| General > General Technical Chat |
| Youtube/Google is evil, time to fight back |
| << < (39/61) > >> |
| madires:
--- Quote from: cdev on May 03, 2022, 05:41:01 pm ---Duck Duck Go is actually using Google for its searches. --- End quote --- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DuckDuckGo#Search_results: --- Quote ---DuckDuckGo's results are a compilation of "over 400" sources, including Yahoo! Search BOSS, Wolfram Alpha, Bing, Yandex, its own web crawler (the DuckDuckBot) and others. --- End quote --- |
| SiliconWizard:
--- Quote from: coppice on May 03, 2022, 01:45:18 am --- --- Quote from: SiliconWizard on May 03, 2022, 01:22:47 am ---Some of them are pretty loud activists indeed, but that's a very, very small minority. Those people alone wouldn't have the power to be coercitive in any way. So, while they are certainly involved, that's not were the power and interests behind it lie. --- End quote --- 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 --- Yeah. Well, all those sociology studies are a gold mine... ahem. But I doubt there's even 3% of those people in the population anyway. No, those people are not "loud" (but, certainly not "powerful") enough by themselves to have their way without external help. That's just bullshit IMHO. Their activism is getting artifically amplified by policies of social networks and media, and that's what makes the whole thing look more and more "normal" to the whole population. But I'm sorry, I do not think in the least that those networks and media do it BECAUSE that's what the population wants to hear. They do it because they have their own agenda, and THEN it progressively gets inside people's minds. |
| cdev:
--- Quote from: dunkemhigh on April 27, 2022, 05:42:49 pm --- --- Quote ---Otherwise, people could just vote whatever they wanted to happen. --- End quote --- Very unlikely, unfortunately. Or perhaps luckily, given what some people want! The problem is you can't vote for a single thing. Well, you can, but doing so drags along several pages full of other manifesto commitments, many of which you might prefer to vote against in preference to the thing you want to vote for. There is also the small problem of not being able to vote for something that isn't on offer. If, for instance, neither of the main parties in the UK say they will ban excessive profits from motorway service stations then no-one will be able to vote for that regardless of who they align behind. --- End quote --- As long as you are a stakeholder. Lobbying is out of control, at least I think so. |
| coppice:
--- Quote from: SiliconWizard on May 03, 2022, 06:03:14 pm --- --- Quote from: coppice on May 03, 2022, 01:45:18 am --- --- Quote from: SiliconWizard on May 03, 2022, 01:22:47 am ---Some of them are pretty loud activists indeed, but that's a very, very small minority. Those people alone wouldn't have the power to be coercitive in any way. So, while they are certainly involved, that's not were the power and interests behind it lie. --- End quote --- 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 --- Yeah. Well, all those sociology studies are a gold mine... ahem. But I doubt there's even 3% of those people in the population anyway. No, those people are not "loud" (but, certainly not "powerful") enough by themselves to have their way without external help. That's just bullshit IMHO. Their activism is getting artifically amplified by policies of social networks and media, and that's what makes the whole thing look more and more "normal" to the whole population. But I'm sorry, I do not think in the least that those networks and media do it BECAUSE that's what the population wants to hear. They do it because they have their own agenda, and THEN it progressively gets inside people's minds. --- End quote --- While activists corrupt research, things like that 3% figure cut both ways for them. If its as low as 3% it encourages the flock to push hard. If its as low as 3% is badly hurts their credibility with everyone else. So, which way are you going to corrupt the outcome of your research? |
| cdev:
Corporations dont make good overseeers of many things, because they invariably prioritize money above all else. Not always, but fairly often sometimes this results in real disasters.. Like in the 90s with AIDS drugs which ended up in the deaths of 30 million african children from HIV, after a cure had been found.. They should have just given those drugs to doctors to distribute to sick people.. Eventually they did but only after years of bad decisions.. and greed. And they still havent forgiven anybody for what was done, and now they are determined to not let the "historic opportunity be "wasted".. They want to make a killing off of COVID.. Some really do, they still do and its horrible.. How could anybody be so ignorant of common sense? During epidemics of that kind its really a crime to profiteer of of sick people in he way the drug companies do. If you want to know the story see the award winning 2013 film Fire in the Blood by Dylan Mohan Grey..Or read the book Genocide By Denial, which is a very well written truly gripping book by an African doctor who was really on the front lines of the HIV epidemic.. Is pretty interesting.. and the book is free, although its hard to find.. In the case of several tech companies they really owe their success to the high quality free software which underlies their product.. more than anythingt else.. They should nbe more open about that.. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |