2025-01-09

LA on fire, secular clerisy, car software sucks, SamA accusations, much Meta backlash, Musk reads X, Linux gametops. long TOSLINK, conquering Canada, new Rasputins, EU fines EC, vintage Blue arsenic


etc

  • Pacific Palisades wildfire barrels towards Getty Villa as hellish California declares state of emergency | Daily Mail Online

  • A Rare Alignment of 7 Planets Is About to Take Place in the Sky

  • Vikings Settled in North America in 1021AD

  • On Priesthoods - by Scott Alexander - Astral Codex Ten

    In the early days of the rationalist community, critics got very upset that we might be some kind of “individualists”. Rationality, they said, cannot be effectively pursued on one’s own. You need a group of people working together, arguing, checking each other’s mistakes, bouncing hypotheses off each other. For some reason it never occurred to these people that a group calling itself a rationalist community might be planning to do this. Maybe they thought any size smaller than the whole of society was doomed?

    it becomes clear that such a priesthood is only useful insofar as it has some kind of barrier between itself and the general public. The priesthoods don’t exactly hate the public. But they hate the idea of letting the public’s ideas mix with their own. It’s not just that they discount the public’s ideas insofar as the public is less sophisticated than themselves. Their whole identity comes from their separation from the public. Ideas that seem too similar to the public’s get actively penalized, the same way it would be hard to convince Democrats to accept a plan that Donald Trump proposed first, even if it otherwise fit with Democratic ideals.

    When I asked academics about this, they didn’t find it mysterious at all. The average high-ranked economics department doesn’t care that you have a popular blog. They might even count it against you. Only your reputation within the priesthood matters. Consider how impressive a boundary this is - someone can have literally tens of thousands of fans for doing popular writing in a field, and the amount of extra status it gives them in the field is within a rounding error of zero. Only your reputation within the priesthood matters.

    Priesthoods have been politically easy to capture for at least a hundred years. Whole fields turned Marxist during the early-to-middle 20th century. Still, it seems like this reached an entirely new level during the 2010s. This isn’t just my subjective judgment; priesthoods themselves changed their bylaws or mission statements to declare political activism an integral part of their mission and condemned past incarnations for focusing on “objective” knowledge. Many priests who opposed the changes resigned in protest; their opponents defended themselves not by saying that nothing had changed, but by insisting that the changes were good.

    The most obvious complaint you could possibly lodge against the priesthoods is that they’re “out of touch”. But its very obviousness should make it suspect. If you’re making an obvious complaint about a set of people much smarter than you, you should wonder why the much smarter people haven’t thought of the complaint themselves. The answer is often that they already have, that your having the complaint at all is downstream of them telling you to have it, and that you’re being used as a tool in some kind of internal conflict.

Horseshit

celebrity gossip


Rank Propaganda / Thought Policing / World Disordering

  • "Meta created a LGBTQ exception for calling someone mentally ill as an insult"

    Meta literally created a LGBTQ exception for calling someone mentally ill as an insult. You can't do it for any other group except LGBTQ people.

    Since Donald Trump won back the presidency on November 5, a parade of Silicon Valley luminaries have been engaging in an unseemly grovel-fest, making pilgrimages to Mar-a-Lago, shoveling million-dollar contributions to his inaugural fund, and meddling in the editorial departments of the publications they own in an apparent attempt to gain the new leader’s favor. Yesterday, Meta founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg said, “hold my beer.”

    Mr. Zuckerberg is no longer apologizing. On Tuesday, he announced that Meta, the parent company of Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp and Threads, was ending its fact-checking program and getting back to its roots around free expression. The fact-checking system had led to “too much censorship,” he said. It was the latest step in a transformation of Mr. Zuckerberg. In recent years, the chief executive, now 40, has stepped away from his mea culpa approach to problems on his social platforms. Fed up with what has seemed at times to be unceasing criticism of his company, he has told executives close to him that he wants to return to his original thinking on free speech, which involves a lighter hand in content moderation. Mr. Zuckerberg has remolded Meta as he has made the shift. Gone is the CrowdTangle transparency tool, which allowed researchers, academics and journalists to monitor conspiracy theories and misinformation on Facebook. The company’s election integrity team, once trumpeted as a group of experts focused solely on issues around the vote, has been folded into a general integrity team. Instead, Mr. Zuckerberg has promoted technology efforts at Meta, including its investments in the immersive world of the so-called metaverse and its focus on artificial intelligence.

    Fact-checking groups that worked with Meta said they had no role in deciding what the company did with the content that was fact-checked.

    “I don’t believe we were doing anything, in any form, with bias,” said Neil Brown, the president of the Poynter Institute, a global nonprofit that runs PolitiFact, one of Meta’s fact-checking partners. “There’s a mountain of what could be checked, and we were grabbing what we could.” Mr. Brown said the group used Meta’s tools to submit fact-checks and followed Meta’s rules that prevented the group from fact-checking politicians. Meta ultimately decided how to respond to the fact-checks, adding warning labels, limiting the reach of some content or even removing the posts.

    "This actually does an effective job revealing the problem with the fact-checking industry (perhaps by accident)," Reason senior editor Robby Soave observed. "Fact-checkers fact-check claim that fact-checkers are the problem. Real headline from the NY Times," civil liberties attorney Laura Powell noted. "How can anyone produce satire when the legacy media has become so ridiculous?" "This is amazing. Meta says fact-checkers were the problem Fact-checkers rule that false," Analytics Miami founder Ana Bozovic said in a post. "Rounding off the absurdity: this is the NYT reporting." "They really wrote this and then published it," senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute Chris Rufo marveled. The Federalist editor-in-chief Mollie Z. Hemingway wrote, "A beyond parody headline from propaganda outlet New York Times." "I had to look it up myself because I could not believe it wasn't parody," political columnist Moshe Hill wrote in surprise, "It's real."

  • Facebook Is Censoring 404 Media Stories About Facebook's Censorship

  • Facebook’s Fact-Checkers Changed the Way I See Tech—and Speech—Forever.

    I had a data tracker on my screen that showed our web traffic, and I could see the green line for my story surging up and up. Then suddenly, for no reason, the green line dropped like a stone. No one was reading or sharing the piece. It was as though it had never existed at all. Seeing the story’s traffic plunge, I was stunned. I thought, How does that even happen? How does a story that thousands of people are reading and sharing suddenly just disappear?

  • Social Media Has Ruined American Politics - by John Halpin

    However, as the Founding Fathers well understood, the right to free speech also requires a great deal of personal responsibility on the part of American citizens. This means we shouldn’t use our free speech rights to incite violence, promote falsehoods, threaten people, or undermine the rights of others. The natural right to freedom of thought and speech that enamored America’s founders requires both legal protections and social norms that encourage citizens to use their legal rights wisely and with a serious focus on promoting the public good as well as their own personal beliefs.

  • The International Fact-Checking Union (Yes That’s Real) Convenes An Emergency Meeting - modernity

    Yes. there is such a thing as the International Fact-Checking Network. It’s made up of bodies like PolitiFact and Snopes, which have proven themselves to be completely partisan leftist ‘ministries of truth’, as well as legacy media outlets including the AP and Reuters who seem to spend much of their time ‘fact checking’ satirical articles.

Musk

Info Rental / ShowBiz / Advertising

TechSuck / Geek Bait

Left Angst

Pox / COVID / BioTerror AgitProp

Environment / Climate / Green Propaganda