Maybe! But that’s certainly debatable. “I thought I was doing the right thing” is anyways a much better defense than “I was just following orders” anyways.
I don't have an answer, but I don't think the framing should be about what they deserve or not. It should be around how much money an individual can have/control before it becomes detrimental to society.
It's almost like the people who spend their time thinking and researching the positives and negatives of a particular company/service come to different conclusions than the people who make money off the company or are directly marketed it.
> people who spend their time thinking and researching the positives and negatives
If only we could trust such big hearted people who selflessly donate their time and expertise for thinking and researching - without asking those pesky little questions like "what do they stand to gain? what hidden agenda do they have? what ideology dictates their value system? what axes to grind and biases do they harbor?"
I'd rather trust the people directly involved, whose interests are mostly clear and known.
>I'd rather trust the people directly involved, whose interests are mostly clear and known.
That seems like a wild statement to me. Just so I understand what you're saying. Are you saying you would trust Meta's statements on if their algorithms are harmful to youth/society over independent researchers because those researchers might have some hidden bias?
No, I am not saying I trust Meta's statements at all. I am just saying that I have ZERO trust in those "independent researchers".
I am old enough to remember when "researchers" and "experts" where warning us about the evils of violent FPS gaming, the whole panic over teens and kids playing Doom. The Columbine shooting. The end was nigh! Of course, it was all blown out of proportions...
At least for meta, its employees, and its customers (advertisers), and its users, you can infer easily why they are involved. Researchers have other motivations like currying favor via an opinion or paper with a particular benefactor, or the tenure game, or 1000 other hidden things you cannot reason about without disclosure on their part.
>but also created an immense amount of value in society
I would say value is subjective. For example, some people might consider a successful game as having created value. Others might view it as too addictive and see the negative value on society as a whole.
It could be very true that in the long arc of history, most of the "value" these companies have created is seen as a net negative. Take smartphones for example. They have created "value" but it's very possible that in 100 years when we better can evaluate what they have done to kids who grew up with them, we well conclude that they were a net negative until their usage was rained in.
The only opposing force is government regulation and that's exactly what is wrong with these types of companies (and billionaires in general). They are the ones that stop reasonable legislation from happening because they have too much power because they are so large/rich.
> I imagine that's the main driver for creating SelectNotNull
Sure. And now we are fighting the compiler and in the process writing less efficient code.
The compiler gives us a way to deal with this situation. It is all about being absolutely clear with intentions. Yes, Where(..) in my example would return IEnumerable<TR?> but then in subsequent code I can tell the compiler that I know for a fact that TR? is actually TR by using the null forgiving operator (!).
>The compiler gives us a way to deal with this situation. It is all about being absolutely clear with intentions. Yes, Where(..) in my example would return IEnumerable<TR?> but then in subsequent code I can tell the compiler that I know for a fact that TR? is actually TR by using the null forgiving operator (!).
I guess that seems way less clear with intentions to me. If I have an array of potentially null types and I want to filter out the not nulls, I'd much rather have an operation that returns a T[] vs a T?[].
I should also note that I also have a "IEnumerable<T> WhereNotNull(IEnumerable<T>?)" function in my codebase, but I implemented it using a foreach/yield which doesn't suffer from the extra Cast<>()
Chicago spent $300 Million on freebies for migrants.[0] The mayor of NYC saying that the migrant crisis "will destroy New York City".[1] 1/3 of polled schools said that the influx of ESL migrant children had had a "significant" impact on their school districts, taking resources and attention away from American schoolkids.[2] 77% of Americans considered the border situation to be either a "Crisis" or a "Major Problem"[3]
So apart from some 300 million number, it's just all vibes?
Here I was expecting data about how all these illegal immigrants are causing crimes everywhere at higher rates than americans, or how many cats and dogs they've eaten but I guess there's no actual evidence of a crisis.
Before I put my fedora back on and leave, could you answer this question:
Do you truly think the evidence you provided would convince someone ignorant on the matter that there really was a migrant crisis that warrants the Trump administration's behavior?
> Do you truly think the evidence you provided would convince someone ignorant on the matter that there really was a migrant crisis that warrants the Trump administration's behavior?
I do!
The term 'crisis' has been politicized to the point where the term's applicability is basically a shibboleth. When Biden called it a crisis in 2021, the White House issued a statement saying "The President’s use of the “crisis” label doesn’t represent the administration’s official position".[0] The administration had an official position on the use of the term 'crisis'! Point being, it's hard to convince someone that the border situation is a "crisis" when their priors on the topic have been prejudiced by political messaging. If someone was new to the topic, it would be easier for them to be objective.
You and I have already been inundated with political messaging, though. The best way to simulate ignorance on the matter is to abstract away the politics and pose the question in a way that doesn't trigger a connection to politics:
"The year is 2034. A situation has arisen. To deal with the situation, the city of Chicago alone has spent $300 dollars. The mayor of New York City has stated that the issue "could destroy the city of New York". 30% of schools say the issue affects their ability to educate our children. 77% of Americans say the situation is either a "crisis" or a "major issue".
Would someone ignorant of the matter be more justified in assuming that this was reflective of a crisis, or mere "vibes"?
About 20 years ago I changed from running in basketball shoes to minimal shoes. At the time I was only running about 5K. It took me about 10 months to work up to 5k in the minimal shoes.
My general approach is to run less far but more often since you usually don't notice tendon injuries while you're exercising, but a day or two later.
“The model assumes that people directly choose partners based on their observed cognitive ability, but in reality, partner selection might happen indirectly through other related characteristics or through more complex patterns,”
Seems like a pretty wild assumption to make. Maybe they need that to simplify their model, but still...
