I could be! And in science when you posit a hypothesis you then back it up with data points of statistical significance.
The authors of this study have done that here. To borrow from your example, if you saw a statistically significant amount of my posts highlighting the merits of the Iranian government in a ways that run counter to the general global consensus of their actions, you would then have something that other people might agree was worth looking into. A hypothesis is not “misinformation”.
This article has not claimed to have proven anything other than outcomes in a process. I don’t understand why this is so upsetting to you.
I'm going to assume that people aren't allowed to put "don't send me black applicants" into their process even if they do see race in the application as that's entirely illegal.
The paper's conclusion, that we need to study this more, is showing the authors likely believe this to be a byproduct of inherent/invisible bias.
How would you like me to define "starting point" in a way that you believe you'll be able to understand?
If you are trying to say "more data needed, headline misleading" you should say that instead of misrepresenting the 4/5ths rule. Also the word "can" implies uncertainty of conclusion. This isn't ridiculous, the authors point out that this is the first large scale study of this topic. Nothing has been "proven" here, it's showing that this warrants further investigation and attention.
Do you read many academic papers, because you seem to be having a rough go here.
At least on the iPhone, they don't move if the phone isn't detecting motion. If you're sitting on a couch with the feature on, there's just dots on the screen, lurking, waiting...
So by "Voter ID is racist" crowd you more broadly mean "people who understand that requiring identification in order to exist in society is a burden on the citizens with little benefit to them but of great value to authoritarians who wish to use these laws for nefarious means".
Which, often, does not include exclusively people who think "Voter ID is racist" as plenty of unhinged libertarians hate make great points about why you shouldn't want the government to have access to 100% of your daily data points 100% of the time.
To be fair, a lot of us thought Uber would fail because governments would actually enforce regulations meant to protect consumers regarding what are taxis and laws around meant to protect workers regarding drivers' employment status, and it turns out "NAH, MONEY MACHINE GO BRRRR!" was the option they went with.
I thin some of us were betting against a return to the bad old days of race to the bottom for labor, but the gig economy sure kicked the shit out of that hope. But it sure helps those "employment" numbers!
"If the guy with insider access to the Kleptocracy left would this thing be as valuable" is a resounding NO when you're selling exploding space ships and a 3rd tier AI, a service that consumers continue to find complicated at best.
Well that's your "land for turn" not "replace playing a land". You can only play one land each turn, if other cards let you play extra lands...you can play extra lands!
Let's assume the charity was Catholic and didn't inform people: do you think that wouldn't be mentioned? What about Muslim, Hindu, Satanic?
People have very strong feelings about their money going to religious organizations, especially if the organization doesn't state that they're religious in nature.
Let's do this: What are you implying? Because it seems that you're implying special treatment because this organization is Jewish, and that's not likely the case here in most people's eyes, but explain why you might think that is if that's what you believe.
Some people are stupid and think that they should be given accolades for all their abilities that are just locked away behind their stupidity. They keep telling us AI is the key to this. This is why I don't trust AI. It's being sold to me by rich idiots who can't understand why art is interesting.
Nah. "the internet" or "the power grid" sure, but "AI" being down for an extended period of time would mostly just cause the stock market to shit the bed and trickle down effects from that, but not any actual loss in productivity. We did a lot of things 3 years ago believe it or not, and we'd just go back to working like that after some adjustments. (To be fair, I literally have "Don't Panic" inked on my arm, so I may just be inclined not to panic...)
I work for one of the largest companies on the planet doing work with a budget in the millions (meaning I am a nobody, but also not "nobody") and I don't touch AI personally. There is a group of very rich people who want to get much richer and see humanity as the thing hindering that dream who keep telling us that "if we don't train their new pet how to replace us, we'll be replaced" but I'm going to go ahead and say that AI is a thing, and probably relevant, but like in the way crypto is, not in the way the internet is. Does that make sense?
It's a scam for oligarchs. I'm saying AI is a scam for oligarchs and has very limited use cases and we're already starting to bump up against edges. Also a lot of people REALLY hate it, and that headwind didn't exist for things like "the internet" (you just had a large percentage of the population who initially didn't care, this is active animosity).
IDK why I'm helping with the Trashcan Man, but it's been a weird day...
>>Most of the people pushing these technologies (A.I., brain chip interfaces, cybernetics, etc...) are Luciferians and transhumanists.
I think you can eliminate the word "most" when you say that the people who push brain chip interfaces/cybernetics are transhumanists. That's literally the definition of transhumanism. Just from a grammatical sense, this is akin to saying "most people who exist are human"
The "we the theists (or I guess non-nihilists?) all agree that..." falls apart once you start finishing the thought because they don't agree on much outside of negative partisanship towards certain outgroups before splintering back into fighting about dogma. Buddhists and Baptists both think life has meaning, and that's a statement with low utility.
The authors of this study have done that here. To borrow from your example, if you saw a statistically significant amount of my posts highlighting the merits of the Iranian government in a ways that run counter to the general global consensus of their actions, you would then have something that other people might agree was worth looking into. A hypothesis is not “misinformation”.
This article has not claimed to have proven anything other than outcomes in a process. I don’t understand why this is so upsetting to you.