751–760 of 1001 posts
You gotta hand it to Elon - he actually did it.
Do we "gotta hand it to Elon" for not missing one of his 40-50 self-imposed deadlines and feature announcements?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought it was interesting that twitter thinks the U.S is the world
For a big tech company, the regulatory regime is the world. For Twitter that's the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would be great (unweighting bluechecks) but they actually plan to go in the other direction: Starting April 15th non-bluechecks won't show up in the "For you" section (the algorithm timeline) at all. Unpaid users are being written completely out of the algo. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1640502698549075972
Inaccurate. Musk stated that people you follow will continue to show up. I only use the 'for you' feed when I'm bored and want stupid dopamine hits, I leave it on Following almost all the time. But that's on desktop, my understanding it that it keeps resetting itself for mobile users (of whom I am not one).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can dismiss the complaint without measurement if you are confident in two things: 1. Your system does nothing to actually segment this specific group by their identity. 2. You are confident that the systems you have set up to reward good behavior and punish bad behavior are accurate. If both of those are true, you know that even if the group is being disproportionately negatively impacted by some form of recommen…
> ...it is only because that group disproportionately participates in behavior that is bad for the platform. That isn't a problem. That is exactly what Twitter's stance has been all along (in the pre-Elon era) and it IS a problem for the product because people being silenced due to their own bad behavior (example: misgendering transgender people) feel an injustice is being done. The rule-makers get to set the range o…
I don't see any Typelevel stuff. This probably lets them hire and train engineers faster while still gaining most of the benefits
I hope this will encourage more companies to pick Scala.
It's reassuring to know that billion dollar tech companies write CI exactly like I do: https://github.com/twitter/the-algorithm/blob/main/ci/ci.sh Permalink: https://github.com/twitter/the-algorithm/blob/7f90d0ca342b92...
Joking aside, and assuming it got banked out for security reasons, there is something nice about having CI be a single shell script rather than the proprietary yaml format of your favourite CI provider.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ...it is only because that group disproportionately participates in behavior that is bad for the platform. That isn't a problem. That is exactly what Twitter's stance has been all along (in the pre-Elon era) and it IS a problem for the product because people being silenced due to their own bad behavior (example: misgendering transgender people) feel an injustice is being done. The rule-makers get to set the range o…
Am I misunderstanding? Are you suggesting that penalising those who misgender transgender people is unfairly disadvantaging people whose political views are right of centre?
Likewise, if Twitter actioned people for saying "kill all men" or "all cops are bastards", this would be seen as having an obvious partisan impact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, but then what do you do after you measure it? Nothing? No, you make decisions differently so as not to offend whoever is part of the criteria. For example, can we agree that we don't want an "author_is_flat_earther" flag? Because who gives a shit if Twitter makes a change to their recommendation engine that negatively affects flag earthers? Just because something is only used for A/B testing doesn't make it com…
There could be an argument for an "author is a flat earther" flag with the intention of those tweets being repeated by twitter less .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I thought it was interesting how it explicitly doesn't boost independents. So much of the two-party system is self-reinforcing. Is it boosting? Others are claiming this code is just for metrics collection: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35391896 . But on the topic of Democrats vs. Republican vs. independent; a big factor may be that "Democrat" and "Republican" are much more cohesive groups and therefore much…
Why measure something if you don’t intend to change it?
Observing and measuring leads to understanding. As others here have noted, sometimes you want to measure to ensure that you're not inadvertently affecting an outcome or phenomenon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ...it is only because that group disproportionately participates in behavior that is bad for the platform. That isn't a problem. That is exactly what Twitter's stance has been all along (in the pre-Elon era) and it IS a problem for the product because people being silenced due to their own bad behavior (example: misgendering transgender people) feel an injustice is being done. The rule-makers get to set the range o…
Data isn't going to tell Twitter whether to allow or disallow misgendering people. You either think that is bad behavior that shouldn't be allowed or you don't. Disallowing it is not disadvantaging Republicans. It is stopping behavior Twitter has deemed is bad for the platform. As I said in point 2 above, either Twitter is confident in those decisions or not. Data is worthless when it comes to a moral decision like t…
If one of the defining characteristics of a political/religious/cultural group is having a particular ethical view, then enforcing a contrary ethical view against them is disadvantaging them and discriminating against them. Now, it may in some cases be morally and/or legally permissible, or even justifiable, discrimination, but it still is discrimination, and it is still disadvantaging them.
> Would anyone say that deleting spam is an injustice to spammers? You break the rules and you get punished.
Worldwide, many jurisdictions have laws against discrimination on the basis of religion; although it is less common, some jurisdictions also have laws against discrimination on the basis of political belief. A law prohibiting discrimination on some ground, is evidence that some people believe discrimination on that ground to be immoral. By contrast, I've never heard anyone suggest that spammers should constitute a "protected class", and I'm not aware of any jurisdiction which treats them as one.
Some people believe that there is nothing morally wrong with discrimination on the basis of religion and/or politics. Other people think there is something morally wrong with it, but if there is a conflict between the right to be free from religious and/or political discrimination, and the rights of LGBT people, the rights of the latter morally ought to take priority. Spam is irrelevant to that ethical debate.