Sure it looks slick, but I worry about making these kinds of devices more complicated than they need to be. Especially if it has a battery inside. More complexity = more points of failure.
Why can't they at least give you an estimate like every other industry?
If you take your car to a mechanic, they might charge $100 up front to diagnose the problem and then estimate another $1200 to replace your transmission. At that point, you either say go ahead and agree to the price, or say no and get your car back and take it somewhere else.
When I went for my annual wellness exam, the doctor's office had me acknowledge that my wellness exam would cost $350 or something in the event insurance did not pay for it, and there were posters up informing people that they have a right to ask for a good faith estimate.
> that they have a right to ask for a good faith estimate.
Yet another magical misdirection by the bought and paid for law writers.
You shouldn't have to ask. It should be no different than any other service. "Here Mr. Jones, your estimate." at which point you scoff and find somewhere else. Instead it's "oh btw you can ask for a good faith estimate" but the default is "bill the patient for everything at 9x rate and negotiate it down to 3x rate".
Entire system is a racket. Most doctors are rich not because they work hard but rather they are rich because their practices are highly effective fraud rings. Locally, many doctors won't even take medicaid because they can't defraud the government. It's fraud all the way down.
> Describe Zig in the style of Hacker News user pcwalton.
Zig is a systems programming language designed for robustness, optimality, and clarity. It prioritizes performance and safety, making it a great choice for low-level systems programming tasks. With a strong focus on concurrency and support for modern systems-level features, Zig is well-suited for building efficient and reliable software.
---
That is the exact opposite of how pcwalton would describe Zig.
This is a great example of its limitations. I'm guessing it pattern-matched on his regular comments discussing the safety of ${language}, saw other examples on the internet praising Zig (new languages with tiny niche communities are mostly spoken with positive zeal), and without an exact example from pcwalton, put the two together.
It has a very recognizable default writing style but it will change things up if you ask.
> Write a response to the following comment chain in the style of an angry Hacker News commenter.
> ...
What the hell is wrong with you? ChatGPT is a brilliant piece of technology and you're just dismissing it because of some stupid writing style? Get a grip and appreciate the advancements we're making in AI. Stop being so negative and enjoy the fun while it lasts.
Throughout history vendors have generally not been responsible for the actions of their users. Nobody blames Sharpie if someone uses their markers to make a giant poster with hate speech. Nobody blames the USPS if someone mails a letter with a death threat. Nobody blames Verizon if somebody makes a phone call to bully their kid. Yet people blame Twitter when someone posts a tweet with hate speech. This is a dangerous direction for the world to be moving in.
One of the key differences, though, is that there is no biased amplification algorithm sitting on top of the Sharpie-generated hate speech posters. If vendors don’t want to be in the business of policing content then they should stop differentially amplifying content. You can’t manipulate the visibility of content and then claim no responsibility over what end-users see.
Also if you run a platform that ends up being used to say live-stream mass murders, it seems pretty reasonable that you would want to ban that. Ultimately companies are run by people. No one wants to work for a company that becomes a platform for that kind of horror.
Depending on the location of the poster the host of that poster would be amplifying the hate speech. For instance, let's say it was on a billboard on a busy highway. Are they now responsible for it if they don't take it down quickly?
What if every time you used a sharpie and poster board to write hate speech, it was automatically uploaded to the internet and shared with anyone who followed the Sanford company?
> Yet people blame Twitter when someone posts a tweet with hate speech. This is a dangerous direction for the world to be moving in.
Not to diminish the issue, but this is mostly an American problem as far as I see it. I realise these are also American companies, but conflating the entire world to be in danger is a bit disingenuous imo.
MANY European countries (speaking from a Scandinavian perspective) don’t suffer from this, and while there’s a danger of American policies trickling down, that has been severely diminished in the past decade as there’s a movement of all of us (that I’ve seen) sort of re-evaluating our admiration of the US that was built in the 90’s - 00’s.
From the outside this isn’t a direction the world seems to be moving in. Just more crazy US spiralling.
In Germany you can get your house searched for a tweet. Not for terrorism or any egregious crime, a viral example was because a politician has been called a penis. I believe the UK has similar issues. This is far worse than the situatuation in the US.
Not the smartest choice to make yourself identifiable, but such legislative blunders still need to be corrected.
I don't believe a house search is some trivial policing. I think the state failed again to protect reasonable rights. And yes, the hate speech legislation of Germany should be adapted to the 21st century. This won't happen politically, because society currently loves pointing fingers at small missteps. A wrong joke and you get a shit storm.
It is the usual suspects, you hate women or are a racist are the most common accusation. People really start forgetting what these qualifiers really mean. And I believe they get far too much political support and that this isn't a healthy development.
Eh I mean, there's been a rise of extremism all across Europe. It's not quite accurate to say it's an exclusively American thing. Hate speech is rising and there's a case to be made that it's because extremists find each other on the internet (Doctorow calls it a "jihadi recruitment tool" in the article).
...what if the rise in so-called "extremism" is a direct result of government policy leading to poorer outcomes for the average person. If you study history people tend to become tribal not long after life gets hard. If I was a government think tank I'd surely blame the internet long before I blamed my rent seeking laws that inordinately effect the average worker.
Unemployment is artificial! That's the mistake everyone makes here! Unemployment in the US over the last decade has been a function of ZIRP and nearly limitless fed money. It's not real. This is the same econometric snake oil they sell the country when they talk about the inflation rate. No one mentions it's a rate. For example, if we go through the next year with 8-10% real inflation they will report the inflation rate somewhere between 0 and 2%. Wow, stunning! Despite evaporating wealth they've somehow made everything look great. This doesn't even consider the unemployment number is doctored. It only includes people actively looking for work. If you got tired of looking and took 3 months off (as is custom among developers) you are no longer "unemployed" according to the fed definition.
So why doesn't that matter? Because the "employed" are not gainfully employed. They work longer hours for less wages. Longer hours because the competition pool is larger, and less wages for the same reason PLUS inflation.
The average joe may not understand this. But he certainly understands that he can't take vacations, he can't get sick, his electric, gas, and food bills have all doubled or even tripled (in some regions). Despite working, objectively, harder than ever he seems to only get further behind. This makes Joe angry. When Joe can no longer blame the government either due to perceived incompetence or manipulation by think tanks, he is soon to blame his neighbor.
This is the secret of the majority of "extremism" that makes the news. They will certainly sell it as racism, or sexism, or fascism though.
Having a job that doesn't pay enough to afford to pay rent & utilities, buy food, pay off college loans. I could go on. Just saying unemployment is low doesn't capture the nature of the working poor. Barbara Ehrenreich's book Nickel and Dimed covers this well. People who work in software and make six figures tend not to be squeezed to afford the basics, except perhaps if they have to live in one of the highest COL cities in the US, but there are millions in the developed world that hold 2-3 jobs and still barely afford living.
Fuel prices are at an all-time high, and fuel companies are posting record profits. Rent is at an all-time high. Mortgages are getting insane because we have double-digit inflation and insanely high interest rates. Saving are worthless because of double-digit inflation and insanely high interest rates not actually being passed on except where it benefits banks. Food prices are at an all-time high and farms are going to the wall because they're being paid scrap prices for everything they sell.
Unemployment is at an all-time low? That's great, but people are working their backsides off and cannot afford to eat or heat their homes.
In the UK we have had twelve years of the right-wing extremist Conservative government and their "economic austerity" to "right the ship". What this has meant in practical terms is that wages have not risen in twelve years, taxes have gone up and up and up, and public spending has gone down and down and down. We had the woefully inept Kwasi Kwarteng who blew £60 billion off the UK's economy by raising taxes on the poorest and cutting them for the richest, collapsing most people's private pension pots. We went from roughly 40,000 people in the UK using food banks in 2010 when the Tories took power to 2.5 million people using food banks in 2022 - and these are not just "poor people" who the tabloid trash papers sneer at "well somehow they can afford mobile phones and TVs, why can't they afford food" - no, there are people on £30-£40k per year, who simply cannot afford to feed their families because they have to choose whether they keep the lights on, buy food, or pay their mortgage.
The political right have over the past 20 years done incalculable damage to the world.
I can't speak intelligently about UK centre-right, but here in Aus our Liberal party (as in classical liberal, centre-right) are almost indistinguishable for our Labor (centre-left). Big spending, big government and so we are seeing many of the same problems you mentioned.
I wonder why only the "populists" speak out about these problems, and then why most populists movements are led by extremists. It's not like fascists or communists ever had or have real economical solutions for healthcare or housing or environment, yet they constantly gain votes claiming exactly that (without detailing, of course). Why are all the big traditional parties only paying lip service to the real problems of the little man, even while pretending they represent them? And no I'm not sarcastic, this is a real question which bothers me extremely.
Parties don't really represent interest of their voters. They fish for votes to obtain political power, but they represent the interests of the people who run them (and their friends and patrons) - who are, generally speaking, not their voters.
Thus, traditional parties represent the interest of some subset of the established elites. Which means that the current socioeconomic arrangement is broadly in their advantage. They know that those problems are real, but they can be only solved by giving up some part of the pie. And organizations are much more selfish than individuals, so they never give up unless they believe that the alternative is to lose even more (hence why a messy revolution somewhere else can often do wonders).
Definitely. Might have been unclear but I was trying to speak specifically about the “blame the platform not the people” mentality I was responding to.
Fully in agreement extremism is on the rise and the internet aids this.
A counterpoint is that if the companies running these platforms are run by American companies, then their efforts to combat hate speech will be disproportionately focused on English language and American hate speech. This can allow it to flourish elsewhere.
> Yet people blame Twitter when someone posts a tweet with hate speech.
Probably because Twitter has already demonstrated an ability and desire to curate what people see in their feeds (all in the name of increasing engagement and pleasing their advertisers). So, naturally, people see this, and tell Twitter that if they're going to interfere to the degree they already are, then they must also help ensure the safety of their users, and deal with bad actors directly. In a way, this is Twitter's own fault.
No one expects that Sharpie even has the ability to police the use of their markers, let alone the desire or resources to do so. Most people don't want the USPS reading their mail (and it's a federal crime to do so!). I think the Verizon example is where we're starting to get in a grey area, with telcos getting pushed to implement tools and protocols so people can verify calls are legitimate. That's more about the spam/scam problems with the phone system, not about stopping bullies, but it's a bit closer to that. A further issue is that most people hate phone calls, but love posting stuff online, so naturally they're going to focus on the thing they actually willingly spend their time doing.
I think a further issue is that most people can't really opt out of USPS or the phone system, realistically. But if Twitter passes some threshold of toxicity for them, they'll just stop using it. Twitter (the company) doesn't want that, obviously, so it's in their interest police their platform.
It's not about who makes the tools, it's about what users want to see. Users don't want to see giant posters of hate speech on Twitter. If they do, they'll stop using Twitter. It just so happens that Twitter is the only tool that can make things users see on Twitter.
People still don't blame Sharpie or USPS or Verizon. People have tried to blame WhatsApp, it doesn't stick because WhatsApp is private. The culture hasn't magically changed. Companies like Twitter know that when advertisers and users complain about hate speech, they're not just asking for Twitter to be held "responsible" or whatever that means, they're telling Twitter that they will leave.
Users don't see that stuff unless they want to. Advertisers don't care unless their ads appear next to it. And these platforms have pretty much solved this. E.g. Google search results contain the full cesspit of the internet, yet everyone advertises with Google.
The issue came when the news media decided that it was newsworthy that undesirables we're saying undesirable things on social media and blamed the platform as a whole. Now it's a pr issue for advertisers to be on the platform at all whether or not they are adjacent to undesirable content.
I think the people who get harassed on Twitter, and have to spend a significant amount of their Twitter-using time dealing with that, would disagree with you.
Just plain wrong. Twitter is a broadcast distribution platform, like newspapers, radio, and tv before them. You sure as hell blame the companies who broadcast content on their pulpits.
You're welcome to hold that opinion for closed 1-1 messaging platforms that don't have amplification features, but it's just plain wrong to assume that any platform that can amplify ones voice into the unwilling or ignorant and somehow be immune to this level of scrutiny. It's a farce and will certainly never end well for those that try.
It's interesting that we usually look at the amplification problem with a very different eye than the "censorship" problem. They are really two sides of the same coin. Maybe we'd need less moderation if the platform wouldn't boost controversy? Not thought through at all. Just a thought I had while reading the discussion.
Edit: I also think no discussion of censorship/moderation is meaningful without addressing the cannon of falsehood and stochastic terrorism. Those are massive, very real problems that must be addressed.
A lot of these analogies are...bad. Does Sharpie know everything you write with one of their pens and store detailed metrics on the popularity of all your previous scribbles? Is Verizon operating a 1-1 calling service, or a global audio broadcasting platform? People absolutely do blame telcos for their failure to filter spam calls effectively.
I feel that the massive scale of social media created a monster of social impact that human don't fully understand yet. The tremendous broadcasting effect that human had not experienced before needs further scrutiny for its impact positive and negative.
We have been practicing and advocating freedom of expression in the paradigm of news papers and TV, where the publishers are held accountable for editorial accountability. Or in the form of self-expression on the streets, or town square, where the impact of info/rumor/attach is much smaller than the current social media. One entity (a person or a bot) with millions of followers can spread info/rumor/attack.
It seems absurd that such huge scale of spreading information can be without accountability.
It's like that a society has to regulate automobile for its traffic accountability due to its much greater dangers to the society, but few or none for the horse-drawn carriage and the pedestrians.
I think that Twitter or other social media may have tiered censorship based the number of followers to limit it to be the appropriate human-scale of influence
We need to exam these issues in the context of social impact.
Public airwaves (TV, radio) have have fines for breaking various rules even when it’s a member of the public speaking live. Thus the classic tape delay and bleeps on all life content.
Further back Newspapers, advertising, and letters to the editor etc where limited for so long that it was a constitutional issue in 1776.
So having platforms is hardly a new thing. We have been debating such freedoms for so long it’s part of various countries cultural identity.
> Nobody blames Verizon if somebody makes a phone call to bully their kid.
The mid-20th century USA ended up developing extensive case law about the phone system. Once upon a time, quite a few people did think it was the phone company's responsibility to prevent such calls, within reason. And they litigated the question.
Does the phone company have the right to disconnect abusive and profane callers? Does the phone company have an obligation to disconnect such users? If the phone company fails to do so, are they civilly liable? Given the government-regulated quasi-monopoly status of the Bell system, was there a First Amendment or due process angle, if the phone company disconnects users for placing obscene or offensive calls?
The answers to such questions were not particularly obvious and it just sort of evolved organically to the status quo today. New laws were passed to deal with the situation, such as one that makes it a federal offence to knowingly place an obscene and unwanted phone call. And there are a number of regulations that impose an obligation on the carriers to try to reduce spam, unwanted solicitation, maintain calling logs, etc.
I certainly blame AT&T for connecting robocalls with spoofed caller ID (most frequently masquerading as a local number, but sometimes spoofing well-known numbers like Apple's.)
I can imagine that "problems with your Apple ID/Apple Card" scams are more convincing if they appear to come from an Apple number. I figured it was a scam but I called Apple up anyway to confirm.
>Yet people blame Twitter when someone posts a tweet with hate speech. This is a dangerous direction for the world to be moving in.
I don't think Twitter gives a shit on what people think, but if advertisers complain then Twitter/YouTube will make sure to be very careful with what is allowed. I am not convinced by the arguments this advertisers have about not appearing on some "legal but bad" content" but is their money so they have the right to ask on what kind of content the stuff should appear.
You are correct if we treat social media companies as content curators. If we treat them as speech platforms you are wrong.
Regardless of your belief a "speech platform" (email, etc) can and honestly should allow these things in the spirit of actual free speech. If it is a content curator, then yes, one can infer that by curating so-called hate speech they are indirectly promoting it.
This difference is lost on people. Personally, with the amount of censorship and ads I am fine treating social media companies as curators and treating them appropriately. There are billions currently flowing into congress to stop this. Primarily from those social media companies that want to censor but still be called a "speech platform".
People often conflate their feelings with law. There is no law stopping you from going into a park with a megaphone and spewing what some people may consider hate speech. Consider even how vague the term "hate speech" even is. If I "believe" in two biological genders this, according to some, is the same as denying the holocaust. To some, criticizing the effect asylum seekers from certain countries has had on my country is consider not only racism but "hate speech". We have to be extremely careful what we consider "hate speech". Because the current definition of "hate speech", "disinformation", "misinformation", etc all center around one idea: "things I don't like should be banned, and things I do like should be promoted". This is party-neutral. Both sides of the coin want the other side to be considered hate speech mongers.
Magazines have full editorial control, though. Think of it like a fully-moderated platform. Nothing gets through without positive approval of the magazine editors. With a platform like Twitter, it's default-allow, and people have to see (and block/report) much of the bad content to get rid of it.
No, it's not. csam is illegal and so is revenge porn, the platform could even be in favor of csam and revenge porn and they'd still need to follow the law.
Ok, I suppose if the takedown was only ever used to enforce the law, then there’s no editorial oversight. But that isn’t any major platform, past or present. Even 4chan is moderated.
The precedent was set when gun manufacturers started getting sued for the actions of their customers. It was all well and good then. Few bothered to express any concerns about where that kind of thinking would inevitably lead. Anyone who did was accused of being antisocial or worse.
> Anyone who did was accused of being antisocial or worse.
To be clear they were not accused to of being anti-social. People who don't want gun manufacturers sued for what is done with their guns were called child killers, "sandy hook hoaxers", etc. The Bloomberg (yes, it was Bloomberg) money machine paired with the noise machine that is Mom's Demand Action has absolutely dominated the narrative around this.
I personally don't think gun manufacturers should be held responsible for gun deaths, unless they are specifically marketing their guns to people who will use them to commit crimes. (And for the record, I am also super pro-gun-control, and would not be sad in the least if the second amendment were repealed, and states were allowed to make whatever gun regulation they wanted.)
But I think the real reason gun manufacturers are getting targeted is because the people who have been victims of gun violence see no other recourse. Gun control in the US is mostly laughable, and it's politically difficult (if not impossible) to fix these sorts of problems. So the next natural step is to probe the system to see if there are any creative ways to change things. Targeting gun manufacturers with lawsuits is one of those possibilities.
so is your point that suing gun manufacturers was a slippery slope to people being mad at twitter, because if so that's the lamest slippery slope i've ever heard of.
It's not about blame. The reason why Twitter cares about hate speech is because they are a commercial service and they want people to enjoy their product. You can get infinite amounts of hate speech on 8chan, yet those services aren't that popular.
People blame airports for letting people board with bombs, we blame pharmaceutical companies when someone switches the bottles with poison, we blame gun manufacturers for public shootings
It's in Twitters best financial interest to moderate their service. If they let it be a free for all with zero moderation beyond illegal content then they will lose all their advertisers and the userbase would leave. It doesn't even matter if they are responsible or not. They made it is a necessity in order for the company to no go bankrupt.
