At some level, Google puts these expectations on itself. Features like live traffic updates, road closures and breaking news highlighted on the map tell the average user that they are a reliable source of up-to-date information about something as safety critical as the state of the roads. They use this perception to build market advantage. You can't do that and simultaneously blame the end user for not compensating for being misled, and it looks especially bad when the end user trusted you and died. If every route calculation was forced to directly tell the user "this is not a reliable source of information about your route, please use precaution," that would be a win. But Google probably wouldn't like being forced to call themselves out like that.
At best it would have to be flagged for review, at which point someone would have to check it somehow. Otherwise you'd end up deleting a bunch of totally fine roads that simply aren't frequently used by people who send their locations to Google.
You seem confused. A road can be used by people who aren't sending their location to Google.
I would also be surprised if every single road in the world has seen usage in the past decade. I'm sure there's a whole bunch of roads that just aren't ever used any more. Doesn't mean they won't be useful in the future. Doesn't mean they should be removed from maps.
Implementing your suggested algorithm would probably make the map less accurate, not more accurate.
In many countries there is mandatory road service by the state or logging companies.. And by now everyone has phones. Every road use able is used, if not by normal traffic, then by tourists, hunters, smugglers. The fear is that the obvious omnipresent surveillance of the panopticon and previeous accidents could open up surveillance companies to lawsuits. Cause they could have known..
Can not have surveillance capitalism without the liability.. Have your cake and eat it. The family is right to sue apple and Google.. If you saw, and you could have known, being a beeping Tom as buisness model makes you liable.
The triune model of the brain is not just a simplification, but one that promotes antiquated biases about human intelligence in how human intelligence differs from non-human intelligence, how intelligence is distributed among humans themselves, and what is essential to defining human intelligence itself.
The lizard, small mammal, human distinction maps pretty deceptively onto Aristotle's distinctions between the souls: vegetative (plant), sensitive (animal), and rational (human). So if one is trying to pinpoint the seat of intelligence, it seems to follow that we can ignore the two lower sections of the brain in favor of the higher one. Franz Joseph Gall, the founder of phrenology, himself did that, writing off the cerebellum as relevant only for producing the sexual drive [1].
Scientific theories of self-control which were nothing more than Christian dualist arguments evolved out of Gall's work and argued that intelligence involved suppression of the lower faculties, which provided cover for eugenicist and supremacist arguments throughout the 20th century and still shows up today in popular theories about how the 'limbic system' subverts the rational capacities of individuals and is used to manipulate the masses (Elon loves this theory).
Current work funded at the intersection of artificial intelligence and neuroscience still prioritizes the neocortex as the seat of rationality, with some like Jeff Hawkins (Palm founder turned brain scientist) arguing that "intelligence is an algorithm found in the neocortex". Singularity arguments rely in part on the assumption that intelligence in humans is mostly limited by the other parts of the brain, not empowered by them, and that a form of intelligence freed of embodiment will inevitably exterminate those that are embodied by right.
The truth is, neglected sub-regions such as the "lizard" cerebellum actually contain the vast majority of neurons, have been shown to have evolved disproportionately larger within early hominins [2], and are theorized to be equally involved in abstract cognition as in bodily manipulation [3]. This is something of a paradigm shift that has only been able to take shape since the late 20th-century (through the work of Jeremy Schmahmann, Peter Strick and others[4]), even though hints of it have been present in the data since it was collected, and that's because of how compelling the triune brain model has been. Research in this direction can directly address mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, but it has to be funded first [5].
Your argument seems to mostly rest on the idea that people can "poison" a fundamental idea by misinterpreting it and drawing silly conclusions from it. It sounds like if I argued that "1 + 1 = 2 and therefore we should do genocide", you'd be (rightly) abhorred by the conclusion, and the next time you saw someone using 1 + 1 = 2 as the basis for a completely different argument, you'd villainize them as using an argument that "promotes genocide" or "has been used to justify genocide". I really don't care what the founder of phrenology thought, nor Christian dualists, nor even Jeff Hawkins.
In general I think this effect contributes to a lot of "over-debunking". We see way over-simplified, yet very loosely accurate, mid 20th century scientific models like the triune brain, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", the left-brain vs. right-brain, and the idea that differences in language contribute to differences in cognition; and then silly people take these models way too far and use them to justify dubious things; and then they become over-debunked to the point that speaking them aloud immediately ostracizes you as some outdated bigot; while the whole time the models themselves have been reasonably OK high-level starting points for discussion that obviously need revision for any lower-level details.
> The truth is, neglected sub-regions such as the "lizard" cerebellum actually contain the vast majority of neurons, have been shown to have evolved disproportionately larger within early hominins [2], and are theorized to be equally involved in abstract cognition as in bodily manipulation.
The relative number of neurons is not evidence for or against the model, nor the fact that they were larger in early hominins. Showing their involvement in abstract cognition is more interesting, but that's only evidence against the triune brain if you make the exact same mistake that you're criticizing, which is assuming that "abstract cognition" is some high-level uniquely human (or primate) trait. If that exact "abstract cognition" also exists in reptiles and birds (and it appears to), then the fact that the cerebellum contributes to that cognition is not evidence against Triune Brain.
> We see way over-simplified, yet very loosely accurate, mid 20th century scientific models like the...
I think its important for people to also spread the idea that "this is known to not be correct". Bad mental models continue to proliferate for generations (bad here not being a value judgement but rather of their known incorrectness and lack of predictive power).
It's like when you tell people that the alpha/beta dynamic amongst wolves came from one flawed study that has not been replicated and shown to be false many many years ago now. Same with "learning styles" research. Its difficult to approach the subject in a way that doesn't cause people to get defensive sometimes - they like the simplistic model which may once have been a fine point for a beginner but they got stuck in it and it can impair their growth and understanding.
It's fine for a layperson to walk around believing whatever they like - its likely closer to the truth than whatever they might otherwise have thought, or at least got them thinking. It becomes a problem when people actually base decisions off these things.
I've never heard emoticons referred to as emoji, mainly because people don't use emoticons anymore (unless they still post on forums). It seems like a deliberate editorial decision. I would prefer to preserve the distinction, however, for reasons GP stated.
I use emoticons when texting (because I'm a graybeard), but my phone translates them into emojis before sending. So I've just taken to calling them all emojis.
"Gimmick" implies that shitposting is deployed merely as a means to quick success, but dril's style of "shitposting" predates the term and is just what self-expression looked like on the old Internet.
I think in this case "gimmick" was used in the pro-wrestling sense, it basically means "persona".
>In professional wrestling, a gimmick generally refers to a wrestler's in-ring persona, character, behaviour, attire and/or other distinguishing traits while performing which are usually artificially created in order to draw fan interest.
But wrestling itself, or the act of performing a character, is not a gimmick under any definition of the term.
If you want to adopt this definition from wrestling, which is a domain specific definition to be sure, then tell us what is the gimmick of dril the character?
I think you are guilty of very lazy analysis and you don't know what you're talking about.
> Gimmick" implies that shitposting is deployed merely as a means to quick success,
Can you explain this use of 'Gimmick'? I'm only familiar with the other/older/mainstream use of the term of essentially something 'extra' done to attract attention. Can you explain what you mean by 'quick success' w.r.t. 'gimmick'?
