Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How fateful?

chan.co.za

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 343 posts

Re: How fateful?

#281

Post by netsharc »

elzbardico wrote: post #118

Plot Twist: When google's algorithms decided those two individuals should pair, it started showing them ads for the same events in order to increase the probability of them meeting. The goal was achieved by the system in 3 months, exactly as predicted with a 99% probability with a 95% CI. The system's next goal is to subtly nudge the couple to reproduce within the next year in order to help google meet their user acc…

I've had in my mind an idea for a short story based on this idea. YouTube starts putting a particular band on their "watch next" list, then the band schedules a gig in town, ensuring that they both think "Wow, I have to go!"

Re: How fateful?

#282

Post by nearbuy »

nebulousthree wrote: post #144
asdfdelta wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's really making the assumption that this didn't happen before data tracking..... And that argument is much, much older than the digital age. If anything, extra tracking helps exonerate more than without it (false imprisonment, etc) https://time.com/wrongly-convicted/

I don't see how historicity weakens the argument. The reality is that data can be used to your benefit or against you. Having more of it doesn't shift the balance one way or another. It just means there's more opportunities to take it one way or the other. Your times article also makes no mention of location tracking raising exoneration rates. It talks most prominently about how cheap faulty field drug tests contribu…

If you're innocent, more information about what happened is more likely to exonerate you than incriminate you. If you're guilty, the extra data is more likely to incriminate you.

Re: How fateful?

#283

Post by defterGoose »

texasbigdata wrote: post #56

There’s a play about this, the name escapes me, but it’s a “quantum” love story: two people meet and at each step options present; the catch is the possibility tree doesn’t converge (one character had a midlife disease, which only happened in some of the branches). It was absolutely fantastic. Just tremendous. Think it played in New York, Dallas and New York at a minimum.

If you remember what it is, please post the name, it sounds very good.

Re: How fateful?

#284

Post by nearbuy »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #209
feintruled wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it was Isaac Asimov who wrote an article once speculating on a future utopia where there would be total information freedom and transparency - everyone would know everything about everyone's movements. You could see why it would be appealing - how could there be crime if you knew where everyone was at all times? No body could cheat on their spouse, no child would ever go missing. Seems hopelessly naive now of…

Naive indeed; on the surface it sounds utopian. But who decides what a crime is? That's where it quickly flips over into becoming a dystopia. I mean, for example homosexuality is still a crime punishable by death in a lot of places; if you cannot hide that, then a lot of people would be picked up. Your last point is exactly poignant; it'll be lawmakers who end up above the law, above the control. Which makes it more…

Your point boils down to privacy is good because it lets people get away with crime and laws might be bad.

The solution shouldn't be to make crimes easier to hide. It's to legalize homosexuality.

Re: How fateful?

#285

Post by ggus »

3pt14159 wrote: post #169
browheresmychar wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure people have opposite stories where instead of a quick dismissal they received attitude, general harassment, or escalation. Small "crimes" like stealing streetcar fare are sought out not because of the crime itself but because the more contact points people have with police the more people are arrested. There is probably an overlap of people who steal streetcar fare and people who are harboring small amounts…

I disagree. Certain systems are more efficient if they operate with high trust. The TTC is one of the places where we go with the more efficient option that allows defectors to gain at the cost of others. I actually know someone that is a communist and refuses to pay TTC fare on the basis that he thinks it should be completely socialized. He estimated that the one time he got a ticket paid for only 1/3rd or 1/5th of…

Could it be perhaps because you are a white male, and look fit and straight? Just hypothesizing.

Re: How fateful?

#286

Post by netsharc »

breck wrote: post #189
chrisseaton wrote: post #66

When my wife and I combined our photo libraries later in life, we found a photo of the two of us, back-to-back at a ball a few years before we first met.

Aww so sweet. I love stories like this. My wife and I met by chance in Seattle in 2014, having grown up on different coasts, but there was a period in the 1980's where we lived <50 miles apart and I always wonder whether we ever met by chance as kids. That's so amazing you found that photo. We will have to combine photo albums like you and see what we learn.

There's a reddit comment where the poster recalled, how his parents would take the family on far away cities for vacation. The parents would then do parent things and the kids would just walk around the cities. In several different cities in several different vacations, he and and his sister would run into this kid. After a few times, the kid would run being freaked out, but the poster and his sister managed to "catch" him once, and introduced him to their parents. It turns out, the poster's parents knew the kid's parents, and at vacation times, the sets of parents would travel to the same location and partner swap with each other...

Re: How fateful?

#287

Post by Tozen »

elzbardico wrote: post #118

Plot Twist: When google's algorithms decided those two individuals should pair, it started showing them ads for the same events in order to increase the probability of them meeting. The goal was achieved by the system in 3 months, exactly as predicted with a 99% probability with a 95% CI. The system's next goal is to subtly nudge the couple to reproduce within the next year in order to help google meet their user acc…

Excellent scenario. Except that a lot of the "algorithmic nudging", can be unethically intended by the creators of the algorithm or specifically tweaked/ overridden by humans in the chain to give the results they wanted.

After all, "who" is in charge or has access to the data? Maybe even an unknown individual or group, with their own agenda, and outside of Google's stated corporate goals or awareness.

Re: How fateful?

#288

Post by netsharc »

Test0129 wrote: post #239
the_af wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people bond over political activism and political groups. I know many such couples. 100% secular, no gods involved, no "church" even in the name.

I would argue in the current climate "political activism" and "political groups" have replaced God and the Church as a religion. Secular, certainly, religious absolutely. I've heard from some people that they won't even consider dating someone who has even an iota difference in political views. If this doesn't sound like religious dogma I'm not sure what would.

And whatever the "elders" say, they agree, no critical thinking allowed!

Re: How fateful?

#289

Post by Tozen »

Demoneeri wrote: post #258
elzbardico wrote: post #118

Plot Twist: When google's algorithms decided those two individuals should pair, it started showing them ads for the same events in order to increase the probability of them meeting. The goal was achieved by the system in 3 months, exactly as predicted with a 99% probability with a 95% CI. The system's next goal is to subtly nudge the couple to reproduce within the next year in order to help google meet their user acc…

Lol Google Assistant can't even tell me what I ordered despite having all the emails in Gmail.

They probably know, just don't want to share the information with you. There are other higher paying customers to give it to.

Re: How fateful?

#290

Post by Tozen »

warkdarrior wrote: post #242
lexapro wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There would have been another opportunity with someone else that you would have fancied as much or even more.

Way to destroy his marriage!

But, it is the truth. Except, such can go both ways. There can be better or worse options that present themselves (to include beyond looks).
Post reply on HN