These discussions never discuss the priors, is this harm on a different scale then what preceded it? Like is social media worse than MTV or teen magazines?
I loved MTV as a kid but it was as different to social media as can be.
Half the time you would turn it on and not like the video playing then switch the channel. Even if you liked the video that was playing, half the time the next video was something you didn't like so you would switch the channel.
Now imagine if MTV had used machine learning to predict the next video to show me personally that would best cause me to not change the channel.
That is not even really a different scale but a different category.
Why does it matter? We can’t go back and retroactively punish MTV for its behavior decades ago. Not to mention we likely have a much better understand of the impact of media on mental health now than we did then.
The best time to start doing the right thing is now. Unless the argument here is “since people got away with it before it’s not fair to punish people now.”
It matters because it points towards a common failure mode which we've seen repeatedly in the past. In the 1990s, people routinely published news articles like the OP (e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/1999/04/26/business/technology-digit...) about how researchers "knew" that violent video games were causing harm and the dastardly companies producing them ignored the evidence. In the 1980s, those same articles (https://www.nytimes.com/1983/07/31/arts/tv-view-the-networks...) were published about television: why won't the networks acknowledge the plain, obvious fact that showing violence on TV makes violence more acceptable in real life?
Is the evidence better this time, and the argument for corporate misconduct more ironclad? Maybe, I guess, but I'm skeptical.
What policy proposals would you have made with respect to MTV decades ago, and how would people at the time have reacted to them? MTV peaked (I think) before I was alive or at least old enough to have formative memories involving it, but people have been complaining about television being brain-rotting for many decades and I'm sure there was political pressure against MTV's programming on some grounds or another, by stodgy cultural conservatives who hated freedom of expression or challenges to their dogma. Were they correct? Would it have been good for the US federal government in the 80s and 90s to have actually imposed meaningful legal censorship on MTV for the benefit of the mental health of its youth audience?
I think passively watching something on television is very different from today’s highly interactive social media. Like instagram is literally a small percentage people becoming superstars for their looks and lifestyles and kids are expected to play along..
> people have been complaining about television being brain-rotting for many decades
This was a broad, simplified, unsupported claim that cannot be compared to the demonstrable, well-studied impacts of social media on people’s - especially young people’s - minds. They are not even remotely on the same level.
If we want to debate MTV specifically yes there are well studied, proven impacts of how various media can make people think of their own bodies and lives etc. that can be harmful. But again it’s not remotely to the same degree. Social media can be uniquely poisonous. There are a myriad of studies out there that confirm this but I’m happy to link some if you want me to.
If somebody wanted to it would probably not be very difficult to write an article all but conclusively proving that Instagram is more harmful than MTV.
The point of ut is not to replace or invent new tooling. It is meant to be a set of tools that are simple, self exploratory and work out of the box with sane defaults. So, essentially, something that you don't have to remember syntax for or go through help/man pages everytime you want to use it.
Which BusyBox, toybox, and coreutils commands fail with data larger than RAM? Has that been part of the spec yet?
Just realized `LC_COLLATE=C sort` must be specified if you don't want it to ignore leading underscores in sorting due to LC_COLLATE=en_US.utf8 being the default these days.
If you can remember all of that off the top of your head and find it ergonomic to type out, then sure. But much like how I prefer someone else to do my content syncing as an ergonomic appliance rather than using FTP + curlftpfs + a VCS [1], I quite like this idea of a focused toolbox (written in a language that compiles to native code) and welcome it rather than having to store these massive snippets in my head (or write shell wrappers for them).
I think btown's sibling comment has it right. It's not even a prototype if it isn't demonstrating some aspect of its core capabilities.
Given this line from the article:
Despite the early September memo’s scathing critique, Leonel Garciga, Army chief information officer and Chiulli’s supervisor, said in a statement to Reuters that the report was part of a process that helped in “triaging cybersecurity vulnerabilities” and mitigating them.
and
Other deficiencies highlighted in the memo include the hosting of third-party applications that have not undergone Army security assessments. One application revealed 25 high-severity code vulnerabilities. Three additional applications under review each contain over 200 vulnerabilities requiring assessment, according to the document.
it seems like there was a SIGNIFICANT mismatch in expectations between the team delivering the prototype and the people receiving it. Everyone's time was wasted as a result.
Yup, that's the job of the folks at Fort Carson: find the flaws in the prototype. I often hear and feel the booms when they are testing. The percussive shocks travel many miles through the shale to under my house.
IT's policy is more for unauthorized credential sharing to a third party that is not legally acting as a designated data transfer agent. what argyle is doing is legal and fine.
