sammermpc

FWIW, a move towards automated assistance is what motivated that article in the first place: "The New York Times is partnering with Google Jigsaw to create a new moderation system that will help us review incoming comments based on decisions our moderators have made in the past. Our moderators will continue to protect these discussions, but once this new system is launched, we will have robot helpers."

I helped work on the interactive piece (though not the assisted comment moderation that they're rolling out).

Yeah, have to admit — we really had no idea what the spread would be. In some ways, it's surprising that there's much of a difference at all—or perhaps gratifying.

A point of clarification for the curious—the majority of both groups actually found the situations threatening. The 'serious' threat percentages in the larger numbers, is confined only to the those who chose 'Very threatening' in the questions.

From what you've observed, it sounds like we should revisit that choice (earlier drafts displayed 'Somewhat threatening' and 'Very threatening' choices grouped together, in which case a strong majority of both people who trusted and distrusted the police, found the situations threatening.)

One of the author's here — you're nailing the exact point that we were trying to emphasize. In real cases, we often have incomplete or obscuring documentation, and draw conclusions from that. The addition of another perspective can radically change our perception of an encounter. Granted, it's artificial to the point of absurdity in this case, but the point is made.

Yeah kinda bizarre. Do another take.

If folks are interested in this kind've thing, this is an interesting Arduino-based project: http://web.media.mit.edu/~mellis/cellphone/

I'm sure it will be. Give them a minute. After all, I bet there are plenty of media folks reading this thread. And plenty of media orgs use GitHub themselves.

Yeah, .cc are the good guys.

Etsy could — however — as Kickstarter has done, particularly w/r/t to hardware products — limit itself to a more narrow and carefully regulated set of goods. Even as the crowdfunding world has grown, Kickstarter has maintained it's reputation and growth by sticking closely to a set of arts-oriented values. It leaves the drivel to platforms like IndieGoGo — and doesn't stray too far from it's creative core, by banning charitable projects.

I suppose you could say that that limits their growth — but it also keeps em' awesome.

The supports are necessary, as they are in most 3D printers that aren't using a powder substrate, to hold the part as it's printing in air. The specific distance from the build platform is determined in software, and is a consequence of a variety of factors, having to do with optimizing resin flow around the part, to ensuring adequate adhesion to the build platform.

This is a primer in a kind of design language mumbo-mumbo. It's not clear what the conclusions even are, beyond a few pithy throw-away phrases...mysterious.