A team of researchers at UC San Diego has used “advanced machine learning” to develop technology that mines Twitter to identify entities illegally selling prescription opioids online.
Apologies to everyone involved if I’m misunderstanding the media release, but the advanced machine learning seems to consist of looking for tweets that contain any of the keywords codeine, Percocet, fentanyl, Vicodin, Oxycontin, oxycodone or hydrocodone and include a hyperlink.
That is a great fright wig! . . . it’s not a fright wig?
Facebook says that as many as 126 million people may have been exposed to 80,000 posts from a Russian propaganda group known as the Internet Research Agency over a two-year period.
Who cares? People believe what they want to believe.
Have you ever heard anyone say “I completely changed my mind on this issue after reading a Facebook post by nobody I know”?
Or “I was going to vote for Candidate A and now I’m going to vote for Candidate B”?
Neither have I . . .
[See You in Hell is a feature by our guest blogger, Satan — PE]
I’m old enough to remember when professional athletes took pride in their trash-talking abilities. Now they sound like a bunch of 5-year-olds: he made a face at me, he called me a name, boo hoo hoo!
One day when you’re rotting with leprosy and stewing in a million kettles of snot, cockroaches and gangrene — I stir them myself! — only then will you look back on this kindergarten-level bullshit and realize how good you had it!
See you in Hell . . .
A miser had accumulated, by effort, trade, and lending, three hundred thousand dinars. He had lands and buildings, and all kinds of wealth.
He then decided that he would spend a year in enjoyment, living comfortably, and then decide as to what his future should be.
But, almost as soon as he had stopped amassing money, the Angel of Death appeared before him, to take his life away.
The miser tried, by every argument which he could muster, to dissuade the Angel, who seemed, however, adamant. Then the man said:
“Grant me but three more days, and I will give you one-third of my possessions.”
The Angel refused, and pulled again at the miser’s life, tugging to take it away.
Then the man said:
“If you will only allow me two more days on earth, I will give you two hundred thousand dinars from my store.”
But the Angel would not listen to him. And the Angel even refused to give the man a solitary extra day for all his three hundred thousand pieces.
Then the miser said:
“Please, then, give me just time enough to write one little thing down.”
This time the Angel allowed him this single concession, and the man wrote, with his own blood:
“Man, make use of your life. I could buy not one hour for three hundred thousand dinars. Make sure you realize the value of your time.”
Nose-Picking Masturbator Terrorizes NYC Subway Riders — NBC New York
That description doesn’t narrow it down very much. Unless he was doing both at the same time. That would be unusual.
John Muir walked away into the mountains
in his old overcoat a crust of bread in his pocket
we have no knowledge and so we have stuff and
stuff with no knowledge is never enough to get you there
it just won’t get you there
[See You in Hell is a feature by our guest blogger, Satan — PE]
Breakfast in Hell:
GAZE UPON MY CROISSAN’WICH AND TREMBLE!
See you in Hell . . .
Their father was a bank robber once on the FBI’s Most Wanted List.
The nuts didn’t fall far from the nut tree in the Paddock family . . .
According to LinkedIn:
Despite a string of revelations that women in tech face considerable headwinds — from persistent gender-based pay gaps (per Bloomberg), to limited VC funding for female-led startups (per Fortune), to sexual harassment (per The New York Times) — just 29% of men say that discrimination is a major problem in the industry, according to data from Pew. In fact, some 32% of men claim that it’s not a problem at all.
Everything I read about gender discrimination in tech starts out by assuming it’s a real problem and that all reasonable people agree that it’s a real problem.
Even the supposedly objective LinkedIn blurb above tells us that 29% of men “say” that discrimination is a major problem, while 32% of men “claim” that it’s not a problem at all, “despite a string of revelations blah blah blah . . .”
I’ve worked in tech for 30 years . . . I say it’s not a problem but I’m open to an evidence-based argument that I’m wrong. (NB: “If you can’t see it, then you’re part of the problem” is not an evidence-based argument.)
Some possible evidence for gender discrimination:
Agreed, but that’s not prima facie evidence of discrimination.
I worked with a nursing organization for five years. Nursing, you may have noticed, is a female-dominated profession. During that time, I never heard one person mention gender bias in nursing. Never. In five years.
Most schoolteachers are women, most therapists are women, most social workers, most MFC counselors . . . I could go on with this but I think we both get the point: Have you ever heard anything about gender bias in any female-dominated profession? I haven’t.
Gender imbalance is not evidence of discrimination. Men and women are different and they choose to do different things. More women choose to be nurses and social workers and more men choose to be programmers.
VCs would love to fund more female-led startups, but again, men and women choose to do different things and more men choose to do startups.
Note that there doesn’t seem to be a shortage of women starting small businesses, but more men choose to pitch VC-funded startups.
Gender-based pay gaps are not specific to the tech industry.
Sexual harassment is not specific to the tech industry.
If you think online harassment is limited to women, you haven’t spent much time online. Standards of discourse are nonexistent. Civility is almost nonexistent.
Jump on Twitter for a few minutes and see how people talk to each other.
I’ve been interacting with people on the web for a couple of decades . . . some of the things people have said to me . . . it’s beyond upsetting . . . you can feel the blood draining out of your face as you’re reading it. It’s not limited to women.
Yes . . . so are men. What’s your hypothesis? Men are passed over because they’re undeserving, while women are passed over just because they’re women?
TL;DR -> Women are capable of making decisions for themselves. For the most part, they choose to do things other than work in tech and do startups. So what?
Thus spoke The Programmer
Bad News: Americans are retiring later, dying sooner and are sicker in-between.
Good News: I found this video of a rescued raccoon who thinks she’s a dog:
[youtube https://youtu.be/I5KgXfBg5hU]
Sleeping on the interstate oh oh oh
Getting wild, wild life
Checkin’ in, checkin’ out! Uh, huh!
I got a wild, wild life
Spending all of my money and time oh oh oh
Done too much wild, wild
We want to go, where we go, where we go oh oh oh
I doing wild, wild life
As I walk through
This wicked world
Searchin’ for light in the darkness of insanity.
I ask myself
Is all hope lost?
Is there only pain and hatred, and misery?
According to LinkedIn:
Despite a string of revelations that women in tech face considerable headwinds — from persistent gender-based pay gaps (per Bloomberg), to limited VC funding for female-led startups (per Fortune), to sexual harassment (per The New York Times) — just 29% of men say that discrimination is a major problem in the industry, according to data from Pew. In fact, some 32% of men claim that it’s not a problem at all.
Here’s why I claim that it’s not a problem: Women are capable of making decisions for themselves. For the most part, they choose to do things other than work in tech and do startups. So what? (Pay gaps and harassment are not tech-specific, obviously.)
Thus spoke The Programmer.
I’ve never heard of her but she has a verified account and claims to be a Harvard woman:
The fact that presidents are raising money from the public for something the government should pay for is disgusting. https://t.co/2GMAZ4E6JX
— Kimberly N. Foster (@KimberlyNFoster) October 22, 2017
OK . . . but where do you think government gets the money to pay for things?
Sometimes I think America should change its marketing from the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave to A Hotbed of Asininity.
It seems like almost all of the Weinstein shenanigans happened after women accepted an invitation to meet in his hotel room.
Wouldn’t that give you pause if a business associate of the opposite sex (or same sex if you prefer) invited you meet in a hotel room? Why not the lobby? Or the restaurant? Or an office building?
And when he or she comes to the door in a bathrobe, do you say “I’ll come back when you’re dressed”? Or do you go in anyway? Surely you’ve gotten the hint by now . . .
It was evidently well known in the entertainment industry what Weinstein was up to with women in hotel rooms. But it was also well known that Weinstein had advanced the careers of many.
Dilemma! What do you do? How will you explain it to yourself and others?
Yes, I agreed to meet a man in a hotel room . . . yes, he did answer the door in a bathrobe . . . but I was traumatized when he later proposed that I give him a massage!
I thought it was strictly a business meeting! . . . in a hotel room . . . with a person wearing a bathrobe . . .
Take control of your own impulses, conflicts and disappointments. Don’t forfeit your freedom and independence in exchange for intrusion into and adjudication of your private life and penalizing of men who did something you didn’t like.
Also: Dress appropriately. Maintain some mystique and intrigue.
Don’t feel like you have to link up with another person until you’ve got some idea about what you want from life.
Love, Dad
I read four news stories on the same topic — the end of Obamacare subsidies to insurance companies.
The Wall Street Journal plays it straight down the middle:
President Donald Trump’s executive order on health care issued Thursday marks the first major salvo in what the White House promises will be an extensive, targeted campaign to unravel the Affordable Care Act administratively.
As does Bloomberg:
President Donald Trump said he is moving “step by step” on his own to remake the U.S. health care system because Congress won’t act on his demand to repeal Obamacare.
The Trump administration took its most drastic measure yet to roll back the Affordable Care Act Thursday evening, announcing it would cut off a subsidy to insurers hours after issuing an executive order designed to draw people away from the health law’s markets.
See if you can spot the fake news in the Politico version:
President Donald Trump plans to cut off subsidy payments to insurers selling Obamacare coverage in his most aggressive move yet to undermine his predecessor’s health care law.
Politico imputes an ulterior motive, i.e., Trump is not trying to make life better for anyone, he just wants to undermine Obama. That is fake. You can’t know why someone did something. I don’t even know why I do half the things I do.
Surprisingly to me, CNBC, which I expected would have an impartial, businesslike report, went completely off the rails:
Obamacare bombshell: Trump kills key payments to health insurers
The Trump administration will immediately stop making critically important payments to insurers who sell Obamacare health plans, a bombshell move that is expected to spike premium prices and potentially lead many insurers to exit the marketplace.
Where to start on this . . .?
1. The word “bombshell” doesn’t belong in a news story. Even to call something a “surprise” or an “unforeseen event” raises the question of who exactly was surprised by it.
In this case, nobody was surprised. Everyone knew that there was no appropriation for the subsidies, meaning that they are not accounted for in the federal budget.
When Obama was president, he didn’t care that the payments were off budget, but when Trump was elected, everyone had an inkling that the payments would stop.
2. What’s the difference between a payment, an important payment and a critically important payment? “Critically important payment” is not a fact, it’s an opinion. It’s fake news.
If you want to make a case for critical importance, lay out the facts and let the reader decide.
3. “Increase” is a better word than “spike” in a news story. Using words like “spike,” “bombshell” and “kills,” especially in a story about healthcare, creates a manufactured sense of danger, fear and imminent fatality.
Also: premium prices have already gone up. Insurance companies raised the premiums in anticipation of the subsidies being stopped, despite CNBC’s characterization of the stoppage as a “bombshell” (see #1 above).
4. There’s no information in saying that something will “potentially” transpire. How many insurers did you talk to? None? One? More than one? How many said they would exit the marketplace?
Every major insurer has already partially or completely left the Obamacare marketplace.
There’s a taxonomy of fake news. It’s not (necessarily) fabricated. It’s more often misleading content or false context, as seen above.
Although I can’t claim never to have said these things myself, if I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard someone say either a) “It was working fine 10 minutes ago,” or b) “It works okay on my machine,” I would be comfortably retired by now.
Thus spoke The Programmer.
