In the same way that almost nobody who uses open source products is actually able to read the source code, most users will not know this exists or think to use it. Hopefully it will make it easier...
it should allow consumers to see who's running ads and which country they're located in.
In the same way that almost nobody who uses open source products is actually able to read the source code, most users will not know this exists or think to use it. Hopefully it will make it easier for reporters to get at this information, though I have to wonder how easy it will be to game. We've already seen an entire US-proprietor-run radio station running Russian propaganda in the MidWest. There's little to stop a similar thing from happening in this case. But I suppose it's better than nothing, maybe.
Consumers have seen a proliferation of ads for products from dubious advertisers, like fake vaccines, in recent months.
How does this help with that? Alex Jones personally hawks all sorts of bogus products on his show. It's no secret who's doing it, but he still gets away with it. Same with Gwinneth Paltrow.
Fake businesses have also been an issue.
This makes more sense to me. At least someone has to be on the hook in this case instead of anybody being able to set up an account and be totally unaccountable. I'm sure it can also be gamed, but putting one more step in the way of fraudsters is probably a good thing.
Once the documents are submitted, advertisers have to commit an "in-account identity check" to confirm they're legitimate. Organizations are required to submit personal legal information (like a W9 or IRS document showing the organization's name, address and employer identification number).
And if they send fake documents, or documents for someone else, will Google even know? Don't they already need an FEIN or SSN (Federal Employer Identification Number or Social Security Number in the US) to receive checks from Google? What's different this time?
It sounds like you're trying to resolve this as binary (either it fixes the problem or it doesn't), but maybe better to think of it as an incremental improvement? It's more data for Google's fraud...
It sounds like you're trying to resolve this as binary (either it fixes the problem or it doesn't), but maybe better to think of it as an incremental improvement? It's more data for Google's fraud detection algorithms and more data for reporters.
No, not at all. What I'm saying is that it's so little improvement I have to wonder whether it's worth doing and also whether they're intentionally doing as little as possible to solve the problem...
It sounds like you're trying to resolve this as binary
No, not at all. What I'm saying is that it's so little improvement I have to wonder whether it's worth doing and also whether they're intentionally doing as little as possible to solve the problem because the problem makes them so much money. I'm all for incremental improvement, but this seems like too small of an increment to me.
Binary thinking of pessimistic nature seems to be a prevalent issue in many discussions on Tildes (and maybe the internet as a whole).
It sounds like you're trying to resolve this as binary (either it fixes the problem or it doesn't), but maybe better to think of it as an incremental improvement?
Binary thinking of pessimistic nature seems to be a prevalent issue in many discussions on Tildes (and maybe the internet as a whole).
Yes, it's a very common pattern. However, I don't think you can blame it on the Internet, because the way that logic and language work encourage binary thinking. Consider that words are binary -...
Yes, it's a very common pattern. However, I don't think you can blame it on the Internet, because the way that logic and language work encourage binary thinking. Consider that words are binary - you either use them or you don't. And so, "should X be considered Y" is a common form of debate, best resolved by saying that there are rarely sharp boundaries.
It's quite difficult to avoid writing in a binary way even if you're thinking about it and trying to avoid it.
Well, many things should be regarded as binary at least under certain circumstances. The issue is when binarity gives place to false dilemmas (also called false dichotomies), eliminating plausible...
Well, many things should be regarded as binary at least under certain circumstances. The issue is when binarity gives place to false dilemmas (also called false dichotomies), eliminating plausible alternatives from the discussion.
Some people cannot accept the fact that many disputes cannot be logically resolved at the moment, and an educated guess is the best we can achieve as a conclusion.
And you are correct, this happens everyday, both online and offline.
As a programmer, I think we use booleans far too often and an enum with an "it's complicated" option is usually the way to go. This goes for surveys as well. Even if there are only two choices...
As a programmer, I think we use booleans far too often and an enum with an "it's complicated" option is usually the way to go. This goes for surveys as well.
Even if there are only two choices now, often you want to add a third later.
There is a place for logic, but it's surprisingly limited.
Logic is a field of inquiry that predates Aristotle (in ancient China and Arabic world) with countless sub-divisions and applications, mainly in mathematics, philosophy and computer science. It’s...
Logic is a field of inquiry that predates Aristotle (in ancient China and Arabic world) with countless sub-divisions and applications, mainly in mathematics, philosophy and computer science. It’s entirely possible to use logic to enlighten complex phenomena that go above and beyond binary thinking.
Logic is much broader and able to describe the world that some people. The logic programmers use is only a subject of a much broader picture.
Most frequently the issue is not using logic per se, but using it incorrectly (consciously or not).
Even within computer science there are lots of kinds of logic in use. Temporal logic in particular is useful for modelling systems and model-checking in computer science, such as with TLA+ and...
Even within computer science there are lots of kinds of logic in use. Temporal logic in particular is useful for modelling systems and model-checking in computer science, such as with TLA+ and other programs like that. Also, there are fancier type systems used to avoid programming errors, such as recently in Rust's borrow checker.
But, outside of programming, I'm not sure that making logic more complicated helps all that much? We see that in scientific research where probability and statistics are applicable in many more fields than fancy logic.
To use mathematics or logic at all, you need to figure out what to model and how to gather data. The hard part is often figuring out what to model, what data to gather, and how to clean it up, and these aren't part of the model.
I am not sure that much of this formalism helps for explaining everyday reasoning. David Chapman's notion of reasonableness seems more promising.
Logic is used for all kinds of things in philosophy, to the point that you can hardly conceive philosophy without logic nowadays. It can get quite complex. And yes, it is useful. Exact sciences...
But, outside of programming, I'm not sure that making logic more complicated helps all that much?
Logic is used for all kinds of things in philosophy, to the point that you can hardly conceive philosophy without logic nowadays. It can get quite complex. And yes, it is useful. Exact sciences don’t have a monopoly on rigorous reasoning!
Most philosophy in English speaking countries is somehow related to that school, with a great focus on language, logic, and mathematics. Your question is a hard one because it kinda requires me to...
Most philosophy in English speaking countries is somehow related to that school, with a great focus on language, logic, and mathematics. Your question is a hard one because it kinda requires me to also answer what is the purpose of philosophy, and I am by no means qualified to answer that question.
But philosophy is, in many aspects, the pursuit of the truth, and logic is a powerful tool to achieve that goal.
Philosophy of science is a great and relevant example of a philosophical pursuit with a great impact in the world.
On a personal level, I can say that philosophers of that tradition had a great impact on how I think the world and live my life, such as J. L. Austin, Saul Kripke, John Searle, and Bertrand Russell.
In the same way that almost nobody who uses open source products is actually able to read the source code, most users will not know this exists or think to use it. Hopefully it will make it easier for reporters to get at this information, though I have to wonder how easy it will be to game. We've already seen an entire US-proprietor-run radio station running Russian propaganda in the MidWest. There's little to stop a similar thing from happening in this case. But I suppose it's better than nothing, maybe.
How does this help with that? Alex Jones personally hawks all sorts of bogus products on his show. It's no secret who's doing it, but he still gets away with it. Same with Gwinneth Paltrow.
This makes more sense to me. At least someone has to be on the hook in this case instead of anybody being able to set up an account and be totally unaccountable. I'm sure it can also be gamed, but putting one more step in the way of fraudsters is probably a good thing.
And if they send fake documents, or documents for someone else, will Google even know? Don't they already need an FEIN or SSN (Federal Employer Identification Number or Social Security Number in the US) to receive checks from Google? What's different this time?
It sounds like you're trying to resolve this as binary (either it fixes the problem or it doesn't), but maybe better to think of it as an incremental improvement? It's more data for Google's fraud detection algorithms and more data for reporters.
No, not at all. What I'm saying is that it's so little improvement I have to wonder whether it's worth doing and also whether they're intentionally doing as little as possible to solve the problem because the problem makes them so much money. I'm all for incremental improvement, but this seems like too small of an increment to me.
A small improvement could also be the first step in a larger plan. Better to conclude that we don't know what they're up to.
Binary thinking of pessimistic nature seems to be a prevalent issue in many discussions on Tildes (and maybe the internet as a whole).
Yes, it's a very common pattern. However, I don't think you can blame it on the Internet, because the way that logic and language work encourage binary thinking. Consider that words are binary - you either use them or you don't. And so, "should X be considered Y" is a common form of debate, best resolved by saying that there are rarely sharp boundaries.
It's quite difficult to avoid writing in a binary way even if you're thinking about it and trying to avoid it.
Well, many things should be regarded as binary at least under certain circumstances. The issue is when binarity gives place to false dilemmas (also called false dichotomies), eliminating plausible alternatives from the discussion.
Some people cannot accept the fact that many disputes cannot be logically resolved at the moment, and an educated guess is the best we can achieve as a conclusion.
And you are correct, this happens everyday, both online and offline.
As a programmer, I think we use booleans far too often and an enum with an "it's complicated" option is usually the way to go. This goes for surveys as well.
Even if there are only two choices now, often you want to add a third later.
There is a place for logic, but it's surprisingly limited.
Fixed that for you ;)
I'm not sure what you mean. Could you elaborate?
Logic is a field of inquiry that predates Aristotle (in ancient China and Arabic world) with countless sub-divisions and applications, mainly in mathematics, philosophy and computer science. It’s entirely possible to use logic to enlighten complex phenomena that go above and beyond binary thinking.
Logic is much broader and able to describe the world that some people. The logic programmers use is only a subject of a much broader picture.
Most frequently the issue is not using logic per se, but using it incorrectly (consciously or not).
Even within computer science there are lots of kinds of logic in use. Temporal logic in particular is useful for modelling systems and model-checking in computer science, such as with TLA+ and other programs like that. Also, there are fancier type systems used to avoid programming errors, such as recently in Rust's borrow checker.
But, outside of programming, I'm not sure that making logic more complicated helps all that much? We see that in scientific research where probability and statistics are applicable in many more fields than fancy logic.
To use mathematics or logic at all, you need to figure out what to model and how to gather data. The hard part is often figuring out what to model, what data to gather, and how to clean it up, and these aren't part of the model.
I am not sure that much of this formalism helps for explaining everyday reasoning. David Chapman's notion of reasonableness seems more promising.
Logic is used for all kinds of things in philosophy, to the point that you can hardly conceive philosophy without logic nowadays. It can get quite complex. And yes, it is useful. Exact sciences don’t have a monopoly on rigorous reasoning!
See: https://www.iep.utm.edu/analytic/
Do you have any examples of situations when analytical philosophy was found to be useful?
Most philosophy in English speaking countries is somehow related to that school, with a great focus on language, logic, and mathematics. Your question is a hard one because it kinda requires me to also answer what is the purpose of philosophy, and I am by no means qualified to answer that question.
But philosophy is, in many aspects, the pursuit of the truth, and logic is a powerful tool to achieve that goal.
Philosophy of science is a great and relevant example of a philosophical pursuit with a great impact in the world.
On a personal level, I can say that philosophers of that tradition had a great impact on how I think the world and live my life, such as J. L. Austin, Saul Kripke, John Searle, and Bertrand Russell.
Also:
Case in point: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-manyvalued/