After many matches and chats one will be disliked by many, some will react disproportionately. It happened though without a single physical encounter which they can easily detect. I guess the workaround is to unmatch as early as possible? I was also exposed to many spam/scam profiles (promoting their Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube accounts) and Tinder somehow is not interested in combating this.
I'm an average male, I think they don't care that much to have me in their users' pool or I could be prohibitively horny and boring. Who knows.
The "account" ban creeps over ie. using new phone number with old device or another device but with old Apple/Google account or phone number extends the ban. It seems the only solution is entirely new setup - phone device, phone number, Google/Apple account. Too bothersome for an individual but easy for spammers, one can get an impression while swiping.
> That sounds like a slam dunk good thing for society.
That particular application is a good thing. But the existence of such capabilities can be a net negative, and by a huge margin.
Crime is something like a "cost of doing business" of a free society. Take all the crime away with an all-seeing Eye of Sauron and you risk a technological dictatorship that opens death camps for the currently unpopular race/class and crushes all resistance.
How can you say that? Do you believe Williams is guilty? Has he been found guilty? Even still, suppose you KNEW he was guilty - would you be okay with the government doing /whatever it took/ to find the evidence needed to prove his guilt?
Not to beat a dead horse, but to crystallize my point..it's not just about waiting until we find out if the guy is guilty or not to make a judgment. "Catching criminals" is an outcome/end. It's not really an action we can take. It's a future state that may or may not come into existence after we undertake certain means. "This particular application" is a means to an end. That is a key difference. I'm questioning whether the means always justify the ends.
>But the existence of such capabilities can be a net negative
And that's the problem with the pro-privacy side. Their argument relies on the idea that it can be a net negative but provides little evidence that it is a net negative. They argue theoretic harm against actual real world benefit. When that's not a winning argument they lament the existence of the real world benefit instead of re-evaluating their position.
> Their argument relies on the idea that it can be a net negative but provides little evidence that it is a net negative.
That's the problem with the majority of these cases, they involve testing the limits of what the government is allowed to do by defending the rights of really bad people whom most people have zero sympathy for.
I don't really expect the DEA to serve a no-knock warrant on my residence because Amazon currently thinks I'm a pot grower (due to buying a bluetooth thermometer which is apparently popular with actual pot growers) but if the government had All The Data I'm actually a pretty low risk for a bad bust once you input it all into the PreCrime2000™ algorithm.
I personally feel its the responsibility of the people who wish to erode our civil rights to prove the net benefit far outweighs the protections currently we enjoy as a direct result of British colonial abuses -- which, IMHO, is all the argument you need since the Bill of Rights wasn't created out of thin air for some idealized perfect society to strive for.
> provides little evidence that it is a net negative.
The negatives of a state that becomes powerful and evil have been thoroughly demonstrated in, for example, the USSR, Cambodia, North Korea and many other times/places.
>the study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences determined that at least 4% of people on death row were and are likely innocent.
Keep in mind that death penalty cases get a disproportionate level of attention and process and ought to be the least erroneous.
In many lesser cases people are threatened with sentences that are many times more punitive than the average perpetrator receives in order to inspire them to take a plea deal for a sentence that is merely life ruining instead of life ending.
Wrongful convictions in these scenarios are liable to be much higher than the 4% innocent we murder in public.
In America some jurisdictions are corrupt to a legendary degree. Recent years saw footage of both one corrupt cop staging a scene after murdering a citizen and another literally caught on his own body cam planting drugs during traffic stops.
Countless other examples abound and I omit them only for brevity.
Tech like facial recognition, geo fence warrants, and fishing expeditions that begin with search queries are inherently designed to cast a broad net that criminals will increasingly avoid to the degree possible by you know using VPNs, not googling stuff you plan to set on fire, not googling how to whack your wife etc, not bringing your phone to the crime. Whereas criminals will do the minimal work required to avoid scrutiny it will continue to pull in normal people who will be threatened with decades in prison in order to steal mere years of their lives.
Logically exploratory usage of new techniques is liable to be carefully considered to establish useful precedents. Pretending that American cops would plant drugs but wont imprison black folks that happened to walk down an adjacent street in the 3 hour window where we think the rape happened seems disingenuous.
Its like looking at 50s cars through currently informed eyes and saying we need to see twisted bloody metal before we prove that seat belts are necessary.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to think that they are trying to exploit this particular ad market, without lowering the markup on their hardware?
Samsung TVs are not cheaper than the competition. In fact, their mid and high tiers are expensive, compared to LG. On the low tier, other brands like TLC or Vizio are still cheaper.
> Do you think we should kill this random child if it would lead to (8000/57) = 104 families who can't afford a minivan to decide to have a third kid?
Yes, it seems like a great deal to me.
EDIT: Though I guess you could see it as a form of eugenics; "pay this much in order to have a third child"; but then it probably disproportionately hits middle class families rather than those who are at the very bottom. Many things are like this.
> a would-be birth vs. loss of life in an accident are immeasurably different things; incomparable.
They're not incomparable, in fact they must be traded off at some rate, otherwise you could just dose everyone in the world with chemicals to sterilize us and say "well now there definitely won't be any child deaths"
This is clearly a case of “a difference in amount makes a difference in kind”. The complete sterilization of the human race is so different from “multi child households will be less likely to have a third child”. They are incomparable to actual living child deaths because they are theoretical vs real. A theoretical person is not a conscious creature. It is an idea in an actual conscious creatures head. It cannot suffer. Its value is measured purely in how it could affect society, positively and negatively, if it had have been born. A real person is conscious and can suffer and their death is a direct loss to them and those around them. That is not comparable.
Yeah, I understand this argument but I think it's bad philosophy. You need to think 4-dimensionally: everyone was a "theoretical" person if you go back far enough and making rules that harm people in the future but not in the present leads to wild temporal inconsistencies.
Perhaps it's clearer to think about a person-slot of a particular type in a particular time. If I go back to say 1930, you were probably just a person-slot, not an actual person.
Sorry, that's not it for me or many others who face the same issue. As I've mentioned in the blog, I've loosened it to the max with multiple fitbits and I always end up with pain; unless I switch off the heart rate monitor.
When the heart rate monitor is switched off, there is no pain/tingling even if I wear it tight and this has been corroborated by many others in fitbit/apple watch forums.
But since, most of these cases are due to wearing it tight (or the manufacturers want to project it that way) the heart rate monitor issue is not getting enough attention.
I also switch from left to right. Maybe that makes a difference?
The other thing is that the two explanations are not mutually exclusive. Once you loosen it fully it moves around on your arm, which might move the harmful parts away from whatever is vulnerable.
Do we know what exactly causes the tingling? My left hand is still numb almost a week after I was first injured.
Although loosening might help you place heart rate monitor at a different place or avoid direct contact with skin; in my(our) experience switching off HR produced definitive results immediately.
The reason for why HR does this is speculative(I've covered in my blog), as long as the consumers demand strong action from the manufacturers we're not going to find the reason.
The core problem is that the companies that make these things are not being controlled by good regulation.
200 years ago it was probably legal for a food company to put a bit of cocaine in the food to make it more addictive. Nowadays I think you would go to jail for that.
Similarly, if we ever make it to the year 2220, the act of making a product that forces users to view certain content or that spies on users will be something you go to jail for, not something that gets you a promotion.
All the technical fixes that people are proposing (disconnect internet, pi hole, etc) are bandaid solutions and eventually the companies will bother to break those fixes. The company is a million times more powerful than any given individual and individuals are uncoordinated, so absent regulation the individuals will maximally lose the game - Black-Mirror-esque
This article is self-refuting. People are creatures of habit, and as long as the banks allow you to "subscribe" in a way that makes it really, really hard to "unsubscribe", the subscription model will continue winning.
The very idea of a subscription needs to die in order for content to be sold piecemeal.
Having said that, I am about to start a substack to get my own crowd of subscribers. BECAUSE IT MAKES ECONOMIC SENSE TO DO SO - I don't want to have to keep re-selling myself if I can possibly avoid it.
> as long as the banks allow you to "subscribe" in a way that makes it really, really hard to "unsubscribe"
I am very quick to subscribe to patreon and through Google Play because I know I can unsubscribe through those platforms. I won't touch newspapers unless they're through another subscription provider.
> I don't want to have to keep re-selling myself if I can possibly avoid it.
It's time efficient to switch to basically rent seeking. Sometimes that makes sense - I have content creators who I consume so regularly I have no issue giving them a few dollars on the month with the caveat that they are active.
On the other hand, for someone who is new to content creation they are never going to get a subscription from me because it's too risky that they decide to stop quietly and I'm out my entertainment budget money.
Subscriptions only work when I trust you both as a payment processor (so that excludes newspapers) and if you're already established as a trustable content creator.
> Subscriptions only work when I trust you both as a payment processor (so that excludes newspapers) and if you're already established as a trustable content creator.
Sure, but once you have made a name for yourself you want subscribers, which is why Patreon/Substack/etc allow people to subscribe rather than allowing them to either buy/not buy each piece of content. Every seller wants the consumer to default to paying them forever, rather than paying once and then having to make an active decision to pay again. (And before you have made a name for yourself, you don't sell your content at all, you give it away for free)
Control over the "default" behavior is just incredibly powerful. Creators are not going to give it up.
