31–36 of 36 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> whitest group of people in the country apart from NPR management. Yeah, Fox News viewers are more racially diverse than NPR audience.
Comparing a cable news channel to a public radio station could get you that result just from a sample size effect, couldn't it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is a distinctly a US term There is an articulable enough reason that requires history to know why people would gravitate to that term, now, and why it is not the end all be all of consensus. Basically, somewhat unlike White, Asian and Black, there are no specific phenotypes or looks that encompass people from Latin America. And Latin America doesn't encompass all parts all of the other Americas or the Caribbean, t…
The correct name is latinos (or latinoamericanos), not latinx. Easier to remember, easier to write, more precise (you can talk about latinos or latinas, with latinx the difference is lost) and everybody was happy with it. Latinx is clearly derogatory. Is like choosing to call 'japos' to japanese in 2022. Or like choosing to use 'blacky' to refer to blacks in 2022. Is ideological and insulting and speaks volumes of th…
Its more like “African American” which is just as contrived of a term made around 40 years ago simply as an attempt to make amorphous representation for an unrelated group of people that have been in the United States for a long time, in the absence of another distinguishing term specifically for slave descendants that have no relation to Africa or any other country. A couple influencers chose that term and everyone can tell it does not make sense as a grouping mechanism for other people or all black people in the US or anywhere.
Latinx is an… attempt… at similar amorphous representation as US English is becoming ungendered while simultaneously trying to use shorthand for a greater population than just latinos.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Comparing a cable news channel to a public radio station could get you that result just from a sample size effect, couldn't it?
Both have sample sizes in millions of people, not sure what you mean here. Simply said, Fox News appeals to wider diversity of viewers than NPR.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both have sample sizes in millions of people, not sure what you mean here. Simply said, Fox News appeals to wider diversity of viewers than NPR.
My point would be that by it's nature, regardless of content, NPR appeals to a different set of listeners than Fox News does. The useful comparison would be between NPR and talk radio, which seems easy: there's a lot of conservative talk radio.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My point would be that by it's nature, regardless of content, NPR appeals to a different set of listeners than Fox News does. The useful comparison would be between NPR and talk radio, which seems easy: there's a lot of conservative talk radio.
I don’t understand what you mean by saying that NPR appeals to different group of listeners “regardless of content”, especially as you later observe existence of conservative talk radio. NPR and conservative talk radio appeal to different groups of listeners, but what else make it so, other than the content? Similarly, what makes Fox News appeal to non-whites more than NPR, other than the content?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The ordinance basically presumes a context of continuous, 24 hour surveillance or access thereto. I definitely agree with everything that you wrote but real-time continuous facial recognition is going to be here sooner rather than later. In the context of reforming this ordinance, it makes sense to just assume it's available. To me anyway.
Don't know what you are talking about. Real-time continuous facial recognition at the >98% level is used for about 5.000 crowds already, and they are just ramping up their infrastructures to detect 100.000 simultaneously. A football stadium. Only budgets are the problem, not tech. Esp. with US government "services", but also Europe and Asia.