Author
|
Topic: You have lost (Read 12125 times)
|
|
|
Scalare
*Many bubbles*
 Offline
Posts: 245
|
Your elections are only a war about money.
The fucked up part is that Kevin Spacey can't even do this corrupt country justice with his portrayal of Frank Underwood in House of Cards.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scalare
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 245
|
That was data from before the elections. You're likely to get fucked over roally in press freedom, corruption perception and lgbt rights once Trumpy takes office 
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
I mean understanding how societies and governments fit together, the advantages and disadvantages of various systems, but also how to not be suckered by the worst arguments in the world, and what productive policy debates look like.
How to get people to know that is a different question. School might be best, but that gives up on the adults... IDK.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
I think the first thing we need to do, is to form a highly diverse team of highly talented individuals, only to figure out how to raise the level of understanding for the rest of the population. But I do think it is very important that not just a few, but the general population, believes in certain principles; such as freedom of speech and civil rights. Because I do think we need to have a democratic system, just because any system that isn't democratic will become too alienated from the general population. But a democratic system that votes a narcissistic sociopathic demagogue to president is clearly dysfunctional. Which is very sad, considering that we used to believe that things were going in the right direction with Obama. Now, there aren't a lot of sane presidents left in the world, except for maybe Angela Merkel and Justin Trudeau . There seems to be more power in the hands of evil ones; such as Putin, Erdogan, Duterte, and now Trump.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 14, 2016, 07:56:29 pm by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
The place it seems would be most helpful would be media places. These take a lot of money to run. There is a lot of competition for the ears and eyes of the people.
It's a hard problem, and having smart people on board isn't even the beginning.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
I understand that social media wants to stay apolitical, but it might be a very successful technique, if the largest providers of social media came with ads for press freedom and civil rights. Press freedom should also be in social media's self interest. But it probably would get banned in China and Russia then.
Also, I think civil rights is quite difficult for people to understand, unless you belong to a discriminated people. Privileged "normal" people have difficulties with understanding the importance of civil rights. And even when people are discriminated, they might not understand the importance of civil rights for other discriminated people. Discriminated women might for example not understand the importance of less discrimination against black people and homosexuals. This is why I am not such a huge fan of feminism. Because I do not think it is all-inclusive, and I would rather support a movement that works against all kinds of discrimination. A civil rights movement.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 16, 2016, 01:35:22 pm by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
Does anybody know if Facebook and google have intelligence-specific commercials? I am thinking that if Facebook and google collects a lot of information about their users, it might be more efficient to have simpler commercials to people with simple interests, while it might be more efficient with more complicated commercials to people with more complicated interests.
For example mathematical proofs and references to scientific articles for people with more complicated interests, while more emotional manipulative “cool” types of commercials for superficial people.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Krulle
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 1117
*Hurghi*! Krulle is *spitting* again!
|
Officially not.
But there are ad companies who will select the selectors of your campaign such, that the ads shown will have a very high likeliness to be displayed separated by such criteria.
(This can be done by providing ads according to your newssites. Readers of NYT will have different interests and abilities to think things through than those solely relying on news feeds from fb. - but again, not a directly selectable ciriteria for alfabet and fb ads.)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
I am thinking that it could be possible to make a bayesian algorithm that guesses which commercials to show, based upon data collected about the user. Then the bayesian algorithm measures success based upon if the user clicks on the ads or not.
The goal of the bayesian algorithm should just be to make people believe in freedom of the press and civil rights. Anybody here have experience with self-learning bayesian algorithms? We also need people to make ads that the algorithm can choose between (in multiple languages, including Arabian, Hindu, Mandarin and Russian).
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 20, 2016, 12:42:07 pm by Zanthius »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Zanthius
Enlightened
Offline
Posts: 941
|
I have removed most of my old stuff from http://www.archania.org, and now I only have a link to the manuscript for a new world government there.
I have started a small scale advertisement campaign in google, but in order to succeed with this we probably need something like what I proposed in the previous post here.
Some of you might think that it is immoral to manipulate people, but I would say that it is much better than killing each other with conventional weapons. People that have grown up in cultures where they are indoctrinated to believe that women are inferior to men, that black people are inferior to white people, and/or that homosexuality is deadly sin won't be easily convinced to believe in our modern understanding of civil rights.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Scalare
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Posts: 245
|
I am thinking that it could be possible to make a bayesian algorithm that guesses which commercials to show, based upon data collected about the user. Then the bayesian algorithm measures success based upon if the user clicks on the ads or not. The goal of the bayesian algorithm should just be to make people believe in freedom of the press and civil rights. Anybody here have experience with self-learning bayesian algorithms? We also need people to make ads that the algorithm can choose between (in multiple languages, including Arabian, Hindu, Mandarin and Russian).
I work as a technical consultant / programmer in internet advertising, but I don't really have experience with the algorithms that you mention (though I know that in my sector htere are companies working with such algorithms). I should mention though that european laws prohibit you from collecting such data about users unless they have agreed to it. And people already inclined to believe in free press are also more likely of the mindset that this info shouldn't be stored. So there you have a tough one.
Also, how do you determine if the ad is succesful in making people believe in free press? Because a lot of ads like the ones in the US presedential campaigns make you believe that they do care about free press.. but they likely have ulterior motives..
Additionally, how do you know what defines free press? I don't think anybody knows.
For example, I personally am very interested in how history repeats itself in Israël, with the zionists treating palestinians like an üntermensch. So I follow sites which claim they have free press about the things that are going on over there. But as with every freedom movement they choose what they report on carefully. If something diminishes their points (ie. a terrorist attack by palestinians) they don't report on that as heavily as they would when the IDF kills a palestinian kid. So I don't think that is free press.
But as a civilian, how can I judge whether every event is reported equally? Can journalists really be blamed for not reporting on things that don't interest them as much, and if so how is this measurabole? Because I don't think it is measurable at all.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 28, 2016, 06:11:30 pm by Scalare »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
