611–620 of 620 posts
Just a warning - I found even a short description of some of the videos they had to watch fairly disturbing. I don't think I could do that job for very long - let alone in a badly run, high pressure environment with low wages.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's like saying there's no point in putting out house fires, because there's always going to be somewhere else that catches on fire. When a social gathering (whether its a party at a club or a riot in the streets) exceeds capacity and becomes dangerous, destructive, and out of control the police shut it down for the good of public safety.
That's the opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying you need to put out the fire not just let it burn down and build a new house. Houses burn, find a way to put them out, don't just plan on creating new ones.
"He watched videos of people playing with human fetuses, and says he learned that they are allowed on Facebook “as long as the skin is translucent.” Wow. Just Wow.
This sounds like a fantastic example of basing moral guidelines around what is easy for a computer to detect rather than what is actually moral. We know that FB has nudity detection systems, due to their past problems with banning breastfeeding discussion groups.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t understand your argument at all. Is 900k/year to curate a store that’s on almost all of their products (or even one) supposed to be a lot for Apple? Seems like a rounding error to me. Not too mention that the real benefit isn’t from finding gems but from not allowing rotten content to spoil your platform. If they(FAANGs) can poach neuroscientists with 7 figure salaries like we saw yesterday, they can afford t…
The confusion arises because I'm not at all talking about filtering rotten content (aka facebooks instance of the problem). I'm talking about sorting for good content, possibly identifying a niche hit in a stack of shovelware. On the surface these are very different tasks but they are both manifestations of what I'm calling the fundemental problem. The task of curating, that is identifying the content of incoming dat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t get the point of animal torture videos. The asking of meat consumed in the world is ludicrous. Eating meat is supporting animal torture in a way. Just saying.
Eating meat is part of life, no one is torturing them. Torture is for a reason or for fun. There is a reason some animals are raised and used for food and its not to have fun torturing them. I let you live your way, don't try to force others to live your way by using "scare tactics".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would it need to be law? Since, in your view, capital / management / entrepreneurship contribute nothing of value, workers should have no problem creating successful businesses without them. Particularly if UBI takes care of basic needs during the early stages.
Why do feel the need to misrepresent my argument? When did I say that management contributes nothing of value? Of all the arguments I was expecting, this one surprises me as it makes no sense. Capitalism works on leveraging advantage to pay workers less than the value that they create. Do you have anything to say about that, or are you going to continue to suggest magic discount coupons (UBI) which are worth less tha…
If that's true, Facebook's workforce could quit tomorrow, go build a competitor, and claim the full $15B for themselves. Why don't they do that?
The traditional Communist argument has been that they can't because capital owns the means of production. Factory workers would happily go start their own factory, but they can't afford the machines to fill it. That argument doesn't work too well here: the means of production needed to build Facebook are accessible even to college students. Basically an editor, a scripting language, a web server, and some linux boxes.
Another reasonable argument is that they can't because they need to eat. The time it would take between quitting their jobs at Facebook, Inc. and seeing revenue from Facebook Co-Op would exhaust their savings. That is a problem UBI can solve. It's not that UBI pays what you are worth, but that it removes the urgency that sometimes prevents people from getting their full value in the market.
This idea - that workers create all the value in a company, not just the subset they are paid for - is testable. If you're sure it's true and you want everyone else to believe it, then I think you'd want to run the experiment. UBI could be a way of doing that. Could also do grants that pay living expenses during entrepreneurial activity, or just straight-up house and feed co-op founders without asking for an equity stake.
well we've heard the line that the tech isn't there yet. or how you have learned from past attempts to help and are taking more targeted approaches.
ok, that works for the retarded masses and corrupt congress.
but I call bullshit. its actually more than that, its malicious intentional lying.
you know how you can help? heres a really easy way. take some of your money, give it to these slave/content-moderators.
100,000 to you is not 100,000 to them.
how much would you need to pay me to watch that shit? zuck man, you can't give me your salary to watch that. that shit damages you for life. and you think its worth whatever?
yall walk around (figuratively, on the internet) like you have something to be proud of. donald abraham is confident as shit.
but you know, yall are just like any other mega. sure each mega has its own demographic. but the entire reason for the existance of a mega ensures 100% you will engage in unethical behavior. and you will recreate the extremely oppressive society we live in everyday. Furthermore, you will recreate the belief in the opposite: things aren't so bad and we `good peoples`
We have 100% records from our client as well as highest repeat hire rate. our work speak for ourselves, we provide a perfect software solution to all clients. We believe in mutual growing with client and hence we work as a technology partner and consultant for our clients. Contact us Email: Theredhackergroup@gmail.com WHATSAPP:+1 786 708 9974 TEXT:571 318 9498
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hear you saying you don't believe social media is addictive. Will you please kindly open the "digital wellbeing" app (or whatever it's called on iOS) on your phone and share the number of hours you've used social networks over the last week?
I couldn't help but notice that your comment doesn't address the other parts of his argument, nor did you choose to respond to the earlier reply you received (by dragonwriter) outlining the legitimate flaws in the reasoning you provided with your initial opinion. Social media has a lot of problems - even this article on just Facebook outlines a number of them [0] but I agree with the above poster in saying that you c…
HN's posting frequency limits made that choice for me. The system is unfortunately biased towards drive-by comments and against engaging with feedback on your own comments.
Edit:
> Advocating that society just presses a 'shut down' button until "we collectively decide how we should proceed" is an entirely unrealistic scenario
But that's what I'm advocating. I don't think I'm obligated to respond to people who only came by to reject the premise of my argument. More interesting discussions are available to anyone who shows up with an open mind.