|
TheRat posted:What about legislating against the platforms that faciliate and make money off of mass distribution of miss-information/incitement Where do you draw the line though? Most of the MSM do this. And you can bet your bottom dollar that it won't be those that are gone after but the independent bloggers who highlight state-approved lies that will be crushed. And while I'm guessing most ITT are pro-vaccine, if we move outside that sphere into more political areas, it would be dangerous ground indeed. Eg why are all MSM reports of incidents Israel/Gaza framed with headlines such as 'Israel bombs crap out of Gaza after rocket is fired from Gaza' instead of 'following the Israeli shooting dead of farmers, fishermen, medics, a Gazan chucked a rocket and then Israel used that as an excuse to bomb the poo poo out of Gazans yet again'. And any reports that start life with the Israeli inciting incident soon get their headlines changed to start with the rocket incident instead. Any 'independents' reporting from the inciting incident would get terminated pdq. Jaeluni Asjil fucked around with this message at 13:02 on Jan 6, 2021 |
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 12:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 23:17 |
|
|
The EHRC refused to investigate tory islamophobia but did investigate Welsh and Scottish universities for anti English bias.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 12:57
|
|
|
TheRat posted:What about legislating against the platforms that faciliate and make money off of mass distribution of miss-information/incitement This. You don't legislate against individual speech, you legislate against platforms with a defined level of reach that publish it uncritically and/or without context. The issues we have with social media today are the same issues we've had with press regulation for the last X years. But like others have pointed out, until we have a government that's actually interested in holding powerful people to account that isn't going to change. I don't see how criminalising (for-example) individual anti-vaxx speech changes anything for the better. Guavanaut posted:does that mean that you just throw your hands up and allow people to incite any shite on youtube? No to YouTube, yes to coolfreevideos69.com until they approach a specific level of reach/turnover (I think I've seen some proposals of eg 50,000 monthly active users) Edit: vvvvv we already have active non-bot moderation, it'd be fine. blunt fucked around with this message at 13:12 on Jan 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 13:02
|
|
|
blunt posted:This. You don't legislate against individual speech, you legislate against platforms with a defined level of reach that publish it uncritically and/or without context. No to SomethingAwful, yes to the UKMT?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 13:07
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:This is a problem that has been raised by the EFF, that BAME and LGBT people are more at risk of prosecution under hate speech laws than Toby Young is, because our government and society in general is more systemically biased against them, and because as individuals they usually have less resources to fight it, but does that mean that you just throw your hands up and allow people to incite any shite on youtube? I'm not saying that free speech shouldn't be restricted btw, just that the state is loving poo poo at it
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 13:10
|
|
|
I never expected anyone to ever do a cover of a Wild Man Fischer song, and especially not as a tv show intro! This is the original, from 1968: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHqR1Rql5r8
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 13:11
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Because the order is <multiplications and divisions> then <additions and subtractions>, not literally what BODMAS says. That's a problem with teaching that acronym specifically not operator precedence (as, indeed, the article states). The problem you run into with the facebooky questions is usually more about what the "Brackets" operation means. Say the problem is 2 / 3 ( 2 + 1) = ? OK, so first it's the "brackets" operation. Some people think this means "perform any operations within the brackets, then remove the brackets". Others think this means "multiply out any factor directly adjacent to the brackets, perform any operations within the brackets, then remove the brackets". So group 1 solve the problem as: 2 / 3 ( 3 ) = ? 2 / 3 * 3 = 2 Group 2 solve the problem as: 2 / ( 6 + 3 ) = ? 2 / 9 = 0.22 recurring Group 1 is "conventionally" right, but what trips up group 2 is that these sorts of x(a+b) constructions don't start appearing until you are doing algebra, usually several years after you learn order of operations, so you don't actually get formally taught where "number adjacent to a bracket with no operation symbol" sits in the order of operations, and by the time you get to doing alegebra, any question involving a factored bracket is either testing your ability to multiply out a bracket or expecting you to cancel out an unknown term from both sides, so the question is always going to be constructed such that one of those things is necessary. So it's not unreasonable for pupils to assume that multiplying out a factored bracket sits in the B operation, not the M operation, and they're never going to encounter a problem in school which teaches them that's wrong, because teachers and textbook writers are not setting out to write ambiguous order of operations problems and so 99% of the time group 1 and 2 will arrive at the same answer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 13:15
|
|
|
Borrovan posted:People always bring hate speech laws up as an example of a "good" restriction on free speech, which they are in theory, and yet when open fascists hold public rallies to deliberately incite racial hatred and/or acts of terror the state sanctions & physically protects them Areas where that doesn't necessarily apply are matters of speech where it's entities with comparable power to the state creating the speech, like with tobacco harm denial. In those cases it's no big to ignore the random pub dickheads while slapping the big businesses and their 'organic' support groups with fines.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 13:18
|
|
|
Jaeluni Asjil posted:There's some disagreement here: I'm not a maths man but I have an issue with the first "erroneous" example the writer gives: 1 - 2 + 4 Which they say the correct value is 3. Why is it three? Other than the author saying it should be 3, and not -5, to prove their point that BODMAS (apparently) doesn't 'work'. Again, no real background in maths, but isn't 'work' pretty subjective in this instance (i.e. what you want the answer to be)?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 13:18
|
|
|
Instagram and Twitter's flags on misinformation already get applied regularly to left wing posts saying stuff this thread would consider to be obviously true. Handing these platforms the legal responsibility to moderate political speech is a dangerous path for anyone with even vaguely non-mainstream views.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 13:19
|
|
|
Because if you have 1 thing and take away 2, you have -1 things, and add 4 you get 3, or more intuitively if you have 1 thing and add 4 you have 5, then take away 2 you have 3. Or 4 things and take away 2 you have 2 and add 1 you have 3. It works whatever order you put them in, which you have to assume is the case without any brackets. 1 - (2 + 4) would get you -5.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 13:21
|
|
|
EvilHawk posted:I'm not a maths man but I have an issue with the first "erroneous" example the writer gives: It's three because you are adding -2, which means you go 1 -> -1 -> 3
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 13:21
|
|
|
It's kind of arbitrary but it's the convention among all mathematics that it works that way
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 13:26
|
|
|
EvilHawk posted:I'm not a maths man but I have an issue with the first "erroneous" example the writer gives: Because contrary to what BODMAS suggests, addition and subtraction have the same precedence so you simply work left-to-right.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 13:26
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Because if you have 1 thing and take away 2, you have -1 things, and add 4 you get 3, or more intuitively if you have 1 thing and add 4 you have 5, then take away 2 you have 3. Or 4 things and take away 2 you have 2 and add 1 you have 3. It works whatever order you put them in, which you have to assume is the case without any brackets. I hadn't considering changing the order of the sum. That makes sense, thanks! Anyway ghouls in the Commons are currently asking why Boris is imposing a "malicious" lockdown this is the normal state of our democracy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 13:27
|
|
|
Bless My Dear Aunt Sally
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 13:27
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:The problem you run into with the facebooky questions is usually more about what the "Brackets" operation means. Say the problem is It's also worth pointing out that in almost all programming (Matlab and the like excluded) the answer is that that's two values, 2 / 3 and (2 + 1), or a syntax error. And even in cases where it's interpreted as multiplication I don't think it would always be consistent. e: and that's ignoring potential integer division Private Speech fucked around with this message at 13:39 on Jan 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 13:36
|
|
|
Convex posted:We lost our measles free status because of these idiots, it's comparable to promoting terrorism in terms of social impact imo and should be treated the same way. Not 100% sure whether criminalisation is the best approach though. Education is probably more likely to have a lasting impact I'd say in the case of antivax, you'd actually probably go on the health-related endangerment - same kind of ruling as shouting fire in a crowded building. It would be an extremely difficult one to thread legally, but it is it's own special class of disinformation beyond political disinformation, and it's going to be one of the biggest challenges to deal with for the future, so much of what we're dealing with now is because of the ease of spreading brainworms.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 13:40
|
|
|
sebzilla posted:Bless My Dear Aunt Sally Brackets, Exponents, Products, Sums. I think there's an interesting intersection between the facebook semi-trolling "only genius can kno number" posts and what free speech is protected in that there will always be a mess until an algorithm can tell the difference between a sincerely held (but problematic) opinion and trying to start one of those arguments, which is unlikely. Anyway let me tell you how the superiority of Reverse Polish Notation would solve all this...
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 13:40
|
|
|
^^^ OMG I was just writing this post when I refreshed the page! This has reminded me of Reverse Polish Notation calculators. I accidentally bought one in my youth when calculators were new and shiny and never got to grips with it. quote:In reverse Polish notation, the operators follow their operands; for instance, to add 3 and 4, one would write 3 4 + rather than 3 + 4. If there are multiple operations, operators are given immediately after their second operands; so the expression written 3 − 4 + 5 in conventional notation would be written 3 4 − 5 + in reverse Polish notation: 4 is first subtracted from 3, then 5 is added to it. An advantage of reverse Polish notation is that it removes the need for parentheses that are required by infix notation. While 3 − 4 × 5 can also be written 3 − (4 × 5), that means something quite different from (3 − 4) × 5. In reverse Polish notation, the former could be written 3 4 5 × −, which unambiguously means 3 (4 5 ×) − which reduces to 3 20 − (which can further be reduced to -17); the latter could be written 3 4 − 5 × (or 5 3 4 − ×, if keeping similar formatting), which unambiguously means (3 4 −) 5 ×. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_Polish_notation Jaeluni Asjil fucked around with this message at 13:44 on Jan 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 13:42
|
|
|
sebzilla posted:Bless My Dear Aunt Sally Poor you. Do you want a paper towel?
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 13:46
|
|
|
RPN is a stack-based notation, which is something that makes sense to programmers, and, well, that's about everyone it does to. Maybe mathematicians and the like too. The idea is you have a stack of numbers, and putting in a number you "push" it on to the stack, and by using an operator you "pop" the last two off the stack and push the result on the stack. so: Stack = [3], Stack = [3, 4], Stack = [3, 4, 5], Stack = [3, 20], Stack = [-17], Result = -17 Private Speech fucked around with this message at 14:00 on Jan 6, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 13:46
|
|
|
DaWolfey posted:I never expected anyone to ever do a cover of a Wild Man Fischer song, and especially not as a tv show intro! I had no idea this was a cover and I have a new favourite artist now, so thanks!
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 13:51
|
|
|
I love the absolute inevitability of a conversation starting with "lol all these Facebook people get this poo poo wrong" and instantly devolves into holy war.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 13:52
|
|
|
Jaeluni Asjil posted:^^^ OMG I was just writing this post when I refreshed the page! What I wanted was a TI-83, because if my phone can emulate a Mega Drive and Super Nintendo, surely it could emulate a graphing calculator from the 90s. But all the emulators were bad at the time, so a friend recommended an HP 48 emulator as being capable of doing what I wanted, and it was a lot better and looked like someone had redesigned a scientific calculator for a phone screen rather than just copy/pasting a picture of a calculator. Took a while, but I think I'm faster at that than I am with standard phone calculator now, and as such use the countless seconds saved by not having to press the equals button to start internet arguments about the superiority of not having to press the equals button (not really, but it is neat).
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 13:52
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:I love the absolute inevitability of a conversation starting with "lol all these Facebook people get this poo poo wrong" and instantly devolves into holy war. I can't tell if you're talking about free speech or deliberately ambiguous puzzles here
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 13:54
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:I love the absolute inevitability of a conversation starting with "lol all these Facebook people get this poo poo wrong" and instantly devolves into holy war. Don't mention airplanes on treadmills
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 13:58
|
|
|
Private Speech posted:RPN is a stack-based notation, which is something that makes sense to programmers, and, well that's about everyone it does to. And to computers of course, which is why early calculators had it. It's real easy to implement in a small space.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 13:59
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I have one on my phone. You've just reminded me that I got sent this fancy new calculator casio fxcg50 for free (RRP £99) to try out before the summer. It does fancy 3D graphs and so on. I need to learn how to use it. As I couldn't figure it out after half an hour playing, I put it in a drawer and forgot about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 13:59
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:And to computers of course, which is why early calculators had it. It's real easy to implement in a small space. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 14:01
|
|
|
Wow those guys can't do anything right
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 14:24
|
|
|
goddamnedtwisto posted:I love the absolute inevitability of a conversation starting with "lol all these Facebook people get this poo poo wrong" and instantly devolves into holy war.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 14:27
|
|
|
Starmer v Boris has always been realigning the UK to Authoritarian v Libertarian flavours of an already authoritarian failing state So your choice is gonna be whether we prosecute antivaxxers but things still get worse or whether we shrug and say its a free monarchy while things get worse
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 14:35
|
|
|
I don't think Starmer realises he's there as managed opposition. I think he genuinely thinks he's doing the best he can and is taking a principled stand, not realising that his principles have zero foundation in terms of philosophy or politics. I kind of want to be there if and when he realises. I'd love to see that moment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 14:43
|
|
|
I think he's very principled about cops and jail, in that he loves both.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 14:48
|
|
|
I think the push to realign to authoritarian socialism with national characteristics, where you might get some improved services but within a lovely framework, vs. extreme end-state liberalism, where it's global non-judgmental gently caress-you-if-you're-not-rich (don't mention the systemic aspects of who gets rich) has been going on for a while. Corbyn was the obvious deviation and could not be allowed to succeed, but there's been elements of that going on since the 90s at least, if not since the 60s nationalism/globalization dichotomy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 14:53
|
|
|
Yeah I think he has some very solid principles and we assume he's some useless melt who can't win at our own risk. But then maybe I'm channeling the apprehension of the centrists who thought Corbyn was a secret stalinist schemer rather than a pretty naff substitute teacher.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 14:54
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:I think the push to realign to authoritarian socialism with national characteristics, where you might get some improved services but within a lovely framework, vs. extreme end-state liberalism, where it's global non-judgmental gently caress-you-if-you're-not-rich (don't mention the systemic aspects of who gets rich) has been going on for a while. Corbyn was the obvious deviation and could not be allowed to succeed, but there's been elements of that going on since the 90s at least, if not since the 60s nationalism/globalization dichotomy. I'm not convinced authoritarian national socialism is on the menu. I think it's authoritarian neoliberalism vs Libertarian neoliberalism and whoever wins we lose. I think the labour right consider the battle over labour rights and public services essentially over. Labour rights and unions are bad and inhibit the economy, public services should be run at most with a mixed market.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 14:57
|
|
|
The labour right do, but the labour right are poo poo anyway, the spectrum keeps trying to be realigned to "good public services, but only for us and not them, also authoritarianism to make sure people aren't misusing them" at one pole, vs. "low tax high rent race to the bottom but you can use any wacky races vehicle you want liberalism" at the other, with most positions inbetween.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 15:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 23:17 |
|
|
The only real issue with them FB maths problems that makes them actually confounding even to someone who really knows their maths is the ‘/‘ symbol. No one who needs to do maths that actually matters ever uses it (without brackets anyway, in the case of typing out your sums), because it’s the part which brings actual ambiguity. Is 2/3+1 two thirds add one, or 2 over 4? This is why it should be made a totally invalid way of writing a sum unless used with brackets, with the preference being a fractional form.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2021 15:19
|
|