What does it even mean for 'society' to 'have a bias'? That individuals in group G fare worse in situation S, all other things being equal, than individuals in other groups? If you have a better reading, please let me know. If not, we have disembarked too far from the cognitive for bias, an inherently cognitive thing, as our explanation.
Look at my name and call me a hammer-nail guy, but here's what I think: it comes down to options - yours, others', your expectation of others', theirs of yours, and most especially the resulting interplay of all of the above.
Human beings are the situation you put them in.
You and I (and Max Temkin and Julian Assange) have a grounded reason for a general fear of false rape accusation: that option is available to any woman we've ever spent an hour with. Is any individual, no matter her motivations, terribly likely to exercise that option? No, but that's not the disturbing part. The disturbing part is, there's no recourse once they do - no options.
But why! Why are there no options? Because rape is the exact thing that it is: a grievous crime whose lasting scars are emotional more often than physical. Anything else, it's different: show me the dead body, show me the stolen thing, what have you. If you're a woman, and some dude rapes you but somehow there's no physical scarring and no dna and no webcam recording and no witnesses-- an altogether plausible scenario, we can all agree-- then fuck you, says the legal system. No options. Not that the legal system has an option in the matter either; you can't have a system that sends people to jail for decades on testimony without evidence. No options here, no options there, no options everywhere, for everyone.
We, by which I mean the public, tend to believe the accuser, in my personal opinion, a) because some fraction of the public is women who have been exactly there, with no options, and see themselves in the accuser (regardless of whatever the real truth of the matter may be), and b) because they don't believe their voice matters anyway. Perhaps secretly, but all the same. Your girlfriend's opinion on Ben Roethlisberger's guilt of rape will, she is well aware, have zero legal effect. But it's your potential no-option situation, not hers, on your mind when you challenge her living room accusations for lack of evidence. A challenge which she can't answer because rape is the thing that it is.
Black females don't have the time in the day to get arrested. White women live in a consequence-free environment until they don't. A dozen other things. It depends how frank we all want to be.
>Black males are disproportionately represented among those in poverty or with low income compared to white males.
NFLX would prefer we not measure their offerings against AMZN's. That's what I think, anyway. Amazon has more headliners than they know what to do with - they rotate them on and off Prime's frontpage regularly enough to give the impression you'll never watch all of it. Netflix, on the other hand... Netflix and I fought an 18-month staring contest over whether I was going to watch The Lincoln Lawyer.
What was it, 2003-04 when Blockbuster's engineering team sent Netflix that concession letter? 10 years go by and guess who's stuffing their bra for lack of content.
Really, really great. Very ambitious. I see no viable solution to the issues people are griping about without forking over buttloads of money every month. Maybe someone on HN does, though - we can only hope you'll detect that helpful comment in this storm of pedestrian shittiness.
Are you on postgres? One thing you could do-- and I only suggest this cumbersome idea because you might just be crazy enough to try it-- would be to use the pg_trgm (trigram) extension with the following in mind:
a) Theory being, when someone greps /[a-z]{4,8}/, they're either interested in {anthem, aardvark, ambition, ...} or {nltk, xkcd, json, zzxx, xxzz, ...}, likely not both.
b) Neither (nor any third set you might come up with) is so inherently superior that it deserves default status over the other.
c) Even with limiting results, half are bound to be totally uninteresting to the user. So what does that even accomplish?
So my pg_trgm suggestion is to take that same /[a-z]{4,8}/ result set and offer the user a relative sliding-scale by which they can push their visible 1,000 closer to/further away from a predefined set of dictionary words.
I would submit to you that an analysis of Twitter's, for lack of a better word, design decisions can't be made without putting more thought in re: who they are as a company and what their tendencies are.
What sticks out about Twitter is how deliberate and disciplined their decision-making tends to be. (To me, at least. FWIW, I've worked with a major telecom on their buyflow in both a business and technical capacity. I'm proud to say I'm the reason email/password is the fallback auth and address/pin-number (half of which was already taken care of in the previous step: determining service availability via address) is the default, rather than the other way around as per the original design. Given that the app is in Best Buy kiosks and whatnot, that was a pretty big one.) E.g., these guys track time-to-first-tweet. They're not not looking at what you're looking at. Hell, they're looking at it with a microscope. If they and I arrive at different conclusions, I ask what I'm missing, not what they're missing -- and I don't say that in a platitudinal sense; I'm an arrogant bastard who thinks everyone is wrong about everything. In case you hadn't noticed.
But think about how long, how many years TC, et al. chirped chirped chirped about Twitter's "inability" to monetize. Now those people-- if anyone would bother to look-- look like idiots. Twitter silently told everyone to go fuck themselves, we're going to spend like 4 years throwing away ideas, developing a very strong opinion on this, because a wrong decision could kill our company - not now, but 10 years from now. Compare and contrast: Fb ads, which have been (thoughtfully! and with data!) likened to Ponzi schemes.
No, because I read 1000x times more of the one than of the other, and I personally see and experience one and not the other. That you'd even bring up the comparison makes me think you're not taking this seriously, as a reality to deal with and not an internet crusade.
Read the statement again. I'm not laying blame on any party. I am only taking the position that whatever the cause is, I don't know any better than anyone else how to avoid it.
What does it even mean for 'society' to 'have a bias'? That individuals in group G fare worse in situation S, all other things being equal, than individuals in other groups? If you have a better reading, please let me know. If not, we have disembarked too far from the cognitive for bias, an inherently cognitive thing, as our explanation.
Look at my name and call me a hammer-nail guy, but here's what I think: it comes down to options - yours, others', your expectation of others', theirs of yours, and most especially the resulting interplay of all of the above. Human beings are the situation you put them in.
You and I (and Max Temkin and Julian Assange) have a grounded reason for a general fear of false rape accusation: that option is available to any woman we've ever spent an hour with. Is any individual, no matter her motivations, terribly likely to exercise that option? No, but that's not the disturbing part. The disturbing part is, there's no recourse once they do - no options.
But why! Why are there no options? Because rape is the exact thing that it is: a grievous crime whose lasting scars are emotional more often than physical. Anything else, it's different: show me the dead body, show me the stolen thing, what have you. If you're a woman, and some dude rapes you but somehow there's no physical scarring and no dna and no webcam recording and no witnesses-- an altogether plausible scenario, we can all agree-- then fuck you, says the legal system. No options. Not that the legal system has an option in the matter either; you can't have a system that sends people to jail for decades on testimony without evidence. No options here, no options there, no options everywhere, for everyone.
We, by which I mean the public, tend to believe the accuser, in my personal opinion, a) because some fraction of the public is women who have been exactly there, with no options, and see themselves in the accuser (regardless of whatever the real truth of the matter may be), and b) because they don't believe their voice matters anyway. Perhaps secretly, but all the same. Your girlfriend's opinion on Ben Roethlisberger's guilt of rape will, she is well aware, have zero legal effect. But it's your potential no-option situation, not hers, on your mind when you challenge her living room accusations for lack of evidence. A challenge which she can't answer because rape is the thing that it is.