- passing around butt-plugs and dildos to my students
+ [giving] out sex toys to kids
...is an example of exactly the kind of transcription error via which controversy ignites into hysteria. If we are to interpret your intent charitably, we must also charitably assume that abstract anatomical models (sex toys) are a useful and valid demonstration tool in the context of sexual health education.
FWIW most dildos aimed at women are not actually "anatomical models" and would not be recognizable if you've never seen one before. Likewise, butt-plugs may sound kinky but they don't look particularly imposing unless you deliberately go for extreme sizes. Also presumably much like condoms often handed out to students in sex ed, it's safe to assume these aren't used. The "leak" deliberately evokes the image of a queer predator handing out their own massive butt plugs and veiny rubber dongs to children to seduce them into sexual acts.
The video is not just supposed to spark outrage with extreme conservatives who think giving "children" (I can't find any source specifying the age so this could be anything from 6 to 17) an opportunity to ask questions about sex is child abuse (or "grooming", "sexualizing children", etc), but also moderates who assume the worst because of how this "revelation" is reported on (after all, if it makes headlines, it must be bad).
I was actually trying to be _less_ polarizing in my phrasing.
The issue isn't that ppl are under the impression they got to take these items home. The issue is that there is 0 reason on earth for schools to be introducing kids to butt-plugs and passing them around like its show and tell.
The first part of this sounds very closely related to something called Rogerian argument [1] which aims to find new opportunities for consensus by building on views already held in common.
The bit about assigning probabilities is interesting, precisely because I can think of very few contexts in which it would be of use to me. People seem to have little tolerance for shades of uncertainty when expressing views, whereas privately we think in probabilities all the time. It's as though we play a kind of poker where our need to conserve our 'stack' of reputational authority makes us relegate the actual ideas in contention to mere 'hands' to be represented, bluffed, and trivially discarded when a more amenable certainty presents itself.
It's nighttime and there is no wind. That's the downside of extrapolating from real-time data.
A couple of highlights from Australia's energy transition story in the last few days, which show some of the work being done at state level in spite of a largely renewables-hostile federal government over the last several years:
> the Western Australia grid ... reached 82 per cent renewables for a half-hour period on October 30 ... and it is likely that new peak is the highest for any gigawatt-scale grid in the world.
> South Australia ... has established the world’s highest share of renewables – as a percentage of demand – in any gigawatt scale grid in the world, when it reached 146 per cent on September 14. The excess is, of course, exported to the neighbouring state, in this case Victoria.
> [NSW is seeking] solutions on replacing 10GW of coal capacity that is likely to leave the grid within the next decade.
> Those plans are being accelerated by fast-tracked closures of the main coal generators, including Liddell early next year, Eraring in 2025, and Bayswater as early as 2030. Vales Point is expected to close by 2029, leaving Mt Piper with the only uncertain closure time.
> big companies like google or facebook (which, according to the website, do not support net neutrality [why would they, right?])
It doesn't quite say that. It says[1] that they didn't sign up to the event on the 12th. However, news outlets are reporting otherwise.[2][3] The Internet Association, which they founded, launched its petition site[4] on Monday. Microsoft is now also a member. Apple, for whatever reason, is not.
Google also has its own 'Take Action' page[5] but I'm not sure how old it is. Mark Zuckerberg has publicly stated support for net neutrality.[6] But both companies have been criticized[7][8] in the past for using a self-serving interpretation of the term. And, as the recent EU ruling against Google reminds us, telcos are not the only internet gatekeepers we need to worry about.[9]
As a tidbit about Google: Take Action actually emailed me today about it. I opted in a long time ago, but they definitely sent out a very pro NN email. An excerpt from that email:
> Today, Google is joining other Internet companies, innovative startups, and millions of internet users around the country to defend these common-sense protections that keep the internet free and open.
> Net neutrality ensures that both new and established services, whether offered by an established internet company like Google, a broadband provider, or a small start-up, have the same ability to reach users on an equal playing field.
Heh, probably not the best example of cheap TV. $3.8m wouldn't even pay for a single House of Cards episode.[1]
But it still works as a good example of the economics:
"With Netflix spending a reported $100 million to produce two 13-episode seasons of House of Cards, they need 520,834 people to sign up for a $7.99 subscription for two years to break even. ... That sounds daunting, but at the moment, Netflix has 33.3 million subscribers, so this is an increase of less than 10 percent on their current customer base."[2]
> they need 520,834 people to sign up [..] Netflix has 33.3 million subscribers, so this is an increase of less than 10 percent on their current customer base.
Yes, it's less than 10% -- but it's also less than 2% (33.3m * 2% = 666k)? Or what am I not seeing?
Since you jogged my memory, here's one person who has said it: Richard Clarke, U.S. National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism 1992-2003 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3769442
> we can be sure that any country capable of doing economic espionage has been doing it, is doing it, and will continue to do it, no matter the rules, no matter if they get caught, no matter the hypocrital public posturing of their leaders.
Why can we be sure of this? Simply from a rudimentary game-theoretic analysis? Isolated incidents of industrial spying aren't enough to show that this activity is as ubiquitous and inevitable as you say it must be.
It is not only from a theoretical standpoint: rules get broken, whenever it seems convenient, there are resources to break them, and there is an advantage to be obtained to break them. From an outside observer, the rules get broken randomly: rules get broken continuosly, sometimes more, sometimes less. Would you deny that?
But the important point is that there is absolutely no consequence of breaking the rules. Will the US be kicked out from the OCDE? Will they be sanctioned? The mere idea is laughable.
The only pressure possible is money: we need to put pressure on the US economy to change its ways.
The personalisation idea sounds a lot (but not exactly) like what Hubski[1] is trying to do. There is still a certain amount of manual work involved in 'following' individuals and exploring tags (a la del.icio.us) but I find the resulting combination of a personal feed with comments on each item from the wider community quite effective. Of course, for a system that accommodates diversity to work, there must be actual diversity within the group. I'm not sure Hubski is big enough to have that yet.
[I work at Docracy] There isn't, although you may be able to filter the main RSS feed. That's a good idea, though, we should add a feed to every document... something I will probably do... right now.
As a further feature request, it would be really great to be able to flag/vote a diff as alarming, so it could be highlighted for more people can notice it. For example, this diff by Geico is pretty questionable:
- passing around butt-plugs and dildos to my students
+ [giving] out sex toys to kids
...is an example of exactly the kind of transcription error via which controversy ignites into hysteria. If we are to interpret your intent charitably, we must also charitably assume that abstract anatomical models (sex toys) are a useful and valid demonstration tool in the context of sexual health education.