fuscy

I have no idea what i-shirt is but it's likely that if an user uses copyrighted material for his i-shirt, you'll have to pay because it's your platform. Bonus points for not using a censorship filter in trying to do this.

This isn't the police or the parliament asking for the information. It's the regulatory body that does inspections to companies to see if they respect GDPR.

So the pretext they're using is that they want to see the information to make sure that the news organisation is not selling it or mishandling it to other third parties. In the process, they'll be able to get the information and maybe it will go to the people involved in the corruption charges (which is the head of one part of the Parliament).

This is not related to business but there's a horror story with Romania (it's in the EU) asking a news organization to provide informants information related to some corruption leaks.

The information is requested by the national GDPR enforcer so it bypasses the prevention written in the GDPR about news leaks.

Now there's a trial going around with this which blocked any further spread of that information until it's solved. It can be easily seen how the GDPR can be weaponized.

The idea is not to hold people to their actions for all time. Even people who have been in jail are considered reformed. It's like someone holding you to your words when you were 4 and said you wanted to be an astronaut (maybe).

Well I'd be worried if there's the power with no oversight to request anything from personal nudes to the Coca Cola recipe and Area 51 secrets and then have no repercussions if made public.

TL;DR required. I didn't quite get it from the article. Is Facebook accused of doing something illegal under the laws at the time of the action?

If I were to sue them for anything, do I have any grounds?

China doesn’t have a good track record of policies: the pest control, the one child. One could also argue that their economy is also showing a crisis in the future.

This system if it is unstable and has side effects will probably screw up two generations at least.

The main issue I see is that people with low scores can “infect” other people’s scores. Considering this like a viral phenomenon the score will be impacted starting with family, friends, colleagues, strangers. I can’t see a solution except going the old route of “killing the nine family relations”.

I can see some kind of ghetto of low social score people doing barter and what not.

There are some contradictions like donating blood giving good score but what if for someone with a low score. There goes empathy if punished.

Or some exploits like colluding and creating cartels of increasing social score artificially.

The message being sent seems to be that shining light on government things, a hero makes not.

I'm not going to compare Assange with Superman, but remember that Superman was Clark Kent and he would have also shown the world if someone did nasty things while publicly wearing a halo of virtue (government).

Besides chat, WeChat allows a lot of stuff from hailing cabs, ordering food, doing payments, the sky is the limit because businesses can integrate with it.

On the other hand, I look at all Western social apps and cringe: Facebook made a big deal from launching their instant games for messenger, Twitch from allowing some extra monetization options, YouTube actually reducing opportunities for people to make money.

Look at China with their WeChat, Weibo, bilibili, QQ and many more..

I wish I could open Facebook, start doing a live and people can send me money (red packets, rockets, cute cats, auspicious objects etc.) for doing it, right there.

Meanwhile there's the EU where if you receive 5E, you have the IRS from 28 countries breathing down your neck, asking for their cut, fining you, smacking a GDPR notice because why not and passing legislation to "enable" competitive startups similar to the US (/semi-sarcastic).

Humans are terribly designed for space exploration: die quickly, require sustenance, can't handle high G forces, can't handle radiation.

I always believed that if humanity is to colonize something, it would be through robots that do all the exploring and mining for us.

I never understood why colonizing Mars is needed.

Even if a meteorite hits Earth or Yellowstone erupts, Earth would be more "hospitable" to life than any other planet in our solar system because Earth has a lot of resources that are right under our noses: breathable atmosphere, radiation shielding, easily mined metals and organic matter.

It's much easier to build and maintain a bio-dome in the Sahara desert, Arctic region, Cheyenne mountains or underwater than on Mars.

Earth at it's worst is much better than anywhere else in our solar system.

I'm going to make a supposition here but one of the first things I think they did (especially when trying to fix the AI) was to balance and normalize the data so that there would be no skew between men and women number of records in the data set.

If my supposition is correct then the other parameters are at fault here from which gender and language used stick out.

Another supposition I'm going to make is that they even removed the gender from the data set so that AI didn't know it, but cross-referencing still showed "faulty" results due to hidden bias that the AI can pick up, like language used.

The eye opening thing here is not that the AI failed, but why it failed.

At start the AI is like a baby, it doesn't know anything or have any opinions. By teaching it using a set of data, in this case a set of resumes and the outcome then it can form an opinion.

The AI becoming biased tells that the "teacher" was biased also. So actually Amazon's recruiting process seems to be a mess with the technical skills on the resume amounting to zilch, gender and the aggressiveness of the resume's language being the most important (because that's how the human recruiters actually hired people when someone put a resume).

The number of women and men in the data set shouldn't matter (algorithms learn that even if there was 1 woman, if she was hired then it will be positive about future woman candidates). What matters is the rejection rate which it learned from the data.. The hiring process is inherently biased against women.

Technically one could say that the AI was successful because it emulated the current Amazon hiring status.

I guess about 51% of the population didn't see this coming or they didn't care. I remember the propaganda going on around that time... The best scene was a politician rebutting a scientist because "what does an expert know about anything" especially economics.

I tend to agree with Aristides or Socrates (rip by vote) that people are idiots and democracy can't work without education.. atleast about the issue that is being voted.

I think people had more empathy for the mentally ill before the advent of science or religion.

Science will reduce and dehumanize all that makes that human to a nameless patient file while trying to fix the issues.

Religion might demonize and ostracize.

I feel that before all of this because there was no explanation, the mentally ill were just treated as having a different mindset. I mean.. if we tried to "fix" all the artists that have lived, the world would be a much bleaker and empty place without their art.