Sorry.

Ok sending a letter like that can’t possibly be legal

“I referred to this as a ‘rape,’ but I do not want my words to be interpreted in a literal or criminal sense.”

Do you suppose this means “I was raped, but am under legal obligation not to exactly say so” or “I felt violated during a sexual encounter which I nevertheless recognize as consensual”?

Three problems with this:
1. The complaint seems to centre on Google’s treatment of “minority” groups (women, or men who are neither white, East Asian, nor South Asian). But the union demographics would presumably be similar.

Five seconds of Googling says it was a special issue about HIV/AIDS

It was an article about HIV and AIDS and transgender sex workers are a “key affected population” but why would it be so weird for there to be a scientific study about transgender prostitutes?

You’re a year three PhD student if you didn’t find yourself questioning whether you wanted a postdoc at least sometimes I’d wonder about your sanity

“i mean i love an action movie as much as the next person, but i feel like i rarely see this kind of criticism thrown at it (i.e. its full of tropes, unoriginal, unrealistic, etc..)“

People criticize action movies for precisely those things all the time. Think of the entire genre of Arnold jokes.

are we living in the same universe because I feel like people call action movies formulaic and mindless all the time

this might be the most Gawker comment thread possible

Would you have thought it was a malicious scheme otherwise? What possible motive could they have had?

Why would the lens care about colour? Lenses are clear

I actually think you are wrong about this. I guess what you are thinking is that the algorithm has a bunch of ‘if-then’ type statements that deduce what kind of thing is in the picture, and that a POC dev team would have been more sensitive about writing them. But that’s not how they work; instead they *automatically*…

How is it not a mistake? Are you suggesting that Google somehow wrote this behaviour in on purpose?

It almost certainly didn’t behave that way when they released it. It’s self-learning software so its behaviour changes as its sample grows. Also it presumably doesn’t tag most black people incorrectly, but only a very small fraction, such that you couldn’t tell except with an enormous sample set.

It almost certainly does this only very rarely, such that you’d only notice when running on the whole population.

Your personal preferences aside I’m just trying to point out that it’s possible to want to feel a drive that you don’t actually feel.

I mean the argument is that people who would like to have a libido, but don’t, would benefit from a drug that boosts their libido.You can call those people ‘asexual’ if you want to but what difference does it make?

I’m suggesting that assuming your imaginary patient’s distress is coerced is unwarranted, not literally accusing you of making the alien argument. If we’re going to be college freshmen it would be a false analogy instead of a strawman.

Did anyone actually say point 1 because it’s pretty manifestly stupid