tw000001

>Fast Company [2] writes about this as well: "The ACLU in both tests used an 80% match confidence threshold, which is Amazon’s default setting, but Amazon says it encourages law enforcement to use a 99% threshold for spotting a match

Then this whole thing is potentially misleading because there's a huge difference between 80% and 99%. It's probably nonlinear and they could possibly see their false matches drop to 0. This is not a fair test - or rather, the conclusions are not quite supported by the parameters.

Not that I'm defending police use of facial recognition tech, I think it's abhorrent, though possibly inevitable.

Has anyone actually found any evidence of damage in the field? I did a cursory search but didn't find anything, though the wiki looks pretty corporatized (sanitized). OTOH people do like to claim damage from police more often than honesty would probably dictate...

The first 12 years of your life are spent in the care of (ideally) parents who love you unconditionally and genuinely want you to succeed.

Under psychedelic therapy, you are at the mercy of your therapist. I'm not necessarily saying that these are bad people but a dangerous property of a soft science like psychology is that, in defining what falls within the range of normal the psychological establishment is effectively acting as an arbiter of culture. The particular personality changes that they may collectively recommend won't be necessarily be compatible with one's home culture.

Particularly when you consider that the establishment leans heavily left, meanwhile their views regarding aggression, emotional expression, gender roles, etc are fundamentally in conflict with many core tenants on the right. Learning to be less aggressive or more emotional can put you at a social disadvantage in other societies. Laypeople treat psychology as though its conclusions are as rigorous as physics but that's pure hubris - as evidenced by the thousands of successful cultures around the world with totally different approaches to many of the same issues.

>This is because leaders on the left and right have refused to respond to new data, and are working with the same plans set in March.

As the article somewhat loosely implies, the problem is that all new data becomes suspect when all of our institutions are openly politicized.

You think these biases only exist with respect to COVID? The marginalized right (consider the viceral response you're about to have to reading these next sentences) has been saying the same thing about academia for at least a decade. That goes for climate change and much of modern psychological theory. And no, these aren't extreme far right Nazis/incels as people like to stereotype, these are near center moderates, these are (typically in the minority) doctors, scientists, engineers, this is the so called silent majority that is denied a voice on most modern platforms. And part of the reason that our society is gridlocked is that the majority has decided that this minority is not allowed a voice because in a one dimensional two party system one side falls closer to morally repugnant views, so we throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Our institutions are collapsing because actors are no longer operating in good faith. And those in power believe there are morally justified in suppressing opposing views.

Edit: and I'd like to add, another contribution to gridlock is the tendency for black and white thinking that at this point I'm starting to accept is extremely common human nature - there is a world of nuance between criticism and outright denial that is inevitably ignored almost any time someone expresses criticism for, say, climate change resources or the media (explicitly not scientist) derived predictions.

Yes, and most of them know next to nothing about the drugs they take beyond what their doctors have told them. I've watched this blind faith harm people dear to me on multiple occasions.

These are the same institutions that failed across the board in preparing for COVID. Their recommendations should be scrutinized.

I don't think these drugs should be scheduled but here's a perspective that you're less likely to find online: I would never put myself in a position to be indoctrinated by the modern ideologically slanted American psychological establishment while my guard is down, so to speak.

These kinds of drugs also make people extremely open to suggestion. It's one reason why they are used in, say, cults. We are raised to believe in the authority of institutions and the conditioning is so powerful that when most people read any media that seems authoritative (news, books, Wikipedia, etc) unless they are specifically suspicious of the source, there is rarely an innate drive to question the content. This is especially true of how people treat advice from doctors. Now combine that with alkaloids which directly inhibit neural circuits related to suspicion and defense.

You may agree with the tenets of modern western society now, but it's clear that they have a checkered history (e.g. lobotomy, forced sterilization) and no doubt we will look back on some of today's practices with the same horror (sterilization and genital mutilation for gender dysphoria, for example)...

Point being, anyone undergoing such a treatment should be aware that they are effectively handing over their psyche to another human being who is inevitably influenced in some way by the zeitgeist, and it's hubris to presume that current ideas are correct simply because they are different from ideas past. This is also a potential avenue for mass government indoctrination under the guise of medical treatment. Imagine modern "humane" psychedelic reeducation camps orchestrated by your friendly authoritarian uncle sam!

>>However, as public health advocates, we do not condemn these gatherings as risky for COVID-19 transmission

This post is pretty double speaky because these doctors can't quite come out and say stay home because the virus is still here and dangerous. So they say things which are self contradictory and therefore ultimately meaningless but allow themselves to signal their support for the cause.

It's what happens when your institutions become explicitly partisan.

> conflation of humanities and social sciences.

You've missed the entire point. A sort of conflation is the problem - not by the author, but by people in and around soft sciences and humanities throwing a bit of statistical jazz into their papers and then drawing ostensibly rigorous conclusions which influence social policy.

The reality is that by their vary nature, both soft science and humanities (there is a lot of overlap) cannot be held to the same rigor as, say, mathematics, physics, chemistry. These sciences are pure theory (like gender studies), non experimental (like psychology), and fundamentally unfalsifiable in the majority of cases...but laymen, and apparently government officials, either don't understand or pretend they don't understand - either way shitty policy and legislation is passed and innocent people (society) are worse off frequently.