This is a digital content issue, not so much an issue of extremist content. Almost 10 years ago now, Geocities was shut down and took 38 million of the most popular pages of the Internet 1.0 with it.
I believe so, yeah, and there's an archive out there. But only because the site itself was so massive and notice was given that the end was coming, was the data saved.
Yep, that's why I want to ban all anti-Christian, anti-American, and anti-freedom speech and literature in America. These hate viruses have no place in our Democratic Republic, nor in a civil society.
Or do you have a different OPINION on what's hateful?
The Death Star's destruction also killed thousands and thousands of soldiers, bureaucrats, and construction workers. A lot of who is good/bad in Star Wars is perspective. The Jedi can also be seen as religious extremists that kidnap children to indoctrinate in their ways, to lead in terrorist missions that help impose their view on an entire galaxy. Darth Vader is an emperor protecting his empire from a growing threat.
By creating a weapon of mass destruction that destroys whole planets? I think the scale of that endeavor and the resulting destruction of Alderaan is justification enough for destroying the Death Star. But destroying Alderaan itself? I don't see any justification for that in the vein of him protecting his empire. They certainly didn't seem to pose a threat big enough for the planet to be destroyed.
When one side escalates to that point, and the other side takes away their weapon of escalation, it's false equivalency to try to equate the two.
I think it's likely that most people value Facebook below $1000 for themselves, but try to maximize their return when offered money by someone else to give something up. I hardly use it and may stop anyday. But if you want to pay me to stop, I would certainly try to maximize what I can get.
Im not sure it does remove the incentive. I think people are still seeing a way to get free money and subsequently everyone bid higher than they would.
I think a better way to do this would be to randomize payouts and randomize people. Offer 200 to quit facebook to one person, 100 to another, 700 to another. The auction skews the results I believe
The participants knew that this was the rule, of course (if they had not, there would have been no basis at all for saying "there was no incentive for people to overstate..."), which changes how a rational person would play the game: they would want to give some consideration to how other participants might bid.
Perhaps the study should have had several rounds of bidding, with the distribution of bids (or at least the minimum) from the previous round being announced beforehand. You would then get information both from how low the bids went, and who dropped out at each stage, while also getting metadata, about the methodology, in the form of how much the participants changed their bids from one round to the next.
Some context around Papin and his boat from wikipedia[1] for those interested:
> In 1705 he developed a second steam engine with the help of Gottfried Leibniz, based on an invention by Thomas Savery, but this used steam pressure rather than atmospheric pressure. Details of the engine were published in 1707.
> Papin returned to London in 1707, leaving his wife in Germany. Several of his papers were put before the Royal Society between 1707 and 1712 without acknowledging or paying him, about which he complained bitterly. Papin's ideas included a description of his 1690 atmospheric steam engine, similar to that built and put into use by Thomas Newcomen in 1712, thought to be the year of Papin's death.
The problem I see here is logistical. AI is often a blank slate, dependent on the data that's fed into it to be useful. It's that data, and the way the model is tuned, that is important. We do control exports on certain grade encryptions, but how do we control export over tuning a machine model, or over input data for a ML model?
In the 90's, Democrats wanted to revive the "Fairness Doctrine" in response to Rush Limbaugh's and Sean Hannity's rise in popularity on talk radio. The Fairness Doctrine was in place at the FCC for parts of five decades, from 1949 to 1987. It will be interesting to see if interest is raised in reapplying a Fairness Doctrine today towards these companies, which may well need to be reclassified in some instances as communication utilities to be regulated. I personally think this is more likely for Facebook and Twitter than Google, but who knows. Another bigger situation could come into play if the infrastructure providers (AWS, Azure) start causing antitrust problems, but thankfully they do not seem to be a big issue yet.
Not a surprise with what the media has been doing. They've done it for every (R) President, but it gets worse every time. They protested Reagan, worried he was going to start a nuclear war with Soviet Russia. Worried he was going to take away rights from women. Worried what he was going to do in Central America. They called Bush 43 worse then Bin Laden, the worlds greatest terrorist. Hollywood commissioned movies like Fahrenheit 9/11 to try and conflate national tragedies with certain political views. Now with Trump, you have straight out suppression of certain viewpoints, implicit acceptance of violence against those in power, implicit acceptance of 'acceptable' racism, and constant ratcheting up of rhetoric by those who lost.
I remember what Jon Stewart said on the Daily Show in 2012, to Republicans. "You LOST, it's SUPPOSED to taste like a shit sandwich!"
