I haven't read the entire article, but I find it a bit ridiculous that the author claims that "big data" is allowing the "rise of fascism" in the 21st century. Trump has been known to give the metaphoric middle-finger to big data analytics and marketing [1]; on the contrary, almost every move of Hillary's campaign was dictated by the "advanced" big data engine called "Ada" [2]. While Trump "spent a fraction" of what Hillary did on ads and technology, he did run a paid Facebook strategy [3].
I believe you're right. He won't stop it. But he also won't let it dictate his actions, unless he's really foiled us all and every character of his every tweet is meticulously data-driven. I doubt it though!
Off topic kinda but I have to compliment you on the rig (the AK and watch are cool too). Mind providing some more details on it, what truck is it, how'd you find it, mods, etc.?
Thanks. It's a 1987 Land Rover 110. It is ex-British Army and I bought it from a government liquidation firm in the UK and imported it myself. I did my own frame and engine swap on it so the body and interior are pretty much the only original bits. It has a Land Rover 300Tdi diesel engine.
I don't blog much but I have done a few stories for Expedition Portal:
Nice.
I am from the Caribbean and I always jokingly say it is my aim to own a Land Rover series I or II and my own estate.
Its a reference to the colonial days in the Caribbean. The folks who had money made if from agriculture and used the Land Rover to transport goods and traverse the rough terrain.
Sad that HN allows obviously hostile comments like these to remain...
Anyways, Trump listened to America. He listened quite a bit.
He not only visited and spoke to hundreds of thousands of people all over the country, but he held multiple (7 was his max) rallies everyday near the end of his campaign.
He also frequently sent long, detailed surveys (with both multiple choice and text box questions) to gauge public opinion.
On the contrary, Hillary was the candidate who failed to interact: from the lack of press conferences to lack of media interviews to lack of rallies to lack of presence in many states, Hillary's loss is arguably a direct reflection of her failed engagement with American people.
I will never understand any defence of Trump in 2017, At this point, it's not about Hillary, it's all about Trump. It should be about who he is, what he is doing, what he is saying and what he plans to do.
And we have enough data to unequivocally reject the man as well as his rhetoric. Look at his cabinet. Look at his twitter feed. Look at this constant stream of lies. See how unprepared he is. Skate to where the puck is going and see how this ends.
In the time from when he won (by being the biggest losing winner) to when his actions taking office, there is literally no defence of this man.
He might have listened, and he heard exactly what he needed to say to his "marks" (this would be his term from the Art of the Deal) to win and then he got on with his real agenda: making himself and his friends obscenely wealthy at the expense of the rest of America and the world.
Wouldn't he have quickly shuffled the US into signing the TPP, then, rather than boldly rejecting it (which was confirmed by WikiLeaks/Asian press today)?
I also never said I agree with pulling out of the TPP. I didn't like the TPP for tech, security, and intellectual property reasons. Though there is no denying that the TPP would economically benefit the US.
I also liked aspects of it quite a bit.
So, the real question is what was Trump's motivation for getting out of the TPP? If it was for economic reasons, then he's missed the mark.
If that's how you decide if someones actions are good or bad then you will always be able to come up with a way to justify liking the action while disliking the actor for it.
Of course one can like an outcome and still think the person enacting it was wrong (not dislike the person, that was your phrasing). There's even a pithy little statement about that: the ends don't justify the means. One can literally love an outcome and hate how it was brought about.
And in the case of leadership at the highest level, I for damn sure want to know the motivation behind some (or all) decisions. The decision, lacking context (or Why), is almost worthless to understand what is happening. In isolation any decision could be fine, or it could be the signal for a future unmitigated disaster.
We hammer this point home in the business world all the time. Context matters.
Great leaders understand this and deal first with 'why' then with 'what'. Bad leaders always deal with 'what' before 'why', or maybe never giving a 'why'.
And it's not about the liking or disliking a person. Ever. It's about the context that surrounds a person and asking yourself if you can trust them.
We cannot trust Trump. He has given us enough data points to know this. I want to know the 'why' on the TPP as a datapoint. It could either give me more trust in Trump, or less.
But, at a human level, if you are asking me if I dislike Trump? I don't care. I don't trust him. And I don't trust him because he has given me enough to go. And that is what matters.
People have bias. Are you are exempt? Is it _always_ scientific to decide what's in someone's head and then use that assumption to justify not liking them for a action you would appreciate if someone else did it?
You said in 3 different ways you do not trust Trump, are there specific actions you can imagine that he would need do to do to gain more trust from you? Can't you just cop-out by still arguing it's his intent (as decided by you) that matters?
Of course to everything. Doesn't mean any of what I said isn't true or spot on the mark. Everything I said still holds and because people have bias, it's even more important we talk facts and why's. It's never black and white, but understanding context and why sure helps us navigate the gray.
And, to answer directly, yes, I can imagine things that would make me trust Trump. I can also imagine things that he would do that would further erode trust. Yes to both those with Obama (as it played out over the 8 years he was in office).
I honestly don't know what we are arguing anymore. This thread started with the TPP I guess? I don't know.
To be fair, though, even if he had displayed a "pattern of deception [and] a lack of integrity" in his handling of federal grant money is not a valid argument against his climate science.
It's reason enough. The scientist has demonstrated that he is deceptive and not trustworthy. I'm not going to sift through the bullshit to find a nugget of truth when I've got better sources with which to work.
He did it twice! After getting kicked out of a top-tier university, he got a job at some obscure place, then got kicked out of that. Maybe he's a genius who sees things that 99% of climate scientists don't see, but can't follow basic institutional rules. I'll remain skeptical.
But it is a reason to disbelieve any of his claims and any data that he has generated. The logic can be trusted if one can go back to other data generators.
At that point, what purpose does he serve as a scientist? Are you going to go check all his citations and make sure that he's not misapplying them?
People, and hackers especially, generally don't "trust" Facebook to provide them with a platform to publish anymore. And why would they? Facebook will never open source the software responsible for determining what, when, and how people see news articles.
Is there anything Zuckerberg doesn't want to get his company involved with?
It's been said on HN again and again, but I'm really looking forward to a decentralized digital publishing platform that gains momentum and actually gives Facebook a run for its money.
Anyone know of any such existing platforms up and running now? Last I looked into this, I discovered "Steemit", but it doesn't seem very promising.
> It's been said on HN again and again, but I'm really looking forward to a decentralized digital publishing platform that gains momentum and actually gives Facebook a run for its money.
I don't think one has a chance of succeeding in the short term IMO. Diaspora, GNU social are attempts. They all are on the wrong side of the network effect / Metcalfe's law. There would need to be a significant downside to using facebook or a significant upside to using the competition to get people to move. I don't think there are much incentives to be had there.
>Is there anything Zuckerberg doesn't want to get his company involved with?
I've seen quite a few comments (on HN and elsewhere) since all the "fake news" buzz started saying essentially "Facebook needs to stop pretending they aren't a news company. They are where people get their news, and they need to take responsibility for that"
And I completely agree. Whether zuck wants to be in the news business or not, he already is. Might as well do a good job of it.
>And I completely agree. Whether zuck wants to be in the news business or not, he already is. Might as well do a good job of it.
No, they're not. Facebook is a news aggregate. They are no more in the News business than I would be if I wrote a script to scrape news web sites for articles to read myself.
The confusion between actual news sources and information aggregates online has caused this "fake news" crisis in the first place.
6,000+ publishing partners around the world (USA Today, Washington Post, The Guardian, Le Monde, Newsweek, Bloomberg Businessweek, Vogue, GQ, etc.) Unlimited access model, all you can read on your smartphone or tablet.
Two business models:
(1) Consumer subscription ($29.95USD/mo)
(2) Sponsored by a business (stay at one of 10,000+ hotels who sponsor PressReader access for their guests, fly with airlines like Qantas, visit a local library that sponsors access, etc.)
Millions of MAUs and growing at light speed.
Business model: royalties paid to publishers whenever someone reads their content, so generates revenue and audience for publishers.
I get back on once in awhile just to see if people are going back. I'm wondering if any network is growing besides Freenet. Freenet is cool, and I get on for work once in awhile. But I really miss when Undernet and Dalnet where massive, with all sorts of stuff happening. Maybe I'm just out of touch with what the active networks are.
Maybe that's the future, going back eventually to alternative places where the user can have a separate identity and speak their opinions (I.e. Redddit)
