- 0 Posts
- 4 Comments
psycotica0@lemmy.cato
Technology@lemmy.world•The Economist on using phrenology for hiring and lending decisions: "Some might argue that face-based analysis is more meritocratic" […] "For people without access to credit, that could be a blessing"English
81·1 day ago"Imagine appearing for a job interview and, without saying a single word, being told that you are not getting the role because your face didn’t fit. You would assume discrimination, and might even contemplate litigation. But what if bias was not the reason?
Uh… guys…
Discrimination: the act, practice, or an instance of unfairly treating a person or group differently from other people or groups on a class or categorical basis
Prejudice: an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge
Bias: to give a settled and often prejudiced outlook to
Judging someone’s ability without knowing them, based solely on their appearance, is, like, kinda the definition of bias, discrimination, and prejudice. I think their stupid angle is “it’s not unfair because what if this time it really worked though!” 😅
I know this is the point, but there’s no way this could possibly end up with anything other than a lazily written, comically clichéd, Sci Fi future where there’s an underclass of like “class gammas” who have gamma face, and then the betas that blah blah. Whereas the alphas are the most perfect ughhhhh. It’s not even a huge leap; it’s fucking inevitable. That’s the outcome of this.
I should watch Gattaca again…
psycotica0@lemmy.cato
Technology@lemmy.world•Passkeys Explained: The End of PasswordsEnglish
181·1 day agoTechnically they are the 2fa. The second factor is something you have. I store all my passkeys in my password manager too, so I’m not faulting you, but technically that’s just undoing the second factor, because now my two factors are “two things that are both unlocked by the same one thing I know”. Which is one complicated factor spread across two form fields.
I’m not a climate scientist, but my understanding is that oil is matter that was previously part of the climate cycle that was buried, and thus removed from the wheel.
Then we dug it up and burned it, reintroducing it to the cycle for the first time in many millions of years.
So if we stop emitting now, that would be better than not emitting. Not making things worse is a great start. But I think to “fix” it, we need to spend a boatload of money taking all that extra carbon we spent the last hundred years releasing, and put it back in the ground where we found it. Or a big box, or space, or whatever. It needs to be removed, or else this level is the new normal.