Difference between revisions of "Talk:1390: Research Ethics"
(D'oh!) |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
"Similarly, what the text is saying is we have no right to peer into the algorithms that do that snooping because it belongs to Facebook and it wouldn't be fair to them for us to see it." I think the title text is actually saying the opposite. "it's not like we could just demand to see the code that's <b><i>governing our lives</i></b>". It looks like it's being sarcastic, since anything that runs our lives should be our business by default. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.161|108.162.237.161]] 08:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC) | "Similarly, what the text is saying is we have no right to peer into the algorithms that do that snooping because it belongs to Facebook and it wouldn't be fair to them for us to see it." I think the title text is actually saying the opposite. "it's not like we could just demand to see the code that's <b><i>governing our lives</i></b>". It looks like it's being sarcastic, since anything that runs our lives should be our business by default. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.237.161|108.162.237.161]] 08:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC) | ||
| + | :Then again, it's not really supposed to be governing our lives, is it? Any impact it has your life is because you gave it the permissions and information to do so, which was voluntary (by sharing your selfies and rants under their terms) and not mandated by an overreaching government. I agree that the text is sarcastic, but in a different way than you mentioned. [[Special:Contributions/103.22.201.239|103.22.201.239]] 10:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC) | ||
I was reading the title text to be a reference to open source code and the more zealous belief that ALL code should be open source. Not necessarily making a comment on it, so much as trying to raise the point (almost as a troll) to compare privacy concerns with access to source code.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.91|108.162.216.91]] 08:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC) | I was reading the title text to be a reference to open source code and the more zealous belief that ALL code should be open source. Not necessarily making a comment on it, so much as trying to raise the point (almost as a troll) to compare privacy concerns with access to source code.[[Special:Contributions/108.162.216.91|108.162.216.91]] 08:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC) | ||
I read it and couldn't understand what what she was saying. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.50|108.162.222.50]] 08:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC) | I read it and couldn't understand what what she was saying. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.222.50|108.162.222.50]] 08:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 10:05, 4 July 2014
I was expecting something else for a comic on July 4th. 0100011101100001011011010110010101011010011011110110111001100101 (talk page) 05:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- Not every xkcd fan is from the US, Randall has to keep the comics global.108.162.210.242 06:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
"Randall writes "what" twice, which is a classic optical illusion." So - did it he do this on purpose (I fail to see the connection with the subject), or is it just the explanation of why he missed the typo he made? Jkrstrt (talk) 07:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
It's very deliberate. The illusion demonstrates what the brain chooses not to see. Facebook is making some content not visible to us as an experiment. There really is far less subtext to this than you think there is. There isn't some deep meaning. It was an experiment to see if we would see it. 173.245.56.152 07:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
"Similarly, what the text is saying is we have no right to peer into the algorithms that do that snooping because it belongs to Facebook and it wouldn't be fair to them for us to see it." I think the title text is actually saying the opposite. "it's not like we could just demand to see the code that's governing our lives". It looks like it's being sarcastic, since anything that runs our lives should be our business by default. 108.162.237.161 08:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- Then again, it's not really supposed to be governing our lives, is it? Any impact it has your life is because you gave it the permissions and information to do so, which was voluntary (by sharing your selfies and rants under their terms) and not mandated by an overreaching government. I agree that the text is sarcastic, but in a different way than you mentioned. 103.22.201.239 10:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I was reading the title text to be a reference to open source code and the more zealous belief that ALL code should be open source. Not necessarily making a comment on it, so much as trying to raise the point (almost as a troll) to compare privacy concerns with access to source code.108.162.216.91 08:10, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I read it and couldn't understand what what she was saying. 108.162.222.50 08:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
