211–220 of 529 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
jesus. that guy is a reuters "reporter" as well. stuff like this is what encourages the concept of 'fake news'
The concept of fake news Rose from one guy making shit up for ad money. The whole ordeal about how fake news is this sinister plot to disinform is a disinformation effort in itself. There's a big difference about reporting while being misinformed vs disinforming or to harness views.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow I think this unroll.me thing is the real scandal here. I am an unroll.me user, but had no idea they sell user data to companies this way. Their whole value proposition is to help people control their own privacy and now I kind of feel betrayed..
From their own site: "Unroll.Me is a free service ", emphasis added. If it's free for you, you're the product.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Did you just diagnose someone with a condition that isn't found in the DSM and then cite your own website as a source of evidence? I knew Steve Jobs personally. He was a malignant narcissist as that term is defined[ * ]. Also, what pivotal role can scientific evidence play in an unscientific field like psychology? > ... with a condition that isn't found in the DSM ... Conditions arrive at, and depart from, the DSM…
> He was a malignant narcissist as that term is defined[ * ] From that page on Wikipedia: "as a hypothetical syndrome, it would have..." And a history full of anonymous edits, and people banned for abusing single purpose accounts. You and your friends are not psychiatrists, however much you play one on the Internet, citing pages on Wikipedia that refer to this that do not exist by their own admission, and which I wou…
Neither are psychiatrists, as the term is commonly understood:
http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-rats-of-n-i-m-h
Quote: "America’s psychiatrist-in-chief seemed to be reiterating what many had been saying all along: that psychiatry was a pseudoscience, unworthy of inclusion in the medical kingdom."
Surely you weren't planning to invoke the nonexistent authority of a field that even its primary spokesman disavows?
If I say "literally" when I actually mean "figuratively," some may object, but they won't try to invoke a nonexistent authority, since language is not science, and in any case "literally" and "figuratively" are now accepted as synonyms. But if I try to express an opinion using a term like "malignant narcissist," which has the same scientific standing as "literally," someone is likely to object. Why? Because people take psychology seriously.
How could people presume to use "narcissism" and its variants from the time of classical Greece to the present, and before the term was co-opted by psychology? One more question -- in a scientific sense, what has psychology contributed to our understanding of the term?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "to be clear, a # of companies practice 'fingerprinting,' and it is fully breaking the App Store rules. But also very clever fraud detection." https://twitter.com/MikeIsaac/status/856180005977677825
100% sure that all decent banking app use device fingerprinting. 100% sure that it is not breaking the rules and it is really important that they keep doing it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are you asking that question?
I assume because such quotes are really hard to read as they don't wrap the text. So on a small screen you end up swiping left and right to read the quote.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>anonymized It would be much bigger news if they were selling data that could be used against the consumers on an individual basis.
Given sufficient data, nothing's really anonymous. That's a bullshit hedge.
Even without that angle, I find it absolutely scandalous that a company is able to do this, even with the T&Cs permission of their users. Surely at some point this is going to bite them in the behind? The possibilities of it going massively wrong seem endless. Then again - common sense and the law rarely seem to intersect.