testfactor @ testfactor @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

426

Joined

2 yr. ago

That is what we're debating, yes.

If it could be conclusively proven that a system like this has saved a child's life, would that benefit outweigh the misuse?

If not, how many children's lives would it need to save for it to outweigh the misuse?

True, but I don't know why you'd reload after 8 if that were the case.

Sure, maybe, but I'd also say you shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Yes, we should absolutely have better mental healthcare safety nets. Yes, false positives are probably a pretty common prank.

But this isn't a zero sum game. This can work on tandem with a therapist/counsellor to try and identify someone before they shoot up a school and get them help. This might let the staff know a kid is struggling with suicidal ideation before they find the kid OD'd on moms sleeping pills.

In an ideal world would this be unnecessary? Absolutely. But we don't live in that ideal world.

That argument could be expanded to any tool though.

People run people over with cars or drive drunk. Ban cars?

People use computers to distribute CP. Ban computers?

People use baseball bats to bludgeon people to death. Ban baseball?

The question of if a tool should be banned is driven by if its utility is outweighed by the negative externalities of use by bad actors.

The answer is wildly more nuanced than "if it can hurt someone it must be banned."

You say "the last time this happened" as if this wasn't a generalized trend across all schooling for the past decade or so.

Out of the tens of thousands of schools implementing systems like this, I'm not surprised that one had some letch who was spying on kids via webcam.

And I'm all for having increased forms of oversight and protection to prevent that kind of abuse.

But this argument is just as much of a "won't someone think of the children" as the opposite. Just cause one school out of thousands did a bad thing, doesn't mean the tech is worthless or bad.

This article feels pretty disingenuous to me.

It glosses over the fact that this is surveillance on computers that the school owns. This isn't them spying on kids personal laptops or phones. This is them exercising reasonable and appropriate oversight of school equipment.

This is the same as complaining that my job puts a filter on my work computer that lets them know if I'm googling porn at work. You can cry big brother all you want, but I think most people are fine with the idea that the corporation I work for has a reasonable case for putting monitoring software on the computer they gave me.

The article also makes the point that, while the companies claim they've stopped many school shootings before they've happened, you can't prove they would have happened without intervention.

And sure. That's technically true. But the article then goes on to treat that assertion as if it's proof that the product is worthless and has never prevented a school shooting, and that's just bad logic.

It's like saying that your alarm clock has woken you up 100 days in a row, and then being like, "well, there's no proof that you wouldn't have woken up on time anyway, even if the alarm wasn't there." Yeah, sure. You can't prove a negative. Maybe I would usually wake up without it. I've got a pretty good sleep schedule after all. But the idea that all 100 are false positives seems a little asinine, no? We don't think it was effective even once?

How do you differentiate what you're calling psychological torture here from just bog standard negative anticipation?

Is it psychological torture if I tell a child that we're going to the doctor because they need to get their flu shot? They have to sit and live with that dread for the whole ride over.

If this is in some way a difference of kind, what differentiates them? What is the key characteristic that separates the two?

Is the only difference one of degree? That hurting someone in this way just a little bit is fine, but there's some amount of damage that makes it unacceptable?

Or is it that the ends justify the means? That it is psychological torture to tell a child about the flu shot, but that the need to get the shot outweighs the negative of the torture? If so, and if someone truly believes that capital punishment is correct in a given case, why would the same argument not be valid?

Lack of good examples of countries that are successful without being capitalist?

Pretty ubiquitously non-capitalist countries have a pretty poor track record.

I often hear the phrase, capitalism is terrible, but it's the least bad of the terrible options.

As an aside, I'm arguing here for capitalism, not billionaires. Supporting capitalism isn't an endorsement of a complete lack of controls and safeguards.

That all sounds like it sucks, but I don't think it's as hopeless as I'm sure it feels.

Obviously this is just a snapshot into your life, and I'm sure there are more details under the hood, like what exact "adult responsibilities" and stuff you've got going on. That said, even in this text I think you've outlined a good bit of good stuff you've got going on.

First, I don't know why you think conflict deescalation isn't an absolutely in demand skill. Every job under the sun has conflict, and being able to manage that is huge. Even within Engineering, you could put that to huge use as a Sales Engineer or some other customer facing technical role.

Second, you got your bachelor's in an engineering discipline. You can poo-poo your grades all you want, but at the end of the day you succeeded. No mean feat my man. That's worth celebrating.

Finally, if you're simply looking for a way out, there are institutions that are always looking for technical people. Obviously this is gonna vary a lot by country, so ymmv, but the government/military is always in need of people in technical roles, and rarely are able to fill them. It probably doesn't pay nearly what a "normal" engineering job would, but it'd be more than an internship, and it would give you some of that structured camaraderie that you previously felt the lack of when trying to leave.

All that to say, don't give up hope my guy. I know I'm just some schmuck on Lemmy of all places, but I think you're capable of breaking out and getting to a better place.

You got this!

Genuine question, why not just walk away?

Like, it doesn't solve the mental issues you're already dealing with because of the years of trauma, but like, it seems like step one of healing would be to remove yourself from the situation, no?

Like, tell your dad he should probably get out, because you're not gonna be there to play witness to keep him out of jail anymore, and then pop deuces?

I don't believe this poll on the grounds that I don't think a large majority of Americans know what the Electoral College is.

I feel like we're abusing "historical" here. Is this something of particular note that's going to be taught to future generations?

Does the African American community know which president was the first to nominate twelve judges of color? Do women know which president was the first to nominate twelve women?

This is a good thing, but like, it's a good fun fact at best. I think saying it's "making history" is overstating. It'd be like saying the person who has the Guinness World Record for longest handstand is "making history."

I feel like "making history" implies that they did something that's gonna make it into the history books and be taught to future generations.

And like, maybe strictly, but like, which president appointed the twelfth black judge during their term? The twelfth female judge?

The first of anything, yeah, that's in the history books. Everything past that, maybe a footnote.

A good thing for sure, but "making history"? The language feels strong to me.

This is great and all, but does the 12th time you do something count as "making history"?

You'd think after two or three you'd just stop counting.

Russell Moore is awesome. Been a huge fan of his for a long time. Got me to actually buy a subscription to ChristianityToday when he became Editor in Chief.

He got kicked out of the SBC ages ago though. He was the head of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Council, which is the public policy arm of the SBC. The Executive Council ran him out back in 2016 for saying refugees were people and that maybe the SBC should be doing more to combat internal sexual abuse.

If you haven't read some of his stuff from around that time, I highly recommend it. Some of the stuff that went down is absolutely insane, and I have made mad respect for how he managed it all. Hugely upstanding dude.

Oh, I just failed at reading comprehension.

My first read was something like, Lindsey G says "I love gay people," or something he's equally unlikely to say. MTG says, "That's not something you hear often from LG," to which he responds, "she's right, I don't say that a lot."

The obviously more accurate read is him saying "she's right," and following that comment up with "huh, not something I often say about her."

Ambiguity. The Devil's volleyball.

What is this in reference to? It never establishes MTG saying anything about Graham in the article that I saw.

Google doesn't seem to find anything with that title when I Google it?

The Ash Tree seems to be some early 1900s story, and Daniel Harms doesn't seem to have anything of that title as far as I can tell. :(

No, it was kind of a standalone type web forum. Greyish background, iirc.

Pretty sure I was linked it from Lemmy, and I don't subscribe to no sleep here.

No, I think that's actually the beauty of this. The OP meme is a right wing meme. A national civil service is a right wing position.

I think there's a way to craft this program in a hugely bipartisan way. You get all the "patriotism, one nation, farms and country" stuff the right wants, and all the "infrastructure improvements, social safety nets, free college" stuff the left wants.

I think there's a real potential to get some solid bipartisanism here.