Via Angus McLooping på Mastodon – link
Slider
Forfatter: Morten Juhl-Johansen
Indgroet ubehag
People learn to use terrible UI all the time. It’s not good to dismiss complaints about UI, because that’s insular. And the insular quality isn’t very welcoming.
But email remains a dominant force in communication. If email were invented today everyone would have to use gmail or not be able to email someone not on the same service. A few crazy people would talk about “open email” and try to get people to try it.
– Mymepropagandist på Mastodon (link)
En rejse mod nat
[…] much like the Brexit vote in the UK, Trump’s election victory confirms that right-wing culture is the new mainstream. Even if he had lost, again much like we saw with Brexit, that this was happening at all was evidence that the mainstream had shifted.
– Baldur Bjarnason: The Counterculture Switch: creating in a hostile environment
En til en
Fairness is to reality as horses are to pickles.
Mary Frame: Netdelicious
Scam of the times
AI keeps promising phrenology machines.
– Amy Castor & David Gerard: Whoops! Microsoft leaves alleged AI gender detector running, years after saying they switched it off Pivot to AI, November 2024
Som tårer i regnen
Vast swaths of video games made for obsolete systems are unplayable memories.
-Adam Rogers: We’re about to enter the Digital Dark Ages (businessinsider.com)
Igen og til sidst
Character consists of what you do on the third and fourth tries.
– James A. Michener: Chesapeake (1978)
Hvis så i det mindste
I just wish someone really understood me. Ideally, me.
– Lore Sjöberg på Mastodon (link)
Fremsynet. Måske. Nogle gange
“Artificial Intelligence” was launched in 1956 as an academic marketing term. The target market was the US Department of Defense — the perfect customer for technology that doesn’t work but totally will in the fabulous future.
Pivot to AI: Military AI: I’m from the government and EXTERMINATE EXTERMINATE (link)
3 greb om en løgn
When a candidate makes a false claim, reporters can respond one of three ways:
- They can ignore it, on the basis that a false claim is unworthy of attention.
- They can adopt the false claim as the basis of their report, as they did with this week’s stories about whether or not Barack Obama had made a sexist comment about Sarah Palin.
- They can produce a report centered on the fact that the candidate is saying something that is untrue. If it is the latest of many falsehoods, they can indicate that. If the candidate is telling more and larger falsehoods than the opposition, they can make that clear. In short, they can make the lack of credibility of the person making the false claim the theme of their coverage.
The first option privileges the lie by allowing a candidate to run around saying things that are not true — but at least it does not help spread the lie further.
The second option — even if it includes mention of the fact that the claim is false — privileges the lie a great deal by helping the candidate spread the false claims. At the end of the day, what most people take away from this week’s media coverage of the lipstick flap is likely that there is some controversy around whether Barack Obama made a sexist comment about Sarah Palin. That’s a clear advantage to McCain — and thus the media’s handling of the episode has rewarded his falsehood.
The third option punishes the falsehood. If you think the media’s job is to bring their readers and viewers the truth, this is obviously the best of the three options.
This is where some will say “but then reporters will be taking sides.”
And there is some truth to that: They’ll be taking the truth’s side.
Jamison Foser (fra 2008, citeret i artikel 2024 – link)