We should find out their favorite internet hangouts and spam them with pictures of turtles. All day, every day. Nothing but turtles.

but why wouldn't you want to play ant-man online free best HD video stream download? It's quality!

Right. Filter users newer than 2 days in your preferences. Problem solved.

The thing is though, this would affect the experience for non-subscribed users that might be checking this site out for the first time. They go to global, see it's a giant can of spam, and never come back.

The Sherry Turkle book linked in the article is a much more nuanced, much more scientific, much more researched look at the discussions in the article itself. She's not saying "there’s something immoral about tricking people into thinking that there’s someone there, even in something less creepy than sex, like elder care robots." Alone Together makes the point that we don't need very many signals for "human" and that we'll substitute the rest from our own impression of the situation - just like online, anything I don't know about you I'll substitute in from my own experience. My impression of you is about 95% made up of "me" and "my experiences" and when 95% of our interactions with robots are made up of us and our experiences, that means a 5% "human" robot will pass for fully human.

The implications for this are far-reaching: you can easily see how a perspective like "we will allow robots to own property" and silly flights of fancy like that get started. People will essentially give human-acting machines human-acting agency without emotionally internalizing that they aren't human at all. This is the basis of Turkle's argument: we need to understand that things that look and act alive to us do so because we give them one hell of a benefit of the doubt.

I haven't read Kaplan's book and I probably won't. I've yet to find a pop-sci treatment of artificial intelligence that didn't annoy me. I'll say this: Sherry Turkle spent two or three chapters dismantling the similar book Love and Sex with Robots, which looks to be a better book overall. Turkle's objections were essentially that human society will suffer if we come to accept that 5% humanity from our devices when the people around us are offering 100% by default.

And it doesn't include statements like

If I didn’t tip, the robot might shoot a laser at me. Or hack my credit records.

Alright Hubski,

I left the community I was really enjoying for awhile because life got in the way. So I'm sorry and I hope you can take me back. Do you like roses?

Anyhow, my month or so since I last posted, well, I got a job. But it's in a city about a 3 hour drive from my home. So I spent the past few weeks getting ready for that and moving out. I now live with one of my best friends because he goes to university here. I attended the homecoming and didn't move for a full 24 hours after passing out at 4pm. Day drinking is dangerous kids. My girlfriend is now in Switzerland and sadly didn't pass her courses as I talked about like a month ago. I don't know what's gonna happen in terms of our relationship when I need to go back to shcool and she can't attend, so that worries me, but I can put that off until December. Also, before I moved I went to New York and Boston. I got to see some cool art (the new Whitney is amazing) and I attended the Pokemon World Championships.

It's been a busy month.

All,

We are keenly aware of this. It's uber annoying to us as we essentially are manually deleting and globally filtering these accounts.

We have some ideas for fixes, but honestly I think that kleinbl00 has a good temporary solution that he mentions below.

In continuing the "personal moderation" spirit of Hubski, might I suggest methods to simplify and encourage spam detection and elimination?

1) Give me a "spam" toggle somewhere easy. I'd really only need it in global. When I hit that toggle, I want to see checkboxes next to every global post. Better yet, give me a box next to the user and another next to the domain. I'll go through and hit checkboxes then (commit changes - UX question for the team). Every domain I spam is filtered for me, every user I spam is filtered for me.

2) Give users a "spam tolerance." If I say zero, everything that's been called spam by even one person goes away for me. If I say ten (or five, or whatever max you want), the only thing that gets spammed is mine. In between, something something rob05c magic.

3) Incentivize spam-busting. Give me a badge for every five or ten spammers I hit that, say, three other people hit. Or five other people. If only a couple people are patrolling, nobody gets badges. If lots of people are patrolling... hmm. Give it to the first person or something. Badge inflation is real.

Spitballing.

I'm just used to phases being in high-school, lol.

You're gonna hate what I'm about to tell you.

High school never goes away. Ever.

Work in an Office? or Academia? High school or worse than. In Government? high school. In an insular industry? High school. You will be 70 years old, hanging out in an old folks home, thinking to yourself "I can't believe Dan and Rami were talking shit about Florence over bridge. it's just so fucking high school."

Sorry.

I know you ain't hatin', but...

Gender fluid or Gender neutral's a bunch of things, but it's pretty much never "it" (unless someone specifically requests). "It" is reserved for inanimates."They/them" is pretty standard neuter across English and the Romance Languages (Italian, French, Spanish).

Just because you think it's a phase for this person doesn't mean it's not daily life for a bunch of people.

Flat.

The poverty line in the US is about $24k, I think. I would be fine with a flat tax of 5% below the poverty line (everyone should have skin in the game) and an additional 1% for every 1K earned up to 20% total, which would be reached at roughly $40k. The natural response from opponents is to say that its not fair because someone at $40k will have to pay $8,000 which has a greater impact than someone at $200k having to pay $40k. To that I say, "that person paying $40k payed 5 times more to the government to keep our country running. Also, $40k is a lot, even if you are still taking home $160k.

People that want to excessively tax the wealthy should try and start a business one day. It's hard. VERY, VERY hard. Most people toil away at it for many years before they're successful. Then, if they're lucky they progressively climb the income ladder. Eventually, after missing out on years of life to build a business/service that presumably has value for society, you want to tax them at 90%? That's just crazy.

Flat tax. It's fair. The wealthy will pay more than they are right now and its unambiguous.

Edit: Was just reading an article with this breakdown of GOP candidates proposed tax:

I am to a certain degree an audiophile, I'm not super picky and I don't have to have the bet, but I can tell what is the best and what is missing from low quality stuff.

With that out of the way - GOOD HEADPHONES MAKE ALL THE DIFFERENCE.

having listened to hundreds of headphones from $20-$600+ with pre-amps, eqs, and all sorts of systems behind them and also stand alone.

Here is a list of different good quality headphones at different price ranges

There is also one pair of headphones, the name of which is escaping me right now, but they are from alibaba and are chinese no name headphones but they are actually REALLY nice headphones for the $25 or whatever the cost. They put up a fight again most $75 pairs.

There's LibreCad

To be fair, the author is white. I think the point of this piece is less about white people not understanding, and more about people from some cultural backgrounds not understanding.

With regard to the police shootings, there is certainly a distrust of the police in minority communities and there are good reasons for that to be true. Race relations is a large lumbering ship, it takes time to change course. Trust doesn't come back overnight, and the DOJ investigation into Ferguson came back with ample reason for black people in that community to have no trust in their local government.

I've certainly met people who went on and on about privilege and not being able to understand what its like being x minority. None of that seems particularly useful in terms of having a dialogue about race, and often times it almost seems like I'm expected to feel bad because of my gender or my ethnicity. I don't think that this group of people realize that they are probably doing more harm than good.

This isn't to say that racism is dead. It isn't. Being white doesn't get you followed around stores for no good reason, but it does tend to make racist people think you are just as racist as they are. I went to school in Atlanta, and I was shocked by how many people -- that I'd know for a little while, and seemed like reasonable people -- would just drop the most racist comments. These weren't elderly people, or even stupid people, but they grew up in environments that were apologetically racist, and reflected that environment.

Again, there is a social momentum at work here, and it is going to take generations to rectify. Even the people who were just being awful and racist from my perspective harbored far fewer ignorant viewpoints than their parents. Frankly, in some situations that is the best we can hope for as a society -- that in all things, the next generation is a little better than the last in all respects.

I wish I had mentioned the riots in Ferguson.

First of all, I'm offended by your suggestion it's a black mindset. The largest race riot in US history was the Tulsa Race Riot in which a group of white people attacked the richest black community in the US and burned it to the ground. It's no more black, than lynching is a white mindset.

I support the rioters in the sense that I know that they suffered injustice and those riots weren't born in a vacuum. The Department of Justice Ferguson report found that there was unconstitutional policing which included discriminatory intent against African Americans.

The pressure in both Ferguson and Baltimore was building for a long time before riots ever happened and nothing was done. The people rioted out of frustration and anger and desperation, and to reduce it to 'a mindset' really trivializes the issues involved.

Please, take the time to look at the resources that are out there.

There are some ridiculous cases. For instance peaceful protestors taking milk from a McDonalds after they were tear gassed was reported by the media as looting. Fox news took a chant against police violence and distorted the sound so the protestors appeared to be saying "kill all cops". CNN Photoshopped people's signs. I'm not saying we should get our tinfoil hats, just that the media has made distortions for clicks before, and its worth it to try to look for more than one perspective.

In particular I'd urge you to look at some of the things locals in these areas, and other black people in the US have written about what's going on now. They express things with more clarity and insight than I can certainly.

Ultimately 266 years just isn't as long of a time as Americans think. The effects of the actions of the very first colonists are still being felt today in other areas, its almost farcical to think that wouldn't apply to racism.

It's quite ironic that everyone missed the point of this. You are all arguing about him using anecdotal evidence and how he uses it to show how whites don't want to talk about race. But that is his very point. There is a plethora of information which whites can use to educate themselves and yet many don't. Many are in a denial so steep it is akin to insanity. And, instead of speaking about this pathology, many a person segues into what is wrong with the argument instead of what the argument actually represents.

As you do now.

The best I can say is that there are a lot of perverse incentives in the business of science. I think 'untrue' is a bit harsh, but I also think that we're often put in a position where we have to speculate too much on what results 'mean'.

I would say that when I review papers, I generally recommend that at least two thirds be rejected out of hand, due to the fact that the results look sloppy, unfinished, etc. Sloppy results abound, sadly.

I came because Reddit has too many hissy fits like it's some mystical safe haven land. I love the discussion here better

I don't own a gun. I don't want one. I have depression, and the less ways I have to do something stupid, the better.

But I do have a hunting bow, a compound one. I can't fire it into myself, but I can go hunting.

I don't want to kill anybody, not even a home intruder.

I've been buying stuff off wire cutter reviews lately and have been mostly pleased http://m.thewirecutter.com/leaderboard/headphones/

Speaking in a scientific sense, I would say that is an underestimation.

EDIT: Sorry, I was interrupted mid comment.

IMO somewhere around 50% of the submitted papers contain sloppy science, if not some degree of deception. That is, the authors being selective about what data they report. For example, if you run an experiment 4 times, and three of those times it works in a similar way, how do you treat that fourth data set? Can you write it off to some sort of experimental mistake or oversight? Did you mix up the concentrations, or were the cells somehow different to begin with? When you get funded or get fired, you drop that data set, and hope the other three are meaningful. There is no time or reward for figuring it out. Actually, you are punished for doing so. If you include that data set, idiot reviewers will say that your data is not 'significant' and not let you publish your results.

In addition to issues like these, studies are often underpowered, and poorly analyzed, and poorly designed to begin with. Often they aren't even asking the right question. I said to my boss the other day: If you knew a store was getting hit by shoplifters a lot, what would you say is the mechanism? We ask stupid questions like this in science all the time. Someone cuts off the hands off all the people entering the store, and sees that there is far less shop-lifting. Aha! It was their hands, those are shoplifting appendages!

That said, in time, progress is made, and some sort of scientific truth prevails. The system is not optimized for its elucidation, however.