|
im depressed lol posted:You're not wrong in these observations, and my response to your post was not written with the care it should have. I wrote with a lack of clarity, perhaps due to an internal tone set by responding to this, yes in a manner very similar to how you suggested earlier with dissenting opinions being met with the same vitriol as Fox News propaganda. Honestly I think the whole back and forth about this issue has been kind of silly, especially since the comment I made that sparked it lay dormant and ignored for three months until someone brought it up again for some reason.
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 18:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 19:46 |
|
|
Just for clarity, I made an edit just a bit too late to the post quoted above. And since new page I don't want to memory-hole it im depressed lol posted:So you are only presented with media these content providers think you will click on, and a lot of this is demonization of whatever polarized opponent your demographic profile suggests.*
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 18:37
|
|
|
Squalid posted:This has happened in a lot of threads recently and it’s really weird. A poster named ytalia was even crying about it in cspam how all the dnd posters were ideologically and morally corrupt because when they look at a graph of life expectancy they can see that the trend is positive. It's a larger problem than D&D, this question is resolving itself in a lot of disciplines right now. I hate to use the term "Liberalism" or "technocracy" but there is a way of thinking that uses data and metrics to make our lives better collectively. And it's been largely sucessful. I use that poo poo at work. But it's also a failure. Models work within the assumption of the model. They are limited to do what they are constructed to do. They fail to describe the things that occur outside of thier scope and the metrics they use.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 18:39
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:It's a larger problem than D&D, this question is resolving itself in a lot of disciplines right now. I hate to use the term "Liberalism" or "technocracy" but there is a way of thinking that uses data and metrics to make our lives better collectively. And it's been largely sucessful. I use that poo poo at work. But it's also a failure. Models work within the assumption of the model. They are limited to do what they are constructed to do. They fail to describe the things that occur outside of thier scope and the metrics they use. I asked before: if the data disagree with your gut feeling is the assumption they just need to keep making new models till you get the answer you like, or could you ever say "oh, I was factually wrong"
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 18:48
|
|
|
Squalid posted:This has happened in a lot of threads recently and it’s really weird. A poster named ytalia was even crying about it in cspam how all the dnd posters were ideologically and morally corrupt because when they look at a graph of life expectancy they can see that the trend is positive. quote:The U.S. death rate rose last year, and 2017 likely will mark the third straight year of decline in American life expectancy, according to preliminary data.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 18:50
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:It's a larger problem than D&D, this question is resolving itself in a lot of disciplines right now. I hate to use the term "Liberalism" or "technocracy" but there is a way of thinking that uses data and metrics to make our lives better collectively. And it's been largely sucessful. I use that poo poo at work. But it's also a failure. Models work within the assumption of the model. They are limited to do what they are constructed to do. They fail to describe the things that occur outside of thier scope and the metrics they use. This is getting a bit meta, but do you have any recommendations for media (books/blogs/whatever) that go into depth about how this could be resolved*? Topics like this are increasingly becoming where my mind wanders. I've seen bits of it alluded to in various media, first thing that pops in my head: The Trap Part 2: The Lonely Robot Curtis describes how, in order to meet arbitrary targets:
-Some NHS hospital trusts created the unofficial post of "The Hello Nurse,"[8] whose sole task it was to greet new arrivals in order to claim for statistical purposes that the patient had been "seen", even though no treatment or examination took place during the encounter; -NHS managers took the wheels off trolleys and reclassified them as beds, while simultaneously reclassifying corridors as wards, in order to falsify Accident & Emergency waiting times statistics.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 18:57
|
|
|
im depressed lol posted:The Trap Part 2: The Lonely Robot Also there were a lot of stories about shady baptism practices that missionaries in the olden times (like, the 70's) would do. I actually ran into a guy who had participated as a kid. He said the missionaries would just set up basketball playing sessions with neighborhood kids, and then take the kids and baptize them (in addition to playing basketball) without telling any authorities, and that's how he became a mormon.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 19:06
|
|
|
There has to be* some link to that mode of interpreting the world & attempting to gauge performance by what could be concluded as arbitrary statisitics, and business practices like Amazon patenting work-cage-robot-things. Obviously someone at Amazon considered that idea worth pursuing to the point where a sketch was made, paperwork was filed. Probably with data showing X increase in items obtained per Y work-minute or whatever. I'm sure there's better examples in the logistics end of inventory management, probably to the company's benefit. But there's something odd about the dehumanization of that worker-cage concept. And it probably never went through the head of who ever was crunching the numbers. Edit: miss words much im depressed lol fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Sep 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 19:17
|
|
|
I like that the data showed something so distasteful to people that the new claim is turning into people showing their anecdotes that data itself as a concept doesn't exist. Like not even discrediting any specific claim, just the claim that data itself on any topic can exist.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 19:29
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I asked before: if the data disagree with your gut feeling is the assumption they just need to keep making new models till you get the answer you like, or could you ever say "oh, I was factually wrong" Owl before one does anything, one lists one's assumptions. Those assumptions restrict the applicability of whatever one is modeling. Yes one should when contradicted by the data say one is wrong. But it's not that simple. Are we measuring everything? Are the things we do measure limited? We tend to pick metrics that are easy to measure, or that we have the tools to measure. Sometimes we start measuring something new, because we start thinking in a different way or have a new tool. This is an ongoing process. It can also be a messy process. We also must think about our metrics in the context of the larger systems, this or that metric getting better may not be indicative of the whole systems health. im depressed lol posted:This is getting a bit meta, but do you have any recommendations for media (books/blogs/whatever) that go into depth about how this could be resolved*? No unfortunately, because there isn't an answer yet. It hasn't been figured out. Here's what would say, we need more systems thought. Right now there is a whole lotta looking at particular varibles, maximizing and minimizing for individual variables. Linear programming type thinking. There should be more looking at the whole, at the full systems of our businesses and our society and the state and trends of the whole system. I know I'm not only one saying this (cause I picked some of it up in grad school). But systems thinking is a lot harder to teach. It's also harder to communicate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 19:43
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I like that the data showed something so distasteful to people that the new claim is turning into people showing their anecdotes that data itself as a concept doesn't exist. Like not even discrediting any specific claim, just the claim that data itself on any topic can exist. I specifically brought up The Trap (link to timestamp 19:29) for this purpose. How an awkward, dehumanized interpretation of data can bring you to horrible inhuman conclusions. I suppose that concept itself (questioning data) could sow dissent in credibility of data in the first place, but it's too important a concept to just ignore.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 19:48
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Like not even discrediting any specific claim, just the claim that data itself on any topic can exist. Data are a construct. We make a set of procedures we follow. We use a particular set of tools and ideas to collect and record information. The real thing happening, is real. But the data might be different if follow a different set of procedures. If we use different tools to collect the information . And here's the really loving important one if we use a different way of thinking to analyse it. You are conflating data, with reality. Data is our measurements of reality filtered through our subjectivesness, our tools and concepts. Sometimes we need to change our tools and concepts, and we might be in one of those times.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Data are a construct. We make a set of procedures we follow. We use a particular set of tools and ideas to collect and record information. The real thing happening, is real. But the data might be different if follow a different set of procedures. If we use different tools to collect the information . And here's the really loving important one if we use a different way of thinking to analyse it. Okay, but is there any reason to bring this "all knowledge is unreliable MAAAAAN" other than the reason that data is extremely clearly contradicting what you say and you are trying to find some out where you are actually still secretly right and stuff used to be better but we just need to rethink our tools and then we'd realize poverty was way better in 1840 when marx was alive
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 19:57
|
|
|
Owl, you silly twit, what I've said is that everything Leon asserted was factual. What I'm telling you is that it isn't complete, and that this a current real problem with econometrics. Hell last week I listen to a planet money podcast where they had reserve bankers at Jackson Hole talking about it and how they didn't know what to do about it. But go on. I know from experience I'm not going to get through to you. But I'm happy to continue making what you're asserting look dumb.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 20:20
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Okay, but is there any reason to bring this "all knowledge is unreliable MAAAAAN" other than the reason that data is extremely clearly contradicting what you say and you are trying to find some out where you are actually still secretly right and stuff used to be better but we just need to rethink our tools and then we'd realize poverty was way better in 1840 when marx was alive I have been tooling these concepts for awhile, expanding on an idea I had heard in a documentary called The Net might make this more clear: I am too stupid to express this properly, it's not articulated remotely to my satisfaction, just a thought the reader may already be aware of, and will dismiss in pithy, paraphrased quotation marks, so bare that in mind Consider how technology, and the act of creating technology informs our thinking. Before we had computers, the brain was never referred to as a computer. But now, we have computers. So everyone likes to say things like "gotta make space in my harddrive!" referring to something they forgot. But the brain is not a computer. Your brain is not a computer. Your brain is your brain. Like how your heart is not a pump, but everyone thinks of it as a pump once the concept of a pump is invented. And this over-simplification is not good for forming better understandings of the natural world. So, you think your heart is a pump because everyone refers to it as a pump. Maybe you even know how a pump functions. Suddenly, you enter some immense emotional turmoil. You feel this pain in your chest...... or do you? Will recognize how your heart impacts your mood, with this over-simplified pump-model as your basis for understanding your body? Or will you endlessly read literature about SSRI's, anti-anxiety medications etc. because you believe your brain needs an anti-virus run on it? im depressed lol fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Sep 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 20:21
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:It's a larger problem than D&D, this question is resolving itself in a lot of disciplines right now. I hate to use the term "Liberalism" or "technocracy" but there is a way of thinking that uses data and metrics to make our lives better collectively. And it's been largely sucessful. I use that poo poo at work. But it's also a failure. Models work within the assumption of the model. They are limited to do what they are constructed to do. They fail to describe the things that occur outside of thier scope and the metrics they use. This is a good point but what I've noticed is not really a criticism of simplistic models or metrics. Instead in a lot of conversations I see people talking past each other, with one side looking at problems from a political\rhetorical viewpoint, where the point is the win an argument for/against a policy/ideology, and a descriptive/analytic view, which just tries to understand an issue. A lot of people can't distinguish taking a moral stand from just describing information. It's not an illogical response, I mean we all know you don't win political arguments just by being right, it's just the result of prioritizing being convincing over precision. However I think a lot of people genuinely struggle to separate rhetoric from reality, and if unconstrained this impulse inevitably leads people to bad conclusions and nonsensical policy, ungrounded by inconvenient facts. I don't know if there's any good way around this problem in discussions. The distinction between an argument about a thing and a description of it can be blurry. It just requires patience and good faith discussion. I can see why someone who maybe works in a partisan political environment that's all about getting poo poo done wouldn't make the distinction at all, they've already decided what's good and bad so there's no need to understand it further, all that matters is implementing what you already want. Maybe I'm just sensitive to this conflict because I work in a field that has bad data, simplistic models, conflicting objectives and underlying philosophical paradigms, which has prepared me to distinguish arguments about principles and arguments over the state of the world.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 20:24
|
|
|
Squalid, a lot of it seems to break down across a particular line. Dialectic thought, many of our Marxist posters are doing what you describe. There has been some particularly harsh bad takes on "technocrats" in the last year in D&D. Thing is they are correct on most of the moral points. I don't think these things have to be incompatible, but the current zeitgeist is treating them as they are. I don't know that there is a good way around it. Patience and good faith help, but I find I don't have those things in capacity I used to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 20:42
|
|
|
im depressed lol posted:I have been tooling these concepts for awhile, expanding on an idea I had heard in a documentary called The Net might make this more clear: watch "all watched over by machines of loving grace" for other stuff like that. But that concept seems tangential to the general idea that poverty hasn't decreased then turning to 'well the numbers are wrong!' when presented with numbers showing it definitively has
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 21:17
|
|
|
I think that it's fair to say that much of what concerns people is that, in recent decades, things have enriched but not nearly enough of the benefits have gone to the people responsible for building it. There are many more universities to educate people, but the cost of doing so is crippling. Health technology has rapidly improved, but far too few of the people responsible for it being built have affordable access to it. Homes and apartments are larger and safer than ever, but it costs more and more relative to income in order to inhabit one and homelessness is still rampant despite a surplus of dwellings. Agriculture has literally created a post-scarcity food situation, but food insecurity is epidemic even in the wealthiest countries in the world. Humanity has worked together brilliantly to improve the world in many ways, but nearly all of the benefits of that collective labour have gone to a tiny portion of the population. That is a legitimate cause for grave, grave concern; when many things have greatly improved but only 1 in 100 people are lifted up by that progress, it is a systemic failure of nightmarish proportions. I would call this the inevitable result of late-stage capitalism, but too many people either refuse to accept this or have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo regardless of how much it hurts people. The simple fact is that prosperity in the developed world has moved forward but millions and millions have been left behind with no indication that things will be changing for the better despite the evidence of remarkable inventions and innovations all around us. We now face an apocalyptic environmental crisis to which capitalism cannot respond because it is a system that cannot for a moment sacrifice immediate profit for long-term stability. It is also a crisis for which the ludicrously overprivileged are responsible and from which they will be insulated, and it is not only right but utterly sensible for the hundreds of millions to spit bile at a world that doesn't care about them even though the precious "numbers" say otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 21:51
|
|
im depressed lol posted:There has to be* some link to that mode of interpreting the world & attempting to gauge performance by what could be concluded as arbitrary statisitics, and business practices like Amazon patenting work-cage-robot-things. To be fair, that cage is fundamentally no different than one meant for shark interactions. Says more about skynet than dehumanization
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 22:12
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:I think that it's fair to say that much of what concerns people is that, in recent decades, things have enriched but not nearly enough of the benefits have gone to the people responsible for building it. There are many more universities to educate people, but the cost of doing so is crippling. Health technology has rapidly improved, but far too few of the people responsible for it being built have affordable access to it. Homes and apartments are larger and safer than ever, but it costs more and more relative to income in order to inhabit one and homelessness is still rampant despite a surplus of dwellings. Agriculture has literally created a post-scarcity food situation, but food insecurity is epidemic even in the wealthiest countries in the world. Humanity has worked together brilliantly to improve the world in many ways, but nearly all of the benefits of that collective labour have gone to a tiny portion of the population. That is a legitimate cause for grave, grave concern; when many things have greatly improved but only 1 in 100 people are lifted up by that progress, it is a systemic failure of nightmarish proportions. So, what was the specific year that stuff was good? If that stuff has gotten worse what year range was it better? Why can't that stuff be bad now without framing it as if there was once a time it was good? Why can't it be that stuff got better but not good enough?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 22:29
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:But that concept seems tangential to the general idea that poverty hasn't decreased then turning to 'well the numbers are wrong!' when presented with numbers showing it definitively has It's tangential, yes, and I hope I'm not sounding like I'm making an argument for return to the "good ol' days of firehoses and German Sheppards- that's what mah gut is sayin' what we need about these poors and hippies. not nunya fancy maths about the income dis-tree-butte-". That's not my intent, personally, with discussing this topic. I recognize this type of discussion could be taken to shield lovely, horrid causes like climate change deniers from believing scientific data, but it's too important to me not to bring up at all. My intent with the "brain/=computer heart/=pump" thing is to display that solutions to all these problems are not going to come from existing methods. To give another half-thought, hip-shot, short example: The concept of money, the technology of this idea itself shapes and affects our understanding of the natural world. You hear politicians talk about carbon "budgets" as if we're Daddy humanity giving Mommy Gaia the business about our polluted checkbook&ledgers around the kitchen table. Money is synonymous to most people with food, shelter. So to understand how to approach solutions to "reality", the natural world... the concerns and pain of billions of individuals.... you have to tackle this. im depressed lol fucked around with this message at 22:48 on Sep 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 22:44
|
|
|
im depressed lol posted:
I mean, that seems like agreement. Good stuff comes out of doing stuff new ways when the old way was bad. the data shows that, stuff can be improved, it was demonstrably worse and then stuff was tried and some of it helped. The idea stuff actually was better in the past and got worse but data can't show that is the opposite of the idea we need to fix things. It's evidence we need to just go back to before we mucked it up
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2018 23:48
|
|
|
Watermelon Daiquiri posted:To be fair, that cage is fundamentally no different than one meant for shark interactions. Says more about skynet than dehumanization Says more about the danger of working around industrial machinery. It's meant for "How do I do maintenance and repair around these robotic arms without shutting down everything or being at risk of getting hurt by moving machinery" Ye old solution was get a sprightly orphan to do it and replace as needed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 06:46
|
|
|
This, right here:Owlofcreamcheese posted:Good stuff comes out of doing stuff new ways when the old way was bad Finding good stuff is obviously possible, but you actually need to look at how poo poo improves. And thus, how you are analyzing your data.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 07:16
|
|
Foxfire_ posted:Says more about the danger of working around industrial machinery. It was supposed to be a joke about Amazonian industrial machinery gaining sentience 
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 11:45
|
|
|
So, Sears has finally cratered below $1 today for the first. ETA until until it gets to $0? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 17:52
|
|
|
Watermelon Daiquiri posted:It was supposed to be a joke about Amazonian industrial machinery gaining sentience Yeah the dehumanizing angle is way too heart-stringy, I dunno where I was going with that. This idea that Amazon's warehouses will become so dangerous due to automation that a loving shark-cage-equivalent is hilarious though. Through careful research I have found an image that symoblizes this: 
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2018 20:26
|
|
|
im depressed lol posted:This idea that Amazon's warehouses will become so dangerous due to automation that a loving shark-cage-equivalent is hilarious though. I know that is just for a laugh, but I think about it a lot and the fact that automation is something that people are terrified of just breaks my heart. Not having to work as hard being a point of (sadly justified) public dread is the greatest indictment of the social order that I can think of.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 04:22
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:I know that is just for a laugh, but I think about it a lot and the fact that automation is something that people are terrified of just breaks my heart. Not having to work as hard being a point of (sadly justified) public dread is the greatest indictment of the social order that I can think of. In theory automation should absolve us from the need to work. What should be happening is "well we don't need people working 40 hours a week so the work week is now 32." Instead we've tied your right to have anything at all to your ability to generate profit for somebody wealthier than you. If you aren't capable of making somebody else richer society decided you should just starve to death in a ditch.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 04:50
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:I know that is just for a laugh, but I think about it a lot and the fact that automation is something that people are terrified of just breaks my heart. Not having to work as hard being a point of (sadly justified) public dread is the greatest indictment of the social order that I can think of. I'm going to do something verboten/evil here..... and say Anthem, the Ayn Rand novel, helped me formulate a contempt of Luddite values like that at an early age. Ayn Rand.... did a good thing?
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 05:24
|
|
|
JustJeff88 posted:I know that is just for a laugh, but I think about it a lot and the fact that automation is something that people are terrified of just breaks my heart. Not having to work as hard being a point of (sadly justified) public dread is the greatest indictment of the social order that I can think of. Because we have a massively regressive power structure in this society and currently the capitalist class does actually need labor, even though they are essentially at war with it. Do away with that and the rich will probably tell them to eat cake when they can't afford bread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 29, 2018 07:20
|
|
|
im depressed lol posted:There has to be* some link to that mode of interpreting the world & attempting to gauge performance by what could be concluded as arbitrary statisitics, and business practices like Amazon patenting work-cage-robot-things. So it's an OPR or a forklift with a cage on it,. Cool
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 00:40
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:So it's an OPR or a forklift with a cage on it,. Cool Yeah, it's literally the extremely normal and mundane thing where vehicles and things that move people in industrial environmentals or around heavy equipment use mesh instead of or in addition to glass windows that people are trying to spin in some crazy black mirror amazon thing. Like look at any bulldozer that has a mesh cage around the cab, or any cage lift elevator on a construction site, or anything like that. No one would look at this and be all "oh, looks like you wanted to go to work but they put you in PRISON instead, makes u think, doesn't it?"    everything forever has used mesh enclosures to keep humans safe around dangerous equipment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 02:19
|
|
|
It's me. I'm the One in the shark-tank crane game with automated, malfunctioning Matrix-sentinels whizzing by doing god-knows-what and acting like it's as natural as rocks falling on me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 03:13
|
|
|
im depressed lol posted:It's me. I'm the One in the shark-tank crane game with automated, malfunctioning Matrix-sentinels whizzing by doing god-knows-what and acting like it's as natural as rocks falling on me. I mean, name a machine or vehicle that could be in a factory or industrial area or around other equipment and you can easily find a picture of it with a mesh cab or a metal fence around the machine people work on. It's like the most basic safety thing a factory or industrial area can do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 03:48
|
|
|
Yeah even for just walking around it’s pretty normal to be forced into a cage at work.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 03:55
|
|
|
Are you guys honestly harping on this metal-box being used as an example of dehumanization by bean counters just to get some "common sense" points? What is the point of this derail besides being right about something that you're obviously right about? The whole point of bringing it up in the context of my post is that we would create an environment so dangerous and automated that we need a loving cage to protect ourselves from the machine that gets the dildo's shipped out to customers the same day: the insanity of it, the hilarity of it, the weirdness of it. I'm not arguing for some Luddite stopping of automated processes. The whole point of bringing up the hypothetical cage is this was a 'solution' dreamed up due to how dangerously designed these automated Amazon warehouse could be, not mocking the idea of safety in the first place. Like no one thought 'hey maybe these machines shouldn't be dangerous?' Also, this: HEY NONG MAN posted:Yeah even for just walking around it’s pretty normal to be forced into a cage at work. Well did you know you DRIVE IN A CAGE? Checkmate, atheist. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 04:15
|
|
|
Sorry it’s hard to hear through my posting cage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 05:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 19:46 |
|
|
I used to drive a forklift, and there are a good number of people working alongside human-operated forklifts who would really appreciate that cage-on-a-robot contraption.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2018 05:33
|
|
