931–940 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They wouldn’t let her in to the bar because her license had expired? What do they care as long as it has the correct DOB on it?
Eh I get where you're coming from but it comes down to the bouncer or whoever. You get people who say an expired license is not a valid ID and they require a valid ID to get in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disclaimer: my comment below is directed at the culture of Google, and following in the train of thought from your comment. It's not directed at your comment or you. Reading this comment just makes me feel baffled. How much arrogance does it take for a bunch of Googlers to assume the belief that they know what is "just" for the rest of the world? An organization(in this case, a for-profit company) created to deliver…
> How much arrogance does it take for a bunch of Googlers to assume the belief that they know what is "just" for the rest of the world? That of a regular human being with rationalized opinions through the lens available to them? For some reason only because Google has a lot of power to control the dialogue you ask them to bury their head in the sand? Or are we going to pretend that there hasn't been an arms race of s…
That does Not mean that Your Opinion would be a correct one--actually the opposite could just as easily be true.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disclaimer: my comment below is directed at the culture of Google, and following in the train of thought from your comment. It's not directed at your comment or you. Reading this comment just makes me feel baffled. How much arrogance does it take for a bunch of Googlers to assume the belief that they know what is "just" for the rest of the world? An organization(in this case, a for-profit company) created to deliver…
These "arrogant" Googlers aren't changing the magnitude of Google's impact on people's lives. Google's impact will still be there if they go away. There is no option that makes it go away. The choice is between the company's workers trying their best to come up with a just way to pilot it, or Google's impact being directed entirely by its executives and profit motive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I worked there for a similar length of time, but more recent (2012 - early 2019). The internal political discourse over that time definitely mirrored the rest of the world: becoming increasingly heated and divisive during 2016 and largely escalating since. On the whole, it felt like it pushed the company in a positive direction --- internal discussions mirroring #metoo led to more visibility of sexual harassment and…
Disclaimer: my comment below is directed at the culture of Google, and following in the train of thought from your comment. It's not directed at your comment or you. Reading this comment just makes me feel baffled. How much arrogance does it take for a bunch of Googlers to assume the belief that they know what is "just" for the rest of the world? An organization(in this case, a for-profit company) created to deliver…
In the US, we have government to take these things on. We have rule of law. And rights. Both government and individuals are subject to these.
With Google, there is no rule of law or rights. Goggle does not have a constitution. If you have a problem with them, what can you do? Nothing.
There is no right to question your accuser. There is no right to protect agains unreasonable search/seizure. There is no right to free speech. No right to privacy. And so on. There is only what Google arbitrarily decides to do. And if you're not in the majority as Google defines it, then it just sucks to be you.
This is why unregulated monopolies are intolerable. The US is founded on the principle that powers are separated to keep any one entity from getting too much and being able to infringe on the rights of citizens.
Google is way over that line, with monopolies in many areas. Add the partisan activism, and this is a very toxic brew.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Search is entirely a technical problem. There are literally no politics involved.
So you would agree that since search is entirely technical, then search results by definition cannot present political bias? Personally I disagree with that claim, but if you feel that search is a wholly technical problem, I'd expect you to agree. And that doesn't even deal with the obviously political: laws like the right to be forgotten, or other forms of censorship like removals of content due to copyright. How to…
As a user I want back the documents I’m looking for. If the engine has to adhere to local laws, fine but I want zero editorializing of results.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Search is entirely a technical problem. There are literally no politics involved.
That could be the case if the distribution of views were evenly stratified, but they are not. Even the application of very simple mechanics can subtly amplify the views of the majority. Search is one example, as is jury selection.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many of my teammates are immigrants. Visa related uncertainty and progress are major parts of their lives. The H1-B renewal lottery colors all future plans. Finally getting a green card is like having a child or buying a house. When the President tweets about blowing up NAFTA, my colleagues on TN-1s can no longer be sure which country they'll live in six months from now. We tried to go for drinks and couldn't get int…
>Many of my teammates are immigrants. Visa related uncertainty and progress are major parts of their lives. The H1-B renewal lottery colors all future plans. Finally getting a green card is like having a child or buying a house. Getting a Green Card shouldn't be that easy for H1B holders. An H1B visa is a temporary visa and in that time they should be transferring skill knowledge to American replacements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvc77gn1 for starters. If we understand Liberalism to be a social philosophy tradition starting with Hobbes, being further developed in various forms through Locke, Rousseau, Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, John Rawls, etc. and seeking the liberation of the individual from culture, community, and family then for various the social Liberalism of the democrats (which seeks particularly to libe…
1) I would not include Rousseau among the fathers, but among the enemies of Liberalism. 2) I think the discourse in the USA has been heavily tilted in favour of libertarianism (maybe what you call "Business Liberalism") by concerted subversive effort sponsored by Koch, Mercer, etc., as outlined eg in the book Dark Money by Jane Mayer.
Your second point is I think correct on part of the problem but I think there is a second deeper issue which goes beyond dark money per se and implicates everyone. That is the fact that family and community are support structures which each of us rely on during hard times. If you come from a wealthy family and you really screw up repeatedly you will still probably do better than if you come from a poor family and do everything perfectly. But the family support structures have been under constant and sustained attacks on a number of means on the idea that if we undermine the family we will, for example, liberate women from inequality (in truth, it only increases gender inequality because motherhood has heavier burdens as single motherhood). Undermining the family, however, creates larger markets for a lot of things. A larger number of smaller households consume more. So business steps in to fill the role, as does the state. Moreover if you liberate business from the state and from community, then the first thing it will attack is the family and the reproductive order because it isn't very efficient for employees to have and raise kids (better to import kids after they grow up).
So I actually see the sexual liberalism of the progressive left and the business liberalism of the Koch brothers as mutually reinforcing, as politically heretical as that might be in the context of US political discussions.