Preamble
Flashback nearly a decade and you’ll find me toiling away in a filthy (custodians would typically not go into the labs for fear of getting blamed for something going wrong) basement lab working on an algorithm for my doctoral thesis. Identifying exotic particles (eg: magnetic monopoles, Q-balls, strangelets, etc.) in cosmic ray datasets is not exactly what you’d call the most employable pursuit. However, it was definitely more useful than SJW grievance studies, more interesting than working as a glorified proofreader for other people’s code like some of my friends and I wasn’t paying for it, so what the Hell? Everyone knows the real reason you get into physics is for the pussy anyway (hahahahaha, oh I almost made it through typing that without LOLing).
So here I am cannibalizing standing on the shoulders of giants, using previous theoretical mathematical work on Bayesian predictive inference. Mathematics like this had been around for decades, this was just a novel application of it and formed the basis of my thesis work. I was creating an algorithm to use simulated training data and a Bayesian comparison between said training data and real data to try and identify compositional limits on particles theorized to exist but never observed (aforementioned MMs, strangelets, Q-balls etc.). While certainly fun to talk about at parties and a real panty peeler (more LOL), the thought that I’d use any of this stuff in the real world seemed remote. I had already ruled out pursuing a career in academia, so I figured I’d just go become a code monkey like my friends. Little did I know that I was inadvertently making myself eminently employable in a field that has become the new “hot thing” in tech.
A Rose By Any Other Name is Just as Confusing
At the time, this field was limited to academia and a few tech companies that were using it to claw their way to the top (see: Google, Facebook, Amazon, et. al.). It didn’t even have a name other than just “statistics” or “data analytics”; boring pedestrian things that only the pocket protector squad cared about. Glamorous Silicon Valley VCs would never get on board with such dull nonsense. So, being the innovators that they are, techies rebranded this field “data science” employing “artificial intelligence” and “machine learning”. I personally have issues with all these monikers; “data science” is just meaningless (in spite of that being my job title) and “artificial intelligence” and “machine learning” both suffer from the same problem. Namely, they both imply that a computer is learning in the same fashion as a human brain. My preferred moniker is “predictive analytics” since I think it captures reality better and doesn’t overstate what the algorithm is doing to some kind of mind reading and/or Skynet AI.
So what exactly is it? Well, the short explanation is that any predictive algorithm takes parametric data inputs to build a statistical model that will predict the outcome of future iterations within some uncertainty. Essentially, you start with a set of “training data” with known outcomes, the algorithm then processes that data to build a model of how each parameter affects the outcome. You then feed the algorithm a set of test data, it applies the model to all the parameters, makes a prediction, then looks at the known outcome and scores whether it’s correct, a false positive or a false negative. If the algorithm passes some human-defined threshold, it starts working to make predictions on real-world data, all the while refining its model to get better as it processes more data. This real-time refinement is where the “learning” and “artificial intelligence” stuff comes in. To an external observer, it looks like the computer is learning and adapting; which in a way it is, but only in some narrowly defined brute-force iterative way within specific parameters. It has none of the heuristic properties of human intelligence. Perhaps someday we’ll unlock the secrets of the human mind and be able to simulate true intelligence, but I see that as a long way off.
How It Makes Your Life Better
As stated, this kind of analysis has been used in mathematical and academic settings for a long time, but the first exposure I ever had to it in the real world was a fun little quiz called the Gender Test at www.thespark.com (to early internet denizens, this was kind of a forerunner to places like College Humor, Ebaum’s World and finally the Glib-approved favorite, The Chive). This test asked a series of seemingly irrelevant questions such as “Which word is more gross, used or moist?” and showing pictures of two different cartoon monkeys asking “Which one will win?” After 50 or so of these kinds of questions, the quiz would then predict if you were male of female and ask if it got it right. This was long before the misgendering insanity so it was a binary choice; each time it got it right, it increased the relative weights of the preceding questions toward that gender. Each time it was wrong, it reduced the weights. The very first time someone took the test, the prediction was pure chance. But after a couple hundred thousand iterations, the relative gender weighting on the questions got pretty good and the algorithm could predict male or female almost all the time. In this case, the answers to the questions were the parameters and the gender was the predictive variable. While it may seem simple minded, this basic paradigm is what drives most of our modern computational conveniences.
Every time you search something in Google, that’s a set of parameters used to refine its model. It gets better and better at searching. Each time you “like” something on Facebook or click a link in Twitter or look at a job posting on LinkedIn, their models refine and get a little bit better. Each time you ask Siri something, she gets a little better at understanding you (remember when you first unboxed your new iPhone and Siri asked you to say a few things at startup? There’s your training data).
Of course the most important innovation is in the industry that is always the tip of the technological spear: porn. This goes way beyond dumbly suggesting videos tagged “big tits” after you’ve searched for big tits. EVERYTHING you do is a parametric data point. Among the videos you watch, are the tits real or fake? How big are they exactly? Is this lesbian, one on one hetero, threesome, group or something more exotic? What parts of the scene do you linger on? Go even further and perhaps there’s eye tracking technology (tape over your webcam people). What part of the tits do you look at the longest? In what sequence do you look at them? Is there a type of nipple you gaze at longer? Can the nipples themselves be broken down into parametric data for classification? The possibilities are endless. In this way, the porn site “learns” not only what your revealed preferences are, but it also can use data from other users with similar preferences to suggest things that you yourself might not even know you like. Like big tits? Might we suggest these ebony strap-on compilations for you?
There are of course more pedestrian applications like what I’m working on professionally now. We have biopsy slides that have been pre-tagged by experienced pathologists as cancerous or non-cancerous. The algorithm does pixel-by-pixel imagery analysis to classify features that indicate cancer or not. The hope is that eventually the algorithm will get good enough that it can identify cancer on its own, even in stages too early for a human to see. It’s not nearly as cool as porn, but a guy’s gotta eat right?
How it Ruins Your Life
Coolness factor aside, this way of doing things can quickly cross over from nifty to creepy. Target famously has an algorithm that not only tracks what you buy, but will automatically latch onto your smartphone and track your movements in the store. The most amazing (read: creepy) application of this is its ability, through lots of training and refinement, to tell the gender of the customer, the approximate age of the customer, whether the customer is pregnant and the approximate due date of the customer before she herself even knows she’s pregnant. All this is possible from millions of data points of known pregnant women (going from buying prenatal vitamins, to stretch mark cream to eventually diapers and formula) and their purchases and movements around the store leading up to the birth. The more times this happens, the better the algorithm gets.
One might be tempted to actually put this in the “how it improves your life” column. After all, Target can offer you discounts on things it knows you’ll need and make your life more convenient in the process. However, it doesn’t take much imagination to see how this can quickly morph into something very sinister, very quickly.
Creepy when a private company does it, this becomes nefarious when a government does it. Even worse is when government gets in bed with private companies to start profiling you based on your data. Buying a lot of fertilizer? Maybe you’re making a bomb. Let’s look at literally every parameter that comprises your life for the past decade to see (at a 95% confidence level) if you’re a terrorist. G-d help us if we ever get to a point in which this kind of shit is accepted in a court of law. We would literally have a Minority Report Pre-Crime situation on our hands.
Every single thing you do, seemingly significant or not, is a parametric data point that can be fed into an ML algorithm to extract features, classify them and make predictions about you. Not just what toothpaste you use, but how long and how often you brush. Do you start from the molars or the incisors? Do you gargle your mouthwash? What are your favorite sexual positions? How loud are your orgasms? Do you own a tabby or a tuxedo cat? Do you typically move your bowels in the morning or the evening? Do you configure your toilet paper over or under? People like to think that this kind of data collection is limited to conscious decisions like the products they buy or the places they go, but that is barely scratching the surface. Emotions, unconscious behaviors, pointless or useless decisions of daily life; these things are the treasure trove that gives insight into your essence. The eyes are not the window to the soul, Big Data is. The only way to escape it is to forsake all modern technology, retreat to the woods and live as if it’s the 18th century (behavior which itself, by the way, offers a ton of data about you).
Now of course all of this can be used for good or ill. In all seriousness, a change in bowel habits could indicate a health problem. But let’s not be naive about the true nature of how these technologies are/will be used. To those who crave power and long to rule us, these developments are a gift from Heaven (or, more likely, Hell). These analytical techniques, so seemingly innocuous when Thomas Bayes first pioneered them 300 (!) years ago have opened a can of worms that could enslave the human race in ways Big Brother could only dream of. If Bayes could see what’s happening now he might echo Oppenheimer; “now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.”
Unfortunately, I don’t hold out a lot of hope for the future. Constitutional protections have proven toothless, people stupidly *volunteer* massive amounts of data and the data that they don’t volunteer gets vacuumed up by an ever more intrusive State. The campus #metoo squad is just the advanced scouting group checking out how fortified the “innocent until proven guilty” doctrine is; a trial balloon for the destruction of due process.
Working in the field I do only makes me more pessimistic because I see how powerful this is first hand. My advice: well, I don’t really have any; aside from the aforementioned retreat into the woods. Other than that, all you can do is continue to support causes that shore up data privacy protections and defend against 4th Amendment violations. That’s at least a finger in the dike (not finger in the dyke you perverts).
But, hey, at least PornHub’s suggested viewing is spot on right?
Interesting…..so where are the tits?
Q knew that that would be your response. He’s basically Hari Seldon with a breast fixation.
For Rufus, since he’s not busy working.
http://archive.is/mdXPc
25. Wtf?
That is 100% the U of Miami campus.
I must have been in grad school at the same time as you. Unbeknownst to me, the most momentous professional decision I ever made was telling my friend, no, I didn’t want to work on his data mining project with him (we called it data mining then).
Oh well, win some lose some.
Yeah, when I was doing it, we called it “data mining,” too.
Get off my lawn!
I never knew I was so into my sister.
To be fair, everyone else is as well. She’s a slut.
Is this going to devolve into that conversation Joker has with Cowboy while mopping the head in that movie “Full Metal Jacket”?
This gets to the flaw in ML that Q didn’t get to. All of this ML+AB testing has resulted in a world where our tools are finely honed to get a reaction, not long term satisfaction. Apparently, we live in a world where a lot of people get really excited by incest and step fantasy. But that is a short term reaction and bad for long-term retention – PornHub now has features to filter that stuff out and they advertise it to people who click on it. Which is really interesting, because one of unalterable rules of technology is Porn Leads the Way.
Will be interesting to see how the rest of the market adopts an ‘opt out of personalized experience’ feature.
For example, I got off Facebook and Twitter because it was getting reactions out of me, but didn’t give me long term satisfaction. I could tell it was insidious and made me feel dirty. I like to think I’ve got greater than average self control and metacognition*. I would imagine most people with less will keep pressing the outrage button until a better tool that lets them stop while still getting their cousin’s baby pictures comes along.
New theory: anyone who uses the word “metacognition” has better than average metacognition.
Yeah I think the “I fucked my step-sister” stuff is a textbook case of overfitting. It may be popular, but it’s being overgeneralized to the point of absurdity. Rather than offering an explicit opt-out, I don’t know why they don’t just tune their underlying algorithms more. Unless incest fantasy really is that popular and people’s revealed preferences are way out of alignment with stated preferences.
I think its the dichotomy of immediate preferences vs long term preferences. This is the same dichotomy that leads “happyness researches” to conclude that having kids makes you unhappy.
They basically tell people to log their life in 15 minute intervals, then rate that activity. Hey, did you like cleaning up shit off your sofa? Did you like listening to your toddler with a fever cry at 2:30 AM? Did you like doing extra laundry? No, no, no.
But ask a parent if they would have gone back in time and not had a kid, and they say no as well.
The immediate preference would be not to deal with the poop, crying, or laundry. The long term preference is to have a rewarding life that includes having a big loving brood.
I think ML taps into the same things, at least right now. All the feedback is short term. Did you click? Did you buy? Did you comment? etc. Nothing is long term. Do you think better of us because we adjudicated our user policy in a transparent manner? Do you think better or worse about our brand after we held a March for Dimes. Those aren’t measured now because 1) they take a long time and 2) they can’t be observed.
So the model is trained on the input that they can get – short term interactions that leave a clear paper trail.
(PS good article, btw)
Thanks, and you’re probably right.
No worries, it’ll all be rectified with more data.
MOAR DAYTUH
How will you properly skew that data to make the point you want?
Oh, that part’s easy.
Actually one of the things that both of you and all of the machine learning field miss is that people do not always value happiness over other things.
For example, my preference is to choose honoring my own moral code over my own happiness. I do not make choices based on what will make me happy, I make choices based on what will allow me to look at my self in the mirror with a clear conscience.
The same comes with children, frankly my experience as a parent has been shit. My kids are for the most part good kids in some ways but 1 has ADHD, 2 have pretty severe mental health issues one of which also has a learning disability which will likely result in her never being able to support herself, and the 4th is young enough that we can’t rule out that she won’t develop some of the same mental health issues her older siblings have as she hits her teenage years. The reality is that even though a huge part of my identity is tied up in being a father it does not make me happy, I just judge it to be worth the cost.
I like when Amazon suggest I buy another of the same idea. Yeah, I need three dining room tables. Good work, Lou.
If Amazon is suggesting something you don’t think you need, maybe it’s you who doesn’t see the big picture.
Don’t believe your lying eyes! Believe the algorithm!
Well amazon did sell me a bunch of plungers…
https://youtu.be/usm7uLCfxdo
I am afraid to know what you Florida types need multiple plungers for.. snakes in the pipes?
The video explains all.
Predictive analytics is all the rage in the business press.
However, as usual, no one wants to do the basics – you need data quality and structure before you can do the analytics. But that’s no fun to talk about or have Ivy League pundits from McKinesy pontificate about.
I’m coming to this from the perspective of having worked at large old school Fortune 100 companies. I’d imagine that data focused companies probably have cleaner and better organized data. But I’d imagine many of you with first hand experience there think differently…
garbage in, garbage out
More often than not you just need some nonsense you can pretend is the data that makes the point you already wanted to make…
“data focused companies probably have cleaner and better organized data”
You’d be surprised how bad it can be.
The biggest problem I see is a company having multiple departments all collecting data using their own schema, platforms and methods. Upper management decides “we need a unified data strategy!”; not in itself a bad idea, especially in a tech company. However, your departments have been fragmented for years with no such strategy and no one wants to change the way they’ve been doing things for years, so people like me end up putting together really kludgey solutions to try and mash the data together in some uniform format.
The latest corporate buzzword is “data lake”; which is a glorified RAID system in which data is dumped wholesale. It’s up to flunkies like myself to write scripts that make sense of it.
Preach, brother. Preach.
For me in financial services – imagine each product is its own fiefdom. It’s crazy how many data silos there are.
Upper management decides “we need a unified data strategy!”; not in itself a bad idea, especially in a tech company. However, your departments have been fragmented for years with no such strategy and no one wants to change the way they’ve been doing things for years, so people like me end up putting together really kludgey solutions to try and mash the data together in some uniform format.
It’s pretty sad. They shunt off the coders and engineers in favor of the management types who “understand how to manage people”. And yet the management types can’t seem to understand that no one is terribly eager to give up control of their own data processes. Yeah, great people management..
Part of people management is to keep the beatings going until morale improves…
I am implementing a unified data strategy for a client. We are dodging the data lake. Believe me, week 10 of “what makes this a unique and quality person and how do we match that to this other system’s people” is not fun. But, its a great opportunity to play with all the new shit in Azure. I’m sure the client is wondering why we’re making this so difficult.
We have a “data lake” and people keep repeating “data lake” like it’s a magic phrase. It’s just a bunch of databases dumped together with shaky keys.
I work for a Lab company – we are more of a loose coalition of companies than a single corporation. It slowly gets better for a while, then we buy or merge with another company and it’s back to chaos.
It’s all about magic phrases and buzzwords. In my organization, the people in the upper echelon are complete morons who just read tech magazines and parrot the cool words they find there and expect their underlings to turn those buzzwords into actionable policy.
I would really like to come up with an excuse to rename “query” as “incantation.”
If we can also break the fingers of people who build Access databases to “solve a problem” rather than bring it up to IT, I’m on board.
I’m with you Brett. Let’s make a real solution.
An Access database that 30+ people are trying to work in is not the solution we need.
As I’ve mentioned to anyone at my work that says “data lake”: there is a lot of shit in lakes.
Yes.
everyone loves data, but almost no one is able to distinguish ‘good data’ from ‘useless data’
“more” /= “better”, iow. What you want ‘more’ of is the stuff that actually feeds into some commerical action
basically, some guy might make 100 google searches a day. many might be idiotic image-searches for memes. those things not only don’t add to any useful-marketing-profile – they fuzzy it and load it full of irrelevant bullshit. at best, you could add them to a category of “very online” people that are the types that post memes on twitter. but so what? unless you’ve got some great data on how that ‘category’ behaves, its useless as a defined cohort
in reality all anyone should want is behavior relevant to *spending money*. Every search i make for a product that actually lines with with purchases i made that year; where did i go when searching for info on that product? what articles did i read about it? what youtube reviews did i watch? Etc.
if you could concentrate that sort of information on buyers in every product category, well that’s some crack-cocaine for marketers. this bullshit about “well what kind of porn do they like” is quite literally “too much information”. You don’t need complete psychological profiles of every individual, you only need general info on what “most likely to purchase”-people are going to read and be influenced by.
“You don’t need complete psychological profiles of every individual, you only need general info on what “most likely to purchase”-people are going to read and be influenced by.”
True, but only if you’re looking to sell them a product. If you’re trying to dominate/control them, a complete profile is pretty useful.
One thing that I run across relatively frequently is using ML for traffic classification in corporate networks. Doing work? Route it one way. Reading Glibs? Route all links through the strictest firewall!
Too much Glibs just causes our servers to catch fire.
Meh, i don’t really think that either.
I’ve done psychographic profiling; what end up being sort-of true for ‘groups’ ends up turning every individual into an exception. you can think you know everything about a person, but it still means zippo into being able to compel them to think a certain way or behave a certain way.
its sort of like the point about the stupid “economics” study i made the other day which tried to correlate “twitter activity” to voting patterns. Only a fraction of the population are even on twitter. and a smaller fraction of those are even regular-users. even if you had total transparently on everyone’s online-behavior, what does it really tell you about people? a fraction of a fraction; it captures proxy behavior which has some marginal usefulness, mainly to ‘selling people stuff’.
Exactly this.
Here is the thing all that data can’t tell you…
Did you click on that link because you loved it or you hated it? They can’t tell that, they also can’t tell whether you came away going “fuck yeah this guy gets it” or saying “this guy might have just reached peak derp” after viewing whatever the contents of the link is.
Predictive analytics can be useful in predicting general trends for groups but no matter how much fancy math you use they are going to be utter shit at evaluating individuals because with the individual your sample size is 1 and you have no control group to compare to.
Yes, basically this.
And what sort of “groups” matter most to people doing the analytics? ONES THAT WILL SPEND MONEY ON STUFF
so the segmentations they do are primarily around spending behavior.
(or what sort of media you consume which you spend most time on which can then be used to advertise to eventually lead to->spending)
no one really cares whether you like asian porn or midget porn; its only whether midget porn might be an indicator that you are 30% more likely to vacation in Tonga; at which point you may get ads from Tonganese Travel Agency.
no one involved in that process cares that its midget porn; it could be “kitten pictures’ for all it matters. its only useful insofar as it links up to some marketable characteristic
I think this is reflected in YouTube’s suggested videos algorithm. You watch a single video made by a flat earther just to laugh at how batshit insane the theory is and suddenly your entire fuckin’ feed is conspiracy this and conspiracy that!
I figure my browsing habits indicate that I am an extremely conflicted cis-hetero social justice patriarchal gender-fluid shitlord.
No.
Oh wait, the iPhone I’m stuck with is the state’s property, and I only use it for conference calls with other state people because something done broke.
Never had an iphone but I did have an IPAD. I literally never used Siri a single time except to try out a couple of the Siri Easter Eggs
I used to regularly ask her what she was wearing on her feet…
I for one think we’re fucked. There’s no way people in power won’t be tempted to abuse this kind of information. In the wrong hands….shudders.
Think Hillary with this kind of knowledge. Scare-reee.
I don’t have to imagine it, Orwell already did.
Honestly, this stuff makes me less scared of Orwell than Huxley.
We could see some kind of combination. Use of technology to anesthetize the population in a hedonistic fugue, but if someone steps out of line, Big Brother comes down hard.
I don’t think you’d really need the naked aggression. If you can successfully forecast the dissenters, you can simply pre-discredit them. Get them labeled crazy or extremist or “the kind of guy who reads Glibertarians” before they even think to dissent and no one will pay much attention to what they say when they do.
Need has nothing to do with it, they oppress because they can.
Sadly true. But, perhaps that sadism is one of the undoings of authoritarianism itself. Bearing fangs reveals them for what they are. Doing so unnecessarily is sub-optimal.
And the UK is working diligently to make it come true, just a couple of decades late.
UK’s obsession with CCTV cameras is chilling, especially with modern image processing algorithms.
Uh, being able to implement SCORPION STARE across 90% of the potential candidates for extra-dimensional infection is a key part of their defense for CODE NIGHTMARE GREEN.
China too.
Lol you mean the algorithms that have proven to be utter shit?
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/05/uk-police-say-92-percent-false-positive-facial-recognition-is-no-big-deal/
Turns out that when it comes to machine learning for facial recognition in order to get any hits you need to make the criteria so loose that you get a huge false positive rate. Turn down the sensitivity to minimize false positives and all of a sudden just changing to a different pair of glasses disguises you from the algorithim.
You mean Clark Kent was really just hiding from the CCTV cameras?
Cell phones sucked when they were first invented too.
Indeed but cell phones are a matter of improving hardware technology and revising the user interface to better meet users expectations and needs, improving facial recognition software is a completely different sort of problem that involves violating an problem of almost quantum levels of complexity.
In essence The more flexible you make your identification algorithm the less likely you are to generate a false negative and the more likely you are to generate a false positive the more rigid you make them the reverse is true. At some point just as with the Heisenberg Uncertainty principal you reach a level where it is impossible to improve your false negative rate without generating as high or higher corresponding increase in your false positive rate.
This makes facial recognition software useful for simplistic identity situations like unlocking your iPhone (the odds that someone who looks enough like you to trick the software will look at your phone is small for anyone who does not have an identical twin and even if they did the risk is not all that great in the grand scheme of things) and situations with very limited data sets (internal employee access to controlled spaces, again the risk that you have 2 similar enough looking employees with different security levels is small) but almost useless for bulk scanning of public spaces because when you are scanning hundreds of thousands of faces a day even a 1 in 100,000 false positive rate is unacceptably high but the false positive rate below that likely is going to decrease the false negative rate to the point where simple disguises will fool the system into triggering a negative
I say we burn all the IT witches!
Typo alert!
First sentence, second paragraph, cannibalizing should have a strikethrough.
DO’H.
Miraculously fixed. Must be an ML algorithm read my mind.
Great article, Q. Nice to know you aren’t just another pretty face.
My buddy is an exec at Target and told me about their snooping program some years ago. I make it a point to take a weird path through the store just to add some noise.
I’m not willing to move to the woods and live like it’s 1856, so I guess I’m fucked. Hopefully my web site visits and search history will confound even the shrewdest miner.
Long term, we are fine. Every technological revolution has resulted in greater prosperity and human ability. Humans have this crazy habit of structuring society in ways that take advantage of new technologies to accentuate the benefits and minimize the risks. The cold war was a 60 years of piece while 2 superpowers pointed nukes at each other, but there was no thermonuclearholocost.
But short turn, things get dicey. If the Cold War is the long term getting settled with our new tools, WWII is what happens when the new tools emerge. No one knows what they can do with their fancy new underwater boats, rockets, radio broadcast media, etc etc etc. But it rips apart existing societal structures and a lot of bad shit happens (not just the rise of the Nazi party, though that’s a pretty big one).
Here too, I think long term we’ll, as a society, mature and develop mature ways to access the benefits of the technology. Short term, we are more like toddlers picking up a knife, completely ignorant of our new tool and likely to make some deep cuts before we know what we are doing.
I like the optimistic take.
I agree that in a strictly free-market sense, it can only improve our lives due to the voluntary nature of the transactions. Where I get jumpy is not only the Surveillance State itself, but collusion (drink!) between Tech Behemoths and the State. It’s already been proven that Google games its results based on the political bend of its employees; again in and of itself, not a bad thing because you can opt out. However, the State supervising that process becomes scary, especially if they’re undermining the free market by forcing all the search engines to do the same thing (not outside the realm of possibility).
People ultimately do have agency to stop participating, but as our lives become more and more dependent on the various Silicon Valley toys, it becomes more and more of a practical impossibility to quit participating, even indirectly.
I do notice a jarring sensation when a site can make use of the user data just fails to.
Take Audible. They’re owned by Amazon. Amazon has a shitton of data on my preferences over the course of more than a decade. Even if you limit the data to just Audible, there is still a pile from what I view, what I preview and what I buy.
But the recommendations don’t use any of that. They are all agregate “Most Wished For” “Popular” and “Prmoted” crap that I have never bought or even clicked on. If they used the data they already have, they would get more sales from me (and probably a lot of other customers). I am not going to buy Madeline Albright’s book, no matter how big a tile it has on the recommendations section of the home page. The fact that my purchase history and wishlist consist of classic murder mysteries and military sci fi should be an easy indicator of that.
I’m not willing to move to the woods and live like it’s 1856, so I guess I’m fucked. Hopefully my web site visits and search history will confound even the shrewdest miner.
The best counter while remaining plugged in is probably to divide one’s activity. I use two separate browsers to visit different websites (due to compatibility issues and adblocking) and have noticed that this has resulted in remarkably different youtube suggested video lists (the browser I use to click on Glibs’ links thinks I’m a very different person than the other browser), so I’d imagine it wouldn’t be too difficult to deliberately scatter your data in such a way that it is difficult to create a true pattern. Buying stuff with cash from time to time would be an offline equivalent.
I’m gonna bookmark this and read it in more detail after work.
Waaaay back in the day (December 2010), senior computer engineering student trshmnstr was approached by his computer networking prof about Christmas break plans. Trashy didn’t have anything planned, so he bit the lure. Turns out networking prof thought trashy would be a good fit for an undergrad research position available working with the machine learning professor. Turns out it was a competitive project with 5 or 6 of the best undergrads assigned different machine learning algorithms. Our job was to create a program running on the prof’s supercomputer cluster using our assigned algorithm to interpret data extracted from short (10-15 second) videos and determine what the person in the video was doing. We were given a list of ~250 verbs and had to match the videos to the verbs.
My neural net came in 2nd or 3rd place, but the hidden Markov model won in a landslide. It was such a good fit that they were able to set up a booth at a conference a year later with a camera and a screen. You could go in front of the screen and do something, and the verb associated with your action would appear in real time.
The tech is awesome, but it’s super creepy, too.
I find the use of predictive analytics annoying as much as frightening. There’s a faith in the resulting predictions that offends me, but I don’t have the intellectual toolkit to deconstruct the analysis that gets done. I feel a lot of the time the mathematicians get their data inputs wrong because they’re monomaniacs who think they’re polymaths. But I can’t prove it and I may just have misunderstood how it all works.
Identifying exotic particles (eg: magnetic monopoles, Q-balls, strangelets, etc.) …
These euphemisms are getting out of hand, Q. We all know what you were really looking at.
Poles, balls, and strange… could he be any clearer?
An interesting and frightening article, but I’m getting stuck on one takeaway… Q clearly sold personal data to the Russians to help hack the election.
So what’s the state of what was, at one time, called the “Napolean Dynamite Problem”. In the really early days, Amazon and Netflix algorithms had trouble with Napolean Dynamite. There didn’t seem to be a good model for predicting whether someone would like it or not, even with lots of data points about what people liked and didn’t like. Is overcoming these sort of difficult to predict things simply a matter of more and more parametric data, or is that an artifact of people being individuals who aren’t 100% predictable?
I have a simple algorithm for that.
Assume no one likes it.
I liked it.
I had people recommend it to me for a long time, so I finally gave it a chance. I hated the movie. I don’t think I even smiled at a single line.
I enjoy bizarre movies like fear and loathing or Harold and Maude
As do I, admittedly more on the sci-fi/horror side of the spectrum. Napolean Dynamite just didn’t grab me.
That’s cause you didn’t have an Uncle Rico in your life…
What’s your feeling on Bringing out the Dead?
I haven’t seen it. Do you recommend?
It definitely falls into the category of bizarre. It’s worth a try.
It is my favorite Monty Python sketch.
Ill add it to the que, Q.
Everybody likes it except me. I turned it into a drinking game, every time the group of people I was watching it laughed–I drank more.
It’s so bad you can’t even hate watch it.
More data is always a good answer, no matter what the problem is. Without knowing the specifics, they probably were running into trouble by pre-classifying movies into subjective genres and then using that as one of the parameters. Genre-defying movies like Napoleon Dynamite (ostensibly a comedy, but not to everyone, and what kind of comedy?) would then be left out in the cold.
The trick would be to eliminate any of that preprocessing which is based on flawed human intervention (stated vs. revealed preference) and just let the algorithm be agnostic to it. Only look at existing and new connections between movies that people watch based on revealed preference. It requires more data, but will give better results. You put things into genres ex post facto.
I put some more variables in my multiple regression. Now the R^2 looks better… 😉
But again, all you know is they watched those movies. You do not know if they actually liked those movies.
I watched Napolean Dynamite but I hated it but all they know about me is that I watched it. On the other hand I never watch a great many movies I have already seen and like or really want to see for any number of reasons. and this is the central flaw in all of these predictive analytics when applied at an individual level. All they know is I took some collection of actions, not why I took them and what the result of my taking them are and they think that because I took the same set of actions I bear some resemblance to others who did the same.
The data is useful in aggregate but can never be meaningful on an individual level
I already have my cabin picked out. It comes with a lifetime supply of tinfoil, too.
That explains your upcoming “business” trip through some of the least populated states in the country. Bringing the tinfoil to the cabin, huh?
Apparently everyone but me wants to see step-siblings and/or step-parents going at it.
When technology comes up with a way to make identical step-siblings, everyone’s dick will explode right there on their crotch.
MMs, strangelets, Q-balls etc.
Axions?
I didn’t work on axions personally, but there was another group that had some simulation packages that considered axions. I think it might have been NYU?
You guys are just making up words now, aren’t you?
I think this is it.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9805288.pdf
I vaguely remember running across this when doing my research and I think one of their candidate particles for UHECRONs was the axion.
The one thing about this is how can you get out of your interest ghetto. Say you have and interest in libertarian politics, your algorithms take note of this but then that’s all you’re going to see unless you make a point to check out differing viewpoints. I see this a reducing the amount of serendipity and exploration. Also say you want to stop doing something or start doing something to make a life change. How quickly do the search move from best desserts to paleo diets for example?
Thanks for the article Q! I’m starting grad school this fall and I’m thinking about a career such as data analysis or quantitative analysis. Any other glibs have similar jobs?
All of them
Nah, I’m useless when it comes to anything involving math.
Arguably useless in anything else, too, but math for sure. I took a stats class for the first time last semester and, while I got a good grade, I always felt like I was trying to fake my way through a conversation in a foreign language.
My 0.02:
Study and master the foundations; all kinds of statistics, not just Bayesian, python and relational and non-relational databases. If you have a handle on that, you can weasel your way into a career doing this stuff. I wouldn’t waste a lot of time trying to chase down the newest or the coolest thing since it’s changing so fast (18 months ago in the eyes of the industry, MapReduce was the be-all end-all, now it’s garbage that’s been supplanted by Spark; you can’t keep up). If you want an easy gateway drug to ML, download Weka. It’s a GUI that has many common algorithms and it makes it easy to input and preprocess data and train some models. It’s actually quite powerful.
Better yet, become a gunsmith and forget that computers exist.
Thanks Q! I’ll check out the software you mentioned.
Gunsmith is a terrible idea. Guns have become so cheap, it’s more economical to throw them away than fix them.
Um….I’ll take your throwaways.
*random cop nods sagely*
Nice try Q but i know you work at Walmart
That’d explain why he posts so much eye bleach.
(Walmart was doing data analytics before it was cool)
^^^This. Much of Walmart’s dominance can be chalked up to operating on razor thin profit margins to keep their prices as low as possible; but the unsung hero of their business model is their logistics. They move products around better and more efficiently to the proper markets better than anyone else (with the likely exception of Amazon, but Walmart was revolutionary for its time). That is a HUGE problem that requires a ton of data. Airlines could learn a lot from Walmart.
Why don’t they? Regulation, protectionism, a penchant for dragging passengers off flights?
Passenger dislike for getting packed into a 2’x2’x3′ box for maximum efficiency.
Roomy. I hear economy has been downsized to 1.5’x1.5’x2′
Yup. I remember reading some time ago that almost 10% of the total improvement in productivity in the 1990s could be attributed in one way or another to Wal-Mart’s adoption of data analytics.
+1 – Also Progressive and GEICO did amazing things for predictive underwriting for personal auto insurance. All while having to navigate the political minefield of what rating variables are politically acceptable.
The major influencer – creditworthiness.
Aren’t there specific lists that each state passes of the factors you can’t consider? Why should it be a minefield?
I heard criminals like to drive Chryslers. Also that people who drive red cars (except station wagons and minivans–this was a long time ago I heard this) speed and get into accidents. And that people who drive Mercurys (this was also a long time ago) are more likely to be Republicans; this was the only make where this was the case even after adjusting for e.g. income, where this was a predictor that nobody could further analyze.
Yes and no. The NAIC (50+ DC state insurance group) puts together some stuff that states agree to adopt. But if I come up with a novel rating variable that I want to use I’m going to have to file that with each state where I intend to use it.
It’s up each state at that point to figure out if it wants to let me use it. And since nobody likes paying more for insurance most state’s will want the underwriter to provide details to demonstrate its predictive ability as well as demonstrate that it doesn’t break any existing laws such as racial discrimination.
Ah so auto insurance law takes a positive rather than a negative approach to regulating discriminatory factors so to speak? Very different from how things usually work in this country, of course. So if I am a landlord determining the risk to my property from a prospective tenant, I can consider any factor I damn well please as long as it isn’t on the FHA shit list or that of local housing discrimination law. Similarly if I am a commercial bank dealing with a loan applicant. But not auto insurance.
You have to disclose every single rating variable with each product for each state for which you do business.
I can’t randomly increase your premium or deny you coverage because I don’t like the name Diego, for example. I can only price or deny based on variables I’ve filed.
Hunh, interesting. So it does turn normal American antidiscrimination law on its head. Makes it seem almost as though the goal might be other than fighting different forms of bigotry (as, for that matter, were the original “public accommodation” law back in England centuries ago).
Do you know what the reasoning for that setup is? Normally, for example, an insurance company would not want to discriminate against someone just because they don’t like his name. If anything insurance is a much more ruthlessly profit-seeking and dispassionate business; you may not want blacks at your supper club or swimming pool but you likely do want to sell them car insurance at a price that will earn you the most money.
Personal lines insurance is a contract of adhesion. I can come up with all kinds of reasons for the state to meddle, but let’s stick with auto insurance. Most states, here is looking at you New Hampshire, require personal auto.
However, if we can statistically show that everyone named Diego has 50% higher accident frequency we’d like to use that as a rating variable. However, there whole towns full of Diegos who the state has mandated must have auto insurance. To get the same return I have to charge the Diegos 2X. The state is going to want to know why I’m charging some folks so much more money otherwise the Diegos will be voting some politicians out of office. The idea is to avoid selective underwriting – the state recognizes the social benefit of insurance, but cut too fine and it can easily be discriminatory.
Now I’m curious about the politics of people who buy Teslas.
+1 libertarian moment
Pro-flame, anti-stop-in-short-distance.
Great article. Thanks for sharing this.
All I’m hearing is that Q is building the foundations for Homeland Security to Skynet all of us. Q must be terminated.
What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.
*le sigh*
I love that one.
The “gorilla warfare” is what does it for me.
“I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it.” LOL
Hey Q, is it possible to confuse the system by doing things which are seemingly contradictory.
I always make sure to look at lots of both bear porn and twink porn. Big Data won’t know what to make of Diego!
Probably. Still, do it enough and a good algorithm will probably find order in intentional disorder. It’s all a question of asymptotic relaxation. I’m not sure any person can be intentionally irrational enough to cause a divergent solution; though that is a very interesting theoretical question. If you do enough crazy stuff, you might make the convergence time longer than your lifespan though. It would probably require a lot of effort.
Where is that gender test Q? Also are there any other ones like it we can take? Still working on chewing through all parts of the post but I love this kind of thing!
I’m not sure it’s still around. You can try going to that website, but to my knowledge they’ve pivoted away from humor and stuff like that to publishing their version of Cliff Notes (Spark Notes).
**rolls 20 sided die to pick porn category**
If you have a d20 to roll, phub already knows you want dragon-on-wizard porn.
“dragon-on-wizard anal porn”
FIFY.
I too, like to mix it up.
I think it’s more important to send data that shows you’re a dangerously unstable person and should be given a wide berth.
Throw in some Elizabeth Warren T-shirts when you order a new holster from Amazon?
You are obviously about to go out to hunt buffalo. Here, have a BOGO coupon for a case of cheap whiskey.
Ahem, firewater.
If you are familiar with the Nolan Chart, try answering every question one way, and then go back and answer all the other way. You’ll end up 5/5 and in the center of the chart. No way that two people with completely contradictory views should be complete centrists.
On nearly all of those (not the ones on nolanchart.com, where I am always a perfect libertarian, or the isidewith.com where I am pretty consistent) I get wildly different results from survey to survey, and even upon taking the same survey on different occasions.
I think the people who get “libertarian” or whatever on the average survey are actually cosmotarians; the real libertarians are weirdos who are so thrown by the premises of the questions that their scores when forced to choose become quite volatile and unpredictable.
Everyone knows the real reason you get into physics is for the pussy anyway
There was that one guy who had a cat…
We can’t be sure about that.
Let’s check, and settle the matter one way or another.
Have RoboCop check.
If you use Sugarfree and Heroic Mulatto as your primary inputs will your code summon Cthulhu?
No, Azathoth.
Thanks Q, this was interesting and scary, but I feel smarter for having read it. Makes me wonder what other treasure troves of knowledge we have around here.
TheSpark also used to have this delightful thing called “The Burn Maker.” You could type out a nice, sweet letter to a customer, or your boss, or your mother-in-law and paste it into the Burn Maker. Your text would come back full of insults. It was delightful.
For anyone interested, Strangelets could be what kills us all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strangelet#Dangers
Micro Black Holes too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_black_hole#Safety_arguments
Namely, they both imply that a computer is learning in the same fashion as a human brain. My preferred moniker is “predictive analytics” since I think it captures reality better and doesn’t overstate what the algorithm is doing to some kind of mind reading and/or Skynet AI.
I’m a rank ignoramus about this stuff, but that sounds like pattern recognition, which I see as an essential, but not definitive, element of “intelligence.
In a nutshell that’s true. The human brain certainly does this all day every day, but the complexities of biological neural networks are far beyond anything we can simulate… for now. It definitely crosses over into philosophy and the “spark of divinity” that Nancy Piglosi is so fond of. What is the underlying prime mover for ideas? At present, no one can say.
Oh she did say that! I just looked it up! Well, it is understandable she would speak of this and preach the Gospel of Matthew; she is a conservative Catholic, as she has described herself.
Do you configure your toilet paper over or under?
Over, as God intended.
Under, because I have a cat.
I have literally never given a second’s thought to it. I grab the toilet paper roll and put it on the roller. I was completely mystified when I learned this was a thing people thought about.
If you’re not with us, you’re our enemy.
I suppose you just put the dishes any old place in the dishwasher too, barbarian.
It’s real.
And the correct way is over.
The correct way is to remove the stupid hanger from the wall and throw it away because it’s never in a good position, and more difficult to tear off the intended amount than a loose roll sitting on the corner of the sink.
He is wise in the ways of TP science. I’ve implemented this solution in the master bathroom, it’s disallowed in the other bathrooms for aesthetic reasons.
That method would result in a soaked roll of toilet paper in my house, as the girlfriend is apparently unable to prevent water from splashing all over any counter near a sink. I don’t even know how she does it. I watched her do dishes one time, turned around to grab a drink, and when I turned back, the counter was soaked.
Legit laughing out loud on that one because my wife is the same way. She gets her makeup all over the sink too.
Women are filthy beasts who attract bears!
I’m convinced my spousal unit was a water buffalo in a previous life.
I read once that a large majority of people go Over. It just proves that most people are stupid.
Mark Rippetoe strongly disagrees with you!
This is outside of the area for which I would regard him as an authority.
Over and put the cover down when you’re done.
Speaking of tp, I replaced the original dispenser with a new two piece one where one side rotates open the other day. So much better than that stupid spring loaded rod that ended up in the toilet more than once (see item B above).
I couldn’t find anything of quality out there, but I did take this and found out I am “gender nonconforming.” DieF/ DasF/ DerF.
I think their algorithm needs a hell of a lot more work.
I got the same result.
Aren’t we all “gender nonconforming” in our own special way?
It said I’m a woman.
If only…
Hmm, starting to make sense when you’d sometimes put on Ms. Pac-Man’s bow for a bit after you ate her. Yeah, dude, we noticed.
“after you ate her”
Gotta make sure she’s satisfied.
Now that I think of it, they don’t seem to be interested in improving the algorithm. I didn’t see a ‘are we correct?’
Perhaps the purpose is a subtle push of an agenda.
“See, even you aren’t sure of yourself, so you should support social justice weenies”
Hmm, a gender-identity push poll!
Which, of course, the Nolan chart is nothing but a push poll for libertarianism. So they’re in good company.
Its a pretty crappy push poll then, I have seen plenty of people end up in the authoritarian quadrant.
Ha! It says I’m a chick!!!!! Total fail!
There is some Uncertainty principle problems with machine learning, measurements screwing up the results. Back when I lived in Louisville, google would give me the travel time to Holy Grale many evenings. Even ones where I had no plans to go to the bar that night. But, it often led to me going there.
That is a great result for advertisers, but not what I want from a traffic app.
Wait…are you using ML to analyze the Glibertariat?
*kicks in drywall l, grabs go bag*
Regarding the state and access to analytics, one research house ran a little experiment to show just how damaging simple information could be in the hands of the anyone, especially the government. They got a bunch of people to voluntarily give up metadata for their phone records — number dialed, length of call, etc. Then they sifted through the data.
They talked about one example of a woman who called her sister a bunch of times with mostly short calls; followed by a couple of quick calls to Planned Parenthood; followed by a several hour call with the sister; followed by a 10 minute call to Planned Parenthood. Then no more calls to the sister for the duration of the study.
They left it up to the reader to figure out the implications of that data.
She was having an incestuous relationship with her sister?
And then found out that Planned Parenthood does not provide IVF treatments.
And metadata is not protected by 4A. Fun, fun, fun.
She was wishing Sis a happy 50th birthday and scheduling her for a mammogram. Planned Parenthood, duh.
1) The woman thought she might be pregnant and was unsure what to do about it
2) The woman thought she might have an STD and was unsure what to do about it
3) The woman thought she might have Breast Cancer and was unsure what to do about it
4) The woman was considering how to get on birth control and was unsure what to do about it
5) The woman was having menstrual issues and was unsure what to do about it
6) The sister thought she might be pregnant and was unsure what to do about it
7) The sister thought she might have an STD and was unsure what to do about it
8) The sister thought she might have Breast Cancer and was unsure what to do about it
9) The sister was considering how to get on birth control and was unsure what to do about it
10) The sister was having menstrual issues and was unsure what to do about it
Replace all of the above with the possibility that they were discussing any of the other issues relevant to some 3rd party as well as the possibility that the the calls to the sister and planned parenthood were unrelated or only tangentially related (for example she makes plans with her sister over the initial short calls to do something, notes it in her calendar and discovers that she has a conflicting appointment scheduled with PP, calls a couple of times to work out a changed date, finds no other dates and times that will work and so cancels the appointment. She calls the sister and they talk for a while and decide to change the plans to something else entirely then finally she calls PP again to reschedule her prior appt)
Admittedly with other metadata they could probably narrow this down but my point is that it is nowhere near as revealing as it looks at first glance
Do you configure your toilet paper over or under?
For a long time, I was blissfully unaware of this controversy, until confronted with life in a house with one of those tp things set into the wall. It’s a whole lot easier to grab when it’s not lying flush with the wall.
It’s the little annoyances that really get to me.
Normally I find a new roll set neatly on the empty roll, still on the dispenser. I’ve pointed out how lazy this is, but I think my family persists for the specific reason that when I find it I am in no position to find them and bother them about it.
Perhaps you should bother them at that moment. Things may change around the house.
I’ll wait for the next time I have Thai noodles.
TL;DR, but I did skim. (I’ll read it all later, I promise!)
I did see your mention of your professional work. Shit like that is really cool. I think (hope) that over the next 20-30 years, we are going to see some mind-blowing improvements in medical care thanks to modern (and future) technological advancements.
Or, maybe it will just be a drip-drip-drip of incremental change that you have to step back one day and say, “damn, look how far we’ve come.” One small such item that comes to mind is digital x-rays. I had my first x-ray in years a few weeks ago and was surprised (in hindsight I probably shouldn’t have been) to see them using digital technology. That technology must, after initial investments, be cheaper than using film. And the minutes saved in getting a usable x-ray could be life saving. Really cool stuff.
Unless, of course, health care is nationalized thus smothering any innovation.
There will be innovation along the lines of;
The algorithm says you are worth more dead then alive. Report to the nearest suicide booth and prepare to have your organs extracted.
We use digital X-ray when there is an incorrect instrument count at the end of surgery. Saves lots of time.
“Well, shit. Does anyone actually want to open this guy back up, or do we leave it there. I mean, it’s not a scalpel.”
Have you been spying on VA operating rooms?
I do not have a spy named stefan acting as an informant within veterans administration surgical theatres.
/oddly specific denial
Good. They’re looking for Russians.
It was a goof!
https://youtu.be/xtcbVUNO1NY
Methheads use digital x-rays??
They found a way to make meth from xray film, but only if it hasn’t been exposed yet. The digital xrays are there to actually get the medical imaging.
Meth ain’t free, player.
One might be tempted to actually put this in the “how it improves your life” column. After all, Target can offer you discounts on things it knows you’ll need and make your life more convenient in the process.
If Target wants to “improve my life” they should start by opening more checkout stands and find some cashiers who aren’t complete morons.
Target? Oh the place that loses credit card numbers. I don’t shop there.
the place that loses credit card numbers.
Cash is king.
*not that I have NEVER used my AmEx card there.
I’m not sure what the man in black has to do with this.
I didn’t see the top line and misread the middle.
Chess King–*not that I have NEVER used my AmEx card there.
Trump pardoned Jack Johnson for his 1912 Mann Act conviction, which is nice, but I’ve never understood the point of posthumous pardons.
Yeah, everyone knows that dead people only vote for Democrats, so restoring his franchise is counterproductive.
Dammit Q
Now he can vote in Chicago!
They’re less trouble than pardoned felons
Shouldn’t do them. Horrible precedent. Why only Jack Johnson? What does it say about the others in similar positions throughout the years?
They should just say, pardons are for the living. When a person dies, the state’s opportunity to do justice by them has been closed. Let it be the state’s permanent shame that it could not do right by Jack Johnson, that it did him a grave injustice.
When a person dies, the state’s opportunity to do justice by them has been closed. Let it be the state’s permanent shame that it could not do right by Jack Johnson, that it did him a grave injustice.
*looks around for the Swiss signal*
What does Swissy think?
He needs to make sure we’re on the same page on which Jack Johnson we’re talking about.
Another alternative.
Yours can’t be pardoned for that.
I had that joke cued up for the Afternoon Links, but something better came along.
I’ll see you in the gulag.
When a person dies, the state’s opportunity to do justice by them has been closed … it did him a grave injustice
Nooooooo!
https://www.mirror.co.uk/lifestyle/health/bad-news-sausage-bacon-booze-12585028
Everything that tastes good and/or gets you drunk gives you cancer apparently.
Today in “sanctimonious twats ruin everything”; I broke down and looked up “THOT” and was rewarded with this glistening turd:
The term itself is of urban origins translates to the acronym “That Hoe Over There.” Unfortunately due to the gender inequality this term has been largely attributed to females however males can also exhibit “thot-like” behavior and should be identified as such.
Another blow for justice and equality has been struck. Yay!
Attributed to, creaded and used by females, who are the number one, two, and three purveyors and consumers of slut-shaming media and gossip.
Do guys slut shame? I don’t really care how many sexual partners other people have, male or female.
Slut shaming among the circles these people run is almost nonexistent. In conservative Christian circles? Sure, you’re essentially priced out of the marriage market if your history includes a large number of sexual partners.
How large? Does she get modifiers like crazy/hot matrix?
Depends. It’s a sticking point for some (usually those who are hot and virgin). It’s less of an issue for others. It’s a 3 dimensional chart for them: hot/crazy/devout (with abstinence being a partial proxy for devotion).
It’s hard to get into more detail because it’s different based on geography, denomination, age, and other factors.
I think age would be a factor. 10 sexual partners at 17 is different than 10 sexual partners at 40.
And 1 sexual partner since age 17 is probably deviant behavior right?
Absolutely. Also, any sort of times away from faith play into it. If somebody was an atheist for a whilein their 20s and racked up a triple digit bed post notch count before converting/returning to faith in their 30s, it would be very different than having such a count because you’re the easy person in the singles group.
Divorce is a complicated factor in the church, but is usually more easily forgiven than putting out before marriage.
Of particular interest… There isn’t much market for crazy in Christian singles circles. They’re not looking for a one night stand or a couple month fling, so the allure of fun sex is more than offset by the daunting prospect of being married to a psycho. Crazy folks tend to stay single or pair off with other crazy folks.
I guess I’m an outlier. I’m an atheist but have had only 2 sexual partners. I never got the appeal of random hookups.
I hear you, FM. I’ve also had limited partners, particularly compared to others in my age/socioeconomic cohort. I had opportunities for a stupid amount of random one-nighters during my Uni days, and never took any of ’em.
‘Course, looking back 35 years later, a number of my cohort have died of AIDS-related illnesses or other outcomes of riskier lifestyles. Sex is awesome, but not worth dying for, IMNSHO.
Yeah, I grew up with enough contact with the church that it was imprinted on me not to do the casual sex thing, even as an agnostic during college. Plenty of opportunity, but not a ton of motivation to act on the casual stuff.
Lol I’m nearly 50, been athiest and polyamorous since I was in my early 20’s and lost my virginity in a 3some yet somehow I have only been with 3 women 2 of whom I have married
Thanks Brooks, you just gave me brain cancer.
Roth.
https://nypost.com/2018/05/23/philip-roths-pitiless-take-on-the-sexual-revolution/
William Roth’s pitiless take on the sexual revolution was that it did a lot of good but should not have given Joe Biden license to keep sniffing his granddaughter’s hair whenever they dropped by.
Holtby has morphed into Donald Sutherland’s character Oddball from Kelly’s Heroes..
https://twitter.com/NBCSCapitals/status/999589223656296454
Can’t you ever say anything righteous?
That’s fucking awesome.
Our lab always has at least one or two very mathematically sharp kids in it, who had a disillusioning experience with machine learning projects. The idea has so much hype, and industrial applications do amazingly well; but from a theoretical point of view, as one of them said to me, “it’s just fitting” and not very weighty or interesting to someone with big math chops.
Our lab works mostly on hopelessly experimental technologies that go nowhere for years at a time — but at least there are wide open directions to explore here in terms of certain kinds of inverse problem theory, certain issues in numerics and PDEs, etc.
Having said all that, I love the dataz and I’m leaving my lab to go be an industry data nerd in San Francisco, this very month. I’ve had it with technologies that go nowhere, as fun as they are.
>“it’s just fitting” and not very weighty or interesting to someone with big math chops.
That sounds like someone with a lot of math chops and not much in the way of engineering chops. I take it he’s never read Vernor Vinge. Or tried to program his own robot from the ground up. If you can get “just fitting” right you’d revolutionize the world.
Point taken, and yes these guys are theoretical physicists or mathematicians, who want to get out into, say, messy real world biomedical applications.
Maybe it clarifies their objections to emphasize that neural nets have something of a “black box” quality, which is often not that satisfying for an engineer to build either. This was also a routine complaint.
Oh, yeah, I get it. There’s the joke about a mathematician, a physicist, and an engineer sharing a joint in their hotel room before bed. Drapes catch fire, the engineer wakes up, says “Shit” fills the ice bucket with water and douses the fire. Burns up, tosses the roach, and goes to bed. physicist wakes up, looks at the burning drapes, does some diff-eq to figure out burn rate, fills the bucket up with 1.263567 liters of water, and douses the drapes. Burns a roach, tosses it, and goes to bed.
Mathematician wakes up, sees the fire, says “I could put that out,” and goes back to bed.
Thanks for this, Q. About a quarter-century ago, I was doing this kind of work (using massive [for then] data hypercubes) to predict what kind of additional service offerings could be sold to existing customers of a well-known Telco. Primarily used logistic regression analysis against million-record-plus customer databases. It worked quite well, and I could see even back then that this was only going to become something that companies would turn to more and more to augment their revenue streams. And of course, over beers after work, my colleagues and I talked about the “other” uses of this type of analysis.
It’s mostly come true. Yikes.
OT Local news — Democratic dude drops out of primary race for govenor, because he is accused of inappropriately touching women. Bigger news — Morgan Freeman is the next in line on the #metoo guillotine.
I would post the first two paragraphs of this on /r/IAmVerySmart, but I since I actually do believe you are who you say you are, and are actually smart, I will not post this there. Also, I like your titty posts.
Good article, Q.
“this site uses cookies”
“privacy policy”
*flips keyboard*
Fucking European Union!!!!!!!!!!111!!!!!
It’s because of Pie isn’t it?
‘Everyone knows the real reason you get into physics is for the pussy.’
So you’re saying every physicists DOESN’T have a Kaley Cuoco look a like living next door itching to jump in the sack with them?! Television lied to me again.
When I was a physics major I couldn’t even get the Mousy looking females in the physics department interested 🙁
Oliver Willis
✔
@owillis
if jack johnson was alive, trump would call him an animal and say he should be executed
2:07 PM – May 24, 2018
I’m still not really sure who Oliver Willis is, but he consistenly makes me laugh. Not intentionally, of course.
This exchange between Conor Friedersdorf (the Atlantic) and Oliver Willis was one of the funnier examples of “Progsplutter” i’ve ever seen. willis just blasts out inanities and Conor is like “explain what that means” and he’s like “PROOF U ARE NAZI IT IS OBVIOUS”
Oliver Willis has been typing on a keyboard connected to the internet since like, the dawn of blogs, and he is probably less likely to say something intelligent 20 years later.
he has had 434k tweets since april 2007
there have been 4000 days since then
over 100 tweets a day for 11 years
Who is this fat black man and why is he famous? He seems unimpressive.
he probably fits in the same category of “psycho people on twitter” that Louise Mench, Eric Garland, and Thomas Wictor occupy.
He’s a former director @ Media Matters, a David Brock outfit; he’s still working for Brock @ Shareblue. it seems to me people associated w/ orgs like that are all leftovers from the collapse of the Clinton-Cartel… basically homeless political hacks, flailing, trying to find some foothold.