This article is so dishonest. People can understand each other. They can change.
I know, because I grew up in a blue state. I registered Democrat. I wasn't irredeemable, I was uninformed. I didn't care about politics back then. But I was willing to listen.
Now I do my research. I read both sides. I google every candidate, even for my unimportant local elections. Now I vote for whomever I believe would do the best job. Whomever would be best for America, and all Americans, regardless of what party affiliation they hold. That's why Trump currently has my vote for 2020.
Breaking news! Human beings sometimes lie! More at eleven!
Upvoting a clickbait headline while downvoting a summary of the actual content of the article is the entirety of Reddit in a nutshell.
Upvoting a clickbait headline while downvoting the actual content of the article is the entirety of Reddit in a nutshell.
"So how much do we have to pay you to pretend to be a member of the oppressed and underpaid working class, so that our audience will sympathize with you and trust you?"
"$145,000 sounds good."
You're not wrong, but here's the thing, though. Everyone wants to benefit from it, but most people would be suspicious about contributing with it - not without reason - and slapping down a document for them to sign wouldn't help either.
If Google only asked each person individually for their data, the system would never work. AI Learning only works with large data sets to identify subtle patterns. If it was only opt-in, they would never have enough data, and wouldn't be able to make accurate evaluations for the people that did opt-in.
It's like a reverse tragedy of the commons. They have the potential to do public good, but only if they create a new commons of medical data where none currently exists.
I'm not saying that Google is right about this. They don't have a lot of trust after their past decisions. But asking for permission would never work.
2009: "The story '1984' was meant to be a warning, not a guide book."
2019: "The story 'Harrison Bergeron' was meant to be a warning, not a guide book."
"Women can't compete on a level playing field with men."
That statement is a biological fact. There is a genetic component, correlated with gender, that influences athletic ability.
But why stop there?
75% of NBA players are black. It's pretty obvious that there is also a genetic component, correlated with race, that influences athletic ability. Why don't we say that white players have a right to compete against other white players?
Oh wait, no, that would be racist.
It's not really a question of smart or dumb.
Anyone livestreaming any crime is an admission that they have been indoctrinated to the point that they don't believe what they are doing is wrong. Like someone admitting they're speeding while doing a podcast from their car; or a Pokemon GO livestreamer trespassing on private property to catch a pokemon.
"Oh, well, sure, technically it's against the law; but I'm not doing anything bad; or that other people don't do too. And I've done it before without any consequences. Why would I get arrested for it now?"
Anyone livestreaming any crime is an admission that they have been indoctrinated to the point that they don't believe what they are doing is wrong. Like someone admitting their speeding while doing a podcast from their car; or a Pokemon GO livestreamer trespassing on private property to catch a pokemon.
"How dare you cheer for your hometown team, you bigot!"
Remember just last week when Tim Pool took a political compass quiz and proved he was a communist?
When even a devout communist can correctly assess what Reddit seemingly failed to, just shows how out of touch Reddit really is.