google internal memo leaked...
- Thread starter HanAholeSolo2.0
- Start date
So you are saying there is a large, symbiotic relationship of people within an "Industry" who have self interest tied to the perpetuation of a belief in something... regardless of whether that something is reality or not.
Apparently we can land a man on the moon Within an inch of where we intended using 1960s technology, but in the modern era we can't detect a climate trend sufficiently without continual, wholesale, manual adjustments to prediction models and data.
In the 1960s, the self-interest of the scientist and engineer was in the safe return of the astronaut. Today, a climate scientists' self-interest tied to the perpetuation of a certain outcome.
*** Addendum... now that I think about it, there are a whole host of social sciences majors and graduates tied to the exact same model of operation.
Huh?
What a convenient, built-in argument against anything you don't like to hear. As opposed to learned people within a specialty working off of basic tenets established by education and observation? There's not one discipline that doesn't do that.
Just stop. You say that whenever the point is something vaguely conservative or you simply agree with it. You more than anyone on this board need to consider grilling up some of your ideological sacred cows.
Both Twitter and YouTube are censoring speech that they deem may be offensive i.e., "hate speech". YouTube is demonetizing accounts of conservative content creators and also making sure none of their stuff pops up as recommended viewing. It's been in the news if you want to catch up on it.
I agree that new platforms will arise but I still think the silo effect will still occur to a great degree. Now, I have no idea if discussion here had any role in your 180 on the Citizens decision but I will say it did contribute to my adjustment on free market health care. Not sure if you remember my previous position to my most recent evolution. I know it's anecdotal to state this is an example of the benefit of hearing opposing viewpoints but I think it's a decent example.
Great post imo, especially regarding education and the need for it. It contributes to my position of the benefit of hearing opposing view points and ideologies because if you are open minded you will take the time to do some research and educate yourself. Hell, even if you are just looking for opposing viewpoints or why the viewpoint is wrong you learn about the viewpoint.
Pffft.
You've long forgotten how to listen, if you ever did know.
Tip #1
Don't default to an emotional response and maybe a dialogue can ensue.
Tip#2
If you are going to make a living on the board being a flamethrower 80-85% of the time, don't be such a Nancy, and discern where points of entry are exist for legit conversation.
Tip#3
If you perpetually fail at #2, you shed any ounce of credibility you have, as your lucid thoughts are drowned by your gibberish and flamethowing.
As a practice, tell me, Sys, a) what don't I like to hear and b) what ideological sacred cows am I harboring?
1. It wasn't emotional. It was downright clinical.
2 and 3. I've taken more hits than Melania's headboard on here and returned a comparatively small fraction. Quit name calling and then claim someone else is emotional. You personally attacked a new liberal poster last week pretty harshly. I don't attack posters that don't attack me. Hell, I don't attack some posters that DO attack me. Okay, I don't generally attack posters that haven't attacked me.
Re: practice. Criticism and different points of view. You need to engage in self discovery by examining yourself as only you can.
One place you might start: Just this morning, you're suspicious of people in a field that create self-interested narratives. But you totally believe political narratives from people that are trying to generate clicks, ratings or get elected. Listen to your own bullshit and set down the dogma that someone else packaged for you so they can make money.
It is a conundrum. I am not convinced that google constitutes a utility justifying government intervention as generally understood by that term. When I think of regulated utilities, I typically (maybe always) see physical infrastructure networks. It is those physical infrastructure networks that constitute a massive barrier to entry into the market justifying government regulation. I just don't see the same type of barriers to entry when it comes to search engine results or the selling of online ads. I'm also not closed off to the idea at all though.
Additionally, as a (pragmatic?, semi? Some type of modifier) libertarian, I am generally leery of government regulation...even when we are talking about obvious utilities. My preferred governmental approach would be towards deregulation (like in the airline industry). I am especially leery of extending the notion of regulated utilities to content providers (search engine results, ads, etc). Raises a large 1st Amendment slippery slope specter to me.
You've given me something to gnaw on and think about. Thank you.
It's an interesting issue. And hard. On one extreme you have something like ISIS recruiting videos that 12 year olds are watching or extremists passing along flat out lies. That's tricky. On the other hand, you have quintessential speech. Plus you have private -- not state - action.
What is your health care evolution?
It really is, and it starts to look really bad when conservatives are getting banned for "hate speech" but ISIS and radical Islam continue to operate unhinged on these platforms.
Going back to non-profit health care which ended in 1973 due to the HMO act. If we want to get serious about taming sky-rocketing costs we need to repeal the parts that made profits for health care services legal. This is a big change in view point on this for me.
The most disheartening thing is the debate/narrative is being framed such that only conservative speech is censored when in reality, libertarian and even center-left speech is now being censored.
Well, oddly enough the "left" has moved so far left that those two are now being lumped in as conservative. We really do live in a period of chaos.
Oh that's right! I meant to address that when you wrote it -- never thought I'd hear that coming from you!
Health insurance makes no sense to me. They produce nothing. Offer no services. They simply broker a service and keep all they can.
But what if it operated on a non-profit basis? I'd like to see heath care operated on a non-profit basis and coops, same for insurance. Is it possible you could see see routine care become affordable then only need insurance for major medical? We never start the conversation with ending profits and I'd like to see that conversation and some models built beginning there.
I think lots of people are slowly coming around to that. I've seen social media chatter where people are dog cussing health insurance. It's been going on quite a while now -- both before and after the ACA the rising premiums were out of control. And meanwhile the health insurance industry is always just killing it financially.
The health insurance industry is about to have a huge target on its back.
@HanAholeSolo2.0
I fully support this kind of thing. Market and public pressure for Google to change their ways over government regulation. If everyone that has a problem with Google stopped using Google services, changes would be made.
It'll take more than demolition of the health insurance industry to bring costs under control. Private insurers get raped because Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements are often falling way short of covering actual costs to provide care these days. You have to take them, but they are money pits.
Also, a system that demands a financial stake from each person covered by government insurance will be required, including those that are low income. When it's nearly free to the patient like Medicaid is, they abuse the shit out of the system and the ones eating those costs are the rest of us. The ACA and it's Medicaid expansion promised fewer ER visits. Instead, they've continued to go up because a copay for a Medicaid ER visit is about $2 all inusive which is much less expensive than the $10 to go to primary care along with some additional copays to cover labs and radiology. Cheaper to go to the ER for everything and you don't have to be inconvenienced with an appointment.
Maybe at some point, hospitals could be required to disclose prices up front. It's literally the only industry on the planet that doesn't provide estimates. My 3 hour cervical fusion after I broke my neck was $145,000. Of course with my insurance and copays, most of that was written off under contractual obligation. But the amount reimbursed by my insurance was more than 3 times what Medicare would have paid. That's the only to make money to stay afloat.
The problem is that most of us are not ideologues and will choose convenience over an ideology. This is what makes the post modernists so powerful. They have completely bought in to their ideology, are organized politically, and are willing to sacrifice for it.
This is why I agree with Han on the religious comparison. It's very apparent and sadly, it's just a rebranding of Marxism.
Stop on by NZPOke... I'll be handing out suckers.
I get that, but at the same time if the public doesn't care enough to do it themselves, maybe it shouldn't get done.
That's my libertarian side coming out, of course.
I do believe we used to.... And maybe still do.... Have laws that prevent one or a few companies from owning all the newspapers and/or media in an area.....
I believe the intent of these laws were to keep one company in an area from censoring context/controlling public opinion....
Now if you agree with the intent of the laws should they not apply to Google.... Facebook... Twitter etc......E.g. They should not be censoring content at all? I'm the should be prevented from doing so
I believe the intent of these laws were to keep one company in an area from censoring context/controlling public opinion....
Now if you agree with the intent of the laws should they not apply to Google.... Facebook... Twitter etc......E.g. They should not be censoring content at all? I'm the should be prevented from doing so
I get it. An equivalent view point of my own is in regards to conscription. It's completely unnecessary. A republic or state worthy of saving will have no shortage of volunteers, the state that resorts to conscription is likely not worthy of saving.
On the other hand, most don't recognize the threat unprovoked. Many only see the threat once directly threatened. So.....
I don't agree with the stated intent of the law, if they existed. 1st Amendment applies to government restrictions on speech....not private. Government restricting non-government entities presence in the marketplace of ideas for fear of censoring content or lessening influence is itself censorship...and the type that violates the 1st Amendment.
That will be a colossal failure. 4chan is mobilizing though. Fun stuff right there.
I started using duckduckgo.com some time back for some search stuff. Not all, but more and more these days. It's amazing what happens when you cut Big Brother Google out of the picture. Search results not connected to the advertising and ideology of Google are much easier and trustworthy to navigate through.
Compare search results for Google and duckduckgo for "Obama illegal immigrants." It's amazing what filters will do to your results.
LOL - second entry on that query for DuckDuckGo: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/aug/8/illegal-immigration-spikes-july/
Hilarious... if it worked (it won't) it would make Google millions - but alas that script is likely already identified and blocked. Keep it coming boyz - making my evening. Long hard day in the trenches, nice way to roll up the evening...
How does knowing your company is an echo chamber for postmodernism and its ideology is anti-science feel?
It feels like you are falling for the false narrative you decry on a daily basis... "anti-science" - laughable. The most data driven company I have ever seen.
