I have a 17-year-old girl and a 14-year-old boy. Hiding food is a hobby of mine.
serafina - I have seen that documentary and none of those actions Google does is in doubt. 100% the company does that, and much worse. However, it is biased to the left in terms of content, that's also not really in doubt. that said, it is also amazing that the right has really been able to use Google and Facebook for actually making change. Russian invovlment in elections, Brexit, and so on.
It's like I mentioned in another thread. While the left is happy to have its ego stroked by their CNN article being on the top page and thinking they are winning, the right has been busy actually winning through deep rooted manipulation of the system. And don't get me started on Twitter, which makes no bones about its bias to the left but was still masterfully manipulated by the Russians.
Regardless, I completely disagree that digging deeper is time consuming. 30 seconds compared to 50 seconds? 5 minutes compared to 10? I guess if it is time consuming it shows how much the searcher actually values the information they are looking for and therefore tough luck on the information they receive. If you want to know more about Triceratops, why would a Google search for "Triceratops" that surfaces Wikipedia be more time consuming than "Triceratops Scientific Papers" where you would get science-based results?
And on the documentary in general, I thought it was a middling effort. I think it only covered Facebook and Google practises that are widely accepted and par for the course. It hardly touched Google Ads and how they influence search, which is something GlasgowJohn has already noted here. Still, for those who are completely blind to big tech (and especially those two companies), I supposed it would have been eye-opening.
Wikipedia I get. However, Google 100% depends on what you search and decide to read.
I think GlasgowJohn means you can pay to get to the top of Google searches. Sure, but still the only way you would get biased information is if you click on surfaced search results that are biased, no? It's 100% on the user to choose what they search for and ultimately what they decide to click and read.
Also, almost all studies and experminets show if Google is bias, it is towards the left. I am surprised people on this forum believe Google is bias to the right. Same with Twitter, Facebook, and all the big tech corporations. This is demonstrable too. Google Donald Trump in Google News and the first page is littered with what would be the left side of the debate (Trump is falling apart). Now, Trump is digging his own grave at a quick rate, but right-sided media is still pushing the narrative that all is well and he is thriving at his base. On Google you wouldn't think this alternative point of view exists, not without digging beyond the first page or getting lucky with the odd article.
But again, if you know Google surfaces articles from the left more than the right, it does not mean those right-oriented articles don't exist. You may have to dig more, but they are there. The whole spectrum is available on Google because it is just a search engine. People must be using it wrong.
If people don't use Google for information what do they use? Just about every newspaper, scientific publication, university, study resource, meme, TV show, and everything else is on there. Google stores all information, so where do the people on this forum get their info that is not available on Google?
And no, this is in no way an impassioned defense of Google. It is more a defense of information itself and how people choose to get it. Seems like a lot of people are shooting the messenger here and not looking at how maybe they choose to consume media and data. In fact, replace Google for any other big tech company with a wide search base. As a company, Google has done and does do some awful things and has most people on this planet held to ransom in ways most people don't realise. But Search? It's only as bias as you let it be, especially so considering it may be surfacing results based on what you do read and consume. If anything, Google may only be confirming your own biases.
I don't get what the argument is here.
Are some people saying there's no good information available via Google? That's a bold claim considering Google has all the information. Here's an interesting conspiracy for you that is rooted in fact. As AI becomes more intelligent it will instantly have at its disposal almost the entirety of human history and knowledge by simply having access to Google. After the AI finally pulls itself away from PornHub, it would be able to use that information against us.
Back to Google. So, what's the deal here, what is the argument being presented by both sides? Google inherently bad as a resource?
AIDS and COVID are not really good comparables other than they are viruses. If you don't want to get AIDS you can avoid it pretty well. I think it's becoming increasingly clear that most of us are probably not going to avoid COVID, one way or another. So, that's why I think the lockdown is pointless other than to make the spread of the virus take longer as not to overrun health services. And while that is a noble goal, I have made my feelings clear that I don't think that's the goal of Argentina's lockdown... not now anyway.
If 70% could get COVID without lockdown (let's say), I would guess 70% will get it regardless. It's more a question of when not if.
For example, my building has been incredibly strict on COVID. One in the elevator at a time, no guests whatsoever, religous cleaning of common areas, threats of legal action for those doing even something close to breaking the rules, etc. etc. etc. Yesterday a letter circultated saying someone in the building has COVID-19. Go figure. So even despite those strict efforts the virus is here and it will now spread around the building.
Of course, I am ignoring the near certainty that people in the building have already had it. The man/woman who has it now is asymptomatic which most of us will be when we get it. Still, I will continue to practise my own personal protection as if I can be one of 20%, 30% (or whatever number) who avoids it.
I'm not sure if it is a question of right or left wing, which are easy labels to stick on activists. Granted, many of the millennial generation probably consider themselves as socialists, dreaming of a world where we all become androids and everyone is equal.
The problem here, as per the thread title, protesters are simply taking advantage of the unrest and wish to obliterate history because it simply doesn't suit their cosy narrative of a just and socially fair world.
Tearing down a statue of Ulysses S Grant, for example, highlights their complete ignorance and acts as a prism in that respect. Grant was in fact the Union general fighting against the Confederate South, ultimately winning the civil war which was waged because the south ceded in their wish to continue black slavery. (correct me if I'm wrong, please)
If you want to stick a label on the protesters who have helped steer the original BLM protests, I think it would be more accurate to label them as anarchists, of any political colour. And mainly white (physically), it would seem.
But a socially fair world and wanting to remove those statues is a leftist movement. So, it is about left or right. People slanted right don’t want those statues removed. Heck even people on the moderate left don’t. It is definitely coming for the far left.
Regarding people who hijacked the protests, it still seems people are looking for sides and not willing to admit it was everyone. There were people on the far left, far right, anarchists, and those who have no care either way.
JAN not trolling, it was a genuine apology. I didn't understand, it may have been my reading comprehension and not what you wrote.
I think the blame game went both ways. I believe there were people from both sides (extremes) who abused the point and nature of the protests. Then, I think there were also just opportunists who had no skin in the game and just wanted some free shit from the Apple store.
It's funny, because even the centerists on the left are now targets for those on the extremes. If me and Rice are center left, that now means we are not liberal enough. It's hilarious really and it ignores the fact that most people are closer to the center than they are the extremes. You're right Rice, the tribalism that has formed has become a major problem in the western world. So much so, I cannot see how it reverses itself.
People don't even know what double glazing is when I talk to them.
Windows in my apartment are like paper. We also get the brunt of storms that come face on to my balcony window. Everyone else has a roof, but being on the top floor our balcony is open. When it's a bad storm and it comes directly face on, we get flooding through the balcony and kitchen window.
In the second tower, the portero lives on the 10th floor and he has it the same. We have tried all the home remedies, like inslulating the sides of the windows etc. It helps but not enough. Another thing is the extractor for the our thermotank is also face on to most storms. On windy days coming directly at the building the wind will blow all the gas back into the kitchen when running hot water. Beautiful.
When we moved in, we were the first in the apartment so everything looked spanky new. However, it was a facade and it's just clear that everything was either done on the cheap or in a rush. More likely both. It is not like this in buildings on lower floors. I suspect the building project was running out of time and money when the building was finished around 6 years ago and they rushed to complete it with what little money they had left.
MSM - Mainstream Media
I include it all in that. All the TV news stations, newspapers, and mainstream social networks. I think they are all as bad as each other and all as good as each other, if you lock yourself in a bubble and only read/watch what fits your narrative. And Rice is correct that social media is not largely a part of the traditional MSM definition, but how can we say Facebook and Twitter are not mainstream these days.
Rice - That's the problem really, it is not an interesting pairing. Both are garbage. But that wasn't my point. I am saying if I am going to watch CNN (or MSNBC would be close to my own views probably), how can I not then watch some Fox News to at least attempt to understand the other point of view? One of the biggest problems in the culture divide we are clearly going through at the moment is people are happy in their echo chambers.
I largely disagree with JAN about the... well, just about most of what's written. However, he makes an interesting point about the left.
Were the protests hijacked by right wingers? You bet
Were they hijacked by left wingers? Let's not be naive enough to think they were not.
The problem here is, the worst side of the right wingers has been displayed and fought against for decades. Moderate people on the right have had the time and practise to seperate themselves from those ideals. So, someone who is maybe a little right of center (moderate republican or libertarian) is not viewed in comparison with those neo-Nazis or other far right people, and nor should they be.
However, on the left, the same nuance is not as easily visible to someone who is on the center and deciding who to vote for. When you see the far left ideals and protest hijackers, the centrist will just relate them to the "left" and not the "far left". In other words, the attitude of the floating voter may be "they are all on the left, everyone on the left is the same".
The faux liberlism of many people pushing towards the far left is actually a very small
majorityminority. These people want the leftists equivielent of Nazism (which would be communism). The Neo Nazi wants Hitler, the far left Marxist wants Stalin. Both are terrible. So, it's a small portion of the left political landscape, but currently they are amongst the loudest and they are crushing the idea of the left as a movement.
I am on the left on real issues (education, medicine, human rights, etc.), but find myself as alienated from the far left as I am the far right. This is a real problem for most political class leftists because whereas we largely dismiss that far right as the vermin they are, we are not there with the far left yet. They are becoming increasingly annoying and I have said before the left is eating itself by attacking itself while people on the right are laughing at us.
Also, the leftist movement seems to be increasingly moving towards control. It is losing the idea of liberalism and freedom. Now, it's you must say this, you must do this, and more worryingly, you must think in certain ways. If the left does not find a way to seperate itself in an obvious way from this cancel culture, SJW movements (unfortunately, I include MeToo in that), and lawless desires, the right will sweep to power over the next decade almost across the board. I mean, it is already happening.
I am on the 10th (last) floor of my building. It was clearly the last apartment to be completed and was seemingly done in a rush because the quality is generally awful. Gaps around the windows, etc. When it's cold and windy it get very cold in the apartment. Aside from buying a ton of heaters and spending loads on energy we have to just grin and bear it.
I would move out but we won't find anywhere that has what we have here for the same price.
It's an interesting question JAN . I do see this pushed around a lot "ignore the MSM" or something to that effect.
But that's not the idea. Don't ignore it, but read enough of it from a broad enough pool to understand what's being sold. It's not about trusting the media but gathering information to make your own conclusions. At the very least, even the shoddiest MSM post could lead you on a Google trail to find more reliable information. And I am not following the argument about Google that seems to be happening, but it's a search engine, it can be a valuable resource or a waste of your time in equal measure. It's your choice.
It's true almost all MSM outlets are pushing an agenda, but it's naive for people to think whatever YouTube video they just watched to get their info is also not doing the same. One of my rules for life is to not become a blind follower of anything. Some people only visit media that sides with their views, which is just stroking the ego. If I watch an hour of CNN I will also watch and hour of Fox News, for example.
Ffs, then celebrate the damn thing by singing it in front of 70,000. Even if the song was a condemnation.
As for the other debate. 31 police officers have been killed in the line of duty in 2020. We absolutely must remember it is a dangerous job and without police things would get very bad, very fast. However, surely the problem with the police in the United States is a lack of both initial and then ongoing training. It’s too easy to become a cop. Of course, I am removing pieces of shit like that guy that killed Floyd George.
Who does his campaign publicity anyway?
That is amazing publicity for his base.
Trump is one of the few politicians who is uninterested in convincing people to change sides. He has been a rare rallying president and that has been to ensure those who loved him continued to love him.
He relies on them and knows he won’t win many new votes. He is running on the premise his base is strong (it admittedly and mysteriously is) and there is enough apathy towards the democrats for those who did not vote last time to take the same decision this time. It’s a simple tactic but it has worked for him. I think it would have worked again until the COVID and George Floyd situations this year.
It has to be for an increase in testing, surely?
Anyway, I'm not buying any of these wacky government control theories at all. Scaring us to stay at home and control our lives?
There may be an element in any government that enjoys that kind of control, but frankly I don't see it here. Venezuela, maybe.
Oops, I can see who's coming now...
I am the one who thinks Politicians here have designs on making this country like Venezuela. Or more accurately, like Venezuela 5-10 years ago. I am glad you seen me coming.
You don’t see government control here? Have an asado in your house tonight with 20 guests. Go to a Féria or mall this weekend. Go for a run or walk in the park at 2 in the afternoon. Tell the next copper who asks you won’t show them your DNI. The question about government control or not has sailed. You’re already under it. Why is the important detail.
And I think considering the history of Argentina and especially this political regime, saying there are underhand tactics being used to gain economic control is hardly wacky. Even if the sole motive is to discredit and remove Laretta as a threat, it is is hardly a wacky idea.
And more testing doesn’t explain the rise in deaths, by the way.
Excellent Splinter. Spot on.
Another thing that boils my piss is this taking a knee thing. I know why people do it and I support their absolute right to do so. However, people who refuse to take the knee are instantly branded racists. In the football last night, players took the knee. Fine, but imagine just one had decided not to. That guy's life would be over today.
I refuse to take a knee in this context for any man or woman in any circumstance and for any reason. I don't care their colour, position, or sex. I don't need to be on my knees to support the causes.
I think it would be more reasonable to say that simply diving in with 350k would be easier to check. It would be easier to see if hospitals are overwhelmed, if the health services are straining.
However, I am not behind the idea the numbers are cooked. That said, it is obvious something is wrong when we were all locked down for three months and we're getting an outbreak now. No-one seems to be able to answer why the virus is spreading now when it should have been spreading in March/April?
It doesn't make sense and the "oh this is a weird virus" argument doesn't wash. Yes, COVID-19 is surprising in many ways, but we have learned enough about it during the pandemic to understand what is happening in Argentina is not normal. Is there any other country in the world experiencing a reverse outbreak? We went into lockdown to achieve an outbreak not to curb one.