Yes, it's called voting. Unfortunately it seems that in the US the Democrats are more in the pocket of Big Data than the Republicans so it's a choice of 'do I like minorities or privacy more'.
Here's hoping that Trump in his second term hits the digital monopolies with the anti-trust legislation they have been flaunting for the last 10 years.
Just because they are somewhat closer to me socially doesn't mean I want to sell out my freedoms to them.
He could solve that problem by simply ceasing to say and do dumb things. I'm not convinced the media is out to get him, he just shoots himself in the foot about 20 times / day. I wish the news were focused more on policy than politics (though not sure that would help him), but people like drama and news orgs like money.
> he just shoots himself in the foot about 20 times / day
as much as I dislike trump, i do think some of the negative media coverage of him is over the top, and does its part in destroying credibility of real issues. my own gut would be on those '20 times/day' things, probably 5-10 of them are overblown or taken out of context (the 'fist bump' on 9/11 was overblown, imo, when you look at the complete footage and context).
I agree that it's over the top (mostly thinking CNN here) only due to the fact that it seems to be all they ever report on anymore. Some are overblown, it's true, but enough legitimate issues come up daily to fill the news cycle with headlines like "you won't believe what Trump did next!"
> but enough legitimate issues come up daily to fill the news cycle
agreed, but it becomes a bit of "boy who cried wolf!" If everything is 'over the top' and 'worst ever', etc, then nothing is.
there's legitimately enough to be covering about policy and real political issues at stake - the 'fist bump' coverage and 'outrage' from anyone was worse than trivial - it gives cover and legitimacy to the folks who are on the fence about 'fake news' charges.
>agreed, but it becomes a bit of "boy who cried wolf!" If everything is 'over the top' and 'worst ever', etc, then nothing is.
But should we just allow the normalization of such behavior? I don't think so; I think we should continue to call him out on it.
>there's legitimately enough to be covering about policy and real political issues at stake - the 'fist bump' coverage and 'outrage' from anyone was worse than trivial - it gives cover and legitimacy to the folks who are on the fence about 'fake news' charges.
> But should we just allow the normalization of such behavior? I don't think so; I think we should continue to call him out on it.
what behaviour?
let opinion journalism call him out for stuff that is opinionably bad. let fact-based news call him out on 'real' stuff. again, i go to the fist-bump thing (but the 'koi fish food' thing last year fits too) - there's no need for that to be covered by the same folks and with the same level of coverage as state of the union speeches or cabinet appointments.
This is the best example of live by the sword die by the sword [0].
Pay for play is a huge issue in journalism, that he was mocking poor white guys with an interest in gaming is very dickish. Gaming is by far the largest cultural industry [1], more important than Hollywood.
I'm more worried about the billionaires buying failing old newspapers and using them to spout whatever ideology gives them the lowest taxes, but that doesn't mean I can't see why someone might care about their hobby being sold out.
Every community I know that's been started for the goal of 'protecting' some group has ended up as the most toxic tarpit imaginable.
Mastodon seems to be headed in the same direction.
Tone down the rhetoric of protecting peoples feelings and have actual human conversations instead. You will only attract the worst people from both sides of that debate if you keep it up.
You just made me orders of magnitude less likely to use it because all I heard there was "prepare for lots of drama".
Agree. These isolated communities just serve to divide the world more. Mastodon is treating a symptom not a root cause. It’s one solution to the problem of humans being bad to each other: avoidance rather than fighting it head on.
Combine that with the product issues it has in regards to walling off people and ideas, the need to self host (so many wasted resources, not to mention the bar to running one is high), and the extremist admin issues.
ActivityPub is cool. Mastodon is gonna be a flash in the pan methinks. If the protocol catches on and services like Wordpress, Twitter, FB et all begin to adopt it then the individual instances are going to be less attractive.
By then, it seems likely that Canada will be part of the US. Or at least, that the northern US and Canada will have merged. And impacts do seem horrible for Australia.
But damn, war over atmospheric CO2 management. What a trip.
It's like having a bag 1 filled with equal quantities of capsicums, cherries, and apples, then selecting the top reddest 25% of bag 1 and moving them to bag 2.
You will have much less variability of fruit type in bag 2 because you used color selection to fill it (apples and capsicums come in three colors at will be selected 1/3rd the rate of cherries).
That's the whole point of sexual vs natural selection.
> You will have much less variability of fruit type in bag 2 because you used color selection to fill it
Yes, I completely agree with you! You will have much less variability.
However, that's not what the paper argues. The paper argues that you would have more variability.
I'd appreciate you taking a look at the original paper (specifically, the bottom of page 2 [edit: and Figure 1]) and understanding my original argument.
I agree with you that there is a difference in variability between generations.
I agree with you that the variability has been reduced in the second generation.
It seems that we both disagree with the original paper, then, as it states
"If sex A is relatively selective and will mate only with the top most desirable quarter of sex B, then all of the next generation will be offspring of the more variable subpopulation B1"
I am examining the paper and attempting to understand it based on its arguments.
You are critiquing my argument based on what I am saying, not my method.
I argue that you are attempting to frame my critique of the paper based on the desired narrative you wish to pursue, rather than any kind of rigorous or inquisitive method.
If you agree with this analysis, then you will probably continue to disparage my efforts as some kind of attempt as "censorship", furthering your desired narrative.
If you disagree, then I heartily welcome a discussion of the paper.
Besides, the merit of this paper's argument is irrelevant. It could be totally wrong and the treatment it's receiving would still be abhorrent. Getting into the weeds on population genetics might be interesting, but it doesn't make a difference when it comes to the idea that we should debate results, not censor them.
Yes, that is the point here. If the article had been rejected everywhere, debating its soundness would be relevant. But this paper was accepted, and actually published, so that's irrelevant.
No, it wasn't. Only the author can "withdraw" a paper. This paper "vanished" after Benson Farb (Amie Wilkinson's husband) bullied NYJM.
Also, "Did you read the article?" violates HN norms.
Edit: OK, I see that Elsevier uses "withdrawn" as you say,[0] but its criteria are scarcely applicable to the paper in question. Even without getting into the merits, this paper was apparently actually published. Just online, I admit, but they gave him a damn page number!
> Article withdrawal
> Only used for Articles in Press which represent early versions of articles and sometimes contain errors, or may have been accidentally submitted twice. Occasionally, but less frequently, the articles may represent infringements of professional ethical codes, such as multiple submission, bogus claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data or the like. Articles in Press (articles that have been accepted for publication but which have not been formally published and will not yet have the complete volume/issue/page information) that include errors, or are discovered to be accidental duplicates of other published article(s), or are determined to violate our journal publishing ethics guidelines in the view of the editors (such as multiple submission, bogus claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data or the like), may be “Withdrawn” from ScienceDirect. Withdrawn means that the article content (HTML and PDF) is removed and replaced with a HTML page and PDF simply stating that the article has been withdrawn according to the Elsevier Policy on Article in Press Withdrawal with a link to the current policy document.
Science has been hijacked from the inside for a long time now. While it's better than trusting straight up corporate releases, there are thumbs on the scales that push studies to get the results those giving the funding want.
Social science is particularly bad at this, to the point I doubt any research done since the 1950s isn't ideologically tainted, at that time due to the cold war and the need to discredit anything "communist".
Where? The only thing even remotely negative I see in the top comments is questioning why they had so many big names on the board that had nothing to do with startups, biotechnology or medicine.
In hindsight it seems like a way to keep the government away by trying to bribe people in it.
