h a l f b a k e r yNot so much a thought experiment as a single neuron misfire.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
fact crunchers
For any set of people that want other people to act, any action on a set of facts, should state the sector/group or person calling the action | |
Facts are just points in a volume of continual action.
A course of action is a path out from the facts into the
future. If a set of people call for others to act, the facts
seen as significant, and a known label on that set should be
stated. I suppose this is try at cementing the asker/tasker
to record of by making blatantly obvious tag.
we the journalists see it this way,
we the scientists see it this way.
we the government see it this way, but this political party
sees it as this.
The actions source should be intrinsically known but it
seems sometimes it is more intellectually obscured
or implied.
It's your informed personal choice. That is what freedom is
because one persons ascent is another's downfall.
Circumstance is everything.
[link]
|
| |
Scenario: a publication publishes a call to action. The call
to action is based on a press release issued by a
government. The government is acting under pressure from
an industry lobby. The lobbyists are acting on directions
from their customers' boards of directors. The directors are
under pressure from their shareholders. The shareholders
are responding to changes in a market made up of
customers. The customers are being influenced by
celebrities. The celebrities are under the influence of
recreational drugs. |
|
| |
NB; at each stage in this chain, some information is lost, or
added, or both. |
|
| |
So, which set of people has originated this call to action,
and how should it be tagged? |
|
| |
Keep reading this as fat crunchers. |
|
| |
Probably as usual, no idea but I don't think we are
taught to register where, what we are saying is truly
coming from. This is a question of public awareness
and general information savvy. Tagging facts better for
public up skill. |
|
| |
[pertinax] Hearing for a nebulous ground swell call to
action and hearing that a publication is backing the
call for action is two different things. The Publication
is putting their name/company to the call. The
reporter's name goes against the reporters choice of
facts and statements, which is an opinion. |
|
| |
I suppose the only way to make a full and true
informed decision is to see a situation for what it is by
seeing all the facts in the set. This isn't possible as
facts can be actively hidden or are not even realized
yet in time. Best one can to do muddle through on
partial sets. |
|
| |
A call for action is always going to be an ask else it's
going to be an increasing drain in system design,
energy and resources. |
|
| |
How far does a society go to stop people hurting
themselves? |
|
| |
A module for AI programs designed not to process data but to separate complex facts into sub-components for further processing, and to discover hidden assumptions Eg: You can order pizza until 8:00-->there exists a place that can be called. Upon calling Place you can order pizza. This place is open until 8:00. (It is not open after 8:00?) (Using the common definition of pizza?) (Using the phone number at Reference?) |
|
| |
//I don't think we are taught to register where, what we are
saying is truly coming from// |
|
| |
Aren't we? It's pretty normal for high- school history
teaching to cover source criticism at some level. Does that
not cover it? |
|
| |
And yet we get people that are not highly magnetic,
trying to
stick things to themselves. |
|
| |
[Voice] Nice, would work in schools too. |
|
| |
Well, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't stop it
from trying to stick things to itself. At least, I assume you
can't. I've never tried. |
|
| |