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

Automatically tagging politician when they use their phone on the livestreams

driesdepoorter.be

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 157 posts

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

#141

Post by LocalH »

skeeter2020 wrote: post #122
LocalH wrote: 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…

Modern computers do far less actual multitasking than most users realize. Yet we still call it "multitasking". Sufficiently fine-grained task switching is indistinguishable from actual multitasking. Also, is it really even task switching if I'm concurrently reviewing information directly related to the discussion topic?

If you were in a position of managerial power over me, and you saw me doing this very thing to maximize my engagement with the topic and task at hand, what would your response be? Would you "make me put my phone away"? Would you cause a distraction by interrupting the discussion to focus on my focus management tools?

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

#142

Post by rhyperior »

skeeter2020 wrote: post #122
LocalH wrote: 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…

No, it’s the equivalent of doodling while having a meeting. It engages a different part of the brain.

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

#143

Post by handedness »

dmoy wrote: post #134
amelius wrote: post #132

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.

The STOCK Act mostly only had the effect of creating some inconveniences for lawmakers (e.g., their families could still trade based on their guidance), and even that was only the case for a year as Senator Reid's House bill S.716 effectively gutted the STOCK Act and restored the status quo, was passed by unanimous consent after 14 seconds of discussion, and was signed into law by President Obama:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act#Amendment

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/716

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

#144

Post by pests »

nico wrote: post #127
ryandrake wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 A tip from the book The Charisma Myth: when you notice someone on their phone, just pause what you were saying, the sudden silence usually brings people back. If you also look at them when pausing, it will be very clear what’s going on…

I have a friend who this does not work on. In his worse moments he will continue on his phone like nothing happened and not even bring it back up later / forget that we were even talking about something if I were to bring it up later. Super annoying.

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

#145

Post by mmooss »

noelrock wrote: post #96

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…

Honestly, how much such of hearings, etc. are a waste of time, and you could better serve your constituents and country/community by doing some work? Do you have time to pay full attention in all these situations?

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

#146

Post by LocalH »

kelvinjps10 wrote: post #87
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The notion that you must have your phone away and be giving all your attention to a speaker is so antiquated and worthless. I have issues with auditory processing and attention. If you deliver information to me verbally in a format where I cannot rewind/playback, have no subtitles or text to consume alongside it, and demand my full attention, I will have objectively worse reception of whatever information you're comm…

Being able to focus in a speech it's not arbitrary at all.

Preventing others from using tools that help them focus because you are in a position of power to determine what "focus" looks like is exactly the point the parent comment was making.

"Being able to focus on a speech" looks different for differently-abled people. Just because it doesn't look like focus to you doesn't mean you or anyone else should get to dictate the tools I or anyone else use to enhance our focus control.

Different people have different needs in order to focus fully on something. It reeks of entitlement to look at another person and decide how they get to manage their focus.

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

#147

Post by ImJamal »

infogulch wrote: post #139
ImJamal wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Maybe the best solution is to ban politicians from trading individual stocks, only broad market indexes / mutual funds.

I think that still has issues. Requiring blind trusts seems safer.

There is another problem, which is family members. If you ban the politician, but allow their spouse, kids, etc to trade freely then you didn't actual solve any problems.

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

#148

Post by ToucanLoucan »

LocalH wrote: post #146
kelvinjps10 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being able to focus in a speech it's not arbitrary at all.

Preventing others from using tools that help them focus because you are in a position of power to determine what "focus" looks like is exactly the point the parent comment was making. "Being able to focus on a speech" looks different for differently-abled people. Just because it doesn't look like focus to you doesn't mean you or anyone else should get to dictate the tools I or anyone else use to enhance our focus con…

I think you stated this a bit better than I did, and certainly more concisely. It's immensely frustrating and exhausting to have to constantly defend myself against accusations of not being attentive enough, not being responsive enough, not "looking like I work hard" enough.

If you want someone who looks and runs about like a good little office bee, then I'm (quite evidently) not your girl. That said if you want your jobs handled on-time, to spec and beyond, and with care and consideration for the end users, that's me.

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

#149

Post by Sophira »

skeeter2020 wrote: post #112
noelrock wrote: post #96

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…

How do you think people NOT paid by the population feel about the idea of continuous surveillance, the potential for misinterpretation and huge impact on their lives? I suspect your discomfort and that of others in positions that create these types of environments is a feature, not a bug.

Bear in mind that the person you're applying to is also not paid by the population. They said "former politician".

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

#150

Post by Sophira »

rpmisms wrote: post #120
noelrock wrote: post #96

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.

They said "former politician", though. Also, this is a form of surveillance - I think most people on HN would be against that as well.
Post reply on HN