Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

> it's hard to find enough clear data to take a side.

It's really not.



sort by: page size:

> Not saying its a bad idea, but I'm still struggling to see the full logic of it.

You don't have to see the full logic of it! There's data collected and analyzed by people who have studied the problem!


> I agree, but at least the data is out there.

Not in every country...


> from a position that is fundamentally wrong

I’m baffled how asking for data is revealing my position?

I had the hope that your position is well founded and it would be easy to point to actual data.

I hardly believe that the compliance laws are not accompanied by studies that collect the data that i asked for. So it should be out there.


>>> based on an analysis of all the publicly available data This aim is not as ambitious as it sounds, because there is not a great deal of data publicly available.

Amusing and revealing at the same time. Bet they did not take long to agree on that senrence


>Not a whole lot of thought went into the validity of the data or its analysis.

They may not be able to analyze the data themselves, but there are third party companies which have the expertise to make something of that data.


> Correct, it's just more apparent in the information age, when the raw data can sometimes be found and the bias shown.

Of course, data scientists have their political opinions as well. As do journalists deciding which data to publicize.

https://xkcd.com/882/


> People are getting confused and that's a problem.

Let's see the data.


> I don't have the data to back this up

Then you're not going to be very convincing. Especially when you're being compared to the EAs.


> There's a time and place for humane arguments and, in the absence of complete "data" (whatever THAT means), that may be all you have.

I'm trying to be charitable here, but it's difficult not to conclude that you're setting up the data as never being sufficient e.g. "whatever THAT means" in order to support humane arguments over data based arguments.


>They're honestly trying to do the right thing and simply went overboard with collecting too much data.

I agree with the mission. Just not with their methods.


> The data does not speak at all.

What data are you referencing? I'm drawing conclusions based on data I have but I don't think you work for the same company as me so I'm not sure how you can speak to confidently about how wrong I am.


> Why are stats like that not shared? That seems like very valuable information.

Because it's only 163, and data of an unknown quality.


> You'll have therefore to bring some data to the table to persuade anyone here.

www.newsbusters.org Help yourself.


> I'd even say that even collecting this data is wrong

Without this data they can't tell what's worth making and what's not worth making.


> Sometimes its easier not to share.

I don't agree with this premise. It's quite easy to share "we have data that suggests that this is the case", even if you don't divulge fully what that data is.

A decision where it's clear that some analysis has gone into it (even if you disagree with the outcome) is always going to be more accepted than a decision that seems completely arbitrary / driven by politics.

It seems that developers / ICs are asked to justify everything they do with data - making decisions from the gut is the privilege of the executive.


>This means I oftentimes find myself looking at the raw numbers of, say, gun deaths or immigration numbers, etc.

Data is meaningless without context and context is inevitably political and subject to bias.


> why didn’t those idiots use this unverifiable data I disapprove of?

> Something isn't adding up

It's bullshit at best.

If we assume they aren't lying, which is generous given their track record, it could be that they provide the tools and infrastructure to collect the data, but don't instruct the software to collect the data. Sort of like if I had a loaded gun and told you I would point and shoot it where you told me to, and then argued that I didn't technically make the decision. It's technically true and complete bullshit.


> I disagree, the data exists, this is fundamental, we are not going towards data impoverishment, we are necessarily living in an environment rich with data. I rather have accurate data by far.

It may be an inexorable trend, but for the time being, individuals and organizations generally have a choice about the amount of data they collect.

next

Legal | privacy