Funny, this move is exactly what YouTube did to their system of human-as-judge video scoring, which was a 1-5 scale before they made it thumbs up/thumbs down in 2010.
I hate thumbs up/down. 2 values is too little. I understand that 5 was maybe too much, but thumbs up/down systems need an explicit third "eh, it's okay" value for things I don't hate, don't want to save to my library, but I would like the system to know I have an opinion on.
I know that consuming something and not thumbing it up/down sort-of does that, but it's a vague enough signal (that could also mean "not close enough to keyboard / remote to thumbs up/down) that recommendation systems can't count it as an explicit choice.
> IIRC youtube did even get rid of downvotes for a while, as they were mostly used for brigading.
No, they got rid of them most likely because advertisers complained that when they dropped some flop they got negative press from media going "lmao 90% dislike rate on new trailer of <X>".
Stuff disliked to oblivion was either just straight out bad, wrong (in case of just bad tutorials/info) and brigading was very tiny percentage of it.
Youtube always kept downvotes and the 'dislike' button, the change (which still applies today) was that they stopped displaying the downvote count to users - the button never went away though.
Visit a youtube video today, you can still upvote and downvote with the exact same thumbs up or down, the site however only displays to you the count of upvotes. The channel owners/admins can still see the downvote count and the downvotes presumably still inform YouTube's algorithms.
I think that just the absence in official app and the existence of this tool makes this point largely irrelevant. Company in question could easily reverse this decision overnight as the data exist, but absent that people adjust to an available proxy estimate. It is interesting though, because it shows clear intent of "we don't want to show actual sentiment".
The official youtube stats (views, comments, upvotes) are not real/real-time either. But that's the best we have. And dislike numbers are in the same universe of credibility and closeness to reality. It's definitely good enough.
If you want downvote data be more precise, do your part and install the extension! :-)
> I've always been a bit skeptical of JS charting libs that want to bring the entire data to the client and do the rendering there
The computer on my desk only costs me the electric power to run it, and there's 0 network latency between it and the monitor on which I'm viewing charts. If I am visualizing some data and I want to rapidly iterate on the visualization or interact with it, there's no more ideal place for the data to reside than right there. DDR5 and GPUs will be cheap again, some day.
> listened to a podcast recently that some 'homeowners' have not made a mortgage payment in years, have no ability to pay,
How? Somebody is holding the bag here on the mortgage - a bank, probably. And they are fine with not receiving payments? Or is somebody else making payments on the homeowner's behalf?
So, the basic process is 1) Borrow stops making payments. 2) Borrow goes into forbearance for 12 months just prior to foreclosure start. 3) Forbearance ends, borrower cannot make current. 4) FHA steps in to do loan modification. Essentially, they roll the forebeared balance into the loan, payoff the existing mortgage, and issue a new FHA-backed loan, without any income or payment ability qualifications. 5) Repeat the process again.
In judicial foreclosure states, the process can take 12 to 24 months, and longer if contested or if other periods apply. In nonjudicial states, timelines are shorter but still typically 4 to 9 months from default to sale.
Lenders incur legal fees, court costs, property taxes, insurance, maintenance, HOA dues, servicing advances, and loss of interest during the process. Industry estimates often put foreclosure costs in the tens of thousands of dollars per loan, excluding the loss from selling the property below the outstanding balance.
“Writing off the mortgage” is not the realistic alternative. Lenders generally compare foreclosure against loan modification, repayment plans, short sales, or deeds-in-lieu, because charge-offs are accounting outcomes after losses are realized, not an operational substitute for foreclosure.
Yeah, those are some of the programs I was referring to. The 'loophole' aspect that was mentioned on the podcast is that when the FHA does the 'loss mitigation' (aka, refi's the loan), there is not any kind of qualification as to whether the buyer will ever be able to make a payment on the new loan. It's just approved anyway, and the cycle can happen unlimited times.
I think they're looking at adding a means test, but I'm unsure.
Don't be surprised when you learn their so-called "chess bots" are actually people, lying hidden below the floor of the passenger cabin, moving pieces with the help of levers and magnets.
Your problem is that you have only one comment's worth of context and can't be bothered to read up the thread. The comment was "Don't be surprised when you learn their so-called "chess bots" are actually people, lying hidden below the floor of the passenger cabin, moving pieces with the help of levers and magnets."
That was a joke about the Mechanical Turk (as a response to "I used to fly a lot of Turkish, and their one's laughably bad. If anyone here works for Turkish Airlines, get yourself a better Chess bot"), which is why I said that's what it sounds like and provided the link. "Amazon Mechanical Turk" does not involve hidden people moving the pieces with the help of levers and magnets and has nothing to do with chess bots on Turkish airlines. I posted the link because most people aren't familiar with the Mechanical Turk and would not know what @tomjakubowski's joke referred to.
I'm sorry if you still can't follow, but your failure to comprehend isn't my fault and I'd rather not be insulted for simply posting an informative link because of someone else's misunderstanding so I'm not going to comment further.
You are making unwarranted assumptions here. I read the comments in order.
tomjakubowski joked about the mechanical turk. anematode recognized the reference, you recognized the reference, and I recognized the reference.
But you didn't reply to tomjakubowski as a general explainer to the audience. You replied to anematode. You replied to anematode in a way that suggested they needed the joke explained, even though they not only understood it, they expanded on it.
That's what I didn't comprehend. Why did you reply there and phrase it like that. And you still haven't explained.
Your claim that [["Amazon Mechanical Turk" does not involve hidden people moving the pieces with the help of levers and magnets and has nothing to do with chess bots on Turkish airlines.]] makes it sound like you still don't understand anematode's joke. Amazon's mechanical turk is named after the original mechanical turk. It has very much to do with turkish chess bots.
I know you responded to "sounds like", I'm asking why.
When they said "sounds like", they were acknowledging the mechanical turk joke, and extending it. Your response looks like you're calling them wrong, like why are they talking about amazon, it's actually about mechanical turk! Which would be a deep misunderstanding of their comment.
Could you just say yes or no: When you first replied, did you realize they understood the mechanical turk joke?
You never asked anything, rude boy. All the misunderstanding is yours. I said I wouldn't respond again to your sealioning ... I'll stick to it this time. Over and out.
The sealioning j-a pretends that "Either you're playing around by extending a joke to the point that I can't follow it, or you forgot to read the first sentence of your own article" and all of the rest of his comments aren't rude while playing the "no you" game.
People, even meat-eaters, tend to get much of their protein intake from the long tail of non-meat foods they consume. Lots of foods (especially grains and legumes) have a little bit of protein, and that adds up.
Scale that up to 5000 kcal/day needed for heavy activity (like for an Olympic swimmer) and it still seems like a sufficient, if not excessive, amount of protein: 400g of it. Not even NFL linemen eat that much protein.
Normally gate checking is the better option, but you can't do it when flying with stuff that can't go into a carryon: bottles of wine, firearms, and so on.
reply