Tag: bias

Facebook Still Sucks

To get a full understanding of how bad it is, the WSJ ran a series on the Facebook files recently. Link here but it might require a subscription. It points out the obvious, but also that it’s such a screwed up company now that it can’t get out of it’s own way.

It talked about how it ruins the lives of people, especially teen aged girls. Zuckerberg then said how it enhances peoples lives in a washing machine spin of doublespeak.

They block who they don’t like and let who they do like post anything, even against their own policies.

Now the Facebook fact checkers just censored peer reviewed science because it doesn’t fit the narrative.

And this about Zuck:

Facebook Investor: Company Paid $5 Billion to FTC as ‘Quid Pro Quo’ to Shield Zuckerberg

Fortunately, I don’t care as I cancelled them. It along with Twitter are helping to ruin the country and people’s lives around the world. It has taken a political position on things. I don’t care which side it picks, but it should have been a neutral platform.

Instead, it is now a high school place where you are a part of the in crowd or not. Those with a triple digit IQ should move to a better and more productive place, like going outside and enjoying life.

It was too childish for me and I didn’t want to open it anymore to see the spew that comes from it.

I still talk to those who really are my friends. Most of them were never on Facebook.

For Introverts, not being on it also lets you escape from a lot of noise that sucks your personal energy and time.

My Take On The Jeopardy Guest Hosts And The Replacements

It is probably the greatest game show created. It’s intellectually challenging. The others are generally tripe that targets those needing mindless entertainment or try to rip off Jeopardy.

I’ve realized that Alex Trebek was one of the best ever at this type of job and was significantly a reason for it’s success.

I recall him not liking Ken Jennings in the first couple of weeks of the 74 game winning streak. They eventually formed a bond, which I first believed was due to the huge ratings increase, but later led to their synergy around making Jeopardy great.

I, like everyone else try to beat the contestants and regularly do, with the exception of Final Jeopardy. Rarely solving this question keeps me from applying as I am about 1 for 15 in getting it right. I regularly beat everyone I play against (except my son, a bastion of knowledge), but fail in pop categories and celebrities. Those are issues I know and care little about. The combination of words, anagrams and Roman numeral addition questions stump me. Ken, Brad and James dominate there.

James Holtzhauer gave us a new way of playing, especially in how to bet. To this day, I love those who bet big. It’s not their money anyway if they don’t stay. You have to play to win and betting low is counterintuitive to winning.

Since Trebek, they have had a string of guest hosts. Some were great because they get what is the formula for success is. Others were fame seekers that had power in the Celebtard world.

THE BEST

The permanent replacements, Mayim Bialik and Mike Richards stood out as the best. They deserve the job. They were smooth, invested in the success of the show and didn’t try to be the reason people watched.

Honorable mention goes to Ken Jennings. He won the GOAT tournament and is forever ensconced in the history of the show. I knew he wouldn’t get the job due to other commitments, but he would have been a good one.

THE SECOND TIER

Bill Whitaker and Sanjay Gupta. Again, they didn’t try to be anything other than the facilitator. They were less polished than the best, but no one believed they were anything but a guest host. They wouldn’t have been good replacements though.

THE MAN WHO WANTED IT MOST, BUT COULDN’T PULL IT OFF

Aaron Rodgers wanted to be the guest host and made it clear. He tried, but is a Hall of Fame quarterback and not a TV personality. He stumbled too much, like Jeff Gordan and Dale Earnhardt Jr. in NASCAR. They were great athletes, but not good commentators. The show would have suffered under him.

AND THE REST, LOSERS, POSERS, CELEBTARDS AND SO FORTH

Dr. Oz has been on TV, but tried to be smarter than the contestants. He was arrogant as usual and not polished, despite being in front of a camera frequently. He cut off contestants and was rude to those who answered incorrectly.

Levar Burton tried too hard. He put on his TV voice and his appearance came off as a job interview rather than a host replacement. He was better than the rest below, but his fake enthusiasm was tough to take at times. He had a woke following that tried to get him hired via social media. The show would have suffered under him because he was hard to listen to in a very short period of time.

Robin Roberts was the wokest. She blatantly played favorites with female and minority contestants. A good host (and person) treats everyone the same, regardless of how they were born like Alex did. There is no justification for bias against anyone so this was inexcusable. She got the gig due to her other TV shows where she can spout her views with impunity. It was hard to watch.

Katie Couric should have been good. She answered “you got it” to every correct answer. I counted over 25 times on one show alone. She was the perky interviewer who failed as a newscaster, but her TV ability should have shown through better than it did. The ratings were poor under her and she is unlikable a lot of the time.

The same can be said for Anderson Cooper, teleprompter reader who is tedious to listen to. His ratings as a newscaster (and guest host) explain why he was so bad. Social media pilloried him. He was boring at best and clearly doesn’t have the intelligence to be a host for show requiring a 3 digit IQ.

THE WORST

Savannah Guthrie at best went through the motions. It was as if she didn’t care. She was disingenuous and dismissive when speaking to the players. She also was a “you got it” over doer. I thought she should have been way better, but didn’t seem to try. I am not a watcher of her regular program, but she was bad at the Olympics also, so I guess she’s consistent. She was the one I almost caused me not to watch the show for a couple of weeks, like Katie.

No one will be the winner because Alex is too hard to follow. He made the show great. It’s like having a famous parent and the kids rarely equal the star.

It’s a great show and has been around because of that. In a way it’s like golf, you can never beat it because you can’t know everything. Just try to beat the people you watch with and the contestants.

On a side note, I worked at IBM when Watson played. I talked to Sam Palmisano, then chairman and he said it was a marketing gimmick. The players never had a chance as the amount of computing horsepower behind the scenes was programmed to win at a certain task. Humans still are better to watch. Watson turned out to be a bust anyway.

How Social Media Works Against You

I’ve written extensively about this, especially in Internet Road Rage. Go read it to see who these cowards are.

No matter what you do, someone has a beef (vegans will get me here, just another example) with whatever you say.

It used to be don’t talk politics, religion or something else at Thanksgiving or you’ll piss off someone in your family. Now, just like someone and you are one of Hillary’s deplorables (She gave the the best example, why I’m using politics here hoping to draw some ire from a commenter to prove my point. I could care less about her or her opinions other than it works).

Now, you can’t say anything on social media without someone being offended. I think it’s funny if they fall for it though because it just shows how shallow people are. Just go to Quora, hater (twitter) or Fakebook to find a large group of the clueless. That they are trying to censor people who don’t agree with them just shows bias and ignorance.

So, you can either be smart and blow off the idiots looking to be offended or trying to prove their point to the world, or just fall in line with the masses and get into it.

Actual Covid Cure Developed, Awaiting Either Approval or Shut Out By TPTB

‘Life-saving’ nose spray that kills 99.9% of viruses begins production in Israel

Health Ministry-approved labeling says antiviral is effective within 2 minutes; can save many lives in countries without access to vaccines, says inventor

By Nathan Jeffay 22 March 2021, 1:06 pm

Gilly Regev, an Israeli-raised scientist who co-founded the company SaNOtize, uses the new nasal spray she developed

A nasal spray that will be marketed as capable of killing 99.9 percent of virus particles has started rolling off production lines in an Israeli factory.

The spray could have prevented much of the world’s COVID-19 infection, its inventor, Dr. Gilly Regev, told The Times of Israel.

Link here.

And more disturbing news is that I read there are HIV components in the mRNA vaccine.

Excerpt here:

So far, 18 sub-units of HIV1 have been found in the virus’ genetic code that cause the body to intentionally produce the HIV1 virus. “Could it give you HIV or AIDS? Nobody has the answer to that. Only time will tell; in years we will know. But you should know that there are people who tested positive for HIV after they got these vaccines… in Australia they tested positive. So this is something to be very concerned about.

There are cures out there now so why is there so much push for an unapproved jab? Your guess is as good as mine, but like Watergate, follow the money.

Just Another Reason Why I Love That I Fired Facebook

“Free speech is not an absolute human right,” says Helle Thorning Schmidt, member of Facebook’s Oversight Board and former PM of Denmark. “It has to be balanced with other human rights.”

How does that translate to content moderation? It must strike a balance, find a middle. pic.twitter.com/E5reaQ2bnk— POLITICOEurope (@POLITICOEurope) July 15, 2021

The Facebook Oversight Board, which consists of 20 members from around the world, was created last year to help corporate executives to distance themselves from decisions considered to be politically.

———————————–

Seriously?

We’re told we have to use certain words to describe certain people (pronouns). I can’t keep them straight.

Anything that some people say is wrong and others are always right, based on arbitrary rules that benefit only the elite.

Who told them that they are the arbiters of what we can say? (They can’t for me as I deleted them).

Most of all, why are they trying to stop free speech? Usually it is because they have something to hide.

Why are people standing for this? Those that do are dumbasses.

I can say that my life is much better without it. I have a lot more time and most of the content is BS anyway. Now, if only certain things are allowed, you have a one sided discussion. Count me out.

It is funny that the Whitehouse is fighting with fake book over Covid content in a game of finger pointing. They always eat their own.

What is humorous to me is that I have Danish relatives. Live by Jante’s Law, die by the sword.

Indicator That Harvard Might Not Be A Good Place To Study For Intellectuals

This post was supposed to fall in the intellectual category for people to decide if Harvard has the qualities that high IQ people still desire (such as being able to see/argue multiple sides of an issue).  They have managed to ruin any hope of defending both sides of an issue given the updates as you read them below.  I’ll leave it for those who may be on the fence, and wish them the best in their decision.

Original Post Begins Here

If you look at the previous post, you will see some of the traits you might have indicating a high intellect.

One of them is the ability to see and argue from multiple perspectives.  To have this trait, you have to shut out ideological thinking or persuasiveness of others before developing a hypothesis.  Many have preconceived thoughts on a subject, political stance or values influenced by others rather than examining all aspects of a subject.  In other words, they read one side of a subject on the Internet and believe what they want to.  Everyone has a bias, but one needs to come to problems with an open mind and use facts and history to evaluate the solution otherwise you run at least a 50% chance of being wrong.

Harvard has released their list of Fake News sites.  This is a popular subject given the 2016 Presidential election.  If you look at the coverage and predictions of the various news sites, you can come to a conclusion which ones were actually wrong (based on forecasts, coverage and predictions) and if their coverage was biased or indeed “Fake News”.  You have to make up your own mind where you stand on this.  I am not saying their position is necessarily wrong, rather questioning their intelligence.

The list is decidedly one-sided, showing a bias.  This is unfortunate.  Again, readers have to decide if this is correct or not.  No one or news institution is right or wrong 100% of the time.

In fair disclosure, one trait may indicate nothing, or it may be the bread crumb down the trail of truth if they are the institution they claim to be.  Once more, each must reach his or her own conclusion.  I show later in the post how I came to my decision about the title based more on empirical evidence.

Given the perceived prestige that comes with a Harvard degree (note: I did not say education), one would hope that the inflated price for such would be well spent money.  It would appear that their logic in such a one-sided position on what is “Fake News” doesn’t indicate that they show this intellectual trait.  You take a chance where to get an education or where you send your kids.  One just hopes that it is the right decision.  Since almost every decision is a cost/benefit analysis in your mind, one now must question if it is worth it.  Maybe your kid isn’t really an intellectual so the point might be moot.

I realize that you can develop relationships with power people at college that can advance a successful career.  It is not the point of this discussion.  I am merely observing a perceived status and whether it is justified or not.

Worst Update: Harvard is one of the top 10 suppressors of free speech, a further indicator that they are pushing away one of the attributes of intellectuals

Update: Harvard now supports segregation.  MLK would not have wanted this.

Update: Harvard Grad students have organized themselves to start a resistance school.

Update: Students don’t understand the danger of ISIS.

Update: You can now submit a rap album as a senior thesis instead of actual academic work.

Update: Harvard discriminates, avoids meritocracy and endorses legacy of the privileged

Update 2: Apparently, they have now abandoned diversity and have become racist, albeit not in the traditional way.

The grad students, who consider themselves a progressive version of “Dumbledore’s Army,” have enlisted former Obama staffers to teach the class sessions. The syllabus includes readings on “Black-Palestinian Queer Reciprocal Solidarity.”

They have decidedly taken a position of only viewing issues from one side.  One should greatly question the concept of critical thinking ability being taught there.  For those of us who can balance multiple views of the same subject, it is clear that these snowflakes will be under-educated and might be damaged goods in the marketplace of talent.

I formed my own opinion having worked for decades with Ivy League educated employees, albeit somewhat weighted towards Harvard and Columbia.  It was made exceedingly clear by a PR flak who after having worked with a number of Harvard MBA’s stated that they had obviously wasted their money on their education.  We were working for a prestigious company that attracts genius level talent.  She showed remarkable intuition that caused me to further observe the Ivy’s. The majority didn’t last as they had a piece of paper saying that they should be smart, but lacked an education in people or the understanding that life is a series of challenges and hurdles.

Some of the most successful executives and workers I’ve encountered didn’t rely on their degree in school, rather what they learned in life and how they applied it to the next problem.

While history reveals that many leaders and intelligent people came from Harvard, the direction they are heading and the principles that they now uphold should add some cost to the side of the cost/benefit decision making process.  I hope it’s worth it if you choose it as your place for an education.  You will apparently get an institution that has a bias.

Journalists, Unqualified To Discuss Gun Control, Here’s Why

journo guide to guns

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And of course, gun ownership is at an all time high, BUT…Homicide rate is at an all time low.

Why Newspapers and The News Are Not Only A Dying Model, But Dead

“I do not take a single newspaper, nor read one a month, and I feel myself infinitely the happier for it.” – Thomas Jefferson

I don’t subscribe to the newspaper anymore, but I got one this morning.  I’m sure that it was a teaser to try to get me to subscribe.  Upon reading it, I realized I already knew everything in the paper except the local high school football scores from games after I went to bed.

A DYING MODEL

The subscription rates to newspapers are dying, not even a slow death.  Similarly, the evening news is also a dinosaur.  They report what we knew as much as a full day before.

I am on twitter and read blogs all day long.  I occasionally go to the news sites,  but as I discuss below, their bias (I hold both left and right guilty equally here) usually makes me fact check what I’m trying to find out which defeats the purpose of fact-finding, especially if it involves politics. That subject is pretty much unavoidable these days.

Nevertheless, I enjoy many other subjects which you could read about it on other blog entries if you have nothing better to do, and I find good information about them that is interesting and INSTANT.

I’m a boomer, although a technically savvy one having been in the IT industry all my life.  The Gen X,Y, millennials,  and whomever follows them demand even more instantaneous everything virtually dooming the news model of our prior generation.  Thank you Internet.

THE END OF THE BASTIONS OF NEWS

We have establish that we are now used to getting information instantaneously.  The other reason that the model is dying is that they are biased.  This is ok if you are a neo-con or a loony lefty, but for everyone else (the other 80% given 10% on the edges of left and right) we don’t trust them anymore.

Once, these two sources were the basis of our world and local information.  Besides being static rather than dynamic, they also have stopped being factual sources of information, rather they are partisan, with Fox on one side and CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, NBC, MSNBC, NYT, WAPO, LA TImes, Reuters, AP, HuffPo, Local News, Local Papers and most other news sources on the other side of issues.  All are positioned in a place that position the facts from a point of view.   Some of them blatantly lie.   Reporting was supposed to be the facts of the story that let the reader make up their mind on their position.

We’ve actually learned that the news has been biased for at least as long as there has been television, we just didn’t have the instant fact checking that the internet and the other sources have provided.

There is a joke from Bernie Goldberg that said if they had been reporting on Moses at Mt. Sinai, the headline would read “Moses get the 10 Commandments from God, and here are the two that we think are important to you”.

Walter Cronkite said that the Viet Nam war was lost during the time that we were winning.  LBJ said that if he’d lost Cronkite, he’d lost America.  We’ve since learned that the then “most trusted man in America” was also one of the most biased.

LIFE MOVES ON

Other things have died and we have lived and moved on.  Black and white TV, network only channels vs. cable TV and landline phones vs. mobile (cell for those in the US) phones.  Such is the fate of newspapers and TV network news.  Here is just one fact concerning the NYT declining rates.  I’m sure you could find somewhere that their subscriptions are increasing, but this would seem deceitful given the nature of digital delivery.

So am I disturbed by this trend?  Actually I didn’t even notice it until I saw the paper in my yard this morning.  I haven’t subscribed for news in many years (note: I get the Sunday paper for the coupons as long as they pay for the 1 day delivery – my sister calls me a tightwad but it leads to becoming this).

I get my news from the above stated sources and know more about what is going on than the anchors have time to present in their biases manner.

So as they say, life moves on.