Would it not be easy to stop the spread of intimate images through your platform?
If you have a platform for "intimate" images maybe have a record on file that shows everyone is of age and consents. If an image, or video providence can not be confirmed you don't put it up for consumption. There is no shortage of "intimate" images and it would not present a hardship or be a barrier to entry to those that want to produce or consume the content. Please, explain how it is ethical to do otherwise.
For the first two, I think that black people use the phrase “white people” more than white people use the phrase “black people”, so “white people” includes black people in the results due to using quotes associated with people in the search ranking. (Whether things people have said should factor into image search is another question.)
But if you just search for “person” or “couple” you get results showing mostly white people and couples. I don’t think what you’ve observed is saying what you think it is…
well for the first white people I can see that the first two images of black persons has the words white people in it, specifically "Opinion: white people know racism..." (haven't clicked to see rest) and "Why I'm no longer talking to White..." where the next word is people, it's a Guardian article so that explains high ranking I guess - what is your point?
Image search does not classify image contents. It uses the site text for ranking of the images on that site.
Do a google (not image) search for "white people" and you'll see that this phrase is mostly used in pages that are in fact about racism and therefore likely to contain images of black people.
It most certainly does, and has been for at least a year or two, or possibly even a bit longer (can't remember when I first noticed this behaviour).
You can e.g. do a search along the lines of site:<domain of online clothing store> <hair style/hair colour/…>, and at least for the most common and recognisable kinds of hair styles, it will actually return relatively reasonable image results, even though online shops most certainly don't have the habit of annotating the hair styles worn by their models on their product pages.
Along the same lines, Google is now also in the habit of OCRing any text content it can find in images and indexing that for search, too.
It's true that it'll still also take the text surrounding the image into account, but it's no longer true that image search is only based on that.
Nothing that can’t be easily explained, of course, anyone coming with a reasonable explanation is being downvoted by the “critical thinkers” of HN who can only instead provide low effort quips.
Not completely sure what this “phenomenon”. There’s a few things I can imagine you are insinuating but they all had simple explanations so I’m not sure.
Don’t disagree with the main theory that search quality is deteriorating. I have to use increasingly contrived queries to get anything but bullshit blog spam, and indexing seems really odd at times.
Nonconcensual government has no place in modern society. Most people are born into countries and it makes sense to have a regular opt in vote to continue.
Most "civilized" people will starve or die horrible deaths if the current cold civil war goes hot. People who don't know how to grow crops, hunt, fish, or setup logistic pipelines. The side has military backing will end up killing a lot of people until one side gives up and by that time China and Russia will win. An armed conflict is a real loser for everyone. Lots of Americans on either side are armed and obstinate and it will get ugly fast. It might be time to visit a friendly foreign country until it all blows over, just don't expect much to come back to, wars are ugly things, and civil wars are often worse.
The only question is are we going to be flexible enough to let people go their own ways peacefully or try to hug a mountain lion until it hugs us back? The cart is being pulled in two directions and a peaceful legal separation is much better than the alternative.
No one is going to counseling and "live and let live" is dead. Irreconcilable differences between at least two factions exist.
Then could they yeet the old one into the sausage grinder and transplant a fresh one. It could even be a nice 12 year ritual, pay 1 million dollars for the most expensive sausage you'll ever eat.
Google/Alphabet needs to be broken apart: "The National Labor Relations Act forbids employers from interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of rights relating to organizing, forming, joining or assisting a labor organization for collective bargaining purposes, or from working together to improve terms and conditions of employment, or refraining from any such activity. Similarly, labor organizations may not restrain or coerce employees in the exercise of these rights."
Work to specification while you find a new job. Get the requirements via email or send a confirmation email for anything that you believe might be an "offhand remark".
The market is hot and jobs are currently plentiful.
Realize that a lot of the tech world reads this site so be careful.
A name generator makes the cattle herdable. Humans may remember zombie-wombat-kitten but not 3991. You might not ever interact with the machine directly but if you are hunting down an issue from log files it reduces cognitive load.
The important thing is cognitive load is the key thing, as is the possibility of confusion. Zombie-Wombat-Kitten is going to get shortened to ZWK, and hopefully there's no Zombie-Wombat-Keeper (or Zebra-Wagon-Kelp or Zombie-Wombat-Cat for those that just remember zombie-something-small-furry-animal). There's also little/no semantic meaning from that name. api-box-3-991 lets you know what type it is, and the relative vintage, so at a glance, it's not a version 2 box (which would be named api-box-2-991), and it's fairly late in the series, #991 vs #100.
Personally I like the second since we're having cattle not pets, but it's your fleet and this is rather bike-shed-y. :)
Let's take this nation wide. Why was everyone's time and interview hoops for jobs that don't pay competitive rates? Why should loyal employees stick with pay rates that are less than new hires?
N'ah. Let states test it out first and work out any wrinkles. When/if >50% of them are successfully employing it, then it might make sense to adopt it nationally.
Why bother having the states roll it out? We can fix it once in a federal law and avoid 50 different hard to undo implementations that are all inconsistent, so HR needs to run a "oh, you're applying from NYC, that means I need to include Health Care premiums but not RSUs" filter vs. "Oh, you're applying from California, so I have to include RSUs at an additional 0.0154% of calculated benefits and..." etc.
Laws (in my opinion) are a lot harder to get right than they are to get wrong. Laws are also (IMO) quite sticky in that once they are passed, they are difficult to modify and or adjust. It takes a strong political will to pass any federal law and once that political capital is spent, adjustments can be unpopular.
People may disagree, but I think that the distinction and separation of state/local/federal law is great. one size often does not fit all and having different methods of laws experimented with and seen "in production" is useful despite downsides and the inherent difficulty in having 50 states have a different policy on something.
Congress is really slow/bad at updating laws. State legislatures tend to be a lot more nimble (not as partisan, as there isn't as much focus on them. Plus many states of super-majorities, so it is easier to pass things if all members of a party agree).
I'm fully for most laws being tested at the state level before the federal gov gets involved at all (unless it's interstate commerce). Honestly, I prefer the fed staying out of most things and letting states handle it.
Right? 50+ different sets of rules are why it's so difficult to get consensus on anything and administrators have so much power in US society.
'But it's by design, federalist papers' ...are ~250 years old, and while they contain much wisdom, also contain much that is obsolete. We should be moving towards a sort of wikiocracy and away from bureaucracy.
Just let the states do state things, having the federal make laws is typically unnecessary. If it benefits business, then companies will do it. If it benefits states, then states will do it.
I'm pretty confident posting wages will suppress wages
Genuinely curious: Why are you confident it will suppress wages?
I think it'll be the opposite. When _everyone_ is posting the wages, it lets companies at the top end use it as a recruiting tool, putting pressure downward to be more competitive on salary, rather than it being a blind negotiation.
There will be lots of companies that will have trouble recruiting, because they just aren't wage competitive.
This seems logical to me, whats the counter to that?
The same mechanism you see uncoordinated price fixing, companies set their numbers by copy+pasting from their competitor +/- a little depending on the details.
I think noncompetitive companies will be forced to increase wages initially to compete but after that initial spike the numbers will become much more sticky.
this is wrong take, once higher paying companies find out they could pay less due to competitors, they will.
also it is possible to advertise higher wage for senior level, but then downlevel employee after interview and offer less and some would still accept that (Google is notorious for doing it)
> this is wrong take, once higher paying companies find out they could pay less due to competitors, they will.
Companies already functionally share compensation information via companies like Radford. You pay a hefty fee and provide your company's info, and in return you get descriptive statistics of the market.
Google and facebook don't scour job boards when determining pay scales, they pick some percentile of the market per these surveys and set compensation at that level. As a result, the companies already have transparency, employees do not, so they can only really gain.
Companies all know what other companies are paying for positions. They provide and collect this information from services that aggregate these details. The information deficit is entirely on your side.
> I'm pretty confident posting wages will suppress wages
What makes you confident about that? I only see evidence to the contrary. Having workers able to see what other jobs are paying might encourage them to make moves to increase compensation.
Hiding the numbers makes it less obvious if one is being taken advantage of, which is a reason employers have made it taboo to discuss pay.
Couldn't it work just as easily the other way? Especially with tech in such high demand.
Posting wages might make it easier for companies to offer higher than others in an attempt to attract talent, leading to competition in the market, and salary inflation.
Sure, it could; I was just describing one way that posted wages could lead to stagnation.
I suspect that different things will happen in different markets. It seems (to me) that software development may be unaffected, administrative workers might benefit, and unskilled workers may suffer.
Considering I hear every company boasting of "competitive wages" which hasn't lead to any sort of massive wage race, I would expect they must have some understanding already. If anything this just removes the information asymmetry between employer and employee.
This is a very naive statement! You are implying that the benefits of businesses and states are somehow exclusive to each other, but I believe there is plenty of historical precedent of situations where the "benefits" to a business prompt (in)action by states! The "benefits" to a state are so nebulous of a concept that I would argue that it is impossible to pin down any meaningful definition which we would be able to quantitatively use as a predictor for (in)action, except a cynical case where we define the "state" as "the groups/individuals in charge of governing a state," at which point it becomes trivial to reason out what the "benefits" to that "state" would be.
It's telling that the only parties that they're considering the benefit for are the state and businesses, with no mention of workers, who are the clear beneficiaries of this policy.
I don't think it's that simple. Letting people work remotely benefits business, yet some businesses are still hesitant on letting people work remotely. I think same applies with disclosing salaries. Lots of companies still have an old-fashioned view that it will not benefit them. And they still stick with it, even when there's evidence it will benefit them
>If it benefits business, then companies will do it. If it benefits states, then states will do it.
And if it benefits only workers, and you happen to live in a state controlled by corporate interests, screw you I guess?
The point of labor regulations is that businesses will routinely do things that give them an unfair (and often already illegal) advantage in negotiations. The whole concept of "state's rights" was invented by the segregationist ring-wing, and that legacy is apparent every time it's brought up.
There are benefits to consistent laws across the USA. It prevents every company needing to hire a lawyer from every state to check everything complies with the law in that state.
In fact, more consistent laws across 300m people is often pointed out as a big reason for the success of the USA compared to say the EU which in many areas is still a patchwork of laws.
Or, the federal government could say, hey here is an idea, here is some money to study it, let’s have a few states test out a couple implements, and then roll out a national plan later?
If you toss out the status quo bullshit, cleansheeting public policy becomes workable!
I can't think of a way this law could be implemented in a way that hurts anyone besides businesses that want to unfairly underpay a portion of an equally qualified cohort of workers.
YMMV but I'm asked for my salary expectations withing first 10 minutes of the first phone interview. Usually it's immediate "no, we don't pay this much" and process don't go any further.
Sounds like a time-saver on both sides. I don't agree to even talk to a company beyond the initial contact without some sense that there's a possible zone of agreement on compensation. Why waste my time (or theirs) on an employment discussion that can't possibly end in employment?
Being at the expected salary level where you even have input on salary already makes one more privileged than the supermajority of workers this would affect; the readers of this board are largely not who this law is for.
You know how capitalism ensures prices are correct by a process of negotiation, and supply and demand? This is exactly that, in labor form. This process of negotiation, over many many many people, is what determines wages.
If you block that process "companies can't negotiate with you, they have to give you a rate and that's it", you will cause a lot of unintended consequences for the labor market.
>If you block that process "companies can't negotiate with you, they have to give you a rate and that's it", you will cause a lot of unintended consequences for the labor market.
What you are describing is the current status quo for the supermajority of workers, except it's the workers who can't negotiate. The company simply gives them a number and they have to accept it. Allowing the companies to hide the number behind the sunk costs of the interview process only tips the scales further in businesses' favor.
This law brings salary negotiation closer to actual supply and demand, not further.
Uh, what? In what other commercial exchange is the value to be paid hidden from one of the parties? I can't think of one. It helps companies to hide it, it's why they do it. If they thought for a second it would be in their interest to disclose it, instead of bragging about "competitive wages", they would.
In this case, companies will need to "negotiate" with each other, by outbidding each other for top (or at least in-demand) talent. That will set the rates, instead of the current system of imperfect information that works mostly against employees. Let management be the one that worries about offering attractive salaries, rather than the much-less-powerful job seekers.
Some extra laws might be required, such as forbidding and heavily fining companies that are shown to be acting like a cartel when setting salaries. At the very least, if salary offers are public, salary fixing conspiracies (of the type several Silicon Valley companies were fined for) will be much harder to pull off again.
How do you figure? They quote a price for labor, and if we don’t like it, they can’t buy labor. If I don’t like the price of a sandwich, I don’t pay for it.
> You know how capitalism ensures prices are correct by a process of negotiation, and supply and demand?
This is true if and only if one defines adopts as the definition of “correct” something like “at whatever levels the particular variant of capitalism in question sets”.
If you have a platform for "intimate" images maybe have a record on file that shows everyone is of age and consents. If an image, or video providence can not be confirmed you don't put it up for consumption. There is no shortage of "intimate" images and it would not present a hardship or be a barrier to entry to those that want to produce or consume the content. Please, explain how it is ethical to do otherwise.