| General > General Technical Chat |
| Youtube/Google is evil, time to fight back |
| << < (38/61) > >> |
| coppice:
--- Quote from: tooki on May 03, 2022, 09:57:24 am --- --- Quote from: Zero999 on April 25, 2022, 10:16:52 am --- A women was raped in hospital recently, because a man who identified as female was allowed on a women's ward. --- End quote --- There’s a better word for that man: sexual predator. But being a predator has little to do with trans issues, and a whole lot to do with predation issues. --- End quote --- You said a lot of nonsense, without supporting any of it, but let's take this as an example. Most people have great sympathy with the plight of anyone who doesn't fit in, whatever the reason might be. This shouldn't be suprising. None of us fit in 100%. I've spent my life like a fish out of water. Even most of those who make snide remarks about outsiders will support their right to be themselves. I've met few people who are genuinely hostile to the issues of someone who doesn't fit in sexually, unless the reason they don't fit in is predatory. 40 years ago I knew several trans-sexuals, when society was much less accommodating of anyone out of the ordinary. Their dearest wish was to just fit in and be accepted living the way they felt comfortable. They didn't stand up and scream that everyone else had to adapt to them, because they were trying to hard to keep a low profile and fit in. If their physique made it easy fort them to pass themselves off as the opposite gender they had a reasonably smooth path. If they were, say, a huge burly male trying to pass as a women life could be hard. That's true for anyone who stands out. Life for anyone who is exceptionally something - tall, short, fat, thin, etc - has issues. One trans-sexual was hired where I worked in the 1970s. Both the women and men there had issues with this person using their toilets, and the individual sympathised with their views. The company built a separate toilet for them, so nobody had a reason to feel uncomfortable about the issue. Later, that toilet was replaced with an oversized one that could accommodate disabled people as well, and became an anyone's toilet. I suspect they only expanded that toilet for the disabled under external pressure, but they accommodated the trans-sexual themselves. Businesses and communities generally seemed ready to spend significant resources to help. Now we have a situation where people are claiming that anyone who says they are something needs to be fully accepted as that something. Their honesty is accepted without question, which is weird, since we know humans lie a lot. Not just to others, but to themselves too. They don't need to make any real commitment to their new role. They don't need to do anything more than dress up. They can even be a man wearing a beard dressed as a woman, and we are expected to take them seriously as someone who was born a woman. Activists try to push the jaggedly shaped peg of a complex person into a round hole, because their view of humans is quite shallow, and any dishonest actor has a field day in a situation like that. So, we see an increasing number of cases of girls and women abused and raped in women's spaces by dishonest actors, and by people who are probably just too complex to fit into a pure male or female mould. So, you are right. Predation is the problem. Why do you support an environment where predators can have a great time? Why is letting people dressing as women, but acting male, into women's spaces in hospitals, prisons, and schools a good idea? |
| james_s:
--- Quote from: coppice on May 03, 2022, 01:45:18 am ---Long term studies of the effectiveness of movements says you only need about 3% of people pushing an agenda, and the rest of the population may cave. People see a substantial group, and think it represents a broadly held view. However, they may be looking at hundreds, while the country has a population of 10s of millions. --- End quote --- Social media greatly amplifies this effect I think. It allows people to exist almost entirely within curated echo chambers of like minded people. That becomes their whole world as any dissenting views are expelled and soon they perceive that as the views of the population as a whole. |
| cdev:
Duck Duck Go is actually using Google for its searches. I think a lot has to do with keeping Google profitable. They have to be kept profitable. Just like health insurance companies have to be kept profitable or politicians might find themselves responsible for a disfunctional healthcare system. --- Quote from: evb149 on April 24, 2022, 10:27:42 am ---The problem is that the entire concept of the web is broken. Back before the the current web (HTTP, HTML) there was SGML which was a concept that was intended to semantically mark up content according not to the way it should be DISPLAYED but also and instead according to the USE and MEANING of the content. Right now the entire core of HTML is based around the mostly useless ways of defining that this bit is BOLD and this bit is UNDERLINED and this bit BLINKs and this bit is in this font size etc. HTML is not logical its basically just a hack thats used for formatting when it shouldnt be. Markup could and sometimes is used as logical markup but it rarely is. But thats not the main issue.. If search engines returned results to queries in some logical markup it would be much easier to screen scrape the web. But they dont, because they are all competing with one another, perhaps. ----------------- Its been this way for decades.. HTML is actually a variant of SGML which I think was originally used in Linotype machines, which I first saw in the 1970s.. (but without inks) They worked.. They were used for laying out pages in newspapers.. similarly to how web browsers work today.. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Semantically in the current web there is basically zero "structure" and "meaning" to the content other than there's text and there's fonts and there's text formatting and there are display styles. Theres even a BLINK tag.. hehehe.. remember the blink squirrels? So if I create a web page with say the following content (as a trivial example), there's nothing indicating to a reader or a "search engine" what the actual semantic meaning and relevance of my page is. Is it fiction? Is it biography? Is it history? Is it about Maxewell or is it about Newton (both of whom are mentioned an equal number of times)? Is it about physics? Is it about electronics? Is it opinion? Is it fact? When was it written? What is the temporal relevance of it? What relationship does it have to other publications / references / people? ---- There are "standardsds for fact verifications, which is one pressing need, but thgey would rather there was no solution, even though it would be a straightforward solution.. but they arent used.. by Google at least. There is Dublin Core..which is as good as it gets.. which can be used to label the most common needed additional attributes.. a name-value datastore.. There are multiple bibliographic database formats.. Something else - having to do with a global shift to corporations is going on. 100% corporate owned, so there isnt any democratic accountability. So it is controllable by the wealthy is a primary concern for example, look at the goals of the WEF.. very undemocratic..and out of the public domain.. They really wish that there was no "public domain" Who owns it? Not them? Who owns information like the facts.. ? Like laws? --- Quote ---James Clerk Maxwell FRSE FRS (13 June 1831 – 5 November 1879) was a Scottish mathematician[1][2] and scientist responsible for the classical theory of electromagnetic radiation, which was the first theory to describe electricity, magnetism and light as different manifestations of the same phenomenon. Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism have been called the "second great unification in physics"[3] where the first one had been realised by Isaac Newton. --- End quote --- Even in elementary school they teach everyone to use citations to references, include bibliographic information, etc. but even the most basic semantic relationships aren't "on the web". What we need in the future isn't some tech-giant "search engine" that censors and filters and monetizes and spies on people's requests for information and which tries to handle the unscalable and insurmountable task of spidering and reverse engineering the "meaning" and "content" of the whole internet. What we need is what has existed for LONG before the internet -- LIBRARY SCIENCE. Agreed but they want that to be controllable, which means it cant be public? Everything has to be tiered, students must be in private schools., databases must be tiered.. Buy or die.. Information. Rich kids pouring the Kool Aid.. or losing out.. Because they didnt pay for everything. Whose library. Since there are commercial libraries, we cant have them be public.. Like I grew up going to a free public library... That may no longer be legal for WTO members.. Because it violates Article 1:3 of the GATS for them to give anything away. In 1950 I could walk into any library, zero computers involved, use their "search tool" (card catalog, indices, bibliographies, encyclopedias, et. al.) and within minutes find content possibly including a search domain of a lot of the sum of human knowledge in published form. I wouldn't get waylaid in my search by advertisements for pizza and soda. I wouldn't search for one thing and get something totally different as a result. I got what I was looking for, and 64 layers of governments, ad networks, tech giants, etc. didn't get to intercept / censor my search, either. So in a meaningful way "search" in 1960 was better than search today because the web is a steaming pile of unorganized spaghetti filled with blinking ads and animations and dancing monkeys and cat gifs and ads for impotence pills instead of what most of us actually wanted -- THE INFORMATION WE'RE LOOKING FOR. Which is by way of example why all the "search engines" should vanish, and the "browser makers", too, and even the way the content creation tools work, and the formats information is stored in. Librarians know this. Web developers and "internet platforms" don't know or worse don't care. Why have this great trove of the sum of human publication online if one can't find anything in it? Why waste millions of man-years every single year with "click here for the next 10 results" and captchas and banner ads etc. etc. instead of a meaningful way to more automatically, richly, and sustainably find and utilize content. Right now there's probably some bit of knowledge that would actually save your life or at least massively improve it. Then they insist that it be very very expensive.. like a drug that might be as simple as salt but might save your life.. They want to turn it into your next commercial product, if you have the money, you can live longer. Everything has to be or become a commercial product...You cant have unlicensed information saving lives without money... People learne all these things for free.. They want to stamp out free science.. But you probably don't even know it exists, or if you do, maybe you'll never even find it because of the disorganized mess the internet is. Searching through exabytes of information is a great commercial product. Actually some people hate the way it is today.. They are doing all this stuff to lock it up. A job for a librarian to find what you want. But therey have to be young and stupid. It is not a great job for our slow wet little brains that can only look at one thing per second or so or whom remember how to think logically.. But to make the necessary AI automation work people have to realize that content shouldn't be created in form encoded for free human interaction, it should all be created for machine processing and semantic analysis and semantic search. Then the important bits can be automatically or manually interpreted and evaluated rather than the "click here for the next 10 results" nonsense. The internet is a vast landfill with trash piled on unorganized in ever deeper layers which not even an archaeologist can sort out to find meaning or location of anything. Whereas we invented the database and the index 50+ years ago and yet we don't even use that minimal level of technology in any sane scalable form as well as an old card catalog does on the metadata / semantic content while creating the future of human knowledge. Whres the profit in that? Why do some people get better? So while looking for ways to "tear down" the internet, and commercialize everything involving knowledge think about creating what you really want / need and don't stop at youtube or google or html or ad networks, keep going until it becomes a tool FOR you instead of AGAINST you. But Google is a lot less progressive than some people seem to be fooled into thinking.. Look at how their biggest customers are the defense industry, and other corporations.. and the government.. And the ad industry..Which has always been kind of sleazy.. I know, I used to be in it...according to them. --- Quote ---Sometimes they too useful but hopefully other search engines will never exist and wont catch up. Free information is already out of control. ... No it's a pile of crap that does not return the same quality of results, theres another one that claims to plant trees with the proceeds and uses bing, that can't find what is in front of it. --- End quote --- --- End quote --- These big companies are trying to commercialize (by stealing) other peoples work and sell advrtising to see it. People naturally behave in certain ways because we are social beings, big corporations are tring to steal the value from normal peoples efforts to participate in online communities and prevent poor people from somehow becoming rich. Without formal credentials.. The jopbs are supposed to go to the rich people, all around the world.. not the poor people. This is one of the worst things some companies do. They are consciously trying to lower he value of labor.. Of course they do it because they want to pay lesss, and all big companies do. |
| YurkshireLad:
I thought DuckDuckGo uses Bing? Or did they switch? |
| eugene:
--- Quote from: coppice on May 03, 2022, 05:09:23 pm ---[...] we see an increasing number of cases of girls and women abused and raped in women's spaces by dishonest actors, and by people who are probably just too complex to fit into a pure male or female mould. --- End quote --- You might be right, but I'd need evidence before I repeat the claim, and I doubt that evidence exists. True or not, I strongly doubt that anyone has kept accurate records allowing a before and after comparison. Bottom line: just don't make the claim unless you can back it up. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |