|
Ytlaya posted:There is no inherent value to maintaining some sort of high "correct:incorrect ratio" with respect to media and media consumption. Someone can carefully avoid all direct falsehoods and end up believing and supporting a bunch of terrible things because they carry a set of assumptions that make them incapable of correctly interpreting the information they're exposed to. It's better for someone to occasionally have a wrong gut reaction to a misleading headline on Twitter than for someone to carefully parse the news for direct falsehoods while viewing it through the lens of a harmful ideology/worldview. The former isn't even particularly bad as long as the person in question admits when they make mistakes. This is shockingly authoritarian. Human beings have agency, by denying them true information and feeding them lies you are taking away their basic agency. Controlling information in this manner goes beyond controlling people, it takes away their right to even know they're being controlled. There is a reason the control of truth is referenced in 1984 as the ultimate form of authoritarianism. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 14:54 on Apr 30, 2021 |
#
¿
Apr 30, 2021 14:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 19:10 |
|
|
Josef bugman posted:But that isn't inherently good. Agency is not a binary state, "no human being has ever had full agency because they've never had complete truth" is a very reasonable philosophical position. That feeding people lies and controlling their information therefor is not inhibiting their agency is not the logical result of that position. This is like saying no human is truly free so locking them in a 3x3 box isn't removing their freedom.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2021 15:10
|
|
|
Murgos posted:A better model would probably show that the encoding of the information by the transmitter is a source of noise as is the decoding performed by the receiver rather than the noise being purely introduced in the transmission medium. That's not what noise is. Noise is extraneous signals picked up by a receiver. It's not distortion from the transmission medium, it's random nonsense that exists within the transmission medium. It exists distinct from the signal, otherwise it is not noise.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2021 18:17
|
|
|
Murgos posted:You don't think that encoding or decoding a signal can introduce noise? There can be noise within an encoder but that is in context of the encoder. When you analyze a signal noise is additive interference, whether you define something as noise or not is a function of the frame of reference you're doing the analysis under. If I am doing a transmission line analysis of the internal circuitry of the encoder then yes, poo poo like induced currents creates noise in the circuit. Analyzing a transmission you're more likely to consider that part of the transform function of the encoder and classify noise as the additive interference between the transmitter and receiver. We're working with a metaphor here though so I was assuming we're working with an ideal model. In which case it would make more sense to consider the effects of the encoder distortion/artifacts, because in the metaphor they're intended to represent distorting effects of the transformation, not interference.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2021 19:55
|
|
|
Murgos posted:To your point some of the original example in the op is blurring noise and error and so I was following that context to avoid introducing more terms. Yeah, I got that from the original post because of the nature of encoding, but maybe I need to turn the nerd down a little.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2021 20:32
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Transmission and reception effect outcomes but I think they’re not classified as noise. The noise in the example is radium’s coding. Issues of encoding and decoding reflect different error or information types. Radium's coding isn't really an example of noise, as what your referencing is distortion from the medium itself, which is more akin to attenuation. A better example of noise would be a food derail in the middle of your thread.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2021 20:35
|
|
|
Murgos posted:The data at the observer is not just data + noise, it's Frecv(Ftrans(data) + noise)) Yes, exactly this
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2021 20:45
|
|
|
Literally Kermit posted:Hitting “jump to last post” instead of reading hundreds of replies from your last unread post is a form of noise, isn’t it? If you're doing it because of the derails then in this metaphor this would be best conceptualized as the data loss caused by the noise, not the noise itself. Essentially missing the good posts (signal) because they're getting lost when you filter out the derail (noise) by skipping ahead.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2021 20:59
|
|
|
axeil posted:Here's a great example of how to ID bad/manipulative sources. Your time zone math is a little off there, the hill sucks but unless I'm missing something you're off by an AM. Tweet is ~11am EST/ 4pm GMT Impact is listed as 2:24 AM GMT the following day.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2021 20:21
|
|
|
Well maybe I'm the idiot, now I'm just confused.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2021 20:40
|
|
|
fart simpson posted:if you think biden is doing all he can to fix a certain problem with immigration, that means you need to provide evidence. simply declaring that there isn’t any more he can realistically do is not evidence. No, if you claim something exists that's an affirmative claim that needs evidence. In no circumstances does it make sense that you claim generically "a better way exists", not even state what that better way is, and then it's on other people to prove every possible permutation of that idea false. That's not even getting into the issues with demanding proof of negatives. It has nothing to do with assumptions, one is a null claim because it's the observable reality.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2021 16:37
|
|
|
fart simpson posted:yeah well, this is very obviously not some sort of consistent standard that gets applied regardless of the ideology of the people engaging with each other. you don’t need to look further than this forum and the ways it has engaged in this very issue over the last year. This is word salad, whether something is done "unilaterally" is a pretty important distinction to make when discussing political possibilities so I don't know what you are talking about calling it a straw man. That doesn't even make sense.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2021 17:21
|
|
|
Sekhem posted:If Vox's arguments were accurate, the model wouldn't be able to directly fail to explain events in the way you're describing, it would simply fail to commit to a stance which could be tested in this way. This isn't what being falsifiable means. It's unfalsifiable because the assessment criteria are utterly subjective and structured in such a way as to almost guarantee confirmation bias. "failing to explain something" as you're using it is completely based on your subjective opinion of what constitutes an adequate explanation of an event, and your subjective opinion of what the "truth" of that event is. Jarmak fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Jun 28, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2021 20:04
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:I listed 4 examples in the post you quoted: The field of psychology, dark matter, dark energy, and String Theory. Those are actually all falsifiable (or more accurately contain falsifiable work). Falsifiability in the context of judging the scientific rigor of a theory is about whether the theory/model is intrinsically unfalsifiable. A concept being intrinsically unfalsifiable is not the same thing as there being no current means of falsifying it. edit: Because things like "do we have the sensors to see it" is an extrinsic factor.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2021 00:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 19:10 |
|
|
Red and Black posted:Nice evasion! I see you don’t have a response to the clear double standard applied with respect covering genocide. If the press had been “straight forward” with respect to Yemen they would have called it what it is: a genocide. I feel like I'm having a flashback to the whole "why won't Obama say radical Islamic terror" episode.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2021 14:05
|
|