"Only 3% of people who use google have actually read the terms and conditions that they agreed to. "

3%?? I would have been amazed if it was as high as 0.3%.
3% would be (conservatively) over 10 million people. I doubt it's anywhere close to that.

I am not sure that privacy as a concept is even possible in a world with machine learning algorithms and big data. That's not a value judgment; I don't think privacy is worthless, I just find it increasingly untenable.

Machine learning has gotten so good, that even if you anonymise data, it's now pretty easy to tell a lot about you. Your digital fingerprint is there and an AI will be 99% correct about your age, gender, politics, sexual orientation, etc, even without you giving up that data.

Thanks C-note
This was a good find.
We can draw comparisons to any race or religion.
This injustice of creating sub-groups in society is more ingrained in societies than people even realize. And, while the majority of people don't support the concept itself, they do proliferate the injustice by going along with it, in fear of also being labeled.

Having "Visual differences" between the classes, just makes this deplorable method of sub-classing convenient to the bigots.

The only real solution to this and all "Racism" is not to support it - and stand up and shout at it when we witness it. This is particularly difficult when people are separated into their own groups (neighborhoods) because the racism can be hidden better and the bigots themselves shelter themselves from ever needing to be corrected.

Off topic slightly: I see myself as an alchemist. Part of this is to ignore labels, class and sub class, ignore hierarchies and so on - seeing everything as equal at all times. I don't care about Class, race, names ans so on. As humans on this planet, we are all equal when it comes to rights.
Of course many will disagree with me - mainly the people with more rights.

I'm not a Police officer, nor do I play one on TV. I've never been through Police Training or know what standard procedure is.

What I do know, is Don't Bolt and run from Police - It's not a difficult concept.

I'm not justifying his actions. I'm saying. If you're going to run, you need accept some of the responsibility - Bad things are going to happen.

Interesting point.
Probably because you have much more diversity and social mobility in Canada, less segregation.
Affirmative action is a strange concept but American society seems to be finding it hard to find other ways to reverse deepening class and race segregation.
Strange that they have such a problem with socialism (essentially giving poor people money, education and health services), while giving minorities preferential treatment is OK.

He's clearly mad.... but he's not wrong.

Why WOULDN'T you want your most profound beliefs enshrined in law? Everyone wants that.

I believe that discrimination on the basis of gender, race, sexual orientation, etc is wrong and I want that in law. I believe women have a right to control their reproductive cycles and I want that in law.

His core concept isn't wrong, it's just the beliefs that he espouses are wrong. And yes, they're fucking WRONG. Not different, not a matter of personal belief, they're flat out wrong and should be consigned to the dustbin of history.

Liberals need to stop tip-toeing around the right and stand up for what they believe in.

On an unrelated audio topic, is anyone familiar with the concept of Out Of Phase Stereo (OOPS)? I discovered it by accident back in the day where i would short out Walkman headphones from constant use and hear only the difference between the left and right channels. So a piano (e.g.) mixed only in the left channel would become prominent and everything else would sound far away. It brought out some interesting effects in some songs and I didn't know it had a name until I found it on the internet. People use it to discover background mutterings in Beatles recordings, among other things.

There is a generally held belief that consciousness is a mystery of science or a miracle of faith; that consciousness was attained instantly (or granted by god), and that one has either attained self awareness or has not.

I don't believe any of that. I believe like all things in biology, consciousness evolved to maximise a benefit, and occurred gradually, without any magic or mystery. The closest exurb1a gets to that is when he says at 6:28:

"Maybe evolution accidentally made some higher mammals on Earth self-aware because it's better for problem solving or something"

We need to know what other people are thinking and this is the problem that consciousness solves. If a neighbouring tribe enters your territory then predicting whether they come to trade, mate, steal or attack is beneficial to survival.

Initially this may be done through simulation - imagining the future based on past experience. A flood approaching your cave is bad news. Being surrounded by lions is not good. Surrounding a lone bison is dinner. Being charged by a screaming tribe is an upcoming fight.

We could only simulate another person's actions, but we had no experience that allows us to simulate another person's thoughts. You may predict that giving your hungry neighbour a meal may suppress their urge to raid your supplies but you still can't simply open their head and see what they are thinking.

Then for the benefit of cooperation and coordination, we started to talk, and everything changed.

Communication not only allows us to speak our mind, but allows us to model the minds of others. We can gain an understanding of another person's motivations long before they act upon them. The need to simulate another person's thoughts becomes more nuanced and complex. Do they want to trade, or do they want to cheat?

Yet still we cannot look into the minds of others and verify our models of them. If we had access to an actual working brain we could gradually strengthen that model with reference to how an actual brain works, and we happen to have access to such a brain, our own!

If we monitored ourselves then we could validate a general model of thought against real urges, real experiences, real problem solving and real motivations. Once we apply our own selves to a model of thought we become much better at modelling the thoughts of others.

And what better way to render that model than with speech itself? To use all of our existing cognitive skills and simply simulate others sharing their thoughts with us.

At 3:15 exurb1a referenced a famous experiment that showed that we make decisions before we become aware of them. This lends evidence to suppose that our consciousness is not the driver of our thoughts, but a monitor - an interpretation of our subconscious that feeds our model of how people think.

Not everybody is the same. We all have different temperaments. Some of us are less predictable than others, and we tend to avoid such people. Some are more amenable to co-operation, others are stubborn. To understand the temperament of one we must compare them to another. If we are to compare the model of another's mind to our own, and we simulate their mind as speech, then we must also simulate our own mind as speech. Then not only are we conscious, we are self-aware.

Add in a feedback loop of social norms, etiquette, acceptable behaviour, expected behaviour, cooperation and co-dependence, game theory and sustainable societies and this conscious model eventually becomes a lot more nuanced than it first started - allowing for abstract concepts such as empathy, shame, guilt, remorse, resentment, contempt, kinship, friendship, nurture, pride, and love.

Consciousness is magical, but not magic.

That is some serious conflation there. Because Americans can relate better to similar civilisations, which many have direct or nearby ancestry from, doesn't mean that wars are somehow racist, which he seems to be implying.

And no, not all lives have equal value (Einstein and Manson do not have equal value). But they do deserve the same basic rights. These are two different concepts, perhaps he was oversimplifying, but that is a problem in itself, and too much of that is what makes people dye their hair blue or green and tear up universities.

Charter schools get EQUAL resources, not EXTRA resources. One could argue they even get a bit less than equal. These children need extra. People keep confusing open competition and the free market being good with being perfect.
Now, if you mean that the charter school concept would help break the white-flight economic resegregation of our public school system that generates these at-risk schools to begin with, then maybe.

Aha! NOW I understand the concept of tinfoil hats! Protection against sanity

It's a glock. It has no external safety.

You can always pull the trigger on a charged glock and it will send the striker.

This is why I call B.S. on the idea that glocks have a safety.
Trigger dingle-berries as a primary 'safety' is a retarded concept.
If you can pull the trigger and fires, it isn't safe.

-scheherazade

So close and so deserved ....
Actually this could be the best illustration to explain the concept of Darwin Awards.

I love seeing mathematical concepts expressed physically in a way people can understand. *quality

more on the golden ratio here:

I gotta say I don't like throwing that at these guys because it gives them an actual defense. Their behavior and actions are indefensible and evil. Don't give them the chance to drum up support from other more sane people who believe:
1.Life begins at conception/fetuses are human
2.Execution of people who've committed sufficiently horrific crimes is justifiable

There's lots of people that believe those 2 things, but can still be 100% on board with condemning the awful, manipulative evil of Bakker and co.

I watched some of this live last night and I found that many of the questions were so basic that they could have been answered with a simple online search. It felt like the panel didn't really do much research beforehand and some of them didn't really grasp the concept of what Facebook actually is.

I didn't watch the whole thing and read a few articles this morning summarizing it all. One question worth answering was whether Facebook sells any of their user data to third parties and Mark Zuckerberg confirms that they don't at least.

They could have asked more questions about what else is done with the incredible amount of data that they have.