Pigeon @ Lowbird @beehaw.org

Posts

10

Comments

205

Joined

2 yr. ago

This is a really good article, and I like that they made their data public and put a link to it right in the article.

Also, I knew it was bad, but looking at these numbers it's even worse than I thought. I recommend reading this one.

Like, this part:

Asymmetry in how children are covered is qualitative as well as quantitative. On October 13, the Los Angeles Times ran an Associated Press report Opens in a new tabthat said, “The Gaza Health Ministry said Friday that 1,799 people have been killed in the territory, including more than 580 under the age of 18 and 351 women. Hamas’s assault last Saturday killed more than 1,300 people in Israel, including women, children and young music festivalgoers.” Notice that young Israelis are referred to as children while young Palestinians are described as people under 18.

During discussions around the prisoner exchanges, this frequent refusal to refer to Palestinians as children was even more stark, with the New York Times referring in one case to “Israeli women and children” being exchanged for “Palestinian women and minors.” (Palestinian children are referred to as “children” later in the report, when summarizing a human rights groups’ findings.)

A Washington Post report from November 21 announcing the truce deal erased Palestinian women and children altogether: “President Biden said in a statement Tuesday night that a deal to release 50 women and children held hostage by Hamas in Gaza, in exchange for 150 Palestinian prisoners detained by Israel.” The brief did not mention Palestinian women and children at all.

That is so fucked up. And there are a bunch of other examples like it re. the disparity in the language these newspapers use.

Tangentially, and though this is a whole can of worms and rather beside the point we should be focusing on at the moment: I am also disturbed that it's apparently still common practice to bundle women together with children like this - if they just mean "noncombatants" or "caregivers" then they should say that, just saying "women and children" like this demeans female combatants and male caregivers alike. I can sort of understand an argument for it in certain contexts where women are subjugated and denied a lot of rights, but this language is used regardless of social contexts.

Well that right there is a real bad photoshop job.

Weird. You don't have any potentially problematic extensions installed?

You could also try Firefox Nightly, though I suspect it may not be better for you if the regular one is broken.

From the study paper, if I'm understanding correctly, it appears they gave each participant an initial "baseline" self-reported survey covering everything from health history to subjective personality characteristics, and then they weighted their statistical analysis different for dog owners and cat owners to "balance" against dog and cat owner baseline characteristics. "Weight was calculated based on the physical, social, and psychological characteristics of community-dwelling elderly Japanese dog and cat owners." It says, followed by two quite different lists of which characteristics were used to calculate the weight for dog owners vs cat owners. Color me unconvinced.

Also worth noting that dog and cat owners were defined by whether they marked current or past ownership on the self-reported survey. So if you had a dog when you were 30 or 20 or 13, you're in the dog owner group even if you've never had a dog since, and seemingly regardless of how long you had the dog. It's unclear what they did for people who owned both over the course of their life, but I think they just left them out, unless they were looking for "most recent type of pet owned" rather than "only type of pet owned". I don't know.

The study appears to have been funded by Japanese health institutions/centers rather than, like, a dog food company or something, so that's good.

Apparently they also did a previous study that concluded dogs had a positive effect against "frailty and death". Seems to likewise confuse correlation for causation.

Overall, I think someone really likes dogs, and I don't personally trust any of the rest of this.

Way to confuse correlation and causation, jeez. We can't just conclude owning dogs causes reduced dementia risk from this, and even the study abstract makes this mistake.

For all we know, for example, it could be that elderly folks who are already doing worse get/are given cats because they require less constant personal attention and exercise (for the human).

And this is assuming the study was well conducted and there was no p-hacking or suchlike involved. I haven't really looked into the paper properly but the size of the reported effect and the weirdness of the claim makes me a bit wary.

Way to confuse correlation and causation, jeez. We can't conclude causation from this. And it looks like even the stufy abstract itself makes this mistake.

For all we know, maybe elderly folks who are doing worse already get cats because they require less exercise (for the human) and consistent personal attention.

But maybe the cat will live, so.

I presume they didn't because that would be likely to get gamesradar sued for piracy. They can report on it, but they can't aid it.

Also, the "whales" are by and large not unharmed rich people - it's mostly poor people who are at risk for gambling addiction, such as many with adhd, depression, etc. The people who are targeted successfully by this model usually suffer for it.

I agree it's murky. Though I'd like to note that when you shift hateful ideologues to dark corners of the internet, that also means making space in the main forums for people who would otherwise be forced out by the aforementioned ideologues - women, trans folks, BIPOC folks, anyone who would like to discuss xyz topic but not at the cost of the distress that results from sharing a space with hateful actors.

When the worst of the internet is given free reign to run rampant, it has a tendency to take over the space entirely with hate speech because everything and everyone else leaves instead of putting up with abuse, and those who do stay get stuck having the same, rock bottom level conversations (e.g. those in which the targets of the hate are asked to justify their existence or presence or right to have opinions repeatedly) over and over with people who aren't really interested in intellectual discussions or solving actual problems or making art that isn't about hatred.

But yeah, as with anything involving large groups of people, these things get complicated and can be unpredictable.

This is a great game, especially if you're the type who thinks the beginning hours of a civ game (before you get bogged down in micromanagement and unit orders) are the best hours. It basically gives you that kind of early-game experience over and over, with plenty of variation. It's so much better paced than most comparable games as a result. I'm surprised it doesn't get more buzz.

I didn't get far in it because the characters seemed very bland to me, and the story setup generic, but perhaps that could improve over time? I know some games leverage their length to pull off slow character development well, even if the basic character templates are straightforwardly tropey. But this one didn't grab me enough at the beginning to justify investing my time in it, personally.

I'm glad it exists for the people who do like it, though!

I think it's moreso that TikTok's algorithms, whatever that black box may contain, are far better for discoverability than those of all the other platforms.

It's guided by what each individual viewer wants to see (or hates to see, if they can't resist interacting with videos they hate), so small media bubbles are created for better or worse, but Tiktok will hand on-the-ground news reported by Palestinians to people who want to see it without those viewers having to look for it or know it's there to be looked for.

By contrast, if you go to youtube, you might see whatever shows up in the general "popular" tab, or you might enter a search for Palestinian news (which requires you to be actively looking for it in the first place vs just there and able to be shown it) but you're likely to get mainly clips from major US news channels, with their framing of the situation, and maybe some Israeli ones. Not the heaps of videos by random individuals that you'll find on TikTok. Even if that type of video is uploaded, youtube won't recommend it if it's from a new channel and doesn't already clock a bazillion views. But TikTok can make a little video from a random person go from zero to everywhere very quickly.

TikTok in general is just better for finding "man on the street"/"what is it like to be there right now" reports from affected individuals. As well as for finding other own-voices type videos by individuals who aren't media stars or news reporters or the hosts of big youtube channels, but who are the ones most directly in a situation.

Of course there is bias or outright misinformation on the platform too. It is best approached with caution and media literacy, but one need only look at U.S. media's coverage of the current situation to see that is the case for mainstream news organizations too.

This is true. But calling the worst case scenario "inevitable" is doom and gloom surrender before the fight - stuff like this will just make people think "well, it's hopeless, there's nothing I can do" and so they do nothing when maybe they could have done something.

I won't argue there aren't some use cases for it, but it was massively oversold for what it actually is. It's essentially just shared spreadsheets, but almost always described in a way that make it seem inscrutable to most people (further sinking any propect of mass-adoption) and cool to people who want to feel like they're intelligent and in-the-know about tech. And it was pushed primarily for things it was unsuited for, like replacing regulated banks with FDIC insurance.

I think it has potential niche uses, though. Not every technology has to be widespread or applied to a wide variety of different things.

Tbh I think the same overselling/over-applying is happening to large language models/LLM "AI" now, though at least LLMs legitimately do have a lot of potential use cases. Just not as many as the everything people are trying to apply it to, and not as overpoweringly as many assume.

People keep saying it's dead to them but the company's own statements seem a lot more optimistic, imo. I think they're just refocusing, and dumping a lot of the extraneous "let's be an everything platform" features the userbase didn't want anyway. Tumblr isn't a giant cash so far as I know, but its userbase is sizable and stable, and recently grown since reddit and twitter took a tumble.

As a platform, there's a lot to recommend it, I think. It's one of those situations where the experience you get out of it depends on how you curate it. So like, you can go down fandom rabbitholes, or webcomic rabbitholes, or you can entirely ignore that and just subscribe to ocean science blogs, or to photography blogs, or so on. There can be drama in some parts, but that can also be entirely avoided in your feed if that's your preference. I like it a lot better these days than I did like 5-10 years ago.

Also, it's the type of thing that makes me very worried about the fact that most of the algorithms used in things like police facial recognition software, recidivism calculation software, and suchlike are proprietary black boxes.

There are - guaranteed - biases in those tools, whether in their processors or in the unknown datasets they're trained on, and neither police nor journalists can actually see the inner workings of the software to know what those biases are, to counterbalance them or to recognize if the software is so biased as to be useless.

If you use cast iron, carbon steel, or stainless pans, buy a chainmail scrubber. They are SO GOOD.

Also steel wool ball scrubbies are nice for real cast iron disasters, but they can scratch or get gross if used as a first resort.

Nonstick is not worth it and cast iron is a million times easier to care for than people make it out to be. You can wash it with soap - it was only old school lye soaps that were an issue. You can let food soak in it some. If it rusts or the seasoning is damaged, that's easy to fix. It's a hunk of iron - don't worry about babying it if that's the thing keeping you from trying it!

I find it does sometimes have food stick more rhan with nonstick, depending on whether I've been doing the extra cast iron care things recently or not, but the ability to use steel utensils/spatulas/scrubbies compensates for that very well, imo.

Tldr try cast iron or carbon steel if you haven't!

Do they not burn? Ever time I've thought of trying wooden utensils with a pan I've worried I'd burn them, so I've always thought they were just for serving or mixing.