ethan

If grapes and chocolate are evil I think I’d rather be evil.

This same story was posted yesterday, so I’ll rewrite what I did back then:

Most of this report is patently ridiculous. HRW asked people who follow the HRW social media accounts to please send in perceived instances of censorship they’ve seen for the Palestinian conflict social media, they got about a thousand examples from a self-selecting population, then published a big exposé about it.

There’s no comparative analysis (either quantitative nor qualitative) to whether similar censorship happened for other topics discussed, other viewpoints discussed, or at other times in the past.They allege, for example, that pro-Palestinian posters didn’t have an option to request a review of the takedown. The obvious next step is to contextualize such a claim- is that standard policy? Does it happen when discussing other topics? Is it a bug? How often does it happen? But they don’t seem to want to look into it further, they just allude to some sense of nebulous wrongdoing then move on to the next assertion. Rinse and repeat.

The one part of the report actually grounded in reality (and a discussion that should be had) is how to handle content that runs afoul of standards against positive or neutral portrayal of terrorist organizations, especially concerning those with political wings like the Hamas. It’s an interesting challenge on where to draw the line on what to allow- but blindly presenting a thousand taken down posts like it’s concrete evidence of a global conspiracy isn’t at all productive to that discussion.

Most of this entire report is patently ridiculous. They asked people who follow HRW’s social media to please send them instances of censorship on social media, get about 1,500 random examples from a self-selecting population, then publish a big expose about it.

There’s no intensive comparative analysis (statistical or otherwise) to other topics discussed, other viewpoints discussed, or at other times in the past. They allege, for example, that some people didn’t have an option to request a review of the takedown- is that standard policy? Does it happen in other cases? Is it a bug? They don’t seem to want to look into it further, they just allude to some sense of nebulous wrongdoing then move on to the next assertion. Rinse and repeat.

The one part of the report actually grounded in reality (and a discussion that should be had) is how to handle content that runs afoul of standards against positive portrayal of terrorist organizations with political wings like the PFLP and Hamas. It’s an interesting challenge on where to draw the line on what to allow- but cherry picking a couple thousand taken down posts doesn’t make that discussion any more productive in any way.

Because as it’s currently designed Apple is not handling any of the actual transactions- those are handled by the Payment Service Provider that the merchant is required to provide to be granted Apple’s permission to use the API.

If Apple opened it up to non-Merchants (who don’t come with their own PSP), then Apple would have to act as the PSP which is a much larger headache that they don’t want to deal with.

“Consumer Reports factors build quality issues that require repair into our reliability calculations, but they are not weighted as heavily as more serious problems, such as those with the engine, transmission, or drivetrain.”

I’ll take a guess that this is the source of the weird counterintuitive results. EVs have a bunch of minor QC issues resulting from their comparatively newer and less tested assembly lines, while ICE vehicles have fewer but much more severe issues. Thus they’re rated as more reliable by CR even though the average cost of maintenance is far higher.

I’d be quite curious to know exactly what their weights and standards are for determining repair severity, because their current results don’t line up with any previous direct cost of maintenance studies.