"...the law cannot be reduced to the fact. Sadly, and in order to
become more effective, but also in order to maintain a certain form of legitimacy,
there is a tendency in law to rely on facts such as they are given, for instance, by
economists, etc. It is becoming very difficult for law to keep its singular modes of
enunciation and verification: the juridical regime of truth has nothing to do with the
algorithmic or statistical regime of truth, or even the regime of truth in physics or in
economics."
The Digital Regime of Truth: From the Algorithmic
Governmentality to a New Rule of Law
This site [1] seems like a great complement to usafacts.org. It's great that these philanthropists are working on solutions to help us understand the empirical results of our policies and politicians.
I wonder about USAFacts. When I checked it out there were a ton of financial figures over a period of decades that didn't seem to be inflation-adjusted, which I think is likely to totally mislead people.
It's possible for an amount to be more in nominal dollars but less in real dollars if you don't adjust for inflation. If you had $20 in 1913 it would be equivalent to having almost 500 bucks today.
Basically, it can look like spending on something has gone way up even if in reality it has gone down.
I think this is perfectly fine if the data just states whether the sums are in adjusted or nominal currency.
Doing the conversion is an elementary school thing. And not even that: just type "1000 dollars in 1947" to Google, and you'll get a number of links that do the conversion.
Sometimes it's the deceptive conversions that are a problem, so keeping in nominal sums helps with data integrity.
Firstly, they don't clearly explain that the figures aren't inflation-adjusted. You have to surmise that. And we're talking about line graphs. I think you are seriously overestimating the number of people who will think to do the conversion and follow through, rather than just looking at the general direction of the chart and a few figures.
I am not sure what you mean when you say that "sometimes deceptive conversions are the problem," but in my view there isn't much reason to produce a line graph for something like average salary over time or average social spending over time as a line graph without inflation-adjusted figures unless you either are ignorant of the issues with such data or intend to mislead people (and indeed such graphs are quite misleading since the numbers go up but not apace with inflation). I can't see much legitimate interest in such a graph.
> you mean when you say that "sometimes deceptive conversions are the problem,
I mean conversions where the index for conversion is chosen deceptively. The general inflation index is almost always at least tolerable, but occasionally the conversions use some other price index that produces more dramatic and politically desired results.
I think it's better to just have the historical numbers. That way you can adjust as you wish, rather than having to try and figure out whether their adjustment makes sense or not. Raw numbers in this case leaves the politics to you rather than putting them there for you.
Punishment is always counter-productive to correct the behavior of people who are "drowning": addicts, members of the under-class, children who've yet to fully mature (brain is still developing until 25 years), etc.
Careful, "developing" is very much a weasel word in these contexts. Brains are "developing" until death. That's very much their purpose: to change as a function of input.
Also, "punishment" is a bit of a weasel word in this context. It's quite clear that some form of punishment is instrumental in the proper development of the brain, especially with regards to social norm. This holds even with people in the depths of despair.
The issue is about whether we're actually punishing in a constructive way, and whether we're simultaneously extending a helping hand.
Like the OP who claims that all punishment is problematic?
>how is this anything other than empty?
As you so astutely observed, I have nothing of substance to add to that part of the discussion.
Where I do have something of substance to add is with respect to an oft-repeated factual error about brain development, and a broader misconception about the problems involved in punitive measurements.
For someone worried about pedantry, you sure seem to be splitting hairs.
> In case I wasn't clear: I think any sensible policy has to include punitive measures, along with adequate support.
What sort of punitive measure is appropriate to use on someone whose doctor turned her into an alcoholic? What sort of punitive measures are appropriate for use on depressed people?
"Sensible policy" would acknowledge that prison usually makes people's actual behavioral problems worse.
Nothing you wrote before this suggests any agreement. I believe you actually are in a fair degree of agreement now, but your approach to communication didn't convey that and you should review it if you intend to be constructive.
Thank you for posting this. Considering just Louisiana has the highest incarceration rate ON EARTH, we in the US have a long way to go to reform our criminal justice system.
While I tend to start at the CATO blog I usually end up one of the sites they point too. Libertarian sites like CATO have always been interested in the abuse and injustice of the system. I know there are some knee jerk not fans of CATO but you really are missing out.
even reason.com is good for much. still it comes down to reading all sides and you will see a common theme even they are coming at it from different directions. the thing to remember is government segregate us more than anyone else and politicians play off the fears of one group versus another to perpetuate the system.
I like Cato because while they're libertarian they're also sincere, ie they also stand up and take lumps for an open-borders immigration policy and call out institutional racism and so on.
Most libertarian sites and writers, though, just offer anti-government claptrap on top of some shallow tropes of rugged individualism. If you want to find out how serious a libertarian is, make them tell you how they'd deal with the problem of crime, using real-world examples of vulnerable people and populations.
I'm in favor of governance that maximises liberty, as outlined in the Declaration of Independence. People who say they want to abolish government are either living in a fantasy world or aim to set up an autocratic government of their own, sometimes both.
to me, the fact that david plouffe is working with zuckerberg removes an doubt (if there was any to begin with) that mark is going to run for president. he will be close to macron's age in 2020, though still younger. shares are trading at 25 cents on the dollar in a market predicting his presidential run: https://www.predictit.org/Contract/5534/Will-Facebook's-Mark...
just sitting here thinking about him, im kinda torn. my first thought is that he is too young, and has too narrow a breadth of experience. it will be interesting to see how macron fares in france, maybe useful as a point of comparison. zuckerberg is utterly uncharismatic, which i think is a plus- it helps refocus things on issues and ideas and not personality. he is also competent, and not a criminal, or criminally intentioned as far as i can tell. i havent paid very close attention to him though, does it seem like he gives alot of thought to morality and justice? and, of course, it also seems very dangerous to give someone the presidency who controls so much of the media.
i will say that the prospect of having a president with an intimate understanding of software dev would be great for modernizing lots of the agencies, which would really help i think.
what do you guys think? i hadn't really thought about it too hard till now, but its obviously going to happen, so better to opine before the spin machines get going.
edit: the replies here are totally kneejerk and thoughtless. it reminds me of how people seem react to anything new. i dont really give a shit about the guy but given that its a real possibility, its worth talking about, unless you think our current political state is good and we dont need to do anything.
That's ridiculous. He'd be more accountable in office than he is as CEO of the world's largest country. I mean, be skeptical of it by all means but banning people from running is just foolish.
He has a tool to gauge and manipulate public perception, like the current generation of political elite can only dream of.
He can push any agenda he wants and have it delivered in just the right way to get the public to agree. You want a dude with that power to also be given executive control of the country?
what is the correct answer? I think it's self-evident that Facebook has become a kind of mass propaganda tool the likes of which the world has never seen before. Do you think a constitutional republic can survive as a republic if we allow the owners of a media platform that powerful to enter politics?
this is a legitimate threat and its one of my biggest misgivings with him. and i dont think its realistic to think that any kind of blind trust / divestment / change in ownership would sufficiently address it. its actually almost disqualifying to me. he doesn't strike me as someone who would use it nefariously, but its stupid not to protect against that.
It's unlikely that he'll be able to have political control and still retain control of FB. Possible, of course, but given the current administration's deliberate attempts to wreck ethical norms I suspect that over the next decade we'll either see a transition to a different form of governance or a much firmer and stricter codification of the distinction between public and private life.
do i think tech scions and the like make the best presidents? no. but what you are proposing is neither possible to implement, nor defensible. im sure you have some thoughts on why you dont want those people running for office, why not share those.
Not OP, but if anything what I would like is to prevent those with corporations or large companies from being in office or limited power / huge oversight to prevent bias/favor towards propelling themselves (their company / corp) further than their competition instead of focusing on our society and selves as a whole.
Why? How can it be worse than Trump, or a career politician? I don't see how Zuck has any worse flaws than they do, but he might be in a better position to actually understand the electorate and the modern world.
Not Zuckerburg specifically, I was answering How can it be worse than Trump, or a career politician? as a general question. What could be worse than Trump? A competent version.
I think Zuckerburg probably has a lot more decency than Trump. Even so, I'm not worried about Zuckerburg as a political candidate, it'll take him succeeding at it for me to believe it is possible.
how can you be so sure after what just happened in 2016? that was the "showing anyone can win" event su generis. trump winning makes zuckerberg winning infinitely more realistic to me.
pretty sure a year ago you wouldn't have given trump much of a chance. i feel more qualified to say that than average because i've followed political futures markets for about 10 years, and watched as people consistently do what i suspect you are doing. when you follow / invest in the markets you are forced to translate your vague guesses into real records of your estimated probability at the time. it keeps you much more honest. you'll find its harder to mistakenly see unpredictable events as obvious after they happen, since you were trying to predict them before they happened.
also, its occasionally a valuable reference when talking politics, for instance: comey was fired and lots of people tried to say this was normal and expected, but there was a market that had being fbi director on 6/30 at 95%. pretty much throws cold water on that theory. not that it was anything other than an obvious deflection to begin with, but still kind of interesting.
i encourage you to follow the political futures markets, its a worthwhile endeavor. predictit.com is the standard now that intrade died. my apologies if you are actually speaking from some greater experience though.
A lack of charisma might be desirable in an elected official but it is a huge problem for a candidate.
I also wonder why you think that a President understanding software would be especially important in reforming an agency; the actual day to day of implementing reform via software seems pretty delegable.
yea i agree about candidate. but maybe after this last cycle people's thoughts have started to change.
a president understanding software would make things like the botched heathcare.gov rollout less likely, and would help set the agenda for which things to work on. it also means that when you delegate, you are better able to decide who to delegate to. there are so many shitty contracting companies that you wouldn't know to avoid unless you understood the industry i think.
You make it seem like a Zuckerberg presidency will be anything different from a token Democrat/Republican/Celebrity candidate. They all follow the same rules of increasing military spending and increasing the gap between rich and poor. Zuck will campaign on xyz, and < 100 days later, maintain the status quo.
they're not all the same but s/he is correct to note that every president capitulates to the demands of the military-industrial complex and the finance-capitalist agenda.
I would say since JFK, they all have pledged allegiance to the Military Industrial Complex. Even with Trump, I had some faith based on his mentions of real issues like heroin abuse, but something changed him.. Made him fall in line.
I think what "made him fall in line" is the senate and House of Representatives, along with the courts to a lesser extent.
The fact is while the president may be an honest man, it matters very little because the real change happens among the hundreds of legislators who make the laws. Many of them are bought, and even a perfectly intentioned president must compromise with their interests if he wants to get anything done
I can't help but assume Zuckerberg's motive for supporting this has nothing to do with helping society, and everything to do with helping himself and his future campaign (and distracting people from Facebook's role in Trump's election).
Very few people are saints but if the data is useful or interesting then I don't really care. I think probably most philanthropists have some motives besides altruism.
I'd prefer credit be given to the people actually doing the work. I think it's an insult to the people at Measures for Justice for Zuckerberg to be absorbing positive PR for their work.
The credit was given to Amy Bach repeatedly throughout the article, I'm not sure how you missed that.
One of the many funding organizations happens to be funded by Mark Zuckerberg which makes for interest catching headlines but they're certainly not alone in funding the project.
>Bach’s work has attracted the attention of the tech industry’s increasingly activist leadership. Earlier this year, Google.org awarded Measures for Justice a $1.5 million grant. Today, Mark Zuckerberg’s Chan Zuckerberg Initiative announced it is giving $6.5 million to the non-profit to help it expand into California.
We should. You can give someone credit for "pr_philanthropy" without giving them credit for "philanthropy". They still did a thing, and as people, they're allowed to do a thing for multiple reasons.
(Each of us are vast, and contain multitudes. We do not need to be self-consistent.)
I think it's very reasonable to care. Motivations matter because they are more predictive of future behavior than just about anything else we might learn about a person.
Is it possible to suss out another person's motivations in our current political media climate? Was it ever possible to truly find out motivations that weren't mostly projections of the voters and media types?
My belief is a strong "no" to both of those questions. (I don't even think that I understand my own motivations very well, and am much more hesitant to ascribe behavior to what 'motivates' other people.)
People who are trying to pay attention to what goes on around them.
When something happens, you look for the causes and motivations. If you just focus on the event itself, you have a much narrower understanding of how to anticipate or prevent such an event in the future
Nobody was implying that the Measures for Justice project wasn't useful. I was only questioning Zuckerberg's motives for supporting it, and the media giving him credit.
This is interesting. I hope they are developing a standardized format (XML?) in which all local courts could publish their records. Rolling out such a system would be difficult.
XML? It's not very hard to parse texts for the necessarily present section titles. Codification of legalese and logical formulas on the other hand would not really be facilitated by xml, unless I miss something because I never used it.
this work was well underway before zuckerberg got involved yet the headline implies (suggests?) that it happened _because_ of zuckerberg.
i'm torn; it smacks of getting your name associated with something good after it gets off the ground but it is allowing something good to continue. reminds me of VC funding mentality...
Kudos to the court clerks who are making the public data available. So refreshing.
On the other hand, in Massachusetts, progressive in so many ways, the clerks treat court databases as proprietary and unavailable to be copied. And the data on the criminal side, practically under lock and key. It's a big impediment even to getting started examining the nuts and bolts of the justice system as this project has done.
73 comments
[ 0.28 ms ] story [ 116 ms ] threadThe Digital Regime of Truth: From the Algorithmic Governmentality to a New Rule of Law
https://iainmait.land/pdf/Rouvroy-Stiegler.pdf
[1] https://measuresforjustice.org/portal/
Basically, it can look like spending on something has gone way up even if in reality it has gone down.
Doing the conversion is an elementary school thing. And not even that: just type "1000 dollars in 1947" to Google, and you'll get a number of links that do the conversion.
Sometimes it's the deceptive conversions that are a problem, so keeping in nominal sums helps with data integrity.
Firstly, they don't clearly explain that the figures aren't inflation-adjusted. You have to surmise that. And we're talking about line graphs. I think you are seriously overestimating the number of people who will think to do the conversion and follow through, rather than just looking at the general direction of the chart and a few figures.
I am not sure what you mean when you say that "sometimes deceptive conversions are the problem," but in my view there isn't much reason to produce a line graph for something like average salary over time or average social spending over time as a line graph without inflation-adjusted figures unless you either are ignorant of the issues with such data or intend to mislead people (and indeed such graphs are quite misleading since the numbers go up but not apace with inflation). I can't see much legitimate interest in such a graph.
I mean conversions where the index for conversion is chosen deceptively. The general inflation index is almost always at least tolerable, but occasionally the conversions use some other price index that produces more dramatic and politically desired results.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13286085
Punishment is always counter-productive to correct the behavior of people who are "drowning": addicts, members of the under-class, children who've yet to fully mature (brain is still developing until 25 years), etc.
Careful, "developing" is very much a weasel word in these contexts. Brains are "developing" until death. That's very much their purpose: to change as a function of input.
Also, "punishment" is a bit of a weasel word in this context. It's quite clear that some form of punishment is instrumental in the proper development of the brain, especially with regards to social norm. This holds even with people in the depths of despair.
The issue is about whether we're actually punishing in a constructive way, and whether we're simultaneously extending a helping hand.
In case I wasn't clear: I think any sensible policy has to include punitive measures, along with adequate support.
Like the OP who claims that all punishment is problematic?
>how is this anything other than empty?
As you so astutely observed, I have nothing of substance to add to that part of the discussion.
Where I do have something of substance to add is with respect to an oft-repeated factual error about brain development, and a broader misconception about the problems involved in punitive measurements.
For someone worried about pedantry, you sure seem to be splitting hairs.
What sort of punitive measure is appropriate to use on someone whose doctor turned her into an alcoholic? What sort of punitive measures are appropriate for use on depressed people?
"Sensible policy" would acknowledge that prison usually makes people's actual behavioral problems worse.
Indeed.
Prison is not the only form of punishment, and indeed it is not the most effective (in a large, if not overwhelming, majority of cases).
I think if you stopped and caught your breath, you'd realize we're mostly in agreement.
to summarize our times the simple comic on this page illustrates how the system can threaten everyone https://www.cato.org/blog/when-our-rights-become-crimes
even reason.com is good for much. still it comes down to reading all sides and you will see a common theme even they are coming at it from different directions. the thing to remember is government segregate us more than anyone else and politicians play off the fears of one group versus another to perpetuate the system.
Favorite site for police issue and how preposterous the system is. https://www.policemisconduct.net/
Most libertarian sites and writers, though, just offer anti-government claptrap on top of some shallow tropes of rugged individualism. If you want to find out how serious a libertarian is, make them tell you how they'd deal with the problem of crime, using real-world examples of vulnerable people and populations.
I'm in favor of governance that maximises liberty, as outlined in the Declaration of Independence. People who say they want to abolish government are either living in a fantasy world or aim to set up an autocratic government of their own, sometimes both.
just sitting here thinking about him, im kinda torn. my first thought is that he is too young, and has too narrow a breadth of experience. it will be interesting to see how macron fares in france, maybe useful as a point of comparison. zuckerberg is utterly uncharismatic, which i think is a plus- it helps refocus things on issues and ideas and not personality. he is also competent, and not a criminal, or criminally intentioned as far as i can tell. i havent paid very close attention to him though, does it seem like he gives alot of thought to morality and justice? and, of course, it also seems very dangerous to give someone the presidency who controls so much of the media.
i will say that the prospect of having a president with an intimate understanding of software dev would be great for modernizing lots of the agencies, which would really help i think.
what do you guys think? i hadn't really thought about it too hard till now, but its obviously going to happen, so better to opine before the spin machines get going.
edit: the replies here are totally kneejerk and thoughtless. it reminds me of how people seem react to anything new. i dont really give a shit about the guy but given that its a real possibility, its worth talking about, unless you think our current political state is good and we dont need to do anything.
He can push any agenda he wants and have it delivered in just the right way to get the public to agree. You want a dude with that power to also be given executive control of the country?
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/white-house-attempts-to-block-of...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/10/eric-trump-nepoti...
If so, I can see why you wouldn't want him as president.
I think Zuckerburg probably has a lot more decency than Trump. Even so, I'm not worried about Zuckerburg as a political candidate, it'll take him succeeding at it for me to believe it is possible.
Zuckerburg is not really that well known and as you say, not very charismatic.
I certainly agree that dark horse candidates can come out of nowhere, I just don't think that Zuckerburg is one of them.
also, its occasionally a valuable reference when talking politics, for instance: comey was fired and lots of people tried to say this was normal and expected, but there was a market that had being fbi director on 6/30 at 95%. pretty much throws cold water on that theory. not that it was anything other than an obvious deflection to begin with, but still kind of interesting.
i encourage you to follow the political futures markets, its a worthwhile endeavor. predictit.com is the standard now that intrade died. my apologies if you are actually speaking from some greater experience though.
What is it you think I'm doing?
I didn't really think Trump would get the R nomination, that's true. I don't see how that informs the comparison to Zuckerburg.
I also wonder why you think that a President understanding software would be especially important in reforming an agency; the actual day to day of implementing reform via software seems pretty delegable.
a president understanding software would make things like the botched heathcare.gov rollout less likely, and would help set the agenda for which things to work on. it also means that when you delegate, you are better able to decide who to delegate to. there are so many shitty contracting companies that you wouldn't know to avoid unless you understood the industry i think.
The fact is while the president may be an honest man, it matters very little because the real change happens among the hundreds of legislators who make the laws. Many of them are bought, and even a perfectly intentioned president must compromise with their interests if he wants to get anything done
Of course, he was reviled for doing so.
No, not from what I can see.
I don't think we should be giving people credit for PR "philanthropy".
One of the many funding organizations happens to be funded by Mark Zuckerberg which makes for interest catching headlines but they're certainly not alone in funding the project.
https://www.measuresforjustice.org/about/overview/
>Bach’s work has attracted the attention of the tech industry’s increasingly activist leadership. Earlier this year, Google.org awarded Measures for Justice a $1.5 million grant. Today, Mark Zuckerberg’s Chan Zuckerberg Initiative announced it is giving $6.5 million to the non-profit to help it expand into California.
(Each of us are vast, and contain multitudes. We do not need to be self-consistent.)
You are such a poser mom.
My belief is a strong "no" to both of those questions. (I don't even think that I understand my own motivations very well, and am much more hesitant to ascribe behavior to what 'motivates' other people.)
When something happens, you look for the causes and motivations. If you just focus on the event itself, you have a much narrower understanding of how to anticipate or prevent such an event in the future
i'm torn; it smacks of getting your name associated with something good after it gets off the ground but it is allowing something good to continue. reminds me of VC funding mentality...
On the other hand, in Massachusetts, progressive in so many ways, the clerks treat court databases as proprietary and unavailable to be copied. And the data on the criminal side, practically under lock and key. It's a big impediment even to getting started examining the nuts and bolts of the justice system as this project has done.