Live data from Hacker News

Automatically tagging politician when they use their phone on the livestreams

driesdepoorter.be

131–140 of 157 posts

Re: Automatically tagging politician when they use their phone on the livestreams

#131

As a former politician, I really don't love this. It's already difficult enough to get people of the capacities that most of us want to see (good, smart, could be employed elsewhere, empathetic) involved in politics as it's so negative and divisive. There are, as other comments highlight, loads of legitimate and reasonable reasons why somebody would be using a phone mid-debate: rebuttal research, communicating with c…

Since you're on HN, I'll assume you're pretty cool, but most people take what politicians like as an inverse signal. If they don't like it, it's probably good.

Yeah, I weighed up the possibility that people would perceive it that way. That also speaks to the negative perception of politics/politicians too of course...

Re: Automatically tagging politician when they use their phone on the livestreams

#132

As a former politician, I really don't love this. It's already difficult enough to get people of the capacities that most of us want to see (good, smart, could be employed elsewhere, empathetic) involved in politics as it's so negative and divisive. There are, as other comments highlight, loads of legitimate and reasonable reasons why somebody would be using a phone mid-debate: rebuttal research, communicating with c…

Nobody loves this, and I suspect that's the point. I expect this same tech is about to be rolled out en masse to surveil workers everywhere (if it hasn't already been). I further suspect that by applying this to the people in charge of creating regulations, the artist is trying to drive new regulations.

New regulation: AI-based tagging forbidden for use on politicians.

Re: Automatically tagging politician when they use their phone on the livestreams

#133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you're on HN, I'll assume you're pretty cool, but most people take what politicians like as an inverse signal. If they don't like it, it's probably good.

Yeah, I weighed up the possibility that people would perceive it that way. That also speaks to the negative perception of politics/politicians too of course...

Well, when most of your job is perception, this is part of the job.

Re: Automatically tagging politician when they use their phone on the livestreams

#134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody loves this, and I suspect that's the point. I expect this same tech is about to be rolled out en masse to surveil workers everywhere (if it hasn't already been). I further suspect that by applying this to the people in charge of creating regulations, the artist is trying to drive new regulations.

New regulation: AI-based tagging forbidden for use on politicians.

Is insider trading still legal for politicians? Pretty much, right? They just have to disclose it weeks after the fact?

Certainly I haven't heard of any news of the STOCK act from 2012 actually being enforced, e.g. no insider trading convictions or anything.

Re: Automatically tagging politician when they use their phone on the livestreams

#136
post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people use bits of time on their phone to ironically help them focus on the person they're talking to. If I have to listen to someone with zero of what people would call "external distractions" I'm barely going to remember any of it. But if I can poke on my phone while I'm listening, maybe look up some information relevant to the topic, then I'm much more engaged and retain far more of what's being said. There's…

> If I have to listen to someone with zero of what people would call "external distractions" I'm barely going to remember any of it. But if I can poke on my phone while I'm listening, maybe look up some information relevant to the topic, then I'm much more engaged and retain far more of what's being said. This really makes no sense to me. It's well known that human cannot multitask beyond system 1 / system 2 in paral…

> It's well known that human

That's your problem there. Most of these soundbites come from studies that would have listed an enormous amount of limitations and had further limitations that weren't explicitly listed. It is common for people with certain conditions to be excluded from studies.

I don't personally identify with the GP, but I certainly remember more if I have a mental picture to hang the facts on - sometimes this might involve looking up a circuit diagram, a map, or an equation. It doesn't mean I'm not paying attention, but it means I'm scrambling to find a peg to hang that information on before it slips out of my mind. I might also be jotting down some notes for asking later - presumably you wouldn't express the same incredulity towards somebody using pen and paper instead?

Re: Automatically tagging politician when they use their phone on the livestreams

#137
post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

New regulation: AI-based tagging forbidden for use on politicians.

Is insider trading still legal for politicians? Pretty much, right? They just have to disclose it weeks after the fact? Certainly I haven't heard of any news of the STOCK act from 2012 actually being enforced, e.g. no insider trading convictions or anything.

As far as I can tell, most of the politicians aren't doing insider trading. They are trading on public knowledge (laws being introduced) but that people don't really pay attention to. Maybe I am wrong?

Re: Automatically tagging politician when they use their phone on the livestreams

#138
post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people use bits of time on their phone to ironically help them focus on the person they're talking to. If I have to listen to someone with zero of what people would call "external distractions" I'm barely going to remember any of it. But if I can poke on my phone while I'm listening, maybe look up some information relevant to the topic, then I'm much more engaged and retain far more of what's being said. There's…

> If I have to listen to someone with zero of what people would call "external distractions" I'm barely going to remember any of it. But if I can poke on my phone while I'm listening, maybe look up some information relevant to the topic, then I'm much more engaged and retain far more of what's being said. This really makes no sense to me. It's well known that human cannot multitask beyond system 1 / system 2 in paral…

Consider a similar tasks that are practiced by thousands of professionals daily: Live translation, flying a plane while talking to ATC, playing music while talking. Some people find these things nearly impossible, but with enough practice it's definitely possible.

Re: Automatically tagging politician when they use their phone on the livestreams

#139
post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is insider trading still legal for politicians? Pretty much, right? They just have to disclose it weeks after the fact? Certainly I haven't heard of any news of the STOCK act from 2012 actually being enforced, e.g. no insider trading convictions or anything.

As far as I can tell, most of the politicians aren't doing insider trading. They are trading on public knowledge (laws being introduced) but that people don't really pay attention to. Maybe I am wrong?

Insider trading laws are formulated around prosecuting persons that have a contractual duty to the company that act on company-internal information before its published to stockholders. Politicians do have unpublished information about laws and regulations that will affect companies in the future, but they don't have any specific duty to the company, and the information is not exactly company-internal, so it doesn't count as insider trading by technical definition.

I've ever seen a proposed reformulation of these laws that would redraw the lines clearly enough to prevent abuse by politicians but not impede legitimate cases. Maybe the best solution is to ban politicians from trading individual stocks, only broad market indexes / mutual funds.

Re: Automatically tagging politician when they use their phone on the livestreams

#140

As a former politician, I really don't love this. It's already difficult enough to get people of the capacities that most of us want to see (good, smart, could be employed elsewhere, empathetic) involved in politics as it's so negative and divisive. There are, as other comments highlight, loads of legitimate and reasonable reasons why somebody would be using a phone mid-debate: rebuttal research, communicating with c…

Like it or not, "eyes glued to phone" has become a pretty clear indicator of distraction, and I'm fine calling this out. If I'm in a meeting giving a presentation, and I notice people glued to their phones during it, I'm not going to call them out on the spot, but I'll probably do something afterwards: Either 1. tighten up my invite list next time so as to only include people who really need to be there, or 2. polite…

>I had a manager once who, if she would spot someone on their phone in a meeting, would put them on the spot and ask them a question relevant to what the team was just discussing. Some people would call that a "dick move" but I'm actually supportive of it. If you're supposed to be paying attention, get off your phone.

Fully get it, and that manager was quite right to do what they did. I occasionally bring my phone to meetings, but it's because I run a company and sometimes I'll have interesting data that might be relevant at a given point in a discussion. It's more to help move the meeting or conversation along in a helpful manner. I generally bring pre-meeting notes in digital format, and then a pen/paper to actually take physical notes when I'm talking to people. People generally don't find it rude if I look down to write something important down versus looking at a hpone.

I'd like to be able to do this as well, but I might get pushback as most of the people I meet with are significantly younger than me (I'm 35 and do sales to health/wellness establishments, most of the time I'm dealing with 20-somethings).

>I really don't like how society has just normalized whipping your phone out in the middle of human interactions.

Agree 100%, however, in the context of biz meetings, there could be reasons for it. Perhaps I'm hard of hearing and want to record the conversation, for note-taking purposes, or perhaps, there's an interesting data point I might have in my digital notes that might back you up even more in a meeting. I'm just playing devil's advocate in a situation that is quite realistic. I personally hate when people are on their phones in meetings or otherwise important interactions.

Post reply on HN