131–140 of 486 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's an alternate mirror as well. [link removed] Edit: I'm removing my own copy, since I just realized I didn't set up a contact for that site, and I'd rather play it safe than sorry. Others have mirrored it, and one's on YouTube at present: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5gPdrlyc84
Why hasn’t anyone hosted it on YouTube yet? Serious question.
people have, but who knows how long it'll last
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a blatant false dichotomy. You can do meaningful work that will generate value/change that is largely unaffected by the political landscape (within reason). Sure every company would love tax breaks and subsidies but let's be realistic here. > I would much prefer my company's leadership to acknowledge the politics inherent in our work and openly state their motives and point of view. Most do. Companies just te…
Choosing to ignore politics and your ability to change it is itself a political stance.
The video won't load on Chrome for me, but it works on Safari. Is this Google's doing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's an alternate mirror as well. [link removed] Edit: I'm removing my own copy, since I just realized I didn't set up a contact for that site, and I'd rather play it safe than sorry. Others have mirrored it, and one's on YouTube at present: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5gPdrlyc84
Why hasn’t anyone hosted it on YouTube yet? Serious question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I live in the Bay Area, I grew up in San Francisco, I'm firmly left-leaning in much of my political views. I upvoted your comment because in my opinion you are right, although overstating it a bit. The "Left Coast" is biased. There is a lot of tribal knee-jerk reactivity, and there are rabid haters. (Yeah yeah the right has 'em too. There's a reason Tim Chevlier and David Gudeman were both fired. Not my point.) "Not…
Thank you for understanding the thesis of my comment. It's already getting downvoted unfortunately. The most absurd thing to me is how is this kind of rhetoric acceptable at a company sponsored event? It is obviously politically motivated and totally biased. One speaker nearly started crying about Hillary losing. How is that fair to employees at Google that are conservative?
Cheers! I wanted to back you up from my side of the aisle. I've seen some pretty shabby behaviour from my own and I'll help you call it out.
> It's already getting downvoted unfortunately.
Well, you were pretty salty. :-)
> The most absurd thing to me is how is this kind of rhetoric acceptable at a company sponsored event? It is obviously politically motivated and totally biased. One speaker nearly started crying about Hillary losing.
Well, it was a very strange moment. Yosemite Sam had just been elected, proving that we're definitely stuck in Timeline XX7J5, the really shitty one, and emotions were raw. Judgement faltered.
I myself nearly wound up sitting in the middle of the street wearing nothing but an adult diaper and sign around my neck that read "Give me food or kill me."
> How is that fair to employees at Google that are conservative?
It's not. It's actually pretty gross. And again, I'm saying this as a left-leaning person who was appalled by the election results. All it takes to understand how messed up this is (if you don't already) is to try to imagine a bunch of right-wing people doing the same thing if Clinton had been elected.
We were talking about this exact subject one day in our cubicle farm and someone pointed out that there were no doubt people in the room who had voted for Trump. I piped up in my best Michael Palin voice, "A witch! Burn 'em!" and we all had a chuckle, but there was nervous edge.
No one admitted to voting Republican though.
Tribalism sucks.
(But Trump makes me miss Dick Cheney.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What media are you talking about? I Googled in Google News for Alexandria ocasio Cortes, and almost all of the coverage I found from mainstream publications was positive.
I checked and results are very different if you spell her name with a z, as she does.
"(00:54:33) An employee asks what Google is going to do about “misinformation” and “fake news” shared by “low-information voters.” Pichai responds by stating that “investments in machine learning and AI” are a “big opportunity” to fix the problem." Anyone find this disturbing? They're trying to use AI to manipulate what users 'should' see?
It's only disturbing if you reject the premise of the question in advance—that the concern is addressing inaccurate factual information. Connecting users with good information is literally the function on which Google wad founded, and applying AI to that mission has been a Google vision from very early on. It would be weird and worrying if Google selectively choose not to do that with information that might have poli…
“Hillary Emails” should give you results based on global pagerank, whether or not you agree with the subjective assessments about the importance of Hillary’s emails. Silently substituting the pagerank of New York or the subjective judgment of a room of Googlers undercuts the signal. If you give me the option to filter by DC or LA pagerank, that’s fine. But there should always be some free, unfiltered pagerank available.
"(00:54:33) An employee asks what Google is going to do about “misinformation” and “fake news” shared by “low-information voters.” Pichai responds by stating that “investments in machine learning and AI” are a “big opportunity” to fix the problem." Anyone find this disturbing? They're trying to use AI to manipulate what users 'should' see?
That is literally what Google was founded on. Their core technology behind their initial success was pagerank, an algorithm whose sole purpose is to manipulate what people see. They have stayed dominant through a combination of market forces, and keeping their algorithm near (or, IMO at) the top of the market for generalized search [0], and have leveraged this competency in other markets (video, ads, etc). Beyond jus…
Hooray! Pre-Google search sucked. It was really bad.
> The alternative is to go back to human gatekeepers.
I don't know what this means. Humans have never audited/controlled what gets indexed by crawlers. It's always automata unleashed on the data. It would be terribly unproductive to prune or tune the index with humans. However, using humans as a part of a feedback loop to tune an algorithm is a good idea [presumably all search engines do something like this].
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Alexandria ocasio Cortes go from a bold new voice to being portrayed as a know-nothing (in a pretty sexist way) in about 6 hours Are you kidding ? She said US military was given $700 billion increase that they didn't ask for. She said that US unemployment is low becuase everyone has two jobs. She said ICE has to detain 34,000 people every night by law. http://www.politifact.com/personalities/alexandria-ocasio-co...…
She was criticized for being female regardless of her misconceptions on military spending and how many jobs people have. A huge chunk of the world doesn't give equal forgiving or demands of females as they do males - they demand more and forgive less. Ever looked at PolitiFact for just about every other politician? Just look at Serena Williams.. she blabbed and it may be the end of her career (or a lingering black ey…
No, she wasn't. There are lots of successful female politicians. She was criticized for being a moron.