|
blowfish posted:error 404 http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/02/facebook-and-the-new-colonialism/462393/
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 23:17 |
|
|
Anybody got more detail on what Anand Giridharadas is talking about here? I'm not finding it coming from the outfit he references as a source in the tweet thread. https://twitter.com/AnandWrites/status/1171907210269679618 (subsequent tweet names Elon Musk, Joi Ito, Peter Thiel, Mark Zuckerberg, Priscilla Chan, Michelle Yee, and Reid Hoffman) The Glumslinger posted:Chaser: Crossposting from USPOL: Peep this paragraph in the Uber statement and what it actually links: quote:That legal test, called the “ABC test,” certainly sets a higher bar for companies to demonstrate that independent workers are indeed independent. Under that three-part test, arguably the highest bar is that a company must prove that contractors are doing work “outside the usual course” of its business. Note that none of those "rulings" are actually from a court. One is a guidance document related to unemployment insurance in Vermont. The other two are arbitrator decisions. And there's a paragraph in one of those arbitrator decisions that really stands out: quote:Mr. Gollnick quotes Uber's self-characterization a "everyone's private driver" and similar articulations as evidence that Uber is in the transportation business. The syllogism offered is "Uber is in the business of transporting people [because it has said so]. Gollnick transported some of those people for Uber. There is no distinction between Gollnick's driving and Uber's business of transporting people, thus he must be an employee." This logic is a far cry from Socrates being a man because he is mortal. Mr. Gollnick offers no authority that the implied proposition that Uber's self-characterizations are binding here, and there is no evidentiary support for the assertion that there is no distinction between Mr. Gollnick's driving and Uber's supposed business of transporting people. The most obvious failure of evidence on this point is that it was not shown that Uber workers who are admittedly employees drive passengers. Look at those last two lines. I mean, wow. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 23:40 on Sep 11, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2019 23:36
|
|
|
Twitter has provided additional information regarding what they are doing to handle misleading content, and asking for feedback.quote:The Twitter Rules, the service, and its features are always evolving, based on new behavior we see online. We routinely consult with experts and researchers to help us understand new issues like synthetic and manipulated media. Based on these conversations, we propose defining synthetic and manipulated media as any photo, audio, or video that has been significantly altered or fabricated in a way that intends to mislead people or changes its original meaning. These are sometimes referred to as deepfakes or shallowfakes. The intent would be to handle things like the vid of Pelosi from earlier this year that was slowed down to make her seem like she was drunk.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2019 23:22
|
|
|
Chainclaw posted:The paragraph is never related to the recipe. It's always this. The rest of that relatively short paragraph is about how the recipe is easy comfort food that might not be healthy but helped get the recipe author through bad times after 9/11. It's not a forced 9/11 reference either, because the original source was an NYT newspaper article by that person about therapeutic cooking that was printed a week after 9/11, which happened to include that recipe. Yes, it's a bit overly flowery, but it's one paragraph describing why the recipe may be relevant to the reader rather than a page of irrelevant blogging. https://cooking.nytimes.com/recipes/1017089-maple-shortbread-bars eviltastic fucked around with this message at 19:50 on May 26, 2023 |
|
#
¿
May 26, 2023 19:46
|
|
|
Steve French posted:The better thing: despite the Blind board being empty, the Glassdoor thing has a pretty regular cadence of posts (roughly weekly), and not a single one of them is specific to my company in any way. Totally generic. I'm absolutely convinced they're just auto generating content. A sample: Might not be entirely automated. There are consulting services out there that will have actual human beings fluff out content like this by just working through chunks of their userbase and picking generic content to post or drop in a response from a script.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2024 15:55
|
|