Ima start a news agency, ima call it the nazi's, its gonna be very lefty but also lots of hating on jews for some reason

“ Google is labeling a Trump supporting Republican state senator a “ Bigot” “ by Alex Thompson on Vice

Isn’t it interesting that google keeps making these mistakes, but only in one direction?🤔

http://archive.today/qVhGS

lmao

"you can not offend the maus people"

tim getting more and more redpilled by the day

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-FcfkL4XSHBA%2FU2W1YKvTwXI%2FAAAAAAAABBM%2Feix1gaeyoDo%2Fs1600%2FMaus_2_001c.jpg&f=1

@Deleted User in this particular case i would assume it's just a bot that hasn't been coded to reject images with captions

but in other cases it seems plausible to me that if tech firms are based in and recruiting from extremely liberal cities, that the biases that manifest in them are liberal

Left wing politician have negative caption pictures, are they up? I haven seen any.

like if you're forming a company in san francisco regardless of what that company does or sells it's going to have to have a liberal bias by default simply because the people that comprise the company are so much more likely to be liberals.

Sure.

That’s exactly right

i haven't seen any either, but i don't think that these knowledge panels are created by humans

they might be occasionally glanced at by humans to make sure they're more or less sane, but not created

it also appears as if her wikipedia entry was vandalized recently https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Trudy_Wade&action=history

If that were true it seems like we would see more events like this with all kinds of captions. Funny that this is the one that slips though the cracks.

Yeah, people are messing with this on the Wikipedia end.

the wikipedia edit seems to have been after the google knowledge panel caption was noticed

maybe the bigot image was googlebombed to the top

should be an easy fix for google's algorithm though. google can easily detect text in an image and reject it.

speaking to the larger issue of bias in tech firms, one trend that might help is the skyrocketing cost of living in california. given how mature communications technology is today there's no good reason to keep all your developers physically in the same city, and there are tons of economic incentives to moving to less population dense areas.

if you have to have an office, why not have it in utah? or rural texas? and why not let devs from all over the country work remotely?

it'll save money, and break up a lot of the group-think.

of course the trend in tech firms isn't telecommuting but building company towns. basically slave plantations for H1Bs where they work a few hundred meters from where they eat and sleep.

so i'm not optimistic that telecommuting will change the big firms (the left put a lot of effort into capturing them and aren't going to give that up easily). but smaller firms are not going to build traditional offices in california simply because they can't afford it anymore.

lol I watched that Rip'n Chicken review. I have to watch it again now to try to determine why it could possibly have been flagged.

He's so completely harmless.

Like Mr. Rogers tier harmless.

I don't agree that there is no reason at all to keep all your staff in the same city, I work for a large corp and we have 3 large offices around the same city and even that 1 hour travel time between the offices can make it difficult to have productive meetings, and when your team is larger than about 10 people everyone jumping onto a video conf can still be less than productive, just watch any online debate of more than 5-6 people and it can turn into a shitfight

in such large voice conferences, have software that has one person in control of the meeting who can enable or disable the microphones of others. there's no need to interrupt or interject. people at the meeting should be listening to what each other are saying, not looking for an opportunity to take control of the conversation.

but most communication doesn't need to use such a format.

if it's a 2-4 way conversation there's no need for such formality, and there might not be any need for voice at all.

i just think it's silly that companies that are ostensibly dedicated to new communication mediums are addicted to face-to-face conversations and refuse to use new technologies.

what you're talking about is for presentations, if there's people in the meeting with no input to provide they're wasting their time being there

so if you go into it saying everyone's mic is disabled you're basically saying their input isn't needed... if you go to a school room raise your hand to talk then meetings are very slow and take longer than they need

not saying their input isn't needed, but that they can and should wait a few minutes to give it instead of interrupting someone else

might just be my personal preference, but i hate listening to debates where people keep interrupting each other

impossible for someone to get a complete thought out before someone else forcibly interjects.

but already you're describing something that wouldn't happen in a normal conversation.... some people need to be interrupted, they're overly verbose or go off on tangents, i see it all the time no one in the room cares what the person is saying because its irrelevant to the topic

I've been good friends of about 10 years with the guy I now work for he's always spending 15 minutes covering something that should take 5, everyone knows it, he knows it so people interrupt and say yeah we all get it, next topic

but when I dial into the meeting, that's hard if not impossible to do because you can't read the room and see if people do in fact get it