You believe that a police officer, who is doing public actions, in a public role, should be given privacy while performing public actions? Say more

Even if an officer’s name and badge number were not public (which would be weird, because both of these are a part of a police officer’s uniform), what is the concern about a tool which provides these?

I would love to hear what has you concerned about a tool which provides a piece of information which is, by law (California Penal Code Section 830.10), supposed to be accessible to all individuals interacting with the officer - their name and/or badge number.

In what world is that even a plausible outcome of this news? This feels non-sequitur by its pure absurdity. If they had a list of 1000 things they can do with this database, that would not even be on the list.

I understand you are talking about something which either interests you or is a cause you care about, but we’re talking about monumental governmental surveillance by a president many scholars are calling a fascist. This is not the time nor the place to discuss such matters and trying to have that conversation could easily be read as dismissing the plentiful and obvious concerns around privacy and safety of the American public.

Already not a fan of Palantir, this is pretty bad news

wokepedia lmao what’s wrong with the world

I’m glad to see a lot of different people trying different models. I don’t think microblogging really has the capability of being nontoxic, but who knows? Maybe they’ll succeed where everyone else has failed. I certainly know we’re trying to have nontoxic social media around here, and we have plenty of issues at a much smaller scale.

I understand why you might be upset based on how they made a rather sweeping statement about the comments without addressing any content. When they said “a bunch of sanctimonious people with too much appreciation for their own thoughts and a lack of any semblance of basic behaviour” it might strike many as an attack on the user base, but I’m choosing to interpret it through the lens of simply being upset at people who are not nice. I could be wrong, and perhaps @sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al can elaborate on exactly who and what they were talking about.

Regardless, let’s try our best to treat them in good faith. Don’t let your own biases shape how you interpret people or their language. Please try to ask clarifying questions first before jumping to the assumption that they are a right wing troll.

Hey fam, starting with this reply its pretty clear you’re not engaging in good faith - this statement is fundamentally accusatory. It’s unsurprising that other folks viewed this as an attack. Please chill out, treat users with good faith, and do your best to avoid escalating things - you should gut check your own comments and ask yourself “how will others view this? Is this helpful?” and if the answer is no, rewrite your comment or don’t reply.

That’s just cherrypicking. Yes some people will review bomb. Others will make fake positive reviews to counteract people review bombing a game for being too “woke”.

In the end the only thing that even could matter is how people in aggregate work - and that’s easy to account for, you just readjust the distribution to be more spread out to get the “true” score of things.

This video seems more like clickbait than anything. I’m finding it hard to find anything worthwhile to engage with here even from a high level.

We have one rule here, it’s to be nice. Stop being antagonistic

This is how you make them listen.

“embrace of right-wing politics…” my dude he did a literal nazi salute multiple times, stating it this way is minimizing

Installing ramps is explicitly not treating them the same. It is making accommodations for them because they are not the same.

Yes, equity vs equality.

The 3D medium had some fantastic art. There were a lot of gimmicks in movies you’d expect, like harold and kumar go to whitecastle (not meant to be a serious movie). But there were also fantastic shots and art direction such as in tron: legacy and prometheus, where 3D provided a much deeper feel of space and made certain shots that much more emotionally resonant and beautiful.

There were a lot more misses than wins, as most directors saw it as a gimmick, but not everyone did. The folks who thought carefully about how extra dimensions would affect a shot (even when it was done in post rather than shot on 3D cameras) made some wonderful art, and it’s a shame so many folks missed out on it because they weren’t able to see past it as a gimmick either.

The quantity of disinformation is irrelevant if people don’t fall for it

I don’t know about you, but I find it increasingly difficult to find unbiased takes and find myself spending more time digging than I previously did. Because of this I find myself increasingly mislead about things, because the real truth might be so obscured that I need to find an actual academic to parse what information is out there and separate primary source from other mislead individuals.

Not to say I don’t disagree with your point, I think you make a fair one, but I do believe that the quantity of disinformation is absolutely relevant, especially in an age where not only anyone can share their misinformed belief online, but one where this is increasingly happening by malicious actors as well as AI.

Just dropping by here to remind you to treat others on this instance in good faith, even when you disagree.

This has been reported on account of the source. I’m not sure it’s worth removing necessarily, and would direct people to look at @spit_evil_olive_tips@beehaw.org comment for another source and an excellent summary.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s not a way to solve everything. But an authoritative body can build credibility and hold onto it. People should still be skeptical and still review, but that’s a normal part of the scientific process. Knowing what’s more and less credible is a normal process of research, and learning to assess credibility is important too. Peer review doesn’t need to be torn down as a concept, it just needs to be taken with a healthy grain of salt, like all processes. This is part of why I mentioned how some journals are more reputable than others - it’s a reflection of how often their peer review misses important things, not a reflection of how bullet-proof their science is. Everyone makes mistakes, the goal should always be to make less.

Also, to be clear, I’m talking about the post-research and pre-publish step, not the pre-research proposal step - that form of peer review can fuck right off.

Also of great importance which I should have probably highlighted in my initial post - this is really dependent on the field itself. In medicine people put in effort for that kind of review. I’ve peer reviewed quite a few papers and I’ve received really good advice from peer reviewers on some of the papers I’m on. Certainly this can happen in environments where this kind of review isn’t necessary, but the institutions that exist do make it a lot easier. An open source self-hosted model would make it really hard to get an idea of how many eyes were on a particular paper, and would make keeping up with continuing education difficult… of course unless groups of people made their career reviewing everything that emerges and putting together summaries or otherwise helping to sift through the noise.