adekok

It's incredible to read your story. I'm sorry for what you went through.

It also re-affirms my belief about the solution:

But I decided to do no harm. I started thinking about it as a sort of superpower I have, one that must be used with great care and responsibility.

i.e. Accept it, and deal with it.

This is huge. Most sufferers find that impossible. Because....

you have to acknowledge and face the pain you've caused, which can result in unbearable guilt.

It can get better. Living a quiet life is better than a life full of extreme highs and lows. It feels emptier, because it isn't full of drama. But it's how most people live.

Your other, horrible comment comparing BPD to incontinence makes me want to say something really nasty, emotional, and visceral to you, but I’m strongly resisting because it would just reinforce your fucked up belief structure about people who are genuinely suffering on a level that you can’t even comprehend.

As is typical in borderlines, you missed my point entirely. My comment was about the impact this disorder has on others. Because of the disorder, your pain is so large that you are blind to the impact that the disorder has on others.

That's the problem.

I sympathize with you, I really, really, do. I wouldn't wish it on anyone. But ultimately, it's your disorder, and is your responsibility to fix.

If you want to help yourself, read:

https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=throwaway29845

Then, take the advice to heart. You will be happier by far.

One problem with the disorder is that the lows are tempered by highs. It's exciting to be emotionally involved, to think the world of someone, to be on the "high". And then it crashes, and you feel like shit.

I've read a lot about BPD, and things written by BPD sufferers. Despite the lows, most are also addicted to the highs. And they can't deal with the underlying disorder until they break the addiction.

As an example:

I fall in love easily because I want absolutely nothing more than to feel that connection with another human being.

That's the emotional high I'm talking about.

You can get away from the lows. But the cost is that the highs are also mitigated. This is how most people live. There are few extremes. Just every day fumbling through life. Life is this: just living.

I genuinely hope you find it in yourself to develop empathy for people who aren’t as advantaged and in control of their lives as you.

That is another typical BPD comment. You know nothing about my pain, my experience, or my journey. But because you're in pain, then my life must be wonderful.

Stop splitting. Decide to just live. Decide to not inflict pain or suffering on others. Work on the addiction to the highs.

If you want to talk more, email me. My email address is in my profile.

I'll agree, with the caveat that perhaps if the BPD person admits they have BPD, is in therapy, and is trying to get better... sticking around may be OK.

But it's no different than when someone has alcoholism or a drug habit. If they don't want to get better, get out.

I don't have enough upvotes for this.

Or working with someone who has BPD. They don't get anything done. They play office politics to a ludicrous degree. They blame everyone else for anything that happens. But they know who to suck up to, and they know how to make it look like they're getting work done. So they don't get fired.

Keep a relationship or a job means nothing unless you ask everyone else if they're getting better. If the answer is "OMFG I'm still walking on eggshells around that person", then they only progress they've made is to fool the therapist.

At which point...

They have more data than they do now for machine learning, and a better PR story.

i.e. uploaders can't be mad about the categories, because the categories are chosen by the uploader.

Uploaders can be mad about Youtube double-checking the categories and getting it wrong... which is less likely to happen if they have better data for machine learning.

What, exactly, is the down side of that?

Tracking categorization abuse seems straightforward in theory but good luck automating that reliably over millions of videos

Is Youtube (a) automating video categorization now, or (b) not automating video categorization?

People will start using the "blood and violence" category exclusively if it means they're less likely to be demonetized, rendering it useless

No... it means that the advertisers can determine whether or not they want to monetize ads in that category.

So there would be no "demonetize EVERYTHING", just categories that advertisers can choose to place ads on, or not.

I think you're assuming that a different system would work exactly the same as the system works today. That isn't the point...

there is no incentive to not put your videos in as many categories as possible.

We are talking about how to incentivize people here... why suddenly decide that there's magically "no incentive" for something?

Youtube is free to also de-incentivize people for using the wrong category.

I never understood why Youtube didn't have uploaders select various categories for videos. It would do a number of things:

* allow them to demonetize / ban / block videos for abuse of categorization

* train machine learning on the various categories

It's a lot more socially palatable for Youtube to say "Hey guys, we HAVE a blood and violence category, but you didn't use it for this video. So we'll punish you for that."

Instead, we get programming videos getting demonetized / blocked for god only knows what reason. That makes people made, and is bad press.

Let's talk about how the ubiquitous use of SSN and credit reports puts a massively unfair burden on every US citizen.

In France, private credit bureaus don't exist. It's up to banks to track these things.

The country seems to work fine.

It's pretty difficult to double that number. Can you really double your metabolism without ill effect? Or without massively changing your lifestyle?

The normal expectation is maybe 10-25% change. Any more than than would require things likes 8 hours of exercise per day.

2 pounds a day. That's how much CO2 you breath out, and the hard limit for weight loss.

You can lose more than that, (see boxers before a weigh-in), but that's all water loss, and is temporary. And, with a strong likelihood of death.

Okay, I think I see what you mean now. It's a bit hard to see

I must admit to not understanding how it's difficult to see the correlation. If bail is set on factors X, Y, and Z, AND those factors are shown to be biased, then by definition, bail is also biased.

since you're so focused on gender bias.

That's just a weird statement to make. The research shows bias and I quoted the research... how does that make me "so focused" on gender bias?

it's not adding new bias.

That is a good point, but continuing existing bias is a serious problem.

The comment I responded to discussed how bail was set based on prior events. My comment showed how those prior events were substantially biased.

Therefore, by a simple and clear chain of logic, setting bail based on prior events is also biased.

An alternate answer would be: do you really think that there is bias everywhere ELSE in the system, but not in bail?

Of course not.

And, if you look, you find papers like this:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02885913

We found that judges take gender, but not race, into account in determining the amount of bail for certain types of cases; more specifically, Black females faced lower bail than Black males in less serious cases. In contrast, we found that both race and gender affected the likelihood of pretrial release. White defendants were more likely than black defendants to be released pending trial and females were more likely than males to be released prior to trial. In fact, white females, white males, and black females all were more likely than black males to be released.

All of which are strongly correlated with factors open to bias.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/07/politics/blacks-wrongful-convi...

https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_g...

While people complain about the racial bias in the courtroom, the sex bias is substantially larger.

Heck, the Supreme Court of Canada recently gave a woman a complete pass for trying to have her husband killed. Because after she was charged with attempted murder, she conveniently remembered that she was the victim of domestic violence.

Despite her claims being provably false.

i.e. claimed incidents occurred when they lived hundreds of miles apart. There's no record of her ever calling the police, despite her claims of multiple police visits, etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yq2WWsY8Rmc

As was noted in other comments here, such a "data driven" approach just continues existing prejudices.

Instead of complaining about how terrible excel is, the community here should be providing alternatives.

Yeah... like I'm going to compete with MS by writing my own Excel replacement. That just isn't realistic.

What would be realistic is for MS to acknowledge that a large proportion of their customers use Excel for a particular purpose. And then tailor their software to the needs of their customer base.

But why would MS care? The researchers already bought Excel. So why "fix" it?

On top of that, no one is aware the the published papers are crap.

The real solution would be for journals to deny publication of papers based on shitty Excel analysis.

Tell that to tens of thousands of researchers.

Heck, even integration has been re-discovered and published:

https://fliptomato.wordpress.com/2007/03/19/medical-research...

If the tool doesn't work correctly by default. Then it's likely the wrong tool for the job.

The default conversions are fine for 99% of use-cases. But no one should mistake Excel for a robust data analysis tool.

Excel shouldn't be used for much other than trivial things:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/08/one-five-genetics-pap...

https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/09/daily-...

he authors found that Microsoft Excel would often interpret “SEPT2”, which corresponds to the gene Septin 2, as “September 2nd”. The programme also tended to mistake identification codes like “2310009E13” for numbers in scientific notation—in this particular instance, the code would be read as 2.310009 times 101

Excel is fine for the home user. But the implicit conversions of input data can play havoc with any complex analysis.

Plus, it's limited precision can cause errors such as subtractive cancellation, etc. In order to correctly calculate complex formulae, the calculations must be done with an understanding of the limitations of the computers.

e.g. you don't calculate (a^2-b^2) for large 'a' and 'b'. Instead, you calculate (a+b)*(a-b). That has the same mathematical result, but is not affected by subtractive cancellation.

The United States has the most advanced military in the world.

It's not just that Silicon Valley and other tech is in the USA. It's the result of a massive spending program.

https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0053_defense-comparison

The United States spends more on national defense than the next eight countries combined.

the United States has historically devoted a larger share of its economy to defense than many of its key allies.

And that's with incompetence and neglect.

http://chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/cause/

Personnel had an insufficiently detailed understanding of technical procedures involved with the nuclear reactor, and knowingly ignored regulations to speed test completion

And a Japanese reactor that didn't melt down:

https://thebulletin.org/onagawa-japanese-nuclear-power-plant...

Before beginning construction, Tohoku Electric conducted surveys and simulations aimed at predicting tsunami levels. The initial predictions showed that tsunamis in the region historically had an average height of about 3 meters. Based on that, the company constructed its plant at 14.7 meters above sea level, almost five times that height. As more research was done, the estimated tsunami levels climbed higher, and Tohoku Electric conducted periodic checkups based on the new estimate.

There's just no good reason for either Chernobyl or Fukushima. Both were preventable by following simple safety procedures.

When major banks fail they take out major parts of the economy.

Sure. So... do the bankers go to jail?

Nope. They get bonuses.

It's a great scam. They play with your money. If they lose, oh well, the government will bail them out. If they win, they keep the money. And either way, the people in charge get large bonuses.

Only Iceland chose to charge the bankers who engaged in predatory / illegal behavior. Every other country pretty gave them a handshake, and a pat on the back.

And it's still ongoing.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikecollins/2015/07/14/the-big-...

Look, if the bank is "too big to fail", by all means bail them out. But nationalize it, fire the idiots in charge, and sell off the assets to people who aren't robber barons.

This article needs more information to explain how something so completely irrational-sounding could arise.

It's simple: they don't pay their bills, so we have to punish them.

Does the choice of punishment affect their ability to pay? LA LA LA we don't care.

That's what's going on.

It's the same for other debts:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/20/us/skip-child-support-go-...

https://splinternews.com/how-our-racist-child-support-laws-h...

Is this, like, a case of the government having the wrong incentives, needing more to look tough than to actually recover their money?

The government (to some extent) expresses the will of the people In the US and Canada, most people have expressed strong support for such debtors prisons. Largely in the belief that it will never happen to them.

He told her that her comment had violated our policy, but that he understood that there was a broader context

Ah... so the rules don't matter, because excuses.

Look, if Sargon and his ilk did something, fine, punish them. But so far, the only response to my request for evidence is insults.

And side-stepping the topic.

a broader context (which to be clear, we were blissfully ignorant of until this weekend, and remain inexpert in.)

Which means that they didn't talk to the victim in this case (Sargon). Only the abuser (Anita). Sargon said as much on Joe Rogan's podcast.

i.e. accusation of guilt is assumption of guilt. Evidence be damned.

which resulted in her being subjected to a hostile environment that she had not signed up for.

People who showed up and did nothing and said nothing to her. OMFG, crucify them.

Look this whole victim complex is appealing. But did any of it happen?

According to everyone in this thread? Nope.

it boils down to trusting those responsible for rule interpretation and enforcement.

Nope. If they show they're biased, I don't trust them as far as a shit-flinging monkey can throw poo.

The video taken by the "harassers" at vidcon seems pretty clear.

Were they forbidden from attending vidcon because of their alleged history of harassment of the panelists? No.

Do they get kicked out of vidcon for violating the rules? No.

Does the panelist violate the rules by calling them out and insulting them publicly? Yes.

So... let's say Sargon and his ilk are terrible people. Shall we destroy the rule of law to "get" him?

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_Bolt

---

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you — where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast — man's laws, not God's — and if you cut them down — and you're just the man to do it — d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

---

I am disturbed by the fascination with witch-hunts. My attempts here to ask people to explain themselves have resulted in no explanations (of course). Just accusations.

Well, if those people are so bad, then the rule of law should allow them to be banned and/or punished. If they're not that bad, then the rule of law should be followed. If we're not going to follow the rule of law, then why pretend to have rules?

Maybe I'm weird... but none of that makes any sense to me.

It is true. Stop lying about this.

Seriously?

Since you have so much evidence, you can easily show it here.

I won't hold my breath.

The organizers have given an apology to Sarkeesian for allowing a group that has dedicated itself to harassing her over the years

I've looked... is there any proof of this?

- phone calls from those people to Anita

- emails...

- twitter messages

- facebook messages...

If there are, I'll be happy to label them harassers. But until then... I have this weird idea that

the rule of law is more important than feelings

The vidcon people (among others) have made it clear that they will violate their own rules in order to "get" the bad people. People who, according to their own rules, have done nothing wrong.

Witch-hunts end up in one place, and only one place. The people who previously were accusers, on trial, for the same offenses.

So again, is there any reason to believe these accusations? If not, why do you believe them?

Edit Apparently asking for evidence was the wrong thing to do.

The panelist, having been harassed and dogpiled for many years by the racist misogynist attendee

... which is, of course, not true.

sat on the front row with many of his fellow harassers

Who also didn't harass her.

Honestly, this isn't rocket science.

If I make a video calling someone an idiot, asshole, etc. That in no way is harassment. They don't need to see it. It's not directed at then.

The same goes for other form of communication. Were these people sending harassing messages directly to her? The answer is "maybe once or twice, but there was absolutely no pattern of harassment".

I think you (and her supporters) are misconstruing criticism, and hostile criticism for outright harassment. It's not.

In contrast, there is no question that her behavior violated the rules of vidcon. There is no question that the behavior of the alleged harassers did not violate the rules of vidcon, while they were at vidcon.

because he is a verifiable shithead

Uh.. is THAT against the rules of vidcon? No?

Yes.

Or, Twitter banning people because they didn't do anything, but someone who claimed to like them did things?

And as always... the "good" people engage in harassment, and they don't do anything. The "bad" people don't harass, and get banned.

It's political.

The harassment was excused because the harasser was traditionally a victim, and the harassed person was a white male.

Similarly, Youtube is demonetizing videos with "bad words". Such as referring to "the naked eye".

See here for a deconstruction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlRFoYr-XuY&t=306s

This kind of censorship is nice, until it turns into censorship of "things the company dislikes", versus "bad / illegal things."

See recent vidcon for an example. Despite rules against harassment, a panelist out-and-out harassed an attendee... and the organizers did nothing.

This shows that power and political agendas trump peopl's alleged morality.

How many C / C++ projects use Maven?