slurm posted:

He got the contract for Rocket Cargo which is the surface-to-surface Starship. That would be a pretty big logistical capability for Russia in somewhere like Kherson where they've been having trouble with bridges or conventional air logistics.

cgeq posted:

Are you sure? Cable TV seems much better than Youtube. I mean, maybe it doesn't prevent the creation, but it should hobble its ability to spread and snowball and thus make it easier to moderate.

cgeq posted:

Are you sure? Cable TV seems much better than Youtube. I mean, maybe it doesn't prevent the creation, but it should hobble its ability to spread and snowball and thus make it easier to moderate.

cgeq posted:

Are you sure? Cable TV seems much better than Youtube. I mean, maybe it doesn't prevent the creation, but it should hobble its ability to spread and snowball and thus make it easier to moderate.

cgeq posted:

Oof, I dunno. I think proper moderation is the easiest solution, but I'm ignoring that because the companies don't want it and no one's going to make them do it. All parties seem like they would rather just burn it all to the ground rather than put any effort into a workable solution.

So accepting that handicap, what options do the platforms have besides serving content randomly or getting sued?
I just think back to early internet days. Maybe it's just simple sorting and filters. Add to that some sort of tagging system to help connect people deliberately searching for something to that content.

cgeq posted:

I'm not saying any of this is good but it should get the platform off the hook for "editorializing" and it would still provide users with a (horribly lovely... or maybe just old-fashioned) way to access content. It would completely change the entire ecosystem and the business model of the platform and content creators. The internet ad market would lose a huge revenue channel. But it's an option that achieves the goals and probably still leaves society better off.

Robviously posted:

My guess is he just figured out something that's going to end up coming out in discovery of the lawsuit that he wants to get around.

evilweasel posted:

yeah, I would also say that "this poorly thought out product design causes measurable harm" is the essence of products liability, and there's not really a good reason it shouldn't apply to the recommendation algorithms.

Paracaidas posted:

Do we have other examples of companies being liable for the measurable harm of a third party's products? Not trying to be cute, just unfamiliar with similar situations.

Paracaidas posted:

"Proper moderation" to prevent hosting the video in this case, on the scale of Youtube (to say nothing of tiktok, fb, and other socials), approaches a global full employment plan.

PhazonLink posted:

Fox News viewership is trending up into the mid 70s now, he's radicalizing old people?

evilweasel posted:

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

Big government's ban on flavored tobacco products and advertising to children is taking Juul into bankruptcy.

This is a "restructuring" bankruptcy proceedings and not a "liquidation to pay creditors" bankruptcy proceeding.

https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/1577497576504434690

A big flaming stink posted:

Regarding Elons plan:

https://twitter.com/silviakillings/status/1577375795424673814?t=ly1_2jIwFTKSuZogu6Na2w&s=19

He'll only buy Twitter at the original price if the lawsuit against him is dismissed.


Even for Elon this is transparently stupid

E:

https://twitter.com/chancery_daily/status/1577377535255613442?t=vUkWbzgAPlkTF5QFjRQPtg&s=19

Yeah, there it is, Elon's proposals still says he retains the right to pursue his counterclaim if anything interferes in the timely closing of the deal.

Baronash posted:

The idea that YouTube doesn’t bear an editorial responsibility for the suggestions generated by its recommendation engine seems bizarre to me. Of course they do, because the decision to turn recommendations over to a black box (it’s not a black box, YT just wants you to believe it is) is itself an editorial decision that they are culpable for.

And fixing that doesn’t mean banning all algorithms, whatever that means. I think one of the primary criteria ought to be whether the recommendation is user directed, such as a search results or channel subscriptions. Compare that to most of YouTube’s recommendations, which are shoved in your face whether you want them or not. That doesn’t get rid of the objectionable content (which should still be a priority), but it would prevent your interest in gaming videos from being an on-ramp into right wing content without some effort on your part.

Baronash posted:

The idea that YouTube doesn’t bear an editorial responsibility for the suggestions generated by its recommendation engine seems bizarre to me. Of course they do, because the decision to turn recommendations over to a black box (it’s not a black box, YT just wants you to believe it is) is itself an editorial decision that they are culpable for.

And fixing that doesn’t mean banning all algorithms, whatever that means. I think one of the primary criteria ought to be whether the recommendation is user directed, such as a search results or channel subscriptions. Compare that to most of YouTube’s recommendations, which are shoved in your face whether you want them or not. That doesn’t get rid of the objectionable content (which should still be a priority), but it would prevent your interest in gaming videos from being an on-ramp into right wing content without some effort on your part.

Randalor posted:

And now he wants them to drop the lawsuit on the promise that he won't immediately shout out "Syke!" and run out of office the moment the lawsuit is dropped?

Tuxedo Gin posted:

Youtube and their algorithm are INSANE. Anne Reardon (very famous debunker of all the bullshit algorithm exploiting 'hack' videos) did a video about how dangerous fractal wood burning is and how it was causing deaths. Youtube's algorithm banned her video warning not to try to extremely dangerous thing but left all the videos describing in detail how to take apart a microwave and use electricity to burn wood.

Here's her talking about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZrynWtBDTE

Devor posted:

I don't see any sense to a system where "surfacing" a video to a user in any fashion (algorithm or otherwise) should give heightened liability (damages is a different argument, but if the threshhold liability isn't met, damages are moot).

If the hosting of an underlying video would not incur liability on the host - but the instant it makes a video "viewable" to someone browsing the site, you have created a blind document repository that loses most of its value to the host. YouTube is not a viable business if it's 100% private links that are shared on other sites (not to mention those other sites would soon crack down on sharing these dangerous YouTube links).

lobster shirt posted:

if he did that Twitter would just sue him again, in the same court, and I doubt the chancellor would be very amused about the situation. Does not seem like a good idea.

Randalor posted:

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't he currently being sued to force him to purchase Twitter, because he tried to back out of purchasing Twitter, after he had already signed the binding agreement to purchase it?

And now he wants them to drop the lawsuit on the promise that he won't immediately shout out "Syke!" and run out of office the moment the lawsuit is dropped?

I mean, there's literally no way out of buying twitter unless they drop the lawsuit at this point, right?

Please correct me on any of this that I got wrong, this whole story is exceedingly stupid and has been going on for far longer than I care for anything involving Musk or Twitter to be taking up any space in my brain. I just want this story to end so I can have a hearty laugh at someone's misfortune and promptly stop giving a gently caress about Musk or Twitter again.

Clarste posted:

Yeah, but imagine that instead of a rational human being you are Elon Musk.

lobster shirt posted:

yes but presumably he has lawyers advising him. I think it's far more likely that due to some combination of not wanting to lose at trial, not wanting to be deposed, and not wanting any more embarrassing texts/emails/information to come out, Musk has basically decided to surrender and buy Twitter as he originally signed a binding agreement to do. And anyway with Twitter stock up so much since this announcement, he isn't paying quite so high a premium on the share price. Great job buddy!

Epic High Five posted:

God willing the courts force him to take ownership and he does something good for once in shuttering the whole thing out of spite.

Kavros posted:

I honestly don't know what he's going to do. To greatly oversimplify it, he's got to wring more out of twitter than it already (arguably unsustainably) makes ... way more ... just to service the debt he puts himself in to pay off the purchase.

What's he going to do, cram even more ads on there and accelerate viewership decline? poach even more user data and sell it to the absolute worst people? How do you wring blood from the stone? There's absolutely no way he gets away ahead on this. Forget the myth of the self-made billionaire, he's the self-owned billionaire

Epic High Five posted:

There's a very real chance that the lawyers advising Musk here are the ones who DM'd him on Twitter after he said he was looking for bare knuckle brawler lawyers or whatever nonsense he phrased it with.

Randalor posted:

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't he currently being sued to force him to purchase Twitter, because he tried to back out of purchasing Twitter, after he had already signed the binding agreement to purchase it?

And now he wants them to drop the lawsuit on the promise that he won't immediately shout out "Syke!" and run out of office the moment the lawsuit is dropped?

I mean, there's literally no way out of buying twitter unless they drop the lawsuit at this point, right?

Please correct me on any of this that I got wrong, this whole story is exceedingly stupid and has been going on for far longer than I care for anything involving Musk or Twitter to be taking up any space in my brain. I just want this story to end so I can have a hearty laugh at someone's misfortune and promptly stop giving a gently caress about Musk or Twitter again.

Kavros posted:

I honestly don't know what he's going to do. To greatly oversimplify it, he's got to wring more out of twitter than it already (arguably unsustainably) makes ... way more ... just to service the debt he puts himself in to pay off the purchase.

What's he going to do, cram even more ads on there and accelerate viewership decline? poach even more user data and sell it to the absolute worst people? How do you wring blood from the stone? There's absolutely no way he gets away ahead on this. Forget the myth of the self-made billionaire, he's the self-owned billionaire

Kavros posted:

I honestly don't know what he's going to do. To greatly oversimplify it, he's got to wring more out of twitter than it already (arguably unsustainably) makes ... way more ... just to service the debt he puts himself in to pay off the purchase.

What's he going to do, cram even more ads on there and accelerate viewership decline? poach even more user data and sell it to the absolute worst people? How do you wring blood from the stone? There's absolutely no way he gets away ahead on this. Forget the myth of the self-made billionaire, he's the self-owned billionaire

quote:

Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, on Friday signed the Freedom to Walk Act, which allows pedestrians to cross the street outside of an intersection without being ticketed, as long as it’s safe to do so. Until now, jaywalkers in California could receive a fine of up to $198, which could end up costing even more in court fees.

As with many minor offenses, enforcement had often proved arbitrary and discriminatory. In one high-profile 1991 case, rapper Tupac Shakur was stopped by Oakland police for jaywalking and, he alleged in a lawsuit that was settled for $42,000, cuffed and choked until he passed out, and was jailed.

L.A.’s population is only 9% Black, but “in L.A., nearly a third of pedestrians issued jaywalking tickets over the last decade were Black,” LAist reported in 2021.

But that’s about to change, although police officers can still stop pedestrians from jaywalking if they are creating an imminent risk of collision with an automobile.

This is already the unofficial norm in many large cities, and it was once the norm throughout the country, including in California. Photos of urban streets from the early years of the 20th century — including West Coast cities such as San Francisco — show the road filled with people alongside horse-drawn carriages.

“When you visit any city in America today, it’s a sea of cars, with pedestrians dodging between the speeding autos,” Smithsonian magazine reported in 2014. “It’s almost hard to imagine now, but in the late 1890s, the situation was completely reversed. Pedestrians dominated the roads, and cars were the rare, tentative interlopers.”

But in the 1920s and ’30s, as cars rose in popularity and deadly collisions with pedestrians became a widespread problem, auto companies successfully lobbied local governments to outlaw crossing outside of intersections and without a green light.

“Their most brilliant stratagem: To popularize the term ‘jaywalker,’” Smithsonian wrote. “The term derived from ‘jay,’ a derisive term for a country bumpkin. In the early 1920s, ‘jaywalker’ wasn’t very well known. So pro-car forces actively promoted it, producing cards for Boy Scouts to hand out warning pedestrians to cross only at street corners. ... Only a few years later, in 1924, ‘jaywalker’ was so well-known it appeared in a dictionary: ‘One who crosses a street without observing the traffic regulations for pedestrians.’”

In the decades since, cities have largely been built to accommodate cars more than people. The result is that Americans drive a world-leading 16,000 miles per person every year. That’s why transportation is the largest source of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions that are causing climate change, and it is one reason the United States has one of the highest emissions per capita in the world.

Now, climate-minded jurisdictions are beginning to unwind car culture and encouraging residents to use cleaner modes of transportation like bicycles and their feet.

“It should not be a criminal offense to safely cross the street,” said California Assembly Member Phil Ting, a Democrat from San Francisco, who sponsored the Freedom to Walk Act. “When expensive tickets and unnecessary confrontations with police impact only certain communities, it’s time to reconsider how we use our law enforcement resources and whether our jaywalking laws really do protect pedestrians. Plus, we should be encouraging people to get out of their cars and walk for health and environmental reasons.”

Advocates argue that criminalizing pedestrians hasn’t worked and that cities should instead improve pedestrian safety with traffic-calming measures that will force cars to slow down and proceed more carefully.

“California’s pedestrian fatality rate is almost 25% higher than the national average, according to the California Office of Traffic Safety,” noted Anne Stuhldreher, who directs the Financial Justice Project in the San Francisco city treasurer’s office, in a 2021 blog post. “But we can’t ticket our way to safer streets. The focus should be on designing smart streetscapes that are people-centric, not car-centric.

“Roadways should have sufficient sidewalks, multiple functional streetlights and abundant safe street crossings. Crosswalks should be broadened, better illuminated and timed to give walkers more time to cross the street.

“Let’s make cars slow down. Install speed bumps. Ban right turns at red lights, which increases pedestrian crashes by 60%.”

The new law follows California’s recent range of actions taken to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, including state regulators making a rule a week earlier banning gas-burning heating and hot water systems as of 2030 and a rule in August that new vehicles sold in the state from 2035 onward must be electric. (On the same day that he signed the jaywalking bill, however, Newsom announced an easing of restrictions on oil refining to allow more polluting types of gasoline in California, in order to ease the state’s high prices at the pump.)

The state Legislature also recently struck a blow against the state’s entrenched car culture in September, when it passed a law eliminating minimum parking requirements for new buildings near public transit stops.

California is not the first locality to decriminalize jaywalking. The state of Virginia did so in March 2021 and it had no discernible effect on pedestrian traffic fatalities through the rest of the year. Kansas City, Mo., fully legalized jaywalking in 2021 and there is not sufficient data yet to determine whether it has affected traffic safety.