About 20% beyond core case of government-critical speech in formally public spaces and media I'd say.
There are only 3 real challenges to free speech at the tech level a) the need for CDNs at scale b) distortions of net neutrality c) nation-state firewalls.
All other claims are about social governance on private sites, where applying free speech doctrine is a stretch at best
About 20% beyond core case of government-critical speech in formally public spaces and media I'd say.
That's a genuine de facto increase in practical, informal free speech/expression.
This is reasonable. You should not expect no-strings-attached access to the attention of potentially billions of people under the same terms as ranting from a soapbox in a 19th century town square.
More from Venkatesh Rao
Heh, one thing the nyt piece managed was to do a Cunningham's law nerdsnipe-wmd at newspaper scale... now a bunch of people are energetically trying to post the right answer.
IMO trying to correct whatever the NYT writer thought he knew/understood is futile. "Willing to be misunderstood by the NYT" should be the default stance unless you want to waste a lot of time correcting an obsolete 2013 map for people who don't care.
The thing is, the NYT still has enough normative cultural power, even as it has fallen from newspaper-of-record, that it takes a particular sort of heretical self-confidence to sort of ignore whatever they happen to be wrong about on any given week, whether or not it concerns you
A subtle shift has occurred in the workings of the Gell-Mann amnesia effect. It used to be an individual private amnesia re: media ("I'll believe myself when I am certain they got it wrong because I'm an expert, but still believe them when I am not"). Now it's a collective effect
A sort of common-knowledge threshold has been crossed lately. "Everybody knows that everybody knows the NYT is wrong on X across largish subcultures." It's no longer mutual beliefs being validated occasionally 1:1.
One other thing I should really clarify and that the @nytimes piece got *severely* wrong: while I believe there are very strong sociological and even causal links between rationalism and NRx (especially in the Silicon Valley homes bases) their ideological and methodological
— (((E. Glen Weyl))) (@glenweyl) February 14, 2021
IMO trying to correct whatever the NYT writer thought he knew/understood is futile. "Willing to be misunderstood by the NYT" should be the default stance unless you want to waste a lot of time correcting an obsolete 2013 map for people who don't care.
The thing is, the NYT still has enough normative cultural power, even as it has fallen from newspaper-of-record, that it takes a particular sort of heretical self-confidence to sort of ignore whatever they happen to be wrong about on any given week, whether or not it concerns you
A subtle shift has occurred in the workings of the Gell-Mann amnesia effect. It used to be an individual private amnesia re: media ("I'll believe myself when I am certain they got it wrong because I'm an expert, but still believe them when I am not"). Now it's a collective effect
A sort of common-knowledge threshold has been crossed lately. "Everybody knows that everybody knows the NYT is wrong on X across largish subcultures." It's no longer mutual beliefs being validated occasionally 1:1.
Both this thread and the outraged response threads are... something.
This is why I never wanted kids. Way too much responsibility for another human’s development. Depending on the child, this might either be the day they discovered who they were or the day that traumatized them into a lifelong fuckup. Either way I don’t want to direct the show.
As far as the can opener goes, it wouldn’t even occur to me to try and turn it into a teachable moment. That sounds vaguely quixotic. I’d just show them how immediately. I think my default is to try and instruct clearly but not demonstrate unless the person is truly disoriented.
I think there’s basically a right answer here: show the kid. If the kid has the aptitude they’ll enjoy the mechanism so much they’ll develop the figure-it-out skill with other devices. If not, it’s a training data point that will build remedial levels of intuition more slowly.
I think perseverance is both misframed and over-rated as a virtue. Misframed as in: everybody has potential for it in some areas and lacks it in others. Aptitude is those areas where perseverance comes easily to you. Meta-skill of knowing where/why you persist is more important.
So, yesterday my daughter (9) was hungry and I was doing a jigsaw puzzle so I said over my shoulder \u201cmake some baked beans.\u201d She said, \u201cHow?\u201d like all kids do when they want YOU to do it, so I said, \u201cOpen a can and put it in pot.\u201d She brought me the can and said \u201cOpen it how?\u201d
— john roderick (@johnroderick) January 2, 2021
This is why I never wanted kids. Way too much responsibility for another human’s development. Depending on the child, this might either be the day they discovered who they were or the day that traumatized them into a lifelong fuckup. Either way I don’t want to direct the show.
As far as the can opener goes, it wouldn’t even occur to me to try and turn it into a teachable moment. That sounds vaguely quixotic. I’d just show them how immediately. I think my default is to try and instruct clearly but not demonstrate unless the person is truly disoriented.
I think there’s basically a right answer here: show the kid. If the kid has the aptitude they’ll enjoy the mechanism so much they’ll develop the figure-it-out skill with other devices. If not, it’s a training data point that will build remedial levels of intuition more slowly.
I think perseverance is both misframed and over-rated as a virtue. Misframed as in: everybody has potential for it in some areas and lacks it in others. Aptitude is those areas where perseverance comes easily to you. Meta-skill of knowing where/why you persist is more important.
More from Tech
The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.
In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.
In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.
This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.
In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.
The story doesn\u2019t say you were told not to... it says you did so without approval and they tried to obfuscate what you found. Is that true?
— Sarah Frier (@sarahfrier) November 15, 2018
In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.
In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.
This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.
In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.
Here is a simple example of a machine learning model.
I put it together a long time ago, and it was very helpful! I sliced it apart a thousand times until things started to make sense.
It's TensorFlow and Keras.
If you are starting out, this may be a good puzzle to solve.
The goal of this model is to learn to multiply one-digit
I put it together a long time ago, and it was very helpful! I sliced it apart a thousand times until things started to make sense.
It's TensorFlow and Keras.
If you are starting out, this may be a good puzzle to solve.
The goal of this model is to learn to multiply one-digit
It is a good example of coding, what is the model?
— Freddy Rojas Cama (@freddyrojascama) February 1, 2021
You May Also Like
Trading view scanner process -
1 - open trading view in your browser and select stock scanner in left corner down side .
2 - touch the percentage% gain change ( and u can see higest gainer of today)
3. Then, start with 6% gainer to 20% gainer and look charts of everyone in daily Timeframe . (For fno selection u can choose 1% to 4% )
4. Then manually select the stocks which are going to give all time high BO or 52 high BO or already given.
5. U can also select those stocks which are going to give range breakout or already given range BO
6 . If in 15 min chart📊 any stock sustaing near BO zone or after BO then select it on your watchlist
7 . Now next day if any stock show momentum u can take trade in it with RM
This looks very easy & simple but,
U will amazed to see it's result if you follow proper risk management.
I did 4x my capital by trading in only momentum stocks.
I will keep sharing such learning thread 🧵 for you 🙏💞🙏
Keep learning / keep sharing 🙏
@AdityaTodmal
1 - open trading view in your browser and select stock scanner in left corner down side .
2 - touch the percentage% gain change ( and u can see higest gainer of today)
Making thread \U0001f9f5 on trading view scanner by which you can select intraday and btst stocks .
— Vikrant (@Trading0secrets) October 22, 2021
In just few hours (Without any watchlist)
Some manual efforts u have to put on it.
Soon going to share the process with u whenever it will be ready .
"How's the josh?"guys \U0001f57a\U0001f3b7\U0001f483
3. Then, start with 6% gainer to 20% gainer and look charts of everyone in daily Timeframe . (For fno selection u can choose 1% to 4% )
4. Then manually select the stocks which are going to give all time high BO or 52 high BO or already given.
5. U can also select those stocks which are going to give range breakout or already given range BO
6 . If in 15 min chart📊 any stock sustaing near BO zone or after BO then select it on your watchlist
7 . Now next day if any stock show momentum u can take trade in it with RM
This looks very easy & simple but,
U will amazed to see it's result if you follow proper risk management.
I did 4x my capital by trading in only momentum stocks.
I will keep sharing such learning thread 🧵 for you 🙏💞🙏
Keep learning / keep sharing 🙏
@AdityaTodmal
