• 0 Posts
  • 38 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 27th, 2023

help-circle

  • Well the origins were laudable, it’s just that it was shortly thereafter extended for racist means. Binet and Simon wanted to see if they could devise a test to measure intelligence in children, and they ultimately came up with a way to measure a child’s mental age.

    At the time, problem children who did poorly in school were assumed to be sick and sent to an asylum. They proposed that some children were just slow, but they could still be successful if they got more help. Their test was meant to identify the slow children so that they could allocate the proper resources to them.

    Later, their ideas were extended beyond the education system to try to prove racial hierarchies, and that’s where much of the controversy comes from. The other part is that the tests were meant to identify children that would struggle in school. They weren’t meant to identify geniuses or to understand people’s intelligence level outside of the classroom.



  • The ask that YouTube manage their system better. Currently, they assume that a copyright claim is valid unless proven otherwise, and it is difficult for content creators to actually get them to review a claim to determine if it is invalid. So, a lot of legitimate users that post videos without actually violating anybody’s copyright end up being permanently punished for somebody illegitimate claim. What we want is for YouTube to, one, make it more difficult or consequential to file a bad claim, and two, make it easier to dispute a bad claim.

    However, that’s not going to happen because the YouTube itself is legally responsible for copyrighted material that is posted to their platform. Because of that, they are incentivised to assume a claim is valid lest they end up in court for violating somebody’s legitimate copyright. Meaning that the current system entails a private company adjudicating legal questions where they are not an impartial actor in the dispute.

    So your concern is legitimate, but it’s ignoring the fact that we already are in a situation where a private company is prosecuting fraud. People want it to change so that it is more in favor of the content creators (or at least, in the spirit of innocent until proven guilty), but it would ultimately be better if they were not involved in it whatsoever. However, major copyright holders pushed for laws that put the onus on YouTube because it makes it easier for them, and it’s unlikely for those laws to change anytime soon. That’s what I’d say we should be pushing for, but it’s also fair to say that the Content ID system is flawed and allows too much fraud to go unpunished.










  • You’re saying that it doesn’t matter because the US government is able to prove his citizenship, but that isn’t in question. The crux of this matter would be whether OP was ignorant of his citizenship and if that ignorance would have any relevance to his case.

    Securing official documents only available to American citizens makes it more difficult to argue that he was ignorant of his status as an American citizen. He likely could still make a compelling argument (provided he acts quickly), but it does make it a bit more difficult.


  • If you ever use SQL Server Management Studio, you can experience the opposite. Whenever there’s an update, you’ll get a notification in the application, but to actually install it, you need to go to Microsoft’s website to download the latest version and install it yourself. Chrome, on the other hand, updates itself upon restart without requiring anything special from the user.

    As a software developer, I really like that part. It means that websites I work on only need to consider the features supported in the latest version of major browsers rather than the last several (as was the case with Internet Explorer).

    So, it’s nice and something that I remember really appreciating when Chrome was getting popular. But it’s still a weird thing to brag about.




  • I like Robert Delaunay, and also his wife, Sonia Delaunay. Their work involves a lot of bright, vibrant colors. It also was rather abstract or impressionistic, which I enjoyed. I think I like Piet Mondrian for similar reasons. Jan Sluyters would be another.

    I also like JMW Turner a lot. I’m a sucker for lighting and dynamic skies in paintings, and his work features that very prominently. Frederic Edwin Church is another painter along these lines that I really enjoy.

    A more contemporary passive that I like is Nina Tokhtaman Valetova. Her work also involves a lot of bold colors.


  • nelly_man@lemmy.worldtoAnarchyChess@sopuli.xyzCoding chess
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    5 months ago

    Same thing with me and chess in high school. I learned TrueBASIC, and I didn’t learn about arrays or subroutines. But, I did manage to make a chess application that two people could play a game of chess on. It highlighted legal moves when you clicked on a piece and ensured that only legal moves were made. It also showed the captured pieces to the side of the board. I think I had it set up so that you could only promote to a previously captured piece, but all the other rules were implemented properly (or at least, I assumed they were).

    The implementation involved a bunch of variables for each individual chess piece and a bunch of if statements inside a loop. I remember describing arrays and explaining that I wished they existed, but never actually found out they did until I was finished. I don’t know how many lines of code it was, but when I copied it into Word, and it spanned about 350 pages in total.

    Part of me is proud of the accomplishment. Another part is horrified.


  • The executive branch is a bureaucracy that has to follow procedures. The president can direct the agency to start these processes, and that’s what he done. The HHS has done the necessary work to show that cannabis is deserving of a lower schedule according to the Controlled Substances Act. It is now up to the DEA to review that data and reschedule it accordingly. This is the process stipulated by the law, and the executive branch must adhere to it. If they don’t, it will be undone in the courts.

    The alternative route would be for Congress to pass a new law to specifically legalize cannabis, but they do not have the numbers, so the Biden administration has to follow the process outlined in the existing laws. He’s done what he is legally able to do, and it’s more than any of his predecessors have. It may be slow, but it’s pretty much a fast as the law allows.