges comparison"
So you agree it's the situations are different now? Or is this just a case of the magic "but US is different" excuse. The US has much higher free speech ambitions than most other countries. Maybe there should be more footnotes in the constitution.
> Of course you have to resort to calling names when you can't make a good argument, who's really the child here?
I didn't call you a child. It was a metaphor suggesting you're being shortsighted and entitled without understanding that the things you want don't just magically appear. A child just wants ice cream, they have ice cream at Johnny's house so why can't he have ice cream at home? The child stomps their feet and says "It's not fair!" An adult grows out of this mindset.
> In many countries you can disrupt traffic because of a protest without the need for a permit. Now you have your one thing. I'm guessing you're now going to tell me how it doesn't matter?
That's great - which countries? They don't get arrested for it over there? You're sure you're not idealizing them because it supports your feeling of outrage?
That's the one concrete thing you're upset about and it's ridiculous. Other than that you're upset Americans don't just blindly go support protesters because they're protesting. Key word there is 'blindly.' That's the protesters fault for not knowing why they're there, not being able to express themselves clearly, and frankly for being so idiotic so much the time. Protesters have trained us that protesters are idiots.
I looked up the Quebec protests you linked - that's the point right, to raise awareness for an issue? - and it looks like a temper tantrum that happened to work.
First off, don't quote me out of context. I reference their contribution as helping in the war effort at home, and not because they were abstained from fighting. Maybe that's not what you were trying to write, but you seems to imply that considering how you wrote it.
Second off, "any less a contribution" does not mean I'm saying they are equal contributions. It means that even though they weren't fighting, they were doing some part in helping people on the front lines.
Oh I see, it was a figure of speech not intended to be a comparison. I see greater than/less than primarily as comparison operators.
If all you're trying to say is that women did more than nothing during WWII then obviously that can't be argued. Grandparent comment has been deleted but I'm guessing it had something to do with a comparison of contributions?
BTW it's not quoting you out of context when the context is like 200 pixels away, I quoted you for emphasis and brevity trusting that anybody who wanted the full quote had complete access to it.
Attacking the source rather than the content is usually the mark of a poor debating position. If the content is good, the source doesn't matter. If the content is bad, the source's badness will be self-evident.
A debate is a formal event with rules. These are Internet comments. I'm not debating a position. I'm expressing myself. If you think my observation is nonconstructive, that's fine, but it's not because if I were debating I would have made a blunder, it's because we have different expectations and desires in this conversation.
That's fine, I'm just pointing out that your expression is incompatible with basic logic. Saying "this source sucks because x" does not address in any way what they actually said.
Fortunately in this year 2015 we have a thing called hyperlinks via which evidence for assertions can be easily provided. If you treat op-eds from 'unreliable' sources as unreliable, fine. If you refuse to even check well-cited articles from 'unreliable' sources, you're probably more interested in ideological correctness than truth.
There is a nonzero cost of verifying, analyzing, and engaging with any text. The more substantial the text, the larger the cost. I don't have to read another Reason article to know that it's got the same systematic blindspots Reason articles have, and I don't think I could convince anyone of that, so I just communicated my stance and went on. There's nothing 'illogical' about it. I did not state my argument; I just stated my position. I think the charge that this violates basic logic is making a poor assumption: that absence of my argument is the same thing as not having an argument.
I don't want to make the argument. I want to snark about Reason. So I did. Shrug.
> Speaking of holes, the SEP has a rather detailed entry on the topic of holes, and it rather nicely illustrates one of Wikipedia’s key shortcomings. Holes present a tricky philosophical problem, the SEP entry explains: A hole is nothing, but we refer to it as if it were something......If you ask Wikipedia for holes it gives you the young-adult novel Holes and the band Hole.
This is plain dishonest. Wikipedia has dozens of pages on holes, some of which are cultural items and the author cherry-picked two in order to make his point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holes
Moreover, the SEP's description of a hole is so arrogant and condescending it's painful:
> Naive, untutored descriptions of the world treat holes as objects of reference, on a par with ordinary material objects....
Well, "naive" is a term of the trade. So "holes" are a potential problem for nominalists, philosophers who want to claim that only specific objects - that chair - exist. Calling a position that is not influenced by the last three thousand years of meta-physics 'naive' seems to be entirely justified, just as there are naive accounts of physics and computer science.
How exactly is naive a term of the trade in philosophy? You, and the article in question, seem to be using it in a way that any grade-schooler would recognize.
I'm not aware of any "naive accounts" of physics or computer science. You might be thinking of "naive algorithms" and "naive approaches" but in those cases the word has a specific meaning which doesn't fit in the context of the above quote.
'naive' means unsophisticated, so in a certain way it is compatible with the meaning a grade-schooler would recognize. However philosophy often is concerned with the meaning of words and so the naive understanding can define the boundaries of an acceptable theories.
SEP articles are written by individual academics, who often have peculiar writing styles. I suppose the editors try to curb the most extreme of peculiarities, but all sorts of quirks inevitably leak through. Archaism and grandiosity are especially common, since a lot of philosophers spend a lot of time poring through old books.
Wikipedia articles, on the other hand, tend to have a rather bland writing style, the average of all the people who contributed to an article.
I don't understand why you think it's an improvement. If the grandiosity was just a quirk of the writing style I'd have more patience for it but the field produces an endless stream of condescension and disrespect.
To be fair, philosophers often talk to (or write about) one another in exactly the same way. They tolerate a lot of condescension and disrespect as long as it is directed towards ideas/theories/hypotheses and not people. Notice that the passage you quoted talks about "naive, untutored descriptions", not "naive, untutored people".
Philosophers are trained not to take such things personally, and to respond as rationally as possible even if they do take it personally. Since a lot of them also spend most their careers relatively isolated from the rest of the world, it's not surprising that they expect their audience to respond in the same way, especially if philosophy students are the intended audience.
No, it's not an improvement. I'm not trying to defend that writing style in any way. The above is just one explanation for why someone who doesn't actually mean to be condescending might nevertheless produce essays that sound condescending to contemporary readers.
> The findings are intuitive and validate that surge pricing is an overall good thing for the market.
Good compared to what? Good compared to having a giant monolith set prices for half the market, or good compared to a real market where drivers are allowed to set their own prices?
Surge pricing is Uber taking a small step away from their static central command pricing structure and moving an inch towards market dynamism. The real question is if they believe so strongly in markets why are they setting prices in the first place?
The current regulatory structure (in theory) sets prices on behalf of the public, 1000-to-1 odds says Uber sets prices on behalf of their shareholders.
If individual drivers set pricing, would I use the app? Not if there was a simpler alternative which, on average, led to the same overall pricing. Imagine the user experience if every driver was setting their own prices. Ugh.
This is a strange argument and I don't know how to take it. Uber's shown they're experts at lobbying and even steamrolling local governments to get what they want. If the current regulatory structure is corrupt the solution is to fix it, not let it be corrupted in a different direction that looks nice in the short-term.
Theory and experience says that it's somewhere between hard and impossible to fix it.
Regulatory agencies normally become controlled by the industries they are set to regulate. That's a fact that you need to be aware of when proposing regulatory solutions.
I'm not saying Uber is particularly good (or evil). Right now their lobbying disrupts some really bad systems. But I don't doubt they'll move on to getting their own regulatory commission once they're big enough. That's how our system works.
I'm arguing that many small companies who have to organize and form a lobby will be far less efficient at regulatory capture than a well oiled monolith like Uber.
I'm looking for an academic environment by which we could share thoughts and reference materials on regulatory capture. It is indeed an important concept to understand and one that needs more attention.
/r/regulatorycapture seems to be private yet might be such a place
Your theory fails because regular Uber prices are almost half the price of a regular cab, which according to you is set on behalf of the public.
The benefit of Uber setting the price is that it makes the marketplace more reliable. And it's set at a level where both drivers and riders are happy. If Uber moves to a more dynamic pricing model, it makes it a lot more unpredictable and more complex. Maybe this will be the next step they take, but so far, I think everyone likes the predictability of the timeliness as well as the price.
Your critique fails because taxi companies and Uber have wildly different cost and operational structures. Clearly Uber is turning a healthy profit.
I agree that stable prices are important for public transportation and that people like them, but stable prices require regulation or an extremely healthy market. In this case we're seeing a change of regulatory powers.
Maybe "efficient" would have been a better word than "good". I have no doubt that Uber is pricing to benefit their shareholders, not the public good. That's why the taxi fare regulations are there in the first place.
They'll think those thoughts not before abusing students but before doing anything that might offend or hurt the feelings of somebody in a protected group.
The good teachers end up with students who should be punished but they're afraid to do it because they might lose their jobs for doing their jobs. The bad teachers will know to aim their abuse at the white males because nobody's watching for that and many who people picture that scenario think to themselves "Good."
It comes from the same place all flamebait comes from: they're picking a fight.