That’s one of the reasons why you get delayed or cancelled, over-budget projects that go nowhere. ( another big one is corruption and general financial shenanigans ).

if you throw a lot of money at a problem/project that doesn’t have reasonable management and competent understanding of where that money could work efficiently then you’re asking for trouble.

Destinating more resources to that quickens and makes better that process, though, incentivating people to work on it and test it.

That is charmingly naive, in my experience.

I’m not saying more money wouldn’t help, I’m saying throwing money at it isn’t generally a stand-alone solution, which is what i think the person you were replying to was trying to say.

Not sure how versed/willing you are to selfhost but I’ve heard good things about tube archivist.

There are also a bunch of ui’s for yt-dlp, though i can’t vouch for quality.

It’s somewhat of a catch, that’s generally how monopolistic moats work but you really shouldn’t be relying on google as a backup service for obscure videos you wish to keep.

I’ve no idea of the amount of lectures, guides, documentaries and other non-entertainment media that is available exclusively on youtube, but again it isn’t an archiving service.

They can, will and have deleted whole channels for various reasons, most of which were bullshit, if you find something you absolutely have to keep, download it.

That being said, the process of downloading, archiving and curating content on anything more than a trivial scale can be much more involved than it seems, especially if you want backups/redundancy.

I’ve never been a big youtube user so my opinion on this is coloured by the fact that i don’t have that much invested in the platform.

Literally any other form of entertainment.

Though the statement was to stop using it, not replace it.

It is, as well as being 3/4 of the provided usages and a large proportion of the examples.

TIL

I shouldn’t have anything to hide, but I’m part of a group the current fascist leadership in government want’s to eradicate, so hide I shall.

I agree and i think a lot of people who espouse “nothing to hide” as an approach haven’t actually thought it all the way through.

Then there’s the fascists, dictators, oligarchs and other all around shitbags who just want the control.

That said, I also feel like people acting like the remote server they are connected to is tracking what you do on it as some kind of surprise is so stupid. “Facebook is keeping track of the pictures I uploaded to it!!!” There’s a lot of stuff to complain about Facebook, google, or whoever, but them tracking stuff you send to them willingly isn’t one of them.

This always surprises me, i originally thought it was because people didn’t understand how these things work or how capitalist companies work.

More and more it seems like people don’t care until it affects them, which is somewhat understandable, it takes effort to care about this stuff and a lot of people will never be directly affected by the consequences.

What i do still think is that the general population has no idea the extent of what can be done with all of the information they are volunteering.

That’s very slowly changing but the usages of the data are also increasing at a much more rapid pace than before.

Oh yeah, the whole article could be reductively summed up as

“DeepSeek and all the other LLM services are almost as bad as each other, but we think deepseek is worse…because the Chinese government are known for doing bad things”.

The title is factual, if a little clickbaity.

Obviously keystrokes you submit to a website are submitted to the website.

This though, it’s not technically accurate, a lot of forms and input are done client side and then the resulting information is parceled up and sent to the server.

The actual keystroke data isn’t normally sent.

Though this article doesn’t go in to what kind of keystroke data is sent, if it was something more than just which keys in which order then that’s perhaps an indicator that it’s actively being collected for a reason, rather than just incidentally.

If you want to get really paranoid about such things it’s known that you can you can do interesting things with actual keystroke data.

Also, afaict none of the the non-chinese services have specified that they don’t do this.

i mean…yes? that is generally how search platforms work.

I wouldn’t recommend anybody use any google based stuff directly (or at all, if possible) but if you do, then sending the search query is generally what would happen.

Also fair.

If you’ve got nothing to hide you don’t have to worry ?

edit : For clarification, i consider “If you’ve got nothing to hide you don’t have to worry” to be a naive argument, at best, in any privacy conversation, but I’m not averse to a well-reasoned argument to the contrary.

The wording here was unclear, what i mean to ask was:

“do you believe If you’ve got nothing to hide you don’t have to worry ?”

See, now that’s a more thorough explanation of your position.

I disagree with pretty much all of your assertions (though the witch hunt stuff can be true sometimes) , but at least i know I’m disagreeing with an opinion formed using the whole of the information provided.

This “context” added doesn’t move my post a centimeter IMO.

It shows you read the initial information in it’s entirety and still came to the conclusion you did.

That removes the possibility of responses such as “Did you even read the initial tweet?”.

Well… it should remove that possibility, in practice it just means you can safely ignore those responses because clearly the people making those responses haven’t read your response in it’s entirety.

If all he said was literally “i approve of this pick for this position” you’d be correct.

What actually happened was he approved of the pick and also claimed the republicans are now actually the party that stands for the “little guy”.

Then followed up with a non apology that claimed what he said was not intended to be a “political statement”.

by all means, argue that you think there’s a fuss over nothing, but if you leave important context out seemingly because it doesn’t suit your narrative it weakens your argument substantially.

I provided you with a very basic example in which your “mathematical impossibility” breaks down.

So far you’ve stated that there were only two possible interpretations of a statement and then followed up with “mathematical impossibility”.

You are correct though, you can’t reason with someone who didn’t use reason to get to their conclusions.

Saves me some time, good luck.

I’m afraid that fighting oppression and restoring the past oppressed to a level playing field involves finding if actual individuals did indeed suffer from oppression and compensating them for it in some way, a far more difficult task than taking the Fascist’s shortcut of presuming that everybody from a specific race, gender or sexual orientation are equally worthy or unworthy.

Wait…so you’re belief system around this is that the only way to address past injustices to a group or demographics is to find out which specific individuals were impacted and help only them ?

That’s delusional, not in an ad hominem kind of way but in a literal “no basis in reality” way.

You don’t seem to understand what fascism means so all the arguments based on a faulty interpretation are going to be faulty.

Real question though

Because it is literally Mathematically impossible for such a process to be improved to a point where there is full fairness of treatment for all

I’d be genuinely interested to see how you got here , because the anecdotal pseudo-explanation isn’t an actual explanation.

There’s so many faulty assumptions in there it’s difficult to take any conclusion you get to seriously.

You’re assuming that prejudice only applies to one side of this argument, If you start off with two groups:

Group A : 20

Group B : 10

Then Taking 5 from A and moving it to B isn’t prejudice against A.

That’s not even a very accurate example because it assumes a closed system with only 2 distinct groups.

It seems your argument is that group B might not all be as affected, ok, so let’s do that one:

• Group A1 : 9
• Group A2 : 11
• Total : 20

• Group B1 : 3
• Group B2 : 7
• Total : 10

Say we do the same thing here and move 5 from Group A to Group B

• Group A1 : 8
• Group A2 : 7
• Total : 15

• Group B1 : 6
• Group B2 : 9
• Total : 15

Do that for any number of sub-groups, down to an individual person.

It seems your understanding of mathematics is about as grounded as your idea of fascism so i don’t think you’re going to see how what you’re saying doesn’t work.

You can’t Prejudice your way into stopping Prejudiced treatment, not Ideologically and not even Mathematically.

You certainly can’t stop prejudice if you don’t understand what it means and when/where it applies.

It’s difficult to see whether or not a mathematical solution can be found if you don’t understand the practical applications of it.

Having lived and worked in both The Netherlands and Britain, I’ve seen actual American-style quotas systems in Britain that explicitly priviledged a specific gender (rather than what you describe, which is a system meant to remove any and all discrimination, even if subconscious), and the result was pretty bad, both because the worst professionals around there were from that gender and clearly only got the job due to quotas and at the same time competent professionals that happen to have that gender were not taken as seriously and were kinda second class professionals even though they did not at all deserve it.

Again with this, the systems aren’t design to remove discrimination, they are design to counteract the discrimination that already exists.

The difference between equality vs equity.

Though bullshit hires based solely on quota’s do exist, I’m not pretending that doesn’t happen.

In fact, that specific place, which is the only one I ever worked in with an American style quota system, was the most sexist place I ever worked in, in my entire career (which spans over 2 decades) - people would not say sexist things (lest HR punish them), all the while they would definitelly have different competence expectations and even levels of how seriously they took people as professionals depending on people’s gender. Meanwhile the people that got in via quotas tended to be the kind that would play the system rather than do the job, which often made the whole environment even more sexist.

Those quota systems aren’t specifically American, but they have certainly gone all-out in recent times.

Sounds like a bad workplace, implementing processes badly. Is that a reflection on the idea as a whole ?

Interestingly, IT in The Netherlands was way less sexist in a natural way than almost all places I worked in Britain, with almost always more well balanced gender-wise teams and were - at least that I noticed - nobody assuming anything in professional terms based on people’s gender or sexual orientation.

As i said in my other reply, because the Netherlands is better at this in general. It’s not better because it doesn’t have the same systems, it’s better because it doesn’t need them in the same way(or at all).

Such systems are meant to removed descrimination

emphasis mine.

They actually don’t do a terrible job either, but it’s not a blanket removal of bias.

More pertinent is that they only apply to the initial hiring phase, a lot of jobs have built in probation periods.

In addition, those systems do nothing at all to prevent workplace discrimination once the candidate has started.

As for the rest of your statement, that’s missing quite a few important points.

Your phrasing of “let’s keep treating people differently depending on the genetics they were born with” is itself incredibly misleading in it’s omissions.

Bigotry does exist yes, but most of these systems are supposed to be in place to counteract the inherent conscious and unconscious bias in the system, it’s closer to “Let’s try and lessen some of the harmful treatment people are already facing due to perceived differences”.

The difference between countries your seeing isn’t solely due to the perceived ineffectuality of the systems you are talking about, there is a huge difference in culture, economics, population and history that has a significant impact on how much these systems can help.

Let’s take a completely inoffensive analogy and say that both Britain and the Netherlands are dumpster(skip) fires.

The Netherlands is a very small 30L skip full of paper that is also on fire.

Britain is three of those large skips you get delivered on a truck(lorry) , all piled up on top of each other, filled with wood, doused in accelerant and set alight.

The anti-discrimination system is 3 full buckets of water.

Three buckets on the Netherlands will probably solve the problem.

Three buckets on Britain will do nothing but engender some metaphysical disdain from the fire.

I’m not defending the systems here, i’m saying you are presenting a situation in a way that doesn’t align with reality and then complaining that the results don’t match what you expect.

2/2

I agree completely, which is why I say it’s not the right word. I am totally against people saying homosexuality is a mental illness because it implies it’s something that needs to be corrected. I do see it as something that deviates from the norm, but in a way as harmless and inconsequential as left-handedness.

And i don’t disagree (aside from the discussion on “norm” as stated above).

I thought I had done a good enough job of establishing upfront what I meant when I said that I was pro LGBT and was coming at this from a point of trying to understand, but I the backlash clearly shows that was not enough.

That’s not necessarily true, people are going to disagree and misunderstand especially on a subject such as this, all you can do is engage in good faith and work with the results of that.

If you want to refine your explanations, that’s fine also, but you aren’t going to get 100% success rates, especially on the internet.

I find it frustrating having to tiptoe around topics like this and always try to explain myself because people are so quick to look for the bad, but I suppose that is the current world we live in.

All we can do is our best, if that’s not enough for some people, so be it.

This kind of communication is a skill, it’ll get more refined over time.

It’s a sad fact that there are a lot of people trying to opress anyone who is different, and I can’t exect strangers on the internet to know me or what I believe in.

True, so manage your expectations accordingly.

If you go in to it with an understanding of the potential outcomes you won’t be blindsided.

I’ve done a lot of explaining myself, but I’m still not conviced my original assumption is incorrect. I still think that homosexuality has a biological/mental aspect because gay people say that they were born that way, it’s not a choice, it’s who they are. I didn’t choose to be straight so that makes perfect sense to me. I also know that the people who feel that way are in a minority, therefore something is happening mentally, biologically, I don’t know, to a small subset of people making them an abnormality.

The conversation about a potential biological/genetic component to homosexuality is incredibly charged for various reasons but mainly because of the consequences of either outcome.

If it turns out there is a genetic component then think of all the things the fundamentalist nutjobs would want to do with that information.

And given that fundamentalist nutjobs aren’t know for their clear headed and rational thinking they wouldn’t understand (or would wilfully ignore) that you probably can’t just point to a “gay gene” as a means of identification so not only would they being doing stupid shit, they’d be doing stupid shit that doesn’t make any sense.

What I HAVE learned is I need to be more cautious of using the word abnormal which goes full circle to my question on if this is an issue of language. Most people really don’t like words that black and white say they’re different, because while it may be true, it can be used by people who do not feel like deviations from the norm are acceptable, and they will attack them for being the “other”. This is just a very polarizing topic and can cause people who say they’re on the same side to get at each other assuming the worst, which is unfortunate.

I think it’s more complicated than just language, though language is a major component on the internet.

There are sometimes ways to present the same information in a similar way that makes use of linguistic and societal context to convey the meaning of what you were saying while downplaying some of the the negative aspects of how it could be received.

I suspect an issue you might be having is that at a glance they’d probably both look the same to you, so with a choice between four words and two sentences the more concise seems like the better option.

Though i might be projecting.

I don’t actually think that’s the issue here however, i agree it’s just a charged subject and people are people.

1/2

Thank you for taking the time to write such a well thought out comment. I’ll try to reply to it but honestly the amount of downvotes I’m getting for trying to understand something is a bit discouraging so I don’t think I’ll be keeping the conversation going much longer.

No problem, i recognise the style of question because it’s how i would approach it.

As you correctly noted a few times, this is an emotionally charged topic so a higher than normal amount of people will interpret the question through the lens of their emotions

Even with the best intentions and most detailed prefaces you should still manage your expectations on the types and tone of replies you will get to such a question.

I think of it this way :

• if if think they are misunderstanding the question i am posing then they are not actually attacking me or my position, they are attacking what they think is me or my position.
  • Then it’s just a case of determining if I’m willing to put forth the effort required to try and bridge that gap, which varies.
• If i think they are approaching in bad faith, that saves me some effort because i can just ignore/block them.
• If i think there is a genuine engagement, that’s good, even if they disagree I’m getting the discussion i was looking for.

In more concise wording, people are going to people, don’t let them foist their issues on to you, engage when you want, disengage when you don’t.

At least that’s what works for me.

I’m making a pretty general statement so I don’t have numbers to back anything up, but I would be very surprised if we didn’t have basic statistics on how many people identify as gay, or are diagnosed with ADD, etc. So I think we do understand norms, but you’re right this always changes with increased research and study.

I do see what you mean, what i was saying is that the understanding of “norm” isn’t very clearly defined in these sorts of cases.

Eye colour is relatively easy (within defined colour brackets) you can look at the single item of data and categorise so it’s easy to partition the population based on something like that.

With things like mental health diagnoses we can’t even reliably agree upon what brackets to apply so it’s significantly more difficult to apply the idea of a norm.

in turn that makes the idea of abnormal equally difficult to define.

I did this on purpose. I’m not saying any of these are similar at all, just that they’re attributes that might make us unique and as far as I’m aware (since I’m not religious) these are functions of brain chemestry. Somone who has a very creative mind can be encouraged through their upbringing and surroundings to use it for music, arts, etc but I do think think there is something physical in the brain there. I’m not a neuroscientist so I don’t know how much is attributed to genetics, hormones, etc.

I agree with them all being functions of brain chemistry.

Though i don’t rule out something we’d consider supernatural or spiritual because honestly i don’t really know much of anything to be definitively ruling out something like that.

I don’t subscribe to them in my daily life, but who knows.

The answer to most of this is “it’s complicated” and we’re basically using best guesses at this point, these guesses are based on scientific principles, but all that science really is is a semi-concrete method of defining and refining what our best guesses currently are.

What i was trying to convey is that while all of these things could be considered “attributes”, in reality it’s much more nuanced than it seems, musical talent has many forms, as does ADD and sexual orientation/preference.

Honestly i’d consider most brain stuff to just be unique expressions of an individual, rather than a set of labels, but that isn’t very helpful in most circumstances.

Ah i think i see.

That quote is not from my post, i think you meant to reply to the OP.