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

How I turned “Street Sharks” into an online social experiment

geek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–118 of 118 posts

Re: How I turned “Street Sharks” into an online social experiment

#111

Post by maxwelljoslyn »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #100
MollyR wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure I understand. Isn't memory of experience different than our believing it ? Or is it something like there isn't "truth" in our memory ?

It seems that our memory isn't like photos or videos - isn't recorded directly - but rather it's procedurally generated - when you access a particular memory, some the brain simulates a lot of stuff based not just on the "seed" of that particular memory, but also everything else you've experienced since. This way, future experiences can significantly change what you recall, which leads to fun experiments (and not so…

Even when talking brains and memories, we still can't get away from pointers and references, huh?

I've never heard this explanation for such a phenomenon. Quite interesting.

When I remember something, or when I purposefully recall a memory, it is very easy for me to change the details on purpose even as I am thinking the thing. It is also possible to create wholly false but entirely plausible recollections (for example, "remembering" having sex with a past girlfriend in a time or at a place which we never had sex, but because we spent so much time together, I have good baseline data to produce all the most pertinent details, and my mind doesn't care about glossing over the things which are fabricated.)

It's scary to think about. I am capable of consciously replaying totally false memories, so how often are the things which I remember a product of an unconscious version of the same process? How fallible is my memory really?

Re: How I turned “Street Sharks” into an online social experiment

#112

Post by TeMPOraL »

maxwelljoslyn wrote: post #111
TeMPOraL wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems that our memory isn't like photos or videos - isn't recorded directly - but rather it's procedurally generated - when you access a particular memory, some the brain simulates a lot of stuff based not just on the "seed" of that particular memory, but also everything else you've experienced since. This way, future experiences can significantly change what you recall, which leads to fun experiments (and not so…

Even when talking brains and memories, we still can't get away from pointers and references, huh? I've never heard this explanation for such a phenomenon. Quite interesting. When I remember something, or when I purposefully recall a memory, it is very easy for me to change the details on purpose even as I am thinking the thing. It is also possible to create wholly false but entirely plausible recollections (for examp…

> Even when talking brains and memories, we still can't get away from pointers and references, huh?

That's because they're good models of a fundamental concept of indirection :). People sometimes think it's hubris that programmers tend to talk a lot about fields they "know nothing about", but part of it really comes from the fact that programming is dealing with one of the most powerful abstract concept ever devised - that of computation.

> It's scary to think about. I am capable of consciously replaying totally false memories, so how often are the things which I remember a product of an unconscious version of the same process? How fallible is my memory really?

Yeah, it is scary, though one gets used to it. Experience shows that most of the time at least your recent memories are pretty robust. There's a lot of context ensuring the consistency and accuracy of the "procedural recollection" of a memory, but it's procedural generation nonetheless.

EDIT: want another fun programming analogy? Think about how fast you can answer questions you've already heard and thought about vs. ones that are new to you. You may come to the conclusion that the brain is mostly a massive cache, and most thoughts being cache lookups. You know the concept of "speaking before you think"? For me that sometimes happens literally, and it really smells like a partial pattern-match to a question doing a cache lookup in the brain.

And now add to this that it's been estimated that the brain itself is clocked around 200Hz (Hertz, without SI prefix) of sequential computation speed...

Re: How I turned “Street Sharks” into an online social experiment

#113

Post by coldtea »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #65
coldtea wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't find any fault with the argument. If he did that for fun, tons of others can do it for fan, more with malicious intent, even more for profit, even more than those from idiocy and repeating misinformation, etc.

And many do. Remember that "I rm -rf'd my production server" story recently, and how it turned out to be a lie? Remember that "school treats a kid as a terrorist because he brought a DIY clock to class" thing that after weeks of media coverage turned out to be a completely different story?

Exactly.

Though, about the latter story (kid, clock etc.) I've followed it a little at the time, but what do you mean "turned out to be a completely different story"? From what I know it was like what it was reported from the start. And Obama even called the kid to the whitehouse later. Am I missing some development?

Re: How I turned “Street Sharks” into an online social experiment

#114

Post by singold »

MollyR wrote: post #76
munificent wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A little from column A and a little from column B. I have young kids and it's fascinating watching them talk about half-remembered stuff from the past. They'll start off not really remembering much and taking guesses. Then the other takes that guess as gospel and repeats it back. Now the first has more confident. Soon they are both fully convinced of a whole pile of fabrications. It made me realize how much of our me…

Not sure I understand. Isn't memory of experience different than our believing it ? Or is it something like there isn't "truth" in our memory ?

O remember seeing a documentary about memory where they would show kids fake photoshopped images of trips they'd never done, and then the kids would "create" those memories like that had happened and also adding more details to the fake story

Re: How I turned “Street Sharks” into an online social experiment

#115

Post by alexandercrohde »

mangeletti wrote: post #28
tryitnow wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. It's more like he was swinging a foam bat and is warning us how easy it would be for someone more malicious to swing a spiked bat. Seriously, I don't really care if some teenager creates a non-sense fanfic world on poorly monitored sites. However, it is noteworthy how the utter lack of quality control on so many Internet properties can propagate falsehoods. This undermines the claim that the Internet was supposed…

I think the problems you're bringing up cannot be solved. Information (re: "Information Superhighway") is information. In this utopian idea of "quality control", who does the quality control? Houghton Mifflin[1]? If history is just a set of lies agreed upon[2], I'd rather have the consensus of the Internet than whoever it is you purport should be in control of quality. 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sh…

What are you talking about "cannot be solved"?

Per the article "The only place that’s still entirely accurate is Wikipedia, hilariously enough." And for tvtome, "It was a user-edited wiki for TV shows. To be an editor for the big, popular shows you had to prove why you were qualified"

Clearly there are systems that are much more robust against tampering than others. I'm sure dozens or hundreds of people came across this streets shark stuff on IMDB and thought "This is an error" but had no way to report it on IMDB. Wikipedia solves that problem (and in the event of dispute there's a full history).

Re: How I turned “Street Sharks” into an online social experiment

#116

Post by knodi123 »

Sean1708 wrote: post #91
knodi123 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but his point would be much stronger if it had not been based merely on assumptions. If this is such a problem, then be a journalist- find an example and discuss that .

But, he was the example.

I mean, find an example of the problem, instead of creating a problem, and assuming it's widespread.

Re: How I turned “Street Sharks” into an online social experiment

#117

Post by madebysquares »

The idea that lies and misinformation can spread quickly and widely on the internet is proven almost daily. If you've ever seen a onion or any other satirical website post a story and then get shared liked, commented on, restated and then its like wait did none of you 60-70 ppl realize the article was fake?

Re: How I turned “Street Sharks” into an online social experiment

#118

Post by smellf »

Klinky wrote: post #110
justinlardinois wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "What year did the black Power Ranger turn good?" Was the black power ranger ever bad? I recall the green ranger going bad, then later returning, reformed, as the white ranger. Or was mixing up the colors intentional to further your point?

The episode was Season 5 Episode 14 "Once You Go Black, You Never Go Back". In the season finale, Zack absorbs Rita's evil power crystal and turns on the Power Rangers and Angel Grove. Zordon informs the Power Rangers of a secret cave containing the reversal crystal, but Rita and her Octopig monster have other plans. Can the Power Rangers morph in time to save Zack and Angel Grove?

> "Once You Go Black, You Never Go Back"

I lol'd. Too over the top though.

Post reply on HN