# Millennial finding totalitarian concepts fascinating at hacker conference



## notimp (Dec 28, 2018)

Here is a millennial at a german hacker conference, thinking that social control is cool, because they are familiar with self censorship on facebook, and entirely amazed by how "interesting" and "great sounding" some concepts are if you give them PR names.

Watch them trying to spread this enthusiasm to an audience they believe are intellectual dumbells (like people that cant read f.e. the economist themselves) - being very concerned, that they are perceived as very inclusive and intelligent upfront. By doing some namedropy stuff.

https://media.ccc.de/v/35c3-9904-the_social_credit_system

I'm all for looking at things from different perspectives, what kills me is the genuine enthusiasm for totalitarian concepts, while acting like a misfit at a hacker conference.

If thats the intellectual elite we are working with...

Also I guess watch if you want some deeper knowledge about certain programs, or you find listening to someone worth your while, that can explain to you three times over what social shaming is.

Moneyquote "The system got abolished, when citizens and even state media started to talk about how this is an Orwellian system - because its very centralized, and..." -

- because its very centralized and - ? It gave people a social score. Based on a made up catalog of criteria. That started everyone at 1000 points, but then detracted points if you were behaving like you were living in a bad area. You can drop your "universal objectivity playacting" right then and there lady... But the new systems? So much better now.

Please never become that person. (They studied economics, but they are much more into the social, like - right now... Hence the black sweater.)


----------



## Whole lotta love (Dec 28, 2018)

Why did you emphasize her identity as a millennial as opposed to her many other identities (economist, white person, German, etc.)
Like it's just one person, weird to lump them into a group as if that's relevant at all. And that's not even getting into the legitimacy of "millennial" as a useful category.


----------



## notimp (Dec 28, 2018)

Because to me its representative of a large group of younger members of society belonging to this age group, falling into the very same same trappings - of acting out "i care so much about the social"- then following that up with public stage actions like hyping totalitarian concepts - that prove the entire opposite.

Also its really her main characteristic, standing on that stage. She is young. She is enthusiastic.

Thats more important to me to draw the image, than that she is a women, or a german citizen.

Also she learned python to do like big data stuff, but was especially amazed - when just changing one thing would have - like, massive impacts... Couldnt quite fit that into the title as well... :/


----------



## notimp (Dec 28, 2018)

The thing that she finds objectionable about the the social scoring of people right now (24min30sec mark), is that the chinese government (!) doesnt make it transparent (!), what data is exactly shared (!), when they are sharing the social scores around between ministries and the private sector (!). Shes very adament about this. Also very professional when suming this up with - "we dont know at this point".

Please slap me out of it, I have to be dreaming this.

This is what happens if you are more fascinated with yourself chasing a "socially responsible" public image, than with the stuff you are actually saying, thinking or doing.

Forget, that this is a bright kid, wanting to wear a black sweater - someone has to tell her, what public image she is projecting right then and there...

Also and I quote: "About 80% of people are between 950 and 1050 points right now - those are basically the [airquotes] normal people, and..."

I'm dying. This is it. I cant. I... must continue watching.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Dec 28, 2018)

I think you might be engaging in confirmation bias as I'm sure you encounter many millenials who do not demonstrate this tendency that you associate with the group. I imagine you also come across many people from older generations who do this same thing. 

If you want to link to millennials I think it would be wise to justify that in your post. Like it would be weird for me to write that post and title it:

"Woman finding totalitarian concepts fascinating at hacker conference"

Then the burden of proof is on you to link these two things, and thus far you've simply said you _feel_ like there is a connection.



> *Because to me* its representative of a large group of younger members of society belonging to this age group, falling into the very same same trappings - of acting out "i care so much about the social"- then following that up with public stage actions like hyping totalitarian concepts - that proof the entire opposite.





> Also its really her main characteristic, standing on that stage. She is young. She is enthusiastic.


Not to me. I'm mostly interested in her background and what she has to say. I imagine this is true for many viewers.

Now we're sort of stuck in the conversation, do we talk about the content of her talk, or do we discuss the legitimacy of the correlation you have drawn between totalitarianism and people born between 1983 and 1995. 

I'll leave us with a good quote from a man I don't really like:


----------



## notimp (Dec 28, 2018)

She ends with her findings within the statistical modeling that she has done while on a scholarship in china - so basically, best practices for the chinese government, so that their modeling gets accepted by a public and is accepted long term, then stating, that she also used some proprietary data within here models, that she hasn't greenlit for open publishing so far, but as soon as she gets the go ahead, everyone can take a look at the raw data as well. 

But open data be very important. Except for when you need the access.. 

Lovely story about an ambitious young mind venturing into the inner workings of two or three chinese social scoring models - but the actual categorical positioning here is frightening as hell, and pretty much tonedeath for the entire first third of the talk.

But boy the fascination for this stuff is there and living, in a younger generation.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Dec 28, 2018)

And you don't believe for a moment that maybe... they're literal shills doing this for money? like advertising?
or just positioning herself as one of the go to employees, should such a concept ever be explored in germany?


also, the world is already partially working based on such concepts, just a bit more random and a bit more arbitrary here or there.
social control already is very much and has always been very much a cornerstone of how societies work. this isn't that much more different. it literally just shows the issues of these systems more clearly, since everything is clearly defined, the injustice of how where you're born and what you're being outfitted with as you grow and how that limits what you're able and allowed to do becomes much clearer.


----------



## notimp (Dec 28, 2018)

Whole lotta love said:


> and what she has to say


Here is her background. Student exchange scholarship at a prestigious chinese university for economics. Wanted to do "something with social" - so she looked into the chinese social score systems the best she could.

Got access to some sample data, she cant share, did statistical modeling based on five different actions her simulated actors could perform, and some behavioral modeling data from some friends of hers (surveys, if you'd know that it costs you points, would you...).

Here is what she has to say: These are the best ways to assure that the system works, and is accepted by people. (Also - here, look at a commercial version from Alibaba, that already is.)

Sadly, no more additional output. Some geeks in the audience asked about operational details, that shouldnt prove very important. But to her credit she has in depth knowledge about implementation likelyhoods and timeframes..

.. and a very disturbing fascination with "making this work better".

Thank you for your research.

Best audience question: Do we know the potential dynamics of regaining score ("fluidity") - which she answered with a non answer answer (in the important models case it probably will be determined on a "per person basis" - which it won't - when its rolled out at large).

edit: There was one insight worth listening to this though. From her perspective, this will get implemented by stating that it would introduce more "financial trust" - (so basically people can get access to more loans) but that there is only a small correlation between "social behavior" and "likelyhood of loan payback", so that the social score model actually would prove to be a bad indicator and not at all needed for this, for the financial sector long term.

But that the chinese government had already gone public with statements, of "we want it so that people can get more loans" - so it will be rolled out simply so they dont lose face.

She probably didn't get the politics quite right on this one, but her assessment here was interesting nevertheless.


----------



## notimp (Dec 28, 2018)

Clydefrosch said:


> also, the world is already partially working based on such concepts, just a bit more random and a bit more arbitrary here or there.


Yes, basically correct - and my assessment as well.

What I am uneasy with - is that new notion of "now that we get all this pretty precise modeling at basically no cost" (more datapoints for free, that people dont necessarily know that they are giving) - someone attend to society, so we can make sure, that people feel more fulfilled, when their actionable impact actually accounts for less and less.

Also - false negatives. People not understanding, what is happening here. Huge issues in my book. So all that fascination about the better modeling capability of something that might, or might not represent the actual world (its more like a best guess version of it), take that - and direct it right to where it matters, and those are the actual outcomes and the social shifts that it will cause.

(Long term outcomes of improving the reproducibility of a certain societal model not even looked at, ...)

Heck, I want to see people game the heck out of those system - just so that people get an understanding, that they are no more just - or objective, than the people creating the algorithms. They might be more precise towards what they are measuring. But that is not objective reality.

Also - this is an upcoming "girlwonder" data scientist talking here, and she has a deficit in social awareness thats so huge that you can drive an entire train through it. Not a great sign. Not a great image to leave with either.


----------



## Saiyan Lusitano (Dec 29, 2018)

But how do you know he's fascinated? Did God tell you or you just assumed?

I got my PhD from PragerU.


----------



## notimp (Dec 29, 2018)

I don't believe in god, I'm afraid and I deducted that myself. At the point in the speech, where she tried to frame "The" social score, as something thats gotten largely misrepresented in the west, because there is more than one, and chinese people actually see it as more of a chance, because general societal trust is so low, and that people would use it more to gage who to make friends with, only to end on "the system most western media outlets reported on - probably still is the one thats getting picked, because it got a lot of prices", and thats the way the government usually picks them after running pilot programs and - somehow representing this as her own critical deduction in the last third of the talk.

It might have also been the fact that she tried to whitewash it, by focusing quite a bit on the aspect, that in china the words for "financial credit" and "social credit" actually are the same (she knew the word, which made her very excited to tell everyone), and so when the government ventured out to create a credit rating system for banks, this was really the logical consequence, also because they had similar programs in the past, or how she gleened over the fact, that there is a whole subgroup of people who where not registered as chinese citizens during the "one child only policy" period who now are exempt from traveling large distances, or even buying a phone.

It might also have been the notion, that in her research she actually helped to point out potential points of failure for the chinese government to address before rolling it out.

Or how she geeked out over the score range the 80th percentile of people holds. Math is fun, kids.

But if you give her all benefit of the doubt. Yes, maybe shes just "interested and a little confused". If thats a more proper fit for the title in your eyes - take it. Run with it. 

But the takeaway still is, that she thinks, that this is a cool topic to have done her thesis in - and that she shows genuine enthusiasm, when talking about it. Whithout reflecting one bit, on whats coming out of her mouth.


----------



## notimp (Dec 29, 2018)

Also I'm not sorry at all for having triggered people in here again, having used the word millennial to represent a group of young people - because if thats all you can get riled up over in this topic, you've done exactly what I've intended.

You've made my point.

Fake outrage over surface level stuff like using a word you dont like - while having made that your excuse for not looking at the problem thats raised here at all. Be proud.

Now you are all conflicted, if you should shut me down for making you look bad, or if the topic actually is important enough - that you shouldnt make this about you this time around. Young people fascinated by totalitarian concepts at hacker conference. There. Better now?

But why do you have to bring up her age at all in this topic? And not for example her gender, or her qualification? Because thats the whole framing device. I didn't call her a bad person for championing large aspects of totalitarian policy making, I called her young and naive.


----------



## Lucifer666 (Dec 29, 2018)

I agree this is bad, but I also agree with those criticising your emphasis on the word 'millennial'.


notimp said:


> Also I'm not sorry at all for having triggered people in here again, having used the word millennial to represent a group of young people - because if thats all you can get riled up over in this topic, you've done exactly what I've intended.
> 
> You've made my point.
> 
> ...


jfc chill and get off your high horse. you're acting like you can go "GOTCHA!!" when all you've done is make everybody else in the thread wince and not want to bother engaging anymore

--

For the record I agree with you that this is bad (coming from a hardcore socialist "millennial" myself), but I also agree with those criticising your use of the word millennial. It's lazy, pejorative, and implies a false correlation between youth and destructively radical political stances. She has her own reasons for thinking the way she does whether we agree with it or not, and it's wrong to invalidate them just because you lack respect for younger age groups. Makes you sound like an old fart whining about "kids these days", which isn't an exclusively millennial thing, and happens every generation. Once you accept that our society's youth need to have a space to observe, take part in discussions, and analyse such matters (which ironically, is what gets them out of the position of being "young/naïve/inexperienced" you complain about), only then will people take your input seriously.

As I have said at the start of the previous paragraph, I do actually agree with you. But you paint it to be a systematic issue with younger folks when it really, really isn't.


----------



## notimp (Dec 29, 2018)

I can live with that. Although - I still find it oddly funny - that people are trying to censor this specific use of a word in a thread about totalitarian tendencies. But thats just me.  

(Didnt focus in on it in any other way - than to write up the concept, that - ideally, even young people, growing up on facebook, being familiar with self censorship, and social media optimized personas, would and should not be that laissez faire with certain concepts. If I hadnt picked that angle, I would have had to use other words for describing a display of naivity mixed with enthusiasm. Those probably would have been harsher.)


----------



## kuwanger (Dec 29, 2018)

notimp said:


> What I am uneasy with - is that new notion of "now that we get all this pretty precise modeling at basically no cost" (more datapoints for free, that people dont necessarily know that they are giving) - someone attend to society, so we can make sure, that people feel more fulfilled, when their actionable impact actually accounts for less and less.



So, um, yea.  China does it to your face.  The US has "Credit Scores" that are equally arbitrary and opaque.  It has hidden "Do Not Fly" lists.  It's a major innovator in the facial recognition tech that China is adopting.  It has large companies (Google and Facebook) which are doing all the "pretty precise modeling at basically no cost" bullshit pushing their AI stuff, and Facebook has repeatedly demonstrated it'll sell that information to basically anyone.

Yea, I agree it's all very frightening that she's so gun-ho about it, but the US has been gun-ho about it since at least 2000.  I guess it's "better" that the US and Europe aren't explicitly taking the steps that China is doing and seem to be focusing more on manipulating people to buy things?  Old ideas are new again, and the young are the avant garde of carrying out most of the worst atrocities because they're the ones who are most keenly aware of how fucked up the current way is, even if they're too gullible to accept just about anything that sounds good on paper.

But the other part is everyone else.  China couldn't get away with what they're doing if most the populace wasn't complacent to whatever government does.  That 90% are "normal" range is by design to keep them complacent and ready to accept the irregulars as deserving of punishment.  That's true in China, the US, or Nazi Germany.  It's why I'm disturbed by all of it and wish to never be complacent that it couldn't happen here, where ever here is.


----------



## notimp (Dec 29, 2018)

I agree with everything you've said. What I see in the west is trying to get as many aspects of the (+/-) all encompassing chinese model to work in society, by people voluntary choosing to use it.

And it doesnt take very many steps. Step 1: Build a Google/Amazon virtual assistant that makes peoples lives easier. Step 2: The end. 

This all is a function of what is perceived to be 'the' (now I'm using airquotes) next economy.  So - people all of a sudden produce a heck more of data thats easy to aggregate, and that they dont want any money for, and that they hardly know they produce - what can we do with it. And the answer is obviously "make better models" - or from the perspective of people - "something that will make my life more easy".

What pretty much everyone that looked at the trends around big data in principal is concerned about is that the models start to define the individual, without really that much input needed, or essentially wanted. Which hits on two issues. The first one is the end of the concept of free will. The second one is people not understanding the things that are shaping their lives.

In china apparently you have technooptimism ("the apps wills solve this"), in western societies you cant have this as a solution, because historically we championed the individual, and individual self fulfillment. Basically I dont want this tradition to be broken..  For us, we create the models of our selves.

And I basically dont trust a proxy to do it for me.

Thats the unnecessary philosophical explaination, for this really being the difference between a democratic society, and totalitarian ones. 

I've seen too many bad models of the ad industry trying to tell people - whats good for them, for me to believe, that they should make any of their life decisions. Also I HATE the notion of people being defined by association to others.

When we do it currently - its more in a less tangible sense, its more an approximation of the moment, or a situation. It basically changes with the social situation (work, at a bar, ..) If we make that definite (social score of 1050), something breaks in our societies.

Don't forget, in China people are encouraged to compare social scores before deciding on who to do business with, who to mingle, who to marry, ... Its basically also why I shout everyone into the ground that tries to tell me "try having more facebook followers - it will raise your societal worth". The heck it will.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 29, 2018)

You’re really obsessed with Millenials. 
You should marry one.


----------



## EmanueleBGN (Dec 29, 2018)

Well, was Plato a "millennial"?
Totalitarism always had fascinated the people: the crowd because is easiest to obey than to create your own way of life; the oligarchs because they can preserve their power, their control above the crowd. 
Also, your Country (whichever it is) is an oligarchy - a Plutonomy. Even worst if you have a Monarchy


----------



## notimp (Dec 29, 2018)

SG854 said:


> You’re really obsessed with Millenials.
> You should marry one.


Nah - people are obsessed with the word. You write entire threads about really important different stuff, and all they want to do is talk about the first word that triggered an emotional response in them.

It's a mindhack. It draws attention. Get over it. 
//



EmanueleBGN said:


> Well, was Plato a "millennial"?
> Totalitarism always had fascinated the people: the crowd because is easiest to obey than to create your own way of life; the oligarchs because they can preserve their power, their control above the crowd.
> Also, your Country (whichever it is) is an oligarchy - a Plutonomy. Even worst if you have a Monarchy


Plutocracy yes.  Thats why I wrote - that what triggers me here, is that girl. Faking being so very socially concerned, namedropping "I'm so Intelligent"; by dropping about three tropes in the first five minutes of her talk, wearing a black sweater. Addressing a constituency of "hackers", falls for it as well - hookline and sinker.

I hold her studied self to a higher standard. I hold her chosen peer group to a higher standard. And in this instance - they both failed. This is where the iritation comes from. This is where I start to complain vigorously. 

The CCC has an ethics codex, that is supposed to prevent people being fascinated by the capabilities of tech, modeling societies in a totalitarian image - because thats really the closest fit in most cases.


----------



## SG854 (Dec 30, 2018)

notimp said:


> Nah - people are obsessed with the word. You write entire threads about really important different stuff,


Nah, you’re for sure obsessed with Millenials. It goes beyond the word.

You can’t stop talking about them.
You’re in love with them. Just admit it.

This is you right here
Why I’m most critical of the things I love.


----------



## notimp (Dec 30, 2018)

I am a millennial for starters. But then, this is really not the thread to obsess about millennials.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Dec 31, 2018)

notimp said:


> Also I'm not sorry at all for having triggered people in here again, having used the word millennial to represent a group of young people - because if thats all you can get riled up over in this topic, you've done exactly what I've intended.
> 
> You've made my point.



You're the one posting over and over again dude. I just want to discuss this very interesting video you shared without having to agree with your premise that you refuse to justify.

You are employing a slight modification of a very common logical fallacy (loaded statement) and I think the users here deserve a higher level of discourse than that.








notimp said:


> I can live with that. Although - I still find it oddly funny - that people are trying to censor this specific use of a word in a thread about totalitarian tendencies. But thats just me.



Who has tried to censor you and how?

If you say to your math teacher: "2+2=5"
and he says: "actually, 2+2=4 and here's why..."
do you consider that censorship?


----------



## notimp (Dec 31, 2018)

The girl is a millennial.

I'm not loading this term with all the emotional baggage that makes you respond to it.

I have no problem to switch to "this is a girl, thats more interested to fake social awareness, and to prove intelligence - by namedropping institutions she got grants from, more interested in showcasing that she set up a chinese simultaneous translation of her lackluster talk, than to think through the concepts she was working on and helped improving. While even being proud of doing so.

I'm saddened, that people with real social awareness didn't reach her earlier in her development, so that we could have had an impact on here obviously very promising career in economics.

There thats a loaded statement I created.  Its still not wrong though.

Also yes, I use rhetorics in my arguments. 

(I've read Schopenhauer ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Being_Right ) I challenge you to find 37 other comics, to underline the remaining principals I could but might not use, or might not have used.  )


----------



## The Catboy (Dec 31, 2018)

notimp said:


> I am a millennial for starters. But then, this is really not the thread to obsess about millennials.


Then why an emphasize on Millennials? If it's not about Millennials, then why make the title and your posts emphasizing Millennials? You can't draw attention to something and then just say, "Well it's not about that."


notimp said:


> The girl is a millennial.


Ok, and? There's no reason to emphasize if it has nothing to do with the topic on hand.


----------



## Catsinabucket (Dec 31, 2018)

Another Millennials related thread? Wuh oh


----------



## notimp (Dec 31, 2018)

If you want to make this a discussion about the term Millennials though - let me start with this video game related video:





"I do feel like I remember doing a lot of.." Would be a wonderful sentence for a millennial to start an actual production segment on this video after the intro for example.

Oh wow, that happened at less than tree minutes into the video.


----------



## Essometer (Dec 31, 2018)

notimp said:


> Here is a millennial at a german hacker conference, thinking that social control is cool, because they are familiar with self censorship on facebook, and entirely amazed by how "interesting" and "great sounding" some concepts are if you give them PR names.
> 
> Watch them trying to spread this enthusiasm to an audience they believe are intellectual dumbells (like people that cant read f.e. the economist themselves) - being very concerned, that they are perceived as very inclusive and intelligent upfront. By doing some namedropy stuff.
> 
> ...



I think you missed the point of the talk. First of all, this has nothing to do with millanials (by the way, that was a great way to derail this thread). She is a student and was
interestet in what was really behind the Social Ranking in China. The media here really glosses about the detail in how it is working, the prototyps, how it affect the people and so on.
It is also not showing how the people in China react to the introduction and what they think about it. In here talk, she also presented her model agent and how it would fair in the current
Social System. At the end of her talk, she mentioned quite a view disatvantages of the system and some of them aredisastrous for the society. 

This talk wasn't advertising the Social System, but rather to show how it works in detail. She is enthusiastic about the topic because it was/is an interessting field to study, not
because the System is good for society.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Dec 31, 2018)

notimp said:


> The girl is a millennial.
> 
> I'm not loading this term with all the emotional baggage that makes you respond to it.
> 
> ...



Could you please answer my question about censorship? Who has attempted to censor you and how?


----------



## notimp (Jan 1, 2019)

This thread is getting out of hand. People are just making stuff up, and running with it.

Short answers to stop this.

I dont feel being censored here, nor have I ever indicated so.

I don't think that I have misconceptions concerning her intentions or her work.

If you cant handle a certain word in the title of this thread without the urge to start derailing it - thats on you, not on me.

-
In depth answers on the latest post trying to pull interpretation authority, by basically calling me an idiot that perceives things wrong. Chances are, that I am not.



Essometer said:


> I think you missed the point of the talk.


I dont think I do, or did.


Essometer said:


> First of all, this has nothing to do with millanials (by the way, that was a great way to derail this thread).


I've now stated for the third time, that this was a frame I added, because I percieved this to be a problem with being young, naive - and don't thinking things through. The use of a word thats a descriptor - cant derail a tread. Thats all of your input (not you specifically, but the culture activists attacking this thread for the use of this word), not mine.


Essometer said:


> She is a student and was interestet in what was really behind the Social Ranking in China.


Thats correct, I didnt despute that at any point.


Essometer said:


> The media here really glosses about the detail in how it is working, the prototyps, how it affect the people and so on.


Thats a fallacy, I read articles about the main social scoring system in more than ten news outlets before I've watched the talk - I've also read better in depth analysis about the inner workings of the "main" system (the one thats about to be deployed nation wide) in the economist. Better than the characterization that was given in the talk.



Essometer said:


> It is also not showing how the people in China react to the introduction and what they think about it.


That was the outcome of her study. She analyzed potential points of failure of the system - then published those. She looked at behavioral surveys of "what people would do within the system". Both in theory (statistical modeling), and referencing surveys done by her friends.



Essometer said:


> In here talk, she also presented her model agent and how it would fair in the current Social System. At the end of her talk, she mentioned quite a view disatvantages of the system and some of them aredisastrous for the society.


She didnt present a model agent, she modeled different agents with different decision capabilities, within the dataset, then crossreferenced this with behavioral data. She almost pointed out no disadvantages for society ("people in china see this more as a chance") - but she pointed out potential points of failure, that could be adressed before rollout, yes.



Essometer said:


> This talk wasn't advertising the Social System, but rather to show how it works in detail. She is enthusiastic about the topic because it was/is an interessting field to study, not because the System is good for society.


So her enthusiasm was directed at what exactly? Her ability to access this information? Her chance to get to study it without reflecting on actual societal outcomes?

But in essence, we are not as far apart on this point. Absolute naivite about what she touched there lead to enthusiasm about studying the topic - which she carried forward unfiltered and unreflected.

Its like looking at a science project, that had an ethics commission missing from conception to realization, but needed it every step of the way.

This is what she showed at multiple points within her talk. I'm not backing down on this. And some of you are closely walking the line of defending gloating over totalitarian ideology - just because you don't want others to draw a connection between this, and being young, naive and unreflected. With a fake drive towards social responsibility, thats dropped at the first juncture, when someone dangles "privileged access" over you as a carrot. The dataset she was working on, most likely will never get released - even though she's still very hopeful that she only has to talk to someone, that gives her the go ahead. Good luck.

Also - I've learned close to nothing new coming out of her research, as an interested party versed in previous articles (not studies) on the matter. Which might have something to do with, that she really chose to model 5 random actions within a data set "using python", rather than than thinking about any of the built in dynamics in theory. Girl looking at big data - then doing random experiment, then reporting results, without thinking much about any of the implications.

Is my main criticism - still stands fully - as of now.

And no - I dont think I misunderstood her intentions, or what she was saying.

ALSO NEVER blame me for using a word you didnt like, because it wasnt political correct enough for you. Thats not ok.

Happy new year, by the way.


----------



## notimp (Jan 1, 2019)

Lets look some more at the whitewashing, a media attention hungry millennial is able to inflict in two days using twitter.

*Antonia Hmaidi*‏ @ToniHDS 27. Dez. 2018
Awesome graphical summary of my talk. Wish I was that talented!

Hope! (Dystopia in western media!)




(Also misrepresentation, because the "intelligence" comes in later by point weighing, subtotals, ... As she said herself, not only the total number is shared between ministries and the private sector, but the whole dataset.)

The government really just tries to re-educate, and allocate resources better! Lets go for restoring trust, I say!





And now the negatives - or are they? Good Score good hotel! Thumbs up for that!
Look at how positive this all looks! It's even got "universities" in the entirely useless graphical summery!





I mean, what do you say to that - except -

*Antonia Hmaidi*‏ @ToniHDS 27. Dez. 2018
Awesome graphical summary of my talk. Wish I was that talented!

Lets look at another self promotional tweet:

*Antonia Hmaidi*‏ @ToniHDS 28. Dez. 2018
Schöner Artikel zu meinem gestrigen Talk auf deutsch: http://www.taz.de/!5562037/ .

(Translation: Nice Article regarding my talk yesterday, in german.)

Lets look at the article:


> Nachdem sie mehrere Simulationen zu drei der rund 70 verschiedenen Modellen durchgeführt hat, kommt Hmaidi zu dem Schluss, dass der Erfolg oder Misserfolg des Systems von dessen genauer Ausgestaltung abhängen wird: „Dieses System ist sehr komplex und schon kleine Veränderungen können zu großen Auswirkungen führen.“
> 
> (Translation: After having done several simulations using three of the approximately 70 different models, Hmaidi concludes that the success or failure of the systems will depend on their exact design: "This system is very complex and even small changes could lead to big consequences.")


This is a platitude of a journalist that hasnt understood what she was doing. She was doing statistical modeling in a big data environment. Small changes in your behavioral model having big impact on the outcome, is baseline information - for starting to do so. Its not the "result after doing many simulations".



> Kein großes Überwachungssystem
> Grundsätzlich ist das für die Regierung wohl vielversprechendste System, das derzeit in China als Modellprojekt läuft, weit weniger ausgefeilt, als in der Berichterstattung im Westen dargestellt. Statt eines großen allumfassenden algorithmischen Überwachungssystems gibt es vor allem ein vielschichtiges System, das regional je unterschiedlich ausgeprägt ist, [...] Die Regionalität kann dazu führen, dass es einen Wettlauf zum niedrigsten Standard gebe, sagt Hmaidi: Also dass Menschen dorthin ziehen, wo sie am wenigsten überwacht werden und am einfachsten Punkte bekommen.
> 
> (Translation: No big surveillance system
> In general, the most promising system for the government, that currently runs as a test project in China, is by far less polished than the "western reporting" would have make you believe. Instead of an all encompassing algorithmically surveillance system - its more like a very diverse system with many regional differences, and [...] Regionality could lead to a race towards the bottom, so Hmaidi: So that people would move to where they would be surveilled the least, and would get the most points.


Yes, and thats why its still in a testing stage. Where you know - they still test things. Considering regional movability for people as a "fix" or "hack" is outrageous and bordering on a lie.



> In Zukunft könnten viele ChinesInnen also Kredite erhalten, weil sie einen guten Score haben – obwohl sie gar nicht verlässliche RückzahlerInnen sind.
> 
> (Translation: In the future many chinese could get financial credit, even though they aren dependable creditors that would repay their debt.)


Thats a misinterpretation of the stated fact, that social dependability and credit repayment dependability are only weakly correlated. It also neglects what was actually said in the talk - namely, that the chinese government used this to advertise, that more people would be able to get loans in the future.



> Und letztlich führe auch das übergroße Interesse der Regierung an der Ermittlung und Bestrafung von „Vertrauensbrechern“ dazu, dass wenig getan werde, um zu vermeiden, dass Menschen fälschlicherweise als nicht-vertrauenswürdig eingestuft werden.
> 
> (Translation: And finally the focus of the government on finding and punishing "trust criminals" would lead to the situation that too little is done to prevent people from being wrongly identified as not trustworthy.)


Thats the journalist not understanding what "they dont care as much about false negatives" means, and inventing a causational relationship that doesnt exist - AND eating up the premise, that a low score would in general identify "non trustworthy people". Wonderful.



> Langfristig könne all dies dazu führen, dass das Vertrauen in das Social Scoring erodiert und sich alternative, inoffizielle Systeme etablieren, wie sie auch heute schon in China gängig sind.
> 
> (Translation: Longterm, this could lead to the trust into the social score eroding and other alternative inofficial systems, like they are already used today - becoming more important over time.)


This is the journalist selectively not remembering, that the chinese government explicitly forbid the use of alternative systems, in any of the state or semi private entities. And that stuff like "your kid being able to study", or "you being able to do long distance traveling" - is attached to the official social score. Thanks.

So that really only leaves one thing to say:

*Antonia Hmaidi*‏ @ToniHDS 28. Dez. 2018
Schöner Artikel zu meinem gestrigen Talk auf deutsch: http://www.taz.de/!5562037/ .

(Translation: Nice Article regarding my talk yesterday, in german.)
-

Or if you want to go with my version: Social media profile optimizing millenial, not caring at all what her behavior is causing, or which public image she is generating.

Also - as the taz.de article concludes - nice tips for the implementation kid. You truly were a gift as a researcher. (For the communist party.)


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 1, 2019)

thread title said:
			
		

> Millennial finding totalitarian concepts fascinating at hacker conference





notimp said:


> Here is a millennial at a german hacker conference, thinking that social control is cool





notimp said:


> Lets look some more at the whitewashing, a media attention hungry millennial is able to inflict in two days using twitter.





notimp said:


> But then, this is really not the thread to obsess about millennials.


Which is it


----------



## notimp (Jan 1, 2019)

Not the last one - this was literally a posting out of frustration, that you guys keep harping onto this concept, of you having to defend a poor women, that was accused of being a millennial.

You mobbed me to the point where I - for a short time - gave into your demands of being able to talk about this like it was all about a millennial being treated unfairly.

It isnt. At all.

But thank you for trying to draw me some rope to hang out of the only contradiction you could find in this thread which has nothing to do with the initial story, or any of the arguments surrounding it brought forward.

You guys are pretty much unbelievable.

Now can I have my thread back - please.

Also - just because  I find it important to list here as well, the two comments beneath the taz.de article about the talk also cant quite believe what they are reading. And none of them was me. Nor did I convince other people to post that sentiment. Its just what everyone with critical thinking capacity has to end up at looking at that story. You chose to rather make it about discrimination being called a word you didnt like.

You tried to nudge me, give me "funny advice" which words to use or not use, discredit me, fake me out. Bully me... Shall I continue?

The only bit of advice I had to sell in the initial article was to never become that person, thats more concerned about social perception of others, than to understand the concepts he or she is paddling. You clearly didn't take my advice. This was the entire intent regarding how this should have affected you.


----------



## The Catboy (Jan 1, 2019)

notimp said:


> Not the last one - this was literally a posting out of frustration, that you guys keep harping onto this concept, of you having to defend a poor women, that was accused of being a millennial.
> 
> You mobbed me to the point where I - for a short time - gave into your demands of being able to talk about this like it was all about a millennial being treated unfairly.
> 
> ...


You created your own problem and how people reacted to your creation is completely based on both your actions and you avoiding their questions/comments.


----------



## Subtle Demise (Jan 1, 2019)

So here's a scary thought for everyone to consider: society as a whole, even in the United States, is growing more comfortable with totalitarianism and actually embracing it. Why is that? Well because for one, it means they have a chance to influence the government to force people to conform to their ideas. We are seeing this now with the left's attempted suppression of free speech at every chance they get, or the right's push for Christian theocracy.

For another, it gives them a false sense of security. They don't realize that if a truly totalitarian regime ever took power that that security would be gone in an instant. 

They don't notice that the police have become militarized to the point where it's less likely to die in a warzone than in a police interaction. Police can simply "fear for their life" and shoot someone 50 times and get a paid vacation out of the deal. The military actually has rules of engagement to follow.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 1, 2019)

Subtle Demise said:


> So here's a scary thought for everyone to consider: society as a whole, even in the United States, is growing more comfortable with totalitarianism and actually embracing it. Why is that? Well because for one, it means they have a chance to influence the government to force people to conform to their ideas. We are seeing this now with the left's attempted suppression of free speech at every chance they get, or the right's push for Christian theocracy.
> 
> For another, it gives them a false sense of security. They don't realize that if a truly totalitarian regime ever took power that that security would be gone in an instant.
> 
> They don't notice that the police have become militarized to the point where it's less likely to die in a warzone than in a police interaction. Police can simply "fear for their life" and shoot someone 50 times and get a paid vacation out of the deal. The military actually has rules of engagement to follow.


It's interesting, I keep hearing "suppression of free speech!" being used by libertarians and conservatives to attack liberal parties, but in reality... When does that actually happen? The only time I've seen liberals truly advocate for free speech is when it actually involves hate speech; which is to say, implying or advocating for violence towards a disadvantaged class of people. Even then, you'd still have the people from the Anarchist party who would say all government censorship is wrong and would prefer to take the more direct approach (i.e. yelling over the demonstrator, punching the Nazi, etc.)


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jan 1, 2019)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> It's interesting, I keep hearing "suppression of free speech!" being used by libertarians and conservatives to attack liberal parties, but in reality... When does that actually happen? The only time I've seen liberals truly advocate for free speech is when it actually involves hate speech; which is to say, implying or advocating for violence towards a disadvantaged class of people. Even then, you'd still have the people from the Anarchist party who would say all government censorship is wrong and would prefer to take the more direct approach (i.e. yelling over the demonstrator, punching the Nazi, etc.)



Did you mean liberals truly advocating for a limitation on free speech?

With regards to hate speech you give the HUGE problem people have with it yourself. Legislation needs to apply equally and mustn’t apply only to a certain class. 
You guys are doing everyone a disservice to allow these authoritarians to call themselves liberal.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 1, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Did you mean liberals truly advocating for a limitation on free speech?


Yes, one that doesn't stem from an extreme cause. Our Constitution protects speech in the sense that there can be no law _against _it as long as it is:
1) True, AND
2a) Used to protest the government, or
2b) Used to organize a group, or
2c) Used in publication, or
3) Religious

It protects nothing more than that, nor should it. In fact, laws have been passed that explicitly _bar_ the use of inciteful language.
Additionally, it only protects you from the government; if a random citizen doesn't like what you're blasting into a public space, they have just as much a right to tell you to fuck off (and even organize a group to tell you to fuck off) as you do to say whatever it is you're saying, for instance.



> With regards to hate speech you give the HUGE problem people have with it yourself. Legislation needs to apply equally and mustn’t apply only to a certain class.
> You guys are doing everyone a disservice to allow these authoritarians to call themselves liberal.


I guess I'm confused. What class do you think is being unfairly targeted with hate speech laws? Choose your next words _very_ carefully.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jan 1, 2019)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Yes, one that doesn't stem from an extreme cause. Our Constitution protects speech in the sense that there can be no law _against _it as long as it is:
> 1) True, AND
> 2a) Used to protest the government, or
> 2b) Used to organize a group, or
> ...



Everyone who isn’t or doesn’t identify (jury’s still out on who gets to identify as what as well) as a member of a protected class.

We agree that legislative limitation on speech is reasonable in its current state. Point is that the proper way to deal with hate speech would be criminal charges or lawsuits in this case. This should clue you in that the current discussion around hatespeech is about shifting goalposts, control over what speech is allowed and exerting power over wrongthinkers.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 1, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> Everyone who isn’t or doesn’t identify (jury’s still out on who gets to identify as what as well) as a member of a protected class.


Is there any situation in which that's actually been an issue? (i.e. not just someone bitching about being unfairly targeted, but the government actually wrongfully targeting someone who is not a protected class)



> We agree that legislative limitation on speech is reasonable in its current state. Point is that the proper way to deal with hate speech would be criminal charges or lawsuits in this case.


Right. So what's the issue?


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jan 1, 2019)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Is there any situation in which that's actually been an issue? (i.e. not just someone bitching about being unfairly targeted, but the government actually wrongfully targeting someone who is not a protected class)



It is an issue in countries that have adopted hate speech legislation such as Great Britian. I will look for examples and get back to you with something tangible. There’s also been first hand reports of GB citizens in this forum section recently. 



> Right. So what's the issue?



You’re igonoring the other half of the argument. There’s people, organizations and parties advocating for legislation to further limit speech in most of the western countries. Hate speech as a term is a vehicle to convey that the current limitations on speech aren’t enough.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 1, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> You’re igonoring the other half of the argument. There’s people, organizations and parties advocating for legislation to further limit speech in most of the western countries. Hate speech as a term is a vehicle to convey that the current limitations on speech aren’t enough.


And your argument is ignoring the context of mine; our constitution expressly prohibits a government body from preventing citizens from using speech as dissent. We also have a system in place where courts must interpret laws in the context of previous rulings, unless the situation demands otherwise. I know of no serious effort within the U.S. to expand defamation and hate speech laws into territory where it would encapsulate people who genuinely aren't causing a problem.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jan 1, 2019)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> And your argument is ignoring the context of mine; our constitution expressly prohibits a government body from preventing citizens from using speech as dissent. We also have a system in place where courts must interpret laws in the context of previous rulings, unless the situation demands otherwise. I know of no serious effort within the U.S. to expand defamation and hate speech laws into territory where it would encapsulate people who genuinely aren't causing a problem.



I guess we have a misunderstanding here.

I asked whether you meant to say (US) liberals are advocating for limiting free speech by invoking hate speech because it wasn’t clear to me and you confirmed I understood correctly, no?

Now you’re saying you know no one even though you mentioned you hear people advocating it? I’m confused.

According to a yougov Survey the majority of Democrats would support such legislation. 
https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2015/05/20/hate-speech


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 1, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> I asked whether you meant to say (US) liberals are advocating for limiting free speech by invoking hate speech because it wasn’t clear to me and you confirmed I understood correctly, no?


I don't believe I did, considering that hate speech already isn't considered free speech. You yourself said that current definitions were more or less adequate, and I agreed with you there



> Now you’re saying you know no one even though you mentioned you hear people advocating it? I’m confused.


Careful, because that's _not_ what I said. I said that there was no serious push for outlandish legislation that would be too overarching, not that there aren't ill-informed people that exist that would advocate for such hypothetical legislation if it would come up



> According to a yougov Survey the majority of Democrats would support such legislation.
> https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2015/05/20/hate-speech


You also need to be careful when reading that study, because it's written in a way that kind of (in my opinion) skews the answers. The text of the question specifically asks whether it should be illegal "to make public comments intended to stir up hatred." This is already illegal, to a degree, considering that incitement to imminent lawless action (which is to say, rioting or hate crimes) was made illegal in 1969. I can understand why people might want to expand that to cover a broader period of time; I don't necessarily consider that to be unreasonable legislation. Again, limiting the incitement of violent acts isn't a limitation to free speech, it's a protection towards the class of people that the speaker wishes real-world harm to


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jan 1, 2019)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I don't believe I did, considering that hate speech already isn't considered free speech. You yourself said that current definitions were more or less adequate, and I agreed with you there
> 
> 
> Careful, because that's _not_ what I said. I said that there was no serious push for outlandish legislation that would be too overarching, not that there aren't ill-informed people that exist that would advocate for such hypothetical legislation if it would come up
> ...



Either way I guess it was a misunderstanding and I will also admit today is not my sharpest day for obvious reasons 

I will agree that the way the question is asked may have skewed things on the other hand how do you ask this question? The fundemental problem is how would you define hate?

I understand the limitations are intended to protect. I very much take issue with your protected class qualifier though. Everyone should be equal before the law.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 1, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> I understand the limitations are intended to protect. I very much take issue with your protected class qualifier though. Everyone should be equal before the law.


And yeah, I see no reason why that shouldn't be the reason, as well. So long as a person isn't harming someone else, there's no reason they shouldn't be offered the same protections as everyone else. The only I phrase it the way I do is that there's a rather frequent pattern of offence towards very specific classes here in the U.S. (to be specific, the extreme right wing towards brown-skinned peoples)


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jan 1, 2019)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> And yeah, I see no reason why that shouldn't be the reason, as well. So long as a person isn't harming someone else, there's no reason they shouldn't be offered the same protections as everyone else. The only I phrase it the way I do is that there's a rather frequent pattern of offence towards very specific classes here in the U.S. (to be specific, the extreme right wing towards brown-skinned peoples)



There’s also a very frequent pattern of the extreme left towards white males where people are trying to redefine the meaning of racism to justify racism towards whites.

Both are wrong!


----------



## Xzi (Jan 1, 2019)

notimp said:


> Nah - people are obsessed with the word. You write entire threads about really important different stuff, and all they want to do is talk about the first word that triggered an emotional response in them.


It triggers people because you're using millennials as a scapegoat for anything you dislike.  The baby boomers fucked this country up far more than any millennial will ever have the chance to, but I don't need to obsessively post about them and generalize them to get that point across.

Also I have a feeling that old people are going to be calling the next three generations or so "millennials."  It's like calling every console "the Nintendo."  Most millennials are in their thirties and forties by now, the younger generation is Gen Z.


----------



## notimp (Jan 1, 2019)

Here are some adjacent concepts. It doesnt matter what the majority wants on concepts like "banning hate speech" not when hate speech can be formed to become - literally anything you dont like.

If thats the case, you are infringing on minority rights and something has to fence you in.

The entire deplatforming thing is so dangerous, because it leaves a majority with the believe, that diverging opinons can simply be "turned off", while raising anger and outrage forms in fringe groups. People not being able to talk to each other, because - someone can always produce an activist that feels triggered, is actually dangerous for society.

Also, those limitations arent there to protect. The majority doesnt have to be protected from minorities. People don't have to be protected from speech.

Whenever speech is limited or restricted, this is because of political motives, or because of situational aspects (impending danger for life, health, ...).

The why is very simple as well.

Meaning gets created through attribution. So if you have a majority being able to decide what constitutes meaning, and also be able to cast people out because of it - you end up with group dynamics, and not anything akin democratic systems, where there is a balance of power.

Thats basically why the concept of free speech exists.

Also there is a current tendency with people advocating against cyber bullying, to be rather free with their opinions on what would constitute "violence". They bring things into this context, because violence is something we have to protect people against, as a society.

But there is a flipside to this as well - if you enlarge the classification scheme of what entails being on the receiving end of violence to the point, where this can become subjective. Then also concepts like "non violent protest" become subjective - which in return makes the concept useless. So its always a thing where you have to weigh minority rights against what a majority would go with.

As a conclusion, forms of speech, can never be defined as "violent", "harmfull" or "hate speech", ad hoc - this always has to venture through a formalized process, where an independent entity also looks at minority rights in return. Some forms of speech can still be categorically banned, but the majority is not the decider.

And the second point, repeated was, that people dont have to be protected from speech. When speech is limited, it is usually because of considerations that have nothing to do with the individual.
(There are some exceptions, f.e. where peoples professional reputations are affected.)

Now - in a code of conduct, you can write basically anything you want - and you can then penalize people based on that..  But thats different.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 1, 2019)

notimp said:


> Here are some adjacent concepts. It doesnt matter what the majority wants on concepts like "banning hate speech" not when hate speech can be formed to become - literally anything you dont like.


You can call anything you want hate speech, but there's still a legal definition that has to be met before anyone is going to be charged with a crime for it.


----------



## notimp (Jan 1, 2019)

Xzi said:


> It triggers people because you're using millennials as a scapegoat for anything you dislike.  The baby boomers fucked this country up far more than any millennial will ever have the chance to, but I don't need to obsessively post about them and generalize them to get that point across.
> 
> Also I have a feeling that old people are going to be calling the next three generations or so "millennials."  It's like calling every console "the Nintendo."  Most millennials are in their thirties and forties by now, the younger generation is Gen Z.


Thats an over generalisation.

Please dont make me the problem, with how you (not you specifically) reacted in this case.

I didn't intend to use the word as "a scapegoat for everything negative" in this case.

Thats your interpretation. That I distance myself from profusely.

You filled it with meaning in this case, you didn't react to any attempts made to lay out why I used it in this case.


----------



## Whole lotta love (Jan 2, 2019)

notimp said:


> I dont feel being censored here, nor have I ever indicated so.





notimp said:


> I still find it oddly funny - that people are trying to censor this specific use of a word in a thread about totalitarian tendencies. But thats just me.








supersonicwaffle said:


> I guess we have a misunderstanding here.
> 
> I asked whether you meant to say (US) liberals are advocating for limiting free speech by invoking hate speech because it wasn’t clear to me and you confirmed I understood correctly, no?
> 
> ...



I'd like to just add to this discussion that liberals and lefties are more frequently censored on college campuses than conservatives and right wingers. 
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...rrectness-free-speech-liberal-data-georgetown


----------



## Ericthegreat (Jan 2, 2019)

notimp said:


> what kills me is the genuine enthusiasm for totalitarian concepts, while acting like a misfit at a hacker conference.


Im trying to understand what you mean by this?


----------



## Silent_Gunner (Jan 2, 2019)

Dude, identity politics aside, fuck all of this, "the social credit system is a good idea," nonsense!

Totalitarianism never ends well. People, naturally, are selfish. Even Adam Smith admitted as such in the Wealth of Nations. The person who stocks the shelves at your local retail store(s)? They aren't doing it because they like doing repetitive and menial tasks, they want money to go spend on shit, save it up, whatever. That babysitter you hired? Regardless of how much she loves taking care of kids, she still has time that is valuable to her and has things to pay off.

I don't care how nice and utopian Karl Marx made his ideal society sound, it isn't ever going to work in any realistic capacity. All resources are scarce, and those that don't understand basic economics, frankly, deserve to be stuck in that very physical job where the potential for lots of money to be lost isn't going to keep plant managers and executives up at night worrying about phone calls that competent hires worth the green paper won't bother them about!

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Whole lotta love said:


> I'd like to just add to this discussion that liberals and lefties are more frequently censored on college campuses than conservatives and right wingers.
> https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...rrectness-free-speech-liberal-data-georgetown



According to a liberal publication, but OK. Not that the right doesn't have a persecution complex or anything...



But then again, people want attention, want to feel special, and want to "change" the world. The problem is, are they doing all of these for themselves or also for others around them?

Usually, it's the guy on top influencing these crowds that's looking for the benefits.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 2, 2019)

Silent_Gunner said:


> All resources are scarce, and those that don't understand basic economics, frankly, deserve to be stuck in that very physical job where the potential for lots of money to be lost isn't going to keep plant managers and executives up at night worrying about phone calls that competent hires worth the green paper won't bother them about!.


Careful there; just because everything tangible is technically a finite resource doesn't mean everything is scarce by any means. As a matter of fact, a good recent example would be the global DRAM shortage -- the resources used to manufacture memory modules is in no worse supply than usual, but RAM manufacturers had created an artificial scarcity to drive prices up


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jan 2, 2019)

Whole lotta love said:


> I'd like to just add to this discussion that liberals and lefties are more frequently censored on college campuses than conservatives and right wingers.
> https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...rrectness-free-speech-liberal-data-georgetown



Thanks for that link. I will admit that I'm skeptical of vox given their recent double standard between PewDiePie's and LeBron James' oopsies.
Nevertheless I looked at the article and the linked sources. Here's what they actually say.

The political left is responsible for the majority of disinvitations of speakers. The numbers, however, should be interpreted carefully as disinvitation cases from religious universities are missing, the author says there have been many such cases and they would be considered disinvitation campaigns by the political right. His conclusion is that the numbers are inconclusive
The second source says that most incidents of interruptions and protests involve specific speakers (Milo Yiannopoulos, Ben Shapiro, Charles Murray, and Ann Coulter ) and that these speakers *sometimes seem* to invite disruption. The Vox article interprets this as right wing students trolling left wing students by inviting them.
The only graph the Vox article shows (and the reason for their headline) is one that shows data of faculty members being fired for political speech. The source article mentions that the major reasons for firing left wing faculty was "anti-white" or "anti-christian" speech and for right wingers it was "anti-minority" or "anti-diversity".
Of course, these numbers are up for interpretations and Vox is allowed their right to interpret things as they want. If you ask me, I'd say the numbers about disinvitation are inconclusive because the numbers are incomplete, notably lacking numbers that would be expected to skew towards the right being responsible for disinvitations, the numbers that actually are there show that disinvitation campaigns are driven by the left at non religious universities. The numbers regarding dismissal of faculty show that left wing faculty members have a four times bigger problem with racism and bigotry than conservative faculty members, it's pretty convenient that vox leaves out that the major reason for the firings have been racism and bigotry according to the source they used.

Neither article concludes that the left is censored more often, vox just asserts that the data suggests the right isn't censored more often, which isn't substantiated by their source. Further, Vox' author implies multiple times that the conservative students' intent is to provoke and troll without ever substantiating any of it, it's pretty ridiculous.

It's also worth noting that Vox' rephrased a part of the article because the only piece of relevant data that they showed was interpreted as left wing faculty members being more likely to be fired, which is plain wrong.


----------



## Silent_Gunner (Jan 2, 2019)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Careful there; just because everything tangible is technically a finite resource doesn't mean everything is scarce by any means. As a matter of fact, a good recent example would be the global DRAM shortage -- the resources used to manufacture memory modules is in no worse supply than usual, but RAM manufacturers had created an artificial scarcity to drive prices up



Oh, you better believe I'm aware of this bullshit as someone who had to buy new DDR4 RAM earlier last year (it's 2019 now, it's last year), with 16GB not coming cheap!

And I heard DDR5 is going to be a thing in 2020. Didn't do any research on it because, to be frank, my PC still isn't powering on (still have to take it to a shop to get someone to hopefully figure out what's wrong. Unfortunately, that's just how busy I am now), and once it powers back on, I'd like to put the current PC in a new case, but hopefully with better cables!

But either way, my point stands. Even if there's a lot of oil in the ground, one of these days, we're gonna run out, and we better have some other way of using cars at some point IMO. It'd be cool to see everything being powered by the Sun at some point in the future, because then needing cables to charge everything shouldn't be an issue once they've refined the tech to where it's the ideal solution!


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jan 2, 2019)

The conference itself has drawn criticism for its embracing of extreme left ideals. Here's a few things that have been reported on.

An Antifa flag was prominently featured at the entrance.
The event was supposed to be a bully free zone but a poster with a poll to ban or not ban a blogger that's been present have already been posted right after the event opened (implying it's been put there by organizers during set up) and wasn't taken down.
A hacker assembly competing in the capture the flag competition was told not to show their flag by security because it may be damaged or stolen. The flag was given to them for making a CTF competition final at a Korean conference and under the team logo it said GERMANY and had a little German flag to denote the team's nationality.
--


Ericthegreat said:


> Im trying to understand what you mean by this?



Hacking has always been about transparency and challenging / questioning authority. Embracing totalitarianism is very outlandish.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 2, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> An Antifa flag was prominently featured at the entrance.


Really quickly, I'd like you to think for a second why it might be important to display anti-fascist imagery at a hacker conference based in Germany

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



Silent_Gunner said:


> But either way, my point stands. Even if there's a lot of oil in the ground, one of these days, we're gonna run out, and we better have some other way of using cars at some point IMO. It'd be cool to see everything being powered by the Sun at some point in the future, because then needing cables to charge everything shouldn't be an issue once they've refined the tech to where it's the ideal solution!


Oh I totally agree. I'm just trying to make sure you don't fall into the consumerist trap of "all resources are scarce, so it makes sense for companies to charge what they want, even if that includes potentially life-saving/changing products"


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jan 2, 2019)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> Really quickly, I'd like you to think for a second why it might be important to display anti-fascist imagery at a hacker conference based in Germany



I don’t know. Maybe to remind us of the good times people had in the GDR or all the fun people had being killed by extremist left terror organizations like RAF.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 2, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> I don’t know. Maybe to remind us of the good times people had in the GDR or all the fun people had being killed by extremist left terror organizations like RAF.


More along the lines of announcing that they stand in opposition with the AFD, if I had to venture a guess. Especially because of the tendency for groups like this; I mean, look at the subject of the thread, for instance.

Remember that the DDR was controlled by Soviet communists; while you'll still find people in former East Germany that reminisce on the "good old days," you'd be hard pressed to find anybody that actually sympathizes with the party in a modern totalitarian setting. I know because I've met with a bunch of people who were quite literally on the line between East and West Germany


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jan 2, 2019)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> More along the lines of announcing that they stand in opposition with the AFD, if I had to venture a guess. Especially because of the tendency for groups like this; I mean, look at the subject of the thread, for instance.
> 
> Remember that the DDR was controlled by Soviet communists; while you'll still find people in former East Germany that reminisce on the "good old days," you'd be hard pressed to find anybody that actually sympathizes with the party in a modern totalitarian setting. I know because I've met with a bunch of people who were quite literally on the line between East and West Germany



Look, I applaud taking a stand against radical right wingers such as AfD but pledging allegiance to left extremism is just flat out stupid, not inclusive and just tone deaf given Germany’s history.

My parents grew up in socialist Poland and I know a bunch of people who grew up in east Germany as well, I’m well aware of the resentment they hold towards socialism. At the same time it’s common knowledge where in Germany you can find actual communists so I wouldn’t really be hard pressed.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Jan 2, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> The conference itself has drawn criticism for its embracing of extreme left ideals. Here's a few things that have been reported on.
> 
> An Antifa flag was prominently featured at the entrance.
> The event was supposed to be a bully free zone but a poster with a poll to ban or not ban a blogger that's been present have already been posted right after the event opened (implying it's been put there by organizers during set up) and wasn't taken down.
> ...


You can be a hacker, and think whatever you like to think lol....


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 3, 2019)

supersonicwaffle said:


> At the same time it’s common knowledge where in Germany you can find actual communists so I wouldn’t really be hard pressed.


I said totalitarian. Again, I know there are a not insignificant amount of people that support communism globally, but you won't typically find people advocating for a government that controls every facet of its citizen's lives


----------



## Ericthegreat (Jan 3, 2019)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> I said totalitarian. Again, I know there are a not insignificant amount of people that support communism globally, but you won't typically find people advocating for a government that controls every facet of its citizen's lives


I mean on paper you can make it sound great lol.... But it tends not to/eventually not to turn out so great.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 3, 2019)

Ericthegreat said:


> I mean on paper you can make it sound great lol.... But it tends not to/eventually not to turn out so great.


Right


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2019)

Ericthegreat said:


> I mean on paper you can make it sound great lol.... But it tends not to/eventually not to turn out so great.


The thing is you don't need to go full gung-ho socialist/communist to simply have hints of those influences on our government and society.  The New Deal was basically socialism.  Our system is adaptable, and it should be able to take the best of all others, especially if the nation is to survive past another fifty years or so.  Collapse is inevitable with debt bubbles and such a massive income inequality gap.


----------



## SG854 (Jan 3, 2019)

Xzi said:


> The thing is you don't need to go full gung-ho socialist/communist to simply have hints of those influences on our government and society.  The New Deal was basically socialism.  Our system is adaptable, and it should be able to take the best of all others, especially if the nation is to survive past another fifty years or so.


And the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2019)

SG854 said:


> And the New Deal prolonged the Great Depression.


Who gives a fuck?  The workers were granted far greater agency over their own lives in the long run, after that it wasn't until about the 80s that we decided it was okay to start paying people shit wages that were impossible to live on.  Before that, whole families could live decently on one full-time income.

I suppose the point is that corporate dick-sucking has to stop at some point.  Just one or two annual corporate subsidies redirected to Social Security or Medicare for all would probably fund them for years.  I guess both Elizabeth Warren and I share that view.  Not sure she has my vote as of yet, of course, there are a lot of candidates for the democrats yet to declare.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jan 3, 2019)

Ericthegreat said:


> You can be a hacker, and think whatever you like to think lol....



There’s a difference between a club that organizes a conference and an individual. Especially if the club has an official ethical code that was introduced after some members worked as contractors for the KGB in the 80s. The ehtical code specifically states to be suspicious of authority



TotalInsanity4 said:


> I said totalitarian. Again, I know there are a not insignificant amount of people that support communism globally, but you won't typically find people advocating for a government that controls every facet of its citizen's lives



We can split hairs over this all we want but a matter of fact is that no one who believes in a free and pluralistic soceity has to resort to violence to make people understand and a soceity that is neither free nor pluralistic is totalitarian.

One problem we have here is that radical leftists don't denounce extremist violence, often condone it and mostly try to blame others. I'm really not interested in their mental gymnasticts how that isn't a totalitarian thought police and as far as I'm concerned the line between radicalism and extremism is very much blurred on the left (extremism in Germany is defined as being against the constitution whereas radicals operate in accordance to the constitution). As @Ericthegreat has said, you can make everything sound great on paper.

These are the same people who give you an incomplete quote of Popper's paradox of intolerence to justify their actions, sometimes even with a nice comic that shows how it specifically applies to nazis. They conveniently leave out that the qualifier to justify being intolerant towards nazis is that they aren't willing to have a rational discussion and/or resort to violence and that it would apply to EVERY extremist.


----------



## SG854 (Jan 3, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Who gives a fuck?  The workers were granted far greater agency over their own lives in the long run, after that it wasn't until about the 80s that we decided it was okay to start paying people shit wages that were impossible to live on.  Before that, whole families could live decently on one full-time income.
> 
> I suppose the point is that corporate dick-sucking has to stop at some point.  Just one or two annual corporate subsidies redirected to Social Security or Medicare for all would probably fund them for years.  I guess both Elizabeth Warren and I share that view.  Not sure she has my vote as of yet, of course, there are a lot of candidates for the democrats yet to declare.


Impossible to live on. Yet people are still living.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 3, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Impossible to live on. Yet people are still living.


People are forced to live with roommates and/or work multiple jobs now.  Or they just live well below the poverty line.  Plenty of homelessness and starvation in America too, don't kid yourself.  They're called the 'working poor' for a reason.


----------



## TotalInsanity4 (Jan 3, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Impossible to live on. Yet people are still living.


You can call a laptop with an obliterated screen, dead battery, and non-functional keyboard perfectly usable because it will power on using a bunch of handicaps and workarounds (ex. external monitor and keyboard, tethered to charger), but the fact of the matter is that if you invest a little bit of money, you could have a much more comfortable and convenient laptop to use.

So too is our current situation; now that we have a nation that quite literally runs on big businesses (Walmart, Amazon, McDonald's, etc.) and small, Main Street businesses are all but out of the picture, we have an economy that, rather than being driven by interest in a profession, is driven by desperation. When the nation rejected unions and accepted multi-billion corporations, the worker lost any bargaining power they had; wages would never increase unless there was a federal incentive to, because if you didn't settle for a low wage to get by, there would always be someone else that would be willing to pick up a second or third job to pay rent and feed their kids.


supersonicwaffle said:


> These are the same people who give you an incomplete quote of Popper's paradox of intolerence to justify their actions, sometimes even with a nice comic that shows how it specifically applies to nazis.


First off, I'm going to stop you right there. You make it sound as though leftists are somehow twisting the quote to apply to Nazis; the quote was made by an Austrio-British philosopher in 1945, it was a direct response to the horrors that the Nazis subjected the world to.


> They conveniently leave out that the qualifier to justify being intolerant towards nazis is that they aren't willing to have a rational discussion and/or resort to violence and that it would apply to EVERY extremist.


This statement makes it seem like you don't know the full quote, either. I'll link it real quick:


			
				Karl Popper said:
			
		

> Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. *If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant*, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, *then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.* In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; *as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force*; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; *they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive*, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. *We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal*, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.


So then, I'll ask you; when's the last time that it was productive to engage a Nazi in "rational" discussion? Or a white supremacist. Or an extreme nationalist? Their ideologies are rooted in irrationalities -- so long as they are under the thumb of the movement, they are convinced there are "people like them" that will support their bigotry. I don't support needless confrontation. In fact, I actually quite abhor it; "violence for violence is the rule of beasts," and "these violent delights have violent ends," as they say. But the fact that globally, we're seeing a rise in white nationalism in people running for positions of power, consequently putting a LOT of underprivileged groups in real-world danger? In situations like this, I have no issues with decking people like Richard Spencer or Milo Yiannopoulos. And neither, I suspect, would Karl Popper.


----------



## SG854 (Jan 3, 2019)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> You can call a laptop with an obliterated screen, dead battery, and non-functional keyboard perfectly usable because it will power on using a bunch of handicaps and workarounds (ex. external monitor and keyboard, tethered to charger), but the fact of the matter is that if you invest a little bit of money, you could have a much more comfortable and convenient laptop to use.
> 
> So too is our current situation; now that we have a nation that quite literally runs on big businesses (Walmart, Amazon, McDonald's, etc.) and small, Main Street businesses are all but out of the picture, we have an economy that, rather than being driven by interest in a profession, is driven by desperation. When the nation rejected unions and accepted multi-billion corporations, the worker lost any bargaining power they had; wages would never increase unless there was a federal incentive to, because if you didn't settle for a low wage to get by, there would always be someone else that would be willing to pick up a second or third job to pay rent and feed their kids.
> 
> ...


I have a laptop connected to an external monitor. I also have an IPhone, Wii U, the Library, and tons of other ways to access internet.

People are spending less nowadays for products. A VCR use to be over $1,000 bucks. Now you can get a blueray player for less the $100. Better tech for cheaper price. 

HDTV with wider color palettes then CRT for around the same price. Air conditioners now more common. Smartphones now more common, majority of poor has one, and increasing every year. 

Our standard of living has risen so much. We are living comfortable even the poor in the country compared to the 1800’s. And it’s getting better and better every year for everyone.


----------



## supersonicwaffle (Jan 3, 2019)

TotalInsanity4 said:


> First off, I'm going to stop you right there. You make it sound as though leftists are somehow twisting the quote to apply to Nazis; the quote was made by an Austrio-British philosopher in 1945, it was a direct response to the horrors that the Nazis subjected the world to





TotalInsanity4 said:


> You can call a laptop with an obliterated screen, dead battery, and non-functional keyboard perfectly usable because it will power on using a bunch of handicaps and workarounds (ex. external monitor and keyboard, tethered to charger), but the fact of the matter is that if you invest a little bit of money, you could have a much more comfortable and convenient laptop to use.
> 
> So too is our current situation; now that we have a nation that quite literally runs on big businesses (Walmart, Amazon, McDonald's, etc.) and small, Main Street businesses are all but out of the picture, we have an economy that, rather than being driven by interest in a profession, is driven by desperation. When the nation rejected unions and accepted multi-billion corporations, the worker lost any bargaining power they had; wages would never increase unless there was a federal incentive to, because if you didn't settle for a low wage to get by, there would always be someone else that would be willing to pick up a second or third job to pay rent and feed their kids.
> 
> ...



Please excuse the lack of formatting I’m on mobile rn. 

Can you cite it was in direct response to nazis? I admit I haven’t  read The Open Soceity and its Enemies but reading what people wrote about they’re saying neither Nazis nor Soacalists are specifically mentioned but it’s pretty obvious he’s criticizing both. Genuinely curious, never heard about that, I may be misinformed.

I think I understand pretty well. Obviously I was paraphrasing but he’s literally saying we should not tolerate people who will not engage in rational discussion and resort to violence. Popper also says that these ideologues also manipulate their followers but I wouldn’t think you told me I don’t know the paradox because of that.
Please elaborate on what you think I’m misunderstanding. 

WRT rational discussion with Nazis. I always maintained  that both extremes are wrong but you’d have to turn a blind eye not to notice the inflationary accusations of Nazism, oftentimes refusing to discuss or you could say “denounce all argument”.

Popper specifically says that we should place intolerant people outside the law, IMO it’s quite obvious he means exercising the governments monopoly on violence as it’s mandated by the free soceity to do so, this is further substantiated by his statement that we don’t need to surpress if we can keep them in check by public opinion, it’s action that needs to come from soceity not some vigilantes.  
So no, I would not suspect Popper would agree with you at all here, I would even go as far as to say you would qualify as an “intolerant” by his definition.

This is all about a free society’s ability to destroy itself. The left’s inability to denounce intolerance on their side is as much a contributor to the chasm in soceity as right extremists are.


----------



## SG854 (Jan 5, 2019)

Xzi said:


> People are forced to live with roommates and/or work multiple jobs now.  Or they just live well below the poverty line.  Plenty of homelessness and starvation in America too, don't kid yourself.  They're called the 'working poor' for a reason.


How long do those people stay poor? What’s their age group? 

Multiple jobs, as opposed to how people lived in the past, long back breaking hours, fighting off wild beasts. 

Sharing with roommates is a non issue. That’s why we have a housing shortage in the first place even though we have plenty of housing space. People living alone getting places made for more then 1. Much more rent pay forces you to get a roommate in housing scarcity, it’s just supply and demand.

The homelessness problem is mostly in places with rent control. Expensive housing is mostly in rent control places. Not all of America.


----------



## Xzi (Jan 5, 2019)

SG854 said:


> How long do those people stay poor? What’s their age group


Lol, all age groups are subject to poverty, whole families can be found on the streets in most of middle America now.



SG854 said:


> Multiple jobs, as opposed to how people lived in the past, long back breaking hours, fighting off wild beasts.


I mean we're talking about years America has actually been in existence, not the 1600s and shit.  



SG854 said:


> Sharing with roommates is a non issue. That’s why we have a housing shortage in the first place even though we have plenty of housing space.


We have housing shortages because that drives up the value of the empty houses, which are owned by banks.  They could easily build several more housing developments, and it's actually cheaper for the city to house the homeless in small individual shelters than leave them on the street, but scarcity drives demand.  Almighty dollar above everything else.  



SG854 said:


> The homelessness problem is mostly in places with rent control. Expensive housing is mostly in rent control places. Not all of America.


Homelessness is everywhere, just as drug addiction is everywhere.  You only witness more of it in larger cities because the populations are far denser there.  You're kidding yourself if you think there aren't plenty of homeless vets and/or drug addicts anywhere you go.  The unemployment rate is pretty low right now, but it doesn't account for the massive portion of the population that is no longer part of the labor force at all.


----------



## notimp (Jan 5, 2019)

SG854 said:


> How long do those people stay poor? What’s their age group?
> 
> Multiple jobs, as opposed to how people lived in the past, long back breaking hours, fighting off wild beasts.
> 
> Sharing with roommates is a non issue. That’s why we have a housing shortage in the first place even though we have plenty of housing space. People living alone getting places made for more then 1. Much more rent pay forces you to get a roommate in housing scarcity, it’s just supply and demand.


You must have lived behind a rock, or gotten all your information from youtube so far..  (Trolling a bit, stay calm rest of the thread will be friendly.  )



SG854 said:


> How long do those people stay poor? What’s their age group?


Age group is hard to tell, but in most nations around the world people were kept at the income levels of the 1990s (if you adjust for inflation), that means that they did not participate in economic growth in any way since then.
See: https://economia.icaew.com/opinion/january-2019/ending-austerity-give-everyone-a-pay-rise (Just first google result. It also states that till 2008 they still were growing - but that might be britain only? Look for better sources. (Some UN organization preferably))



SG854 said:


> Multiple jobs, as opposed to how people lived in the past, long back breaking hours, fighting off wild beasts.


Grow up to be an educated human being, would you? At least in europe your parents generation usually had one job, they held for life, and better social care systems to compliment it. You dont compare using the stone ages. 



> Sharing with roommates is a non issue. That’s why we have a housing shortage in the first place even though we have plenty of housing space. People living alone getting places made for more then 1.


While this has some logic to it, because in the past people lived in flats as families of ten, on less space - looking at you parents generation again - you are at a disadvantage.

Also - usually peoples attitudes change, when they get married and have children.

But just tell your room mate not to have an affair with your guy/gal every day - and it all will turn out fine living in the same space.  Just dont forget to do it after you've had your third child - those are the hard years.. 



> Much more rent pay forces you to get a roommate in housing scarcity, it’s just supply and demand.


Thats entirely wrong - because the housing market was coopted for financial investment strategies. When the financial crisis hit, and interest rates on savings where fixed at 0% (with inflation thats negative, so normal people payed for the crisis), wealthier people went into real estate big time. Maybe less so in the US, where people either live in cardboard shacks (drywall), or skyscrapers (limited real estate) but in Europe this has become a massive problem. Our cities are old. The houses there are built well. People rent. "Owning and renting out living space" for 20 years is something with a fixed cost ceiling - and a crisis proof annual return. Because our cities are still growing, and there is no fixed price housing market, and stable annual return on investment is a rare commodiy - prices exploded. (Investors wanted higher returns.)

@how long: Millennials in most of the world are a "lost generation", economic growth is not supposed to get back up to the levels your parents enjoyed. With your incomes you can't save up to own property anymore - you basically will be milked until you are dead. 

In the US the economic recovery after the crisis went a bit faster than in the rest of the world - so currently most millennials there are happy spenders of disposable income (they keep the economy afloat), but in terms of savings or investments they are living hand to mouth. And again, will do so until they are dead. The generation after them should enjoy some modest growth (that wont be eaten up by inflation and 0% interest rates) again - but not anywhere at the levels seen in the 1980s.


----------



## notimp (Jan 5, 2019)

Ericthegreat said:


> Im trying to understand what you mean by this?


Virtue signaling, that you are socially interested/concerned/motivated - when your actions could effectively be seen as doing the opposite - even if unknowingly. You should be more intelligent given the accolades and opportunities you had, standing at the stage you are talking from, giving that talk.

The "misfit at a hacker conference" statement is a loving nod to the peer group. So is the black hoodie reference. In essence - people that don't care very much about virtue signaling at all - but never the less, are more intelligent (creating conceptual models) than the average. The "hacker" thats wearing a black hoody, but is standing at a conference stage doing "I had access, because I bought into chinese elites believes" prep talks, while listing her accolades and promoting how well they could help governments to keep their people under control ("Because the people would like it!"). Is an oxymoron. It isnt supposed to exist.

You only get it - if you get a millennial, thats so versed in virtue signaling (grown up on facebook), and so PR damaged ("want to do something with social - so I studied economics"), that they actually choose to self depricate (wear a black hoody), while spewing corporate or state propaganda on a conference stage.

Its horrible. Its the worst. I wouldnt tell her that to her face, but it is. Please let it be naivity. Please let her grow out of it.

Thats about the thought process I go through after watching 10 minutes of her talk, and even more so - after constantly being slammed with "she didn't think that through either" impact stories, of how well she did data science - by reading her text books.

The technical capability is there. We need people with a moral compass in the position she is in (designing societal models that are big data driven) - not people that advertise "I dont think things through" but am a very capable data scientist - interested in high prestige activities. Corporations and even governments love those - but its still not what we need.

With better education comes responsibility. She shows none. She hasnt even heard of certain concepts. Much less thought them through herself. Shes a kid, going into the entirely wrong direction.


----------



## notimp (Jan 25, 2019)

The odd feeling when someone like George Soros, makes your point on stage in Davos. 



#stoleitfromgbatemp



(He didnt use the term millenial though.  But he cared to provoke as well.)


----------



## Bladexdsl (Jan 25, 2019)

millennials and they're supposed to be running our future. were all doomed


----------



## notimp (Jan 25, 2019)

Bladexdsl said:


> millennials and they're supposed to be running our future. were all doomed



50:50


----------



## notimp (Jan 26, 2019)

In essence OT - but more future angst from Davos:



Jack Ma (founder of Alibaba) warning of the societal ramifications of digitalization.

(edit: Replaced video with full version.)

Didnt find the timecode in the video yet... I'll work on it.


----------

