I've been using Epik for about 2 years now due to their support of open and honest speech. I wonder if that will get them in hot water with paypal/stripe or debanked. Who knows what the rules are now. Strange world.
Yeh, nowadays a customer of a customer of a customer can get de-platformed because 'you're either with us or against us', such incredibly fascist rhetoric flying out from every window it's scary. Speaking of windows, why wouldn't Microsoft put a filter into their OS so that this problem of internet hate-ship could once be solved on the network config level once and for all /s
Thought experiment: can we have a standard TOS for centralized services?
Building the next Facebook? Legally bind yourself that you'll always provide API access and this right cannot ever be taken away to the extent permitted by the law.
Maybe we need a standardization for centralized service TOS like MIT/GPL etc are for OSS. So people can decide more easily which centralized services to use.
I was thinking something similar the other day, but rather than a fully standard TOS, where I get to is that we need standard atomic pieces of contracts and TOS docs. For instance in the language in the definitions part about who the customer is, who the business is should be {common:customer-is-you, common:business-is-mybusinessname} or a part that talks about not using other customer's login information. Etc. Why should we have to read every single line when it's mostly the same? DRY the TOS.
There's a company that is not public but working in this space, I cannot recall it's name. They use NLP to diagnose patient condition by ingesting raw information/text from medical books/papers. You describe how you feel and any other information that you have in an article, and it gives out possible conditions and prescription.
AFAIK, they still recommended that you go to the doctor, but you could use it as an extra to check the diagnosis yourself.
But their point was they have all the data coming out in new papers, and the system studies it constantly and is always kept up.
I'd argue that if apple didn't have a monopoly, we'd have stores that catered to privacy conscious people far earlier.
If apple didn't restrict the OS so much, you'd have people making their own Facebook clients, wouldn't have mattered if Facebook liked it or not. The monopolization of Facebook's control on personal connections is partially because of closed OS's. And Apple's iOS is one of the most responsible OS's that gave rise to Facebook's data monopoly.
Had it been like Windows, there wouldn't be a way that Facebook could've maintained their monopoly.
There are other OS with a larger percentage of devices installed with other app stores possible. How many privacy focused stores do we see with privacy focused Facebook clients? How many of the users exercise those privacy options and give informed consent to share their data?
Hypotheticals can be argued either way but it’s just one possible option, not the only one.
The answer is chrome web store/firefox store and adblock/tracker block.
They offer a hint into a more free future.
Imagine if adblock wasn't allowed on those stores. Today the equivalent is alternative clients to Facebook not being allowed on iOS and the App Store.
Look at YC startups like motion being built on top of the web. They are building on top of the network effects of gmail/google/facebook/slack etc. We aren't allowed any of that on mobile. Had they been allowed more access to the mobile OS's, they could be a very successful company. We haven't even touched the tip of cross OS productivity integrations.
> If apple didn't restrict the OS so much, you'd have people making their own Facebook clients, wouldn't have mattered if Facebook liked it or not.
You're totally wrong on this. In fact, the first alternative FB clients I remember using sprang up on the iPad, before FB bothered to put a native app out for it.
What killed alternative FB clients was FB itself -- they've slowly closed off the APIs you'd need to access to make an alternative client optional. FB has also closed off their own alternative clients as well (FB Paper), and have been forcing users into their official web or native clients for a while.
I'm not sure that it really workout that way, you wouldn't have Facebook clients on these privacy conscious stores because FB wouldn't provide an open API which they could use. Otherwise are there any reasons why these client can't be published on the App Store besides that there no way to make one?
Instead it's probably more likely that FB would host Messenger and Whatsapp clients on their own app store with all the details hidden somewhere in the user agreement.
That was a rhetorical question. AFAIK the closest thing you can get is wrapper around messenger web app which (which by default doesn't work on mobile browser because FB wants to force everyone to use their native apps).
While it wraps their web app, I use Frost for Facebook, which is an open source app that lets me access Facebook messages on mobile without using any of Facebook's apps.
The the answer is: a competitor could build their services on top of Facebook. They wouldn't have to start from scratch. Independent client's mean if the one user trusts you with their data, you can provide them a bigger value.
Today you cannot innovate on top of Facebook. Their network effects mean if your service is superior, you need to beat the network effects first.
And Facebook cannot reasonably offer independent access because: Cambridge Analytica.
Independent client's do what they want without Facebook taking a hit on their reputation. No one blames apple for the crimes committed using their phones/computers do they?
I think that building a competitor on top of facebook is against their terms of service. You wouldn't be able to build an 'alternative facebook client', legally at least.
What can congress do? They're already blacklisted.
The only thing left is to shoot your own foot. Maybe avoid that?
I've seen nothing logical that came out of Trumps silly blacklisting except cashing out on the reputation the US had for pennies on the dollar. China is destined to be Europe and the US combined in term of tech. Time will tell if their culture causes problem for them.
Smart high intelligence people + strong work ethic + competition and not rent seeking by incumbents. They're only second to Israel in terms of average human intelligence.
Every top math Olympiad participant representing the US is of Chinese ethnicity/descent, this should be noted.
Suggesting that human intelligence varies by race is a very old, very debunked idea that no-one believes any more outside of some small racist cliques.
I haven't seen any good studies debunking it, but neither have I seen any studies which prove it. That IQ is heritable and has a large genetic component however is "settled science" [a], and the current trend in behavioural genetics seems to be that a large swathe of cognitive and social behaviours are very heritable indeed.
This comment should be voted down; it is inline with the current social attitudes in the US but it is scientifically not true. Nothing has been debunked. What we do know is IQ is heritable AND China has people with High IQ. Whether IQ is inherited for chinas case or whether IQ is a good quantitative measure for intelligence is not formally established but the parent-parent poster does not make an unrealistic proposition. I may get voted down on this but shame on people who voted this up for supporting a social ideal over the cold hard truth. Nothing has been debunked.
Genetics control how we look physically across all races, there is no black magic that suddenly makes every race equal in intelligence and behavior while only controlling for physical differences. Uphold your social ideals but don’t let your ideals blind you from the cold hard truth.
No it’s not. The biases that infect the white supremacist are just one side of the extremist coin. You live on the other side of extremism. Unable to see the scientific truth past your idealism.
The white supremacist sees himself as superior even though reality says he clearly isn’t and you see everything as equal even though it clearly isn’t the case. The truth is far more complex. But that is irrelevant to you. You don’t care about the truth, you only care about defeating your enemy, the white supremacist.
Thats why your childish response tries to turn the whole topic into a war against your personal enemy. Almost no one here is a white supremacist so your statement serves no one other than yourself.
How can I say so much about your character without really knowing you? First off you made a huge logical error that reveals your biases.
IQ scores do not make white people look good. They make Asians look smart. If anything IQ scores will be utilized by Asian supremacists NOT white supremacists. It is totally illogical to think that IQ scores are used by white supremacists when Asians have Superior scores.
Yet here you are calling it a white supremacist dog whistle. Totally illogical. So why do you do it? Again the only reason here is because your statement serves your own personal biases. My advice to you is to to cast your biases aside and try to be more logical. You are a software engineer and logical thought is a required trait for all software engineers so it's good for you to train for this because clearly you lack training in this area.
The cold hard truth is that there isn't a single study identifying any kind of racial component to IQ (and please supply one if you know different).
The reason it's a white supremecist dog whistle is that any theory that suggests that character has anything to do with race allows racists to say that "they are like this, therefore we must treat them like this". Also, nazism - the Nazis were huge believers in racial differences.
If we can agree that individual differences in IQ massively outweigh all other factors (in that there are low-IQ asians, and high-IQ white folks) then any kind of racial profiling around this is just racism. You cannot conclude anything about an individual from their race.
And you're not controlling for cultural differences. I've spent time in Asia, and the cultural differences are enormous. Massively outweighing any genetic differences.
Then cite your science. Don't give me some one sentence response with no evidence.
>The cold hard truth is that there isn't a single study identifying any kind of racial component to IQ (and please supply one if you know different).
I literally stated that the cold hard truth makes this controversial not definitive. There is no single study that race as a causative factor for IQ but there is also no single study that definitively separates IQ and race. This is something hard to measure, but it is highly highly unrealistic to assume that there is zero correlation with IQ and race when all genes control both physical attributes and mental attributes. What we do know is that IQ is correlated with race. This much is true. Correlation doesn't imply causation but it doesn't terminate any possibility of causation either. In fact correlation is a prerequisite to causation.
Note that for the above Asian countries have vastly different cultures between countries. Also note that despite vastly different cultures the top countries are mostly Asian. Correlation.
Actual studies are numerous and produces definitive differences between in IQ between countries AND race. What causes these differences is controversial but the difference and correlations exist (even when accounting for Asians and white people living in the same culture.) There are even studies where the authors conclude that IQ is indeed caused by race. However there are conflicting conclusions that say otherwise. The causation is controversial but the correlation is definitive.
>If we can agree that individual differences in IQ massively outweigh all other factors (in that there are low-IQ asians, and high-IQ white folks) then any kind of racial profiling around this is just racism. You cannot conclude anything about an individual from their race.
I am not arguing for racial profiling. Please do not imply this and turn this into a racist witch hunt. I am arguing for observable facts.
There are low IQ asians and high IQ white people this much is true. But statistics talks in terms of bell curves and generalities. The IQ bell curve for a population of Asians is higher then the IQ bell curve for a population of white people. This fact cannot be denied.
>And you're not controlling for cultural differences. I've spent time in Asia, and the cultural differences are enormous. Massively outweighing any genetic differences.
I am aware of the cultural differences. Show me some studies relating IQ to culture and you have an argument here. However it proves nothing. IQ differences can be influenced by either culture or race or both. There is nothing that definitively proves either factor yet here you are specifically stating that your view is based on science. It is not.
IQ is not subjective. The word intelligence is subjective. You can't say something like Asians in general are more intelligent then white people but you can say Asians in general have higher IQ.
So a better way to talk about this topic is to ignore the word "intelligence" all together. Just talk about how and why Asians have higher IQ.
That's only because the word "intelligence" is subjective and ill defined. The problem is our usage of the word intelligence as a primary entity. Instead iq should be the primary benchmark for mental performance and intelligence is just one subjective aspect of it.
I don't read the comment as suggesting that Chinese people are genetically smart - just that they are smart. That IQ varies by race or ethnicity is an established fact, not a debunked theory. The controversial question is why it varies - nature or the environment?
Nature vs nurture is an ancient argument. Science indicates both contribute, and IQ is a subjective measure of what's perceived as intelligent. It certainly isn't settled science that some ethnicities are more intelligent on average than others. That is some James Damore BS that can never be measured. And by the way, we are one human race, according to the scientific definition.
You are only right to the extent that IQ is indeed a "subjective measure". For example, there are IQ differences between black and white people in the US. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achievement_gaps_in_the_United.... Debates about this take the form (a) of arguing about what IQ measures, and whether it is valid; (b) of arguing about whether environmental or genetic factors contribute to the differences - for instance, if you have worse nutrition, experience more air pollution, or have a less stimulating home environment, all of these might cause your IQ to be lower than someone else. However, there is no serious debate that the gaps in IQ tests (and many other achievement measures) exist.
The debate about whether IQ is "subjective" is ongoing but some things are pretty clearly known. For instance, IQ is highly predictive of many life outcomes, and many different kinds of academic tests all load on a single factor (general intelligence).
This has all been debated up and down the hillsides, and although I don't think IQ is the single measure that defines everything (obviously?), you are premature to dismiss IQ as "subjective". That's far from obvious.
That’s not sufficient evidence for the scale of the claim you’re making about basic human nature. Many other factors can explain China’s success much less the demographic composition of Math Olympiad participants.
China is destined by US and European politicians to take power, because those in power are totally corrupt. This has nothing to do with the instrinsic abilities of respective populations. Same goes for Israel. And you have a strange definition of ethics given the amount of IP piracy going on with the blessing of occidental politicians.
> Every top math Olympiad participant representing the US is of Chinese ethnicity/descent, this should be noted.
But conversely, if you look at winners of the Fields Medal, Abel Prize, Wolf Prize, Chern Medal etc. There is surprisingly few Chinese recipients despite outnumbering everyone else in total population.
The fact that 30% app store tax exists and both stores (App Store by Apple and Google Play Store) have somewhat similar strategies highly indicate collusion going on. Apple only changed it for people making under $1m a year after people got mad and they got sued by Epic Games or they knew Epic Games was coming for their asses. But they know that majority of their revenue comes from pubs making over $1m a year which they still tax at 30%.
Then the fact that they hold Safari backwards to cripple the adoption of PWA's (Modern Web Apps). They don't allow real competitors to Safari either. The competitors that exist like Chrome or Firefox are just Safari under the hood on iOS.
iOS and Apple have single handedly crippled the innovation on mobile web. Safari is the modern Internet Explorer but Apple forcing people to use it directly or indirectly and not allowing real competition on iOS.
This is straight up anti trust material and they should face scrutiny for it. Sleepy lawmakers should wake up.
Not only does it harm American businesses, but also businesses across the world.
Even if Apple shouldn't be subject to an anti-trust suit, I think the whole industry should be regulated to counter how Apple goes about it's business - if Google could get away with acting like Apple does to it's customers they probably would, Microsoft would also love to but they've been bitten before.
Basic legislation guaranteeing certain freedoms for the consumers costs Apple and Google et al. nothing but massively empowers consumers in a sector where information about the products is largely controlled by the creators of said products.
This also prevents products becoming e-waste when the company is done supporting them.
There was distribution that costed precisely $0 in middle man fees. Software downloaded from the web (if you already have the audience, the distribution costs are marginal on the web).
Then Apple decided to cut it out. And also cripple web apps so they can't even be alternatives properly. Can you build a Mail app on the web? No. Apple didn't add the required features to Safari that developers could build on top of. And Chrome/Firefox/Edge did add them and they work. However on iOS, Apple does not allow them, instead they're forced to use Safari under the hood with Chrome/Google branding sprinkled on top.
Tell me how much publishers pay to distribute on Windows from their websites? Or the WebApps that don't need to be installed? Apple provides little value as a middle man.
The just wanted to be parasite middlemen and they don't deserve to be. They're the mafia.
Go for them under anti-competition clauses. And if there is indication that they have colluded, start trust busting on both. Google is already not trustworthy. They colluded with Facebook already. And Apple colluded to lower wages with other tech companies.
It is entirely reasonable to think that this is anti-competitive and hinders innovation.
The reason the 30% exists isn’t collusion, it’s what both thought they needed to charge to make money on 99 cent purchases given how high transaction costs were.
Even today, it’s likely they don’t make much on those 99 cent purchases, last I looked transaction costs were probably over 10%.
I want infrastructure providers to be neutral, and allow whatever is allowed under the law. Not Twitter, FB they're free to censor.
But the App Store/Play Store, cloud providers should be neutral.
Take the bare minimum measures to prevent chaos, don't overreach your hand.