SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
"We will not ban questionable subreddits," Reddit's then-CEO, Yishan Wong, wrote mere months ago. "You choose what to post. You choose what to read. You choose what kind of subreddit to create."
But in an apparent reversal of that policy, and in an unprecedented effort to clean up its long-suffering image, Reddit has just banned five "questionable subreddits."
The site permanently removed the forums Wednesday afternoon for harassing specific, named individuals, a spokesperson said. Of the five, two were dedicated to fat-shaming, one to transphobia, one to racism and one to harassing members of a progressive video game site.
Unsurprisingly, a vocal contingent of Redditors aren't taking the changes well: "Reddit increases censorship," read one post on r/freespeech, while forums like r/mensrights and r/opieandanthony theorized they would be next.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by mojo chan on Friday June 12 2015, @07:35AM
Merely downvoting stuff not censoring it or stifling free speech. It's still there, people can still read it.
The problem is that if you go the other way and give equal prominence to all posts with no moderation or filter, like 4chan, most of the people who aren't just there to troll will leave. That's equally bad for having a free and open debate, when people feel that they don't want to participate because of the risk of being doxxed or the fact that others are doing everything they can think of to annoy them.
In any case, you can make any point or put forward any view in a way that isn't trolling or illegal (doxxing, threats etc.) If you can't do that, don't expect people to listen to you. The fault is your own, you failed to put your point over in a way that others will listen to it.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Sir Finkus on Friday June 12 2015, @08:06AM
The problem is that if you go the other way and give equal prominence to all posts with no moderation or filter, like 4chan, most of the people who aren't just there to troll will leave. That's equally bad for having a free and open debate, when people feel that they don't want to participate because of the risk of being doxxed or the fact that others are doing everything they can think of to annoy them.
I'd agree, but 4chan is anonymous unless you choose for it not to be. There also aren't any imaginary internet points to acquire or lose if people judge your post as spammy.
As far as the "annoying" part goes, nobody reading your argument seriously is going to slight you for not replying to a "ur a faggot" post or other similar trollish remarks. You waste a few bytes of bandwidth and at most, a few seconds of your time. You gain having your beliefs challenged, which has quite a few benefits.
For instance, I suspect that most people here believe the world is round. If I were to post a reply to a comment stating that with "prove it" I'd be downvoted into oblivion and I'd lose karma, which affects post visibility. If my post was visible, it might generate additional understanding of how the world works to those who now want to refute it. If you were transported thousands of years into the past, how would you demonstrate the Earth was round, or that it orbits the sun? By exploring these truths that most people "know" because they've been told them, you gain additional knowledge.
I've changed my mind on many issues that I very firmly believed by watching debates and arguing with people. The answer to "bad" speech is more speech.
Join our Folding@Home team! [stanford.edu]
(Score: 4, Insightful) by stormwyrm on Friday June 12 2015, @08:54AM
Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Sir Finkus on Friday June 12 2015, @09:10AM
Creationists for instance will say "prove it" to statements like "evolution happens", and they certainly won't budge no matter how much evidence you show them.
Funny story. I was raised in a very fundamentalist Christian household. I had science books confiscated from me because they had chapters about Evolution in them. Growing up in this environment, I was a rather staunch creationist for many years into my adulthood. It was by watching debates on the subject that I eventually was able to learn the truth and evolve (har har) my position.
It's true that some people will insist that 2+2=5 no matter how much evidence you give to the contrary, but if it only convinces one person it's worth the effort.
Join our Folding@Home team! [stanford.edu]
(Score: 3, Touché) by mcgrew on Friday June 12 2015, @12:48PM
It's true that some people will insist that 2+2=5
Rounding errors... 2.3+2.3=4.6=5
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @03:56PM
Is it an error if it is correctly rounded?
(Score: 2) by Techwolf on Friday June 12 2015, @08:17PM
This is why one does not use floats for intergers.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday June 12 2015, @10:36PM
Wow, going off topic, but I love libgmp's c++11 support (user defined literal support). Nobody should ever need floats anymore. (Game programmers are using lookup tables and fixed point, no?) Well, I suppose perhaps floats in cases of 4-5 sig figs. Clearly, mcgrew's data only had 1 sig fig.
(Score: 2) by Wootery on Saturday June 13 2015, @01:14AM
Nobody should ever need floats anymore.
Tell that to Nvidia.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Saturday June 13 2015, @05:20PM
Ah, yes, the dreaded GL_FLOAT.
(Score: 2) by Techwolf on Sunday June 21 2015, @03:24AM
As i hobby dev, details please. I am courious.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday June 24 2015, @01:31PM
I might have failed to capture what you meant above, but floats can be problematic in game programming. A friend's writing a game right now, and we recently got into a discussion of how to handle trig. We noticed that her engine was only using 4 out of 8 cores on her Bulldozer [wikipedia.org]. It turns out that those only have 4 FPUs (1 for each 2 core block).
A better alternative is to stick to fixed-point or integer only approaches which would scale up to all 8 cores instead of being constrained by the 4 FPUs. As for Intels, floating-point operations are always more expensive than integer operations anyway. Then convert to GL_FLOAT at the last minute to make OpenGL calls.
I still avoid floats in normal business applications in favor of libgpm. The c++11 user-defined types makes using the library a breeze.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @02:26PM
"only convinces one person it's worth the effort"
That depends on how much effort and if it will do more harm than good.
Wrestling pigs in the mud.
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2014/02/25/peds.2013-2365 [aappublications.org]
(Score: 2) by Sir Finkus on Saturday June 13 2015, @02:17AM
I can only speak for myself, but I'm grateful that people would directly engage proponents of intelligent design instead of trying to censor them. If they hadn't, I'd probably believe in the same things as I was brought up with.
Join our Folding@Home team! [stanford.edu]
(Score: 1) by KGIII on Saturday June 13 2015, @04:59AM
The number of people who change their views based on online arguments is statistically so small that it might as well be nil. I have been online since... Wow... It was long before the WWW. I had a hobby, it was phreaking. So, yeah, I have been around for a long time - this does not make me an authority so consider what I share just my personal observations... Anyhow, I think I have changed my mind less than a dozen times during all of this and I think that very few other people are willing to do so. I am not exceptional, just open minded and willing to admit I am wrong. Then again, that may be exceptional but not in any way that is important beyond my own growth. That you, too, admit to having been wrong and changing your view is also exceptional - this is not the norm. I have witnessed the same group of people having the same argument for years - at a time when doing so was really expensive!
The other thing I find odd is that many (probably most) approach online conversations as if they are arguments. More amusing is the folks who failed their Critical Thinking 101 course throwing around the names of logical fallacies incorrectly. Anyhow, people use the anonymity of the web to say things they would never dare say in the real world and trying to apply logic to an illogical person is illogical in and of itself. It is noble to think we may change minds but we are, mostly, just shit slinging to get accolades or a response. The SNR of the shit-slinging (of which we are all guilty, of this I am certain and am no exception) is so pervasive that productive discourse is neigh-on-impossible. This site, that site, and the other sites are all like this. If you find one that does have productive conversations then it is probably heavily moderated and does not allow much in the way of dissenting opinions that differ from those of the group or the moderators. Such is life. Such is the internet. The funny part is that this is actually better than it used to be. Wow, we were assholes back in the day. It really was a bit "Wild West."
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 13 2015, @03:38PM
So if they use it incorrectly, you correct them, pointing out that the logic is sound, and explain why its not an example of that fallacy. The first step in debate is seeing if your opponent's argument is actually sound, if its not then you don't have to refute them because their argument is already invalid, and there's no point in trying to invalidate something that's not valid in the first place. What I'm seeing is that lots of idiots are trying to plant the idea that people are incorrectly pointing out fallacies because they refuse to admit that their arguments are logically invalid and they refuse to admit that they could ever be wrong about anything ever.
(Score: 1) by KGIII on Sunday June 14 2015, @08:25AM
I have been told I am odd because I am quite willing to admit that I am mistaken and to learn from that. I do not mind criticism. I am not perfect nor is my ego so small I have to insist I am. My goal is, and I know I am odd, to learn - which is one of the reasons that I visit the comments section of sites as frequently as I do. More often than not I simply read.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2015, @07:41PM
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you were doing that, but its something I've been seeing a lot lately. Once I had the displeasure of arguing with somebody who tried to call logic itself a lie when his sophistry was pointed out. Its not just that one person either, irrational people will do anything and everything to hold on to their delusions, including trying to undermine logic and the validity of pointing out fallacies.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Friday June 12 2015, @05:03PM
I find that somewhat saddening as a person of Creationist thought. I'm expected to believe that red blood cells miraculously survived over a 75 million year time span? http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33067582 [bbc.com] There is documented proof that organic matter can be preserved for thousands of years via mummification. That works only if, "kept in cool and dry conditions.". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mummy [wikipedia.org] Believing that the dinosaurs were wiped out within the last few thousand years and that some remnant of red blood cells were found in a fossil is actually believable. I recently got to thinking about the origin of oil and had a somewhat disturbing thought. Oil is decomposed organic matter. It is probably at least partially made up of decomposed human flesh. So, I guess my car kind of runs on Soylent Green. Kind of a creepy thought.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2, Informative) by bitrotRnotbitrot on Friday June 12 2015, @07:08PM
You are not expected to believe anything, from TFA:
Co-author Dr Sergio Bertazzo said: "We still need to do more research to confirm what it is that we are imaging in these dinosaur bone fragments.
"If we can confirm that our initial observations are correct, then this could yield fresh insights into how these creatures once lived and evolved."
So essentially there is more work needed but extremely interesting if it holds up.
Have you read the paper?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @08:19PM
I'm expected to believe that
You're approaching this incorrectly. You are not expected to "believe". Facts are meant to be accepted if they are reliable. Possible explanations for these facts are hypothesized and evaluated based on how consistent they are with reality. Hypotheses are revised to better reflect all the facts or discarded in favor of a better one if enough facts contradict it.
actually believable
creepy thought
How believable at first glance or how creepy facts are does not matter. Scientists may approach the observations with extreme skepticism but physical reality does not care what you feel.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by penguinoid on Saturday June 13 2015, @06:57AM
The trouble with Creationists is that they don't do science (make predictions and test predictions vs reality) but rather try to fight evolution. You have to understand, science is not about truth it is about prediction. For example, Newtonian physics is known to be false, but is still used because the predictions remain accurate in a given range. Quantum mechanics or Relativity are almost certainly wrong given that they conflict on the details of gravity -- but neither is going away until a theory arises that makes better predictions. The same goes with evolution -- the details are probably wrong but that just means the mistaken bits get updated to account for the new facts, and it remains the best theory for making predictions about biology. Even were creationism true, evolution is still the way to go when doing science because creationism won't give you a numerical prediction for the genetic variation in the retrovirus fragments embedded in cow DNA vs the retrovirus fragments embedded in horse DNA.
Moreover, if Genesis were literally true, creationists would have much better things to do than try to find holes in evolution -- and in fact could be publishing all that in the most respected scientific journals. Although creationists like to focus on the 7 day creation story, there's nothing to say there because "God did it" doesn't make predictions. The real juicy bits would be in the story of the Flood.
Creationism (literal reading of Genesis) makes the following predictions:
*Living things predicted to look like they were intelligently designed, and then cursed. Predict multiple novel genes in superficially similar species, or perhaps genes copied verbatim among distantly related species as would make sense for a particular species (unless God used an evolutionary algorithm to design everything).
*Predict very low rates of mutation in each gene, corresponding to 6,000 years of mutation.
*Predict genetic evidence of population bottlenecks in all land animals 4000 years ago, down to population size 1 pair for all unclean land animals, and 7 for clean land animals. For humans, population bottleneck down to a population of 1 man and 4 women, one of whom did not pass on her mitochondria. (Genetically, Noah’s children count as the DNA from Noah and his wife, unless they were born of adultery.) Evolution would fail to predict a smaller bottleneck on “unclean” species vs “clean” ones vs species that would survive a Flood.
*Ancient oceans predicted to look like 2000 years of marine life, plus a year’s worth of catastrophic flood sediment, plus 4000 years more. Ancient land predicted to look like 2000 years of all modern land flora and fauna, covered with a year’s worth of catastrophic flood sediment and marine life, plus 4000 more years. Predict bronze and iron implements, and cities, below Flood layer.
*Predict large layer of sediments and fossils in an arrangement consistent with a single catastrophic flooding. In particular, fossils in this layer should consist of a mix of all modern species sorted by Flood. The clearest predictions could probably be concerning microscopic fossils, palynology, since they’re basically dust and should behave more predictably than complex organisms, and exist in large quantities. Would look rather different than evolution’s predicted migration patterns and sorting by age.
*Predict long-lived trees like bristlecone pines can either survive a Flood or all be younger than 4,000 years.
RIP Slashdot. Killed by greedy bastards.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday June 15 2015, @04:09PM
You do have some valid points. Here is an example of Creationist Scientists at work: http://dinosaurproject.swau.edu/ [swau.edu] Interesting reading: http://origins.swau.edu/papers/dinos/default.html [swau.edu] , but specifically http://origins.swau.edu/papers/geologic/geology [swau.edu]
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @02:50PM
Exactly. It takes more effort and time to address these questions than it does to ask them. The goalposts keep on moving and guess who gets tired.
An example form the Creationism debate is how the human eye used to be the pinnacle of Intelligent Design that was irreducibly complex, until it wasn't. The bacterial flagella then became the pinnacle, until it wasn't. Is the debate over? Did anybody win? No. The goalposts just keep moving and those trying to reach them will just get exhausted.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Friday June 12 2015, @03:49PM
Yep, this lands in Poe's Law: It is impossible to tell the difference between a fanatic and a parody.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 15 2015, @08:48AM
A troll is someone who is fishing for angry or clueless responses with a fake posting that doesn't represent the authors true opinions, logic etc. You cannot hurt a troll without taking him out of the character, because that character doesn't really exist. On the other hand, a crackpot, even the attention-seeking provocative kind, is vulnerable. He has made emotional investment on that stuff. He'll eventually get angry or depressed if you keep swinging shit towards him.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 12 2015, @11:50AM
I believe that point wasn't about free speech, but groupthink. People surround themselves with like-minded opinions and that enables them to go completely bonkers because there's no reality-check.
The "blue team" and the "red team" hardly even know the other one exists via some real concrete proof such as meeting one of them in person. There only a caricature transmitted during their daily two minutes of hate.