Been a Pinboard user for several years. Simple and flexible. You can use tags to organize everything or fill in the bookmarks description field and use search. Have over 4,000 URLs saved with no issues. Easy to backup with a one line script.
The other night I watched the 1989 movie [Patlabor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patlabor:_The_Movie) directed by Mamoru Oshii who went on to direct Ghost in the Shell in 1995. The plot is simple and there isn't too much grand philosophy, but the movies was prescient on issues of proprietary software, Internet of Things, urban waste, and Corporate/Government complicity/inaction.
The movie doesn't read as a gritty cyberpunk or even as super cyber/futuristic. It's visually light and the public is optimistic and satisfied with the present. It resembles our present to a certain extent which makes it all the more interesting. Its main divergences from our reality is with the mechs which can be seen as bit of fun or be read as metaphor for technology that is starting to seem divine/magic to all expect for the few technically savvy enough to understand whats going on. I haven't watched the other movies or anime yet, but look forward to checking them out.
[Spoilers] The general plot is.. A genius hacker creates a proprietary operating software(HOS) for a floundering robot/mech company. The company is able to not match competitors in creating robots, but is able to corner the robot OS market. The movie opens with genius hacker committing suicide. Shortly thereafter some robots/mechs sporadically go haywire. You follow from the perspective of a police unit who try to uncover why the robots are acting up and the mystery/motivation of the hacker. A small/funny scene..the police officers are concerned about their mechs own OS fearing that they also run HOS and have been compromised, but their chief engineer reveals that he lied to the higher-ups about installing HOS and chose not to install it because he couldn't see the code inside of it.
The rendered typeface is Stem Text. If you click on an element with the typeface and go to the computed tab that will show you what font-family style is applied.
Though often that flow of information on the internet is through Facebook and they have control over certain information valves as stated by earlier posters.
In application just because a piece of information exists on the internet doesn't mean folks will be exposed to it. Folks values are reflected, but are also molded by the information that is made readily available to them through there internet habits and social network. If entities censor or place greater emphasis on certain streams of information they can attempt to mold the resulting values of users.
There is now a lot of media self created media for gay teens and young adults. Media in that YouTube realm occasionally leaks or crosses lines for folks. Depends upon the channel and upon the particular video. Some channels clickbait with decidedly adult thumbnails and descriptions. For example "Davey Wavey" their channel is mostly NSFW. Issue is some folks don't mark their videos as adult and thus are in younger audience streams. It's really on a channel by channel basis. I haven't dived into that space recently. Though I can see that market effect coming in play incentivizing folks to be more provocative in their thumbnails in return for more views. Nothing necessarily new or unique to the gay community. Main issue is creating lines between adult content and non-adult content and recognizing that channels are inclined to purposefully gray that divide. Channels want to be in larger more public non-adult area, but want to include adult/"clickbait" aspects in there videos to improve view counts.
On the propaganda bit I don't think this effect comes really into play with political/activist videos other than them not accruing as much attention.
On another end. There has been criticism within the gay community and it's objectification of relationships.
This would fall closer to the off/oversharing "Family Vloggers" who shoot daily videos of their families in hopes of turning a profit. Relationships like individuals are spun into brands and are monetized.
I would say they the author dragged the readers into the dark depths of YouTube, but the billions of views on these videos belay that metaphor.
The ending is as pointed as it can be. It's hard to define what the solution is and how to go about dividing up responsibility.
Technology companies create these relatively neutral platforms which then grow and are gamed. In this case these videos are vying for mass attention from children which is subsequently monetized. They optimize, tweak, and mass produce their only paying regard to amount of attention they can secure. Taste, morals, exploitation of children, and everything else are meaningless so long as their videos receive an adequate number of views.
They did a good job of extrapolating this issue to other problem areas such a radical left/right videos or conspiracy videos. Here is an example of this issue in the form of Google results from yesterdays mass-shooting https://twitter.com/justinhendrix/status/927335154707828736
I think the lion's share of responsibility lies with the technology companies and governments. I'm hesitant to have government involved in their inability to keep pace or understand new and developing technologies. It's also hard to define how to solve this problem without censoring speech or disenfranchising it. It's hard for me to define what is the absolute issue and what to call it.
A "seemingly neutral platform" can become corrupted or systematically abused. You constantly need to account for bad actors and gray actors.
"Once again, the view numbers of these videos must be taken under serious advisement. A huge number of these videos are essentially created by bots and viewed by bots, and even commented on by bots. "
That is an important caveat and it's hard to accurately pin down since there is no idea of how many of these views are generated by users or by bots.
For the real view number of billions to be wrong bots need to account for over 90% of the views if we're only considering the two channels the article referenced.
Where are you getting 90% from? There are only a little over 7 billion people on the planet and a little less than half of those have internet connection last I saw. If something got billions of view either the entire internet population watched it, or a smaller group watched it many many times. Sure some things are viral, but what are the odds that they have near 100% penetration or that everyone who sees it just plays it on repeat?
My two year old daughter has watched "Let It Go" 12 times so far today and it's only a little after noon. I could very much see the human target audience of this content watching it on repeat.
Little Baby Bum 13 billion + Blu Toys Surprise Brinquedos & Juegos 6 billion views = 19 billion views. If 90% of those views are from bots that still leaves about 2 billion views from actual people. Not saying there are billions of people watching these videos. I'm saying that even if the vast majority of the views were from bots that still leaves billions of actual views. I would agree lots of folks would play the videos on repeat. The actual number of folks/children in this sort of video matrix would be even trickier to determine.
When I worked in newspaper web tech, I did an analysis of our front end traffic, grouped by IP ranges, user agent claims, and so on. I found that the majority of our bandwidth was spiders and bots. The majority of our hits were also robots. I couldn't do anything about that without big spending with our cache vendor to prevent it.
Honestly — I think there is an easy solution. Require platform vendors use “trusted human” curation for videos shown to children below a certain age.
To avoid having to make a single decision about who constitutes a “trusted human” — democratize the curation process to allow arbitrary numbers of groups of humans to exist where each group can supply only one “kid approved yes/no” recommendation per video.
Then deal with the proliferation and ranking of moderation groups by making each parent manually select the set of agencies which are allowed to mark a video as child viewable. Audit the practices of the most popular agencies to ensure they consist of humans making decisions based on some human notion of child interest.
If there are insufficient numbers of moderation groups, threaten regulation or introduce regulation and provide funding for moderation non profit organizations.
This kind of setup would severely fragment the market for gaming kid psychology and likely ensure insufficient profit motive for it to continue at a meaningful scale.
The solution is simple - remove the public view counts. People (producers and consumers) are unnecessarily over influenced by it. There is a huge global population of semi literate people on the net today that have no concept of how to parse all the information they are seeing. The numbers are their guide posts.
They learn quickly how to pander because the waste majority of content is pandering to the lowest common denominator.
It's a really great game that is best approached without too many spoilers. Know that the game becomes more complex and engaging as it goes on. There is a definite end and takes about 5 hours to complete if played well.
[spoiler]
It's the "Paperclip maximizer" thought experiment put into game form and you play as the AI. The game is divided into roughly three stages. The first you are the AI for some company and are tasked with producing a profit and using the profit to game trust and eventually conquer humanity. The second stage is post-human Earth stage where you convert the planet to paperclips. The final stage involves sending probes to explore space and do battle with rouge AIs and convert the universe into paperclips. There is end where you can select to either defeat the AIs and dismantle yourself into paperclips or you can listen to rouge AIs and start over in an alternative universe with some small modifier edited.
It does a really good job of exposing you to uncommonly large numbers and does a good job of presenting you with massive scale. There is a lot of joy seeing the game become increasingly complex.
"Accept" allows you to restart in another universe with a small bonus, either a parallel one (with +10% bonus to demand) or a simulated one (+10% speed bonus to creativity generation).
Actually, the gamestate is saved in the localstorage. So you could backup it in some text file before testing one option and restoring it to test the other option.
Very active. I use a fair share of them, and they are updated regularly.
On the rare occasion that something breaks (Seti_UI theme, mostly. But to be fair, I installed it when it wasn't stable yet), fixes are often published the next day or at most in the next handful of days. In the meantime you can just disable a plugin and go ahead. But again, it happened rarely to me.
The only problem (that I'm aware of, correct me if I'm wrong) they ran into was the whole deal with Kite basically paying some plugin devs to hide spyware into their code. But that has been handled and solved, and lead to the creation of basic guidelines for plugin developments and extensive discussion of the forum. Devs were very responsive.
I agree it's a very important problem no doubt, but Uber aims to solve it in an exclusive way. Exclusive in that it requires the user to be wealthy and technically proficient enough to own and operate a smartphone. Further Uber, from my understanding, is under no obligation to serve all communities. If an area isn't as profitable as they like they can ignore it.
If a person's _primary_ concern is making mobility more accessible and affordable for _everyone_ especially the most needy then doing that by improving public transportation systems(buses and rail) and systems that are regulated by the governments(New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission). Those systems are obligated to serve the entire public.
The third party service described in the article seems to no longer exist. Though if you look through there support information you can find that you can go to m.uber.com to request a ride. https://help.uber.com/h/b9dc6681-b346-4774-9ab1-ecaa3f22cabe
I still think my point that it requires upfront wealth and technical proficiency is still valid when related to public transportation systems.
Source of your information? Are you saying that over 2.32 billion people don't have access to clean drinking water? That seems way off.
Even though there may 2.32 billion people with smartphones there are large percentages of people who don't even in developed countries. For U.S.in 2015 folks who make less than $30k a year 50%. Folks older than 65 27%. Folks between 50-64 54%. Even if they own a smartphone that doesn't mean that Uber would be accessible to them.
Been a Pinboard user for several years. Simple and flexible. You can use tags to organize everything or fill in the bookmarks description field and use search. Have over 4,000 URLs saved with no issues. Easy to backup with a one line script.
Pinboard also has some good Twitter integrations that might speed up your Bookmarking process https://pinboard.in/faq/#twitter_archive_extent