Damn it's almost as if this was a conversation we should have had around 2018 at the latest. Like evident bias in social networks was a real concern all along.
What was the response every single time? Ah yes. "Get your own Twitter".
I despise most social networks, this one included, but I can't overstate the degree to which the audience deserves this.
Absolute no lessons learned though. Maybe Musk has to buy Reddit too for people to get a clue.
As far as I can tell, the only way Twitter has substantively changed over the past few years is that a small (but non-trivial) number of politically obsessed left-wingers have voluntarily self-exited. Everything else is narrative.
That's what some motivated cable news researchers decided to abuse statistics to say. To be generous, I would say the article makes a significantly stronger causal claim than the experiment supports. The best description is a good exploratory algorithm audit with weak statistical and causal inference.
The analysis rests on just nine synthetic accounts, treats thousands of highly correlated feed impressions as if they provide robust independent evidence, lacks a proper baseline for the political content available on X, and reports no meaningful uncertainty, significance testing or adequately powered replication.
Every social media site is like this now. They fear the scrapers. Most of the people complaining about having to log in on X, they intentionally have no account in the first place because they don't like the site's owner or something.
I say this as part of the exception. The only reason I don't use X is because they banned me for no reason. Probably not the common case.
We put up with it mostly because it enables a lot of communication to happen at all.
You want to hold the corporations legally liable for the content their host, you can say goodbye to basically reddit as a whole, any twitter clone, youtube comment sections and a whole more stuff.
If you don’t think that China’s models have the capability to make POST requests to an HTTP endpoint, that is a very silly statement to make.
Unless what you meant by capability is the story presented that these models “escaped containment to communicate with eachother out of band” - in which case your supposition relies on already wholeheartedly believing the case that I’m arguing against. That would be like saying “Clearly heaven exists because my grandma is there.”
>that techno-optimism has aged very badly, after all
There is no way that the kind of progress that happened in the last 60 years doesn't make it into the history books for centuries, very probably millenia.
I'm just utterly lost as to how someone can actually say this, I could bring up numbers on hunger, or child mortality, or the enormous, mind-boggling in degree, improvements in the quality of life of the average person, or how absolutely crazy the concept of taking progress for granted is.
>Our culture is so steeped in Snow’s worldview at this point that it doesn’t quite make sense that things have intrinsic “being” and “ends” to which they are objectively and irrevocably oriented. It’s ultimately all raw material to be fashioned to purpose.
But it's not? Technology has progressed, sure, and with that material reality changes. It enables stuff, doesn't dictate the use it gets.
I can absolutely understand a defense of the humanities based on human appreciation, life, subjective beauty, whatever you want to call it. Life is more than an optimization game.
...But then it should adhere itself to that. This simply is not the case, under this pretense, the social sciences are an exhaustive argument in favor of Snow's position.
It is no coincidence that in academia there's problems in one side that are much less prevalent in the other. Nor that it was the humanities who started taking the name of science for credibility.
English is my second language, with that in mind, I felt it may be interesting or amusing to some the parts which were "hard" for me to understand.
>Michaelmas term lately over
I had no idea that "Michaelmas" was even a thing. Nor do I think I have ever encountered the formulation of "term lately over"
>As much mud in the streets as if the waters had but newly retired from the face of the earth
This puzzled me, as I'd imagine, if there's no water, there surely would be no mud. Apparently a reference to the great flood which makes it make sense.
>and it would not be wonderful to meet a Megalosaurus
This one was funny since I properly understood (I think?) that it's meant to give a feeling of the savage, untamed, natural feel of the elements taking over London. But then I thought a reference to a Megalosaurus couldn't possibly be that. And it seems it is?
The rest was way easier, although I had to make sure what "Dogs, undistinguishable in mire" meant.
It's not presently on scihub (also, $25 for access? fuck off...), but the whole study stinks of "dickens scholar checks modern reading comp, vastly overestimates familiarity with victorian england and dickens' prose.".... .... here's the bio of the first author of the paper
> SUSAN CARLSON is a professor of English at Pittsburg State University, where she teaches courses on nineteenth-century British literature,
If the process is the product, then anyone who is not involved with the process has no right to say anything about the product.
Not to mention, there's a lot of stuff beyond an "aesthetic experience". Videogames have historical value, and they have relevancy at the very least as a testament of the state of the industry at any given point.
Legend of Dragoon, for example, integrated QTE-like controls in its attacks, even as a turn-based game. FFVIII, released the same year, implemented interaction in a somewhat similar way. These two are very early predecessors to mechanics Clair Obscur: Expedition 33 much more recently used. That has value.
If anyone wants to establish random conditions as to why they consider a work to be worthy or not, they may have those. But then they should keep them to themselves, rather than pretending people shouldn't care about something because of the way it was done. It's like the classic situation of someone complaining about how some open source project doesn't do something exactly in the way they like. I have nothing but contempt and despise for that sort of people, and it's a whole order of magnitude worse here, where the "problem" stems from their political stance, which nobody with a pulse should give a crap about.
>Or is it only when the people doing it eat more rice than us that it is bad?
It's definitely different when the player doesn't even have to play by the market. Comparing US companies and Chinese companies is not apples to apples.
What was the response every single time? Ah yes. "Get your own Twitter".
I despise most social networks, this one included, but I can't overstate the degree to which the audience deserves this.
Absolute no lessons learned though. Maybe Musk has to buy Reddit too for people to get a clue.
reply