adekok

It's incredible to read your story. I'm sorry for what you went through.

It also re-affirms my belief about the solution:

> But I decided to do no harm. I started thinking about it as a sort of superpower I have, one that must be used with great care and responsibility.

i.e. Accept it, and deal with it.

This is huge. Most sufferers find that impossible. Because....

> you have to acknowledge and face the pain you've caused, which can result in unbearable guilt.

It can get better. Living a quiet life is better than a life full of extreme highs and lows. It feels emptier, because it isn't full of drama. But it's how most people live.

I'll agree, with the caveat that perhaps if the BPD person admits they have BPD, is in therapy, and is trying to get better... sticking around may be OK.

But it's no different than when someone has alcoholism or a drug habit. If they don't want to get better, get out.

I don't have enough upvotes for this.

Or working with someone who has BPD. They don't get anything done. They play office politics to a ludicrous degree. They blame everyone else for anything that happens. But they know who to suck up to, and they know how to make it look like they're getting work done. So they don't get fired.

Keep a relationship or a job means nothing unless you ask everyone else if they're getting better. If the answer is "OMFG I'm still walking on eggshells around that person", then they only progress they've made is to fool the therapist.

> At which point...

They have more data than they do now for machine learning, and a better PR story.

i.e. uploaders can't be mad about the categories, because the categories are chosen by the uploader.

Uploaders can be mad about Youtube double-checking the categories and getting it wrong... which is less likely to happen if they have better data for machine learning.

What, exactly, is the down side of that?

> Tracking categorization abuse seems straightforward in theory but good luck automating that reliably over millions of videos

Is Youtube (a) automating video categorization now, or (b) not automating video categorization?

> People will start using the "blood and violence" category exclusively if it means they're less likely to be demonetized, rendering it useless

No... it means that the advertisers can determine whether or not they want to monetize ads in that category.

So there would be no "demonetize EVERYTHING", just categories that advertisers can choose to place ads on, or not.

I think you're assuming that a different system would work exactly the same as the system works today. That isn't the point...

> there is no incentive to not put your videos in as many categories as possible.

We are talking about how to incentivize people here... why suddenly decide that there's magically "no incentive" for something?

Youtube is free to also de-incentivize people for using the wrong category.

I never understood why Youtube didn't have uploaders select various categories for videos. It would do a number of things:

* allow them to demonetize / ban / block videos for abuse of categorization

* train machine learning on the various categories

It's a lot more socially palatable for Youtube to say "Hey guys, we HAVE a blood and violence category, but you didn't use it for this video. So we'll punish you for that."

Instead, we get programming videos getting demonetized / blocked for god only knows what reason. That makes people made, and is bad press.

> Let's talk about how the ubiquitous use of SSN and credit reports puts a massively unfair burden on every US citizen.

In France, private credit bureaus don't exist. It's up to banks to track these things.

The country seems to work fine.

It's pretty difficult to double that number. Can you really double your metabolism without ill effect? Or without massively changing your lifestyle?

The normal expectation is maybe 10-25% change. Any more than than would require things likes 8 hours of exercise per day.

2 pounds a day. That's how much CO2 you breath out, and the hard limit for weight loss.

You can lose more than that, (see boxers before a weigh-in), but that's all water loss, and is temporary. And, with a strong likelihood of death.

> Okay, I think I see what you mean now. It's a bit hard to see

I must admit to not understanding how it's difficult to see the correlation. If bail is set on factors X, Y, and Z, AND those factors are shown to be biased, then by definition, bail is also biased.

> since you're so focused on gender bias.

That's just a weird statement to make. The research shows bias and I quoted the research... how does that make me "so focused" on gender bias?

> it's not adding new bias.

That is a good point, but continuing existing bias is a serious problem.