Lurker > COVxy

Rolf.

Rolling on the laughing floor.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Defeats the purpose.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Nobody knows. One of the great mysteries of this planet we call Earth.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Tbf, there's also a Kansas City, Kansas, and it's right next to the other Kansas City, iirc.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Tsukasa1891 posted...

Flockaveli posted...

Goku Black.

Lol. Was that edited? If not, there's no way that wasn't intentional.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

What's the best thing about thirty seven year olds?
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Man, you scienced the hell out of that one bro.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Sex chromosomes, it's right there bro. Science!
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Russman posted...

Its purely academic.

lolloololol.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

nicklebro posted...

Oh so it was just a joke, lol what a nice cop out.

It's not a cop out. The argument is still the same. I was simply saying that I didn't need the alternative argument to make my point, that I was simply making fun of you.

nicklebro posted...

ignoring the fact that no one is actually connecting your data to you as person.

As many many dataleaks have shown, companies are shit at deindentifying data, and because of this PII is released all the time under the guise of research.

If I had complete faith that they were actually working with deidentified data, or even better, simply metadata, there's little cause for concern for personal privacy. Then we get into the ethics of all that consequential (which, as I said, we don't even need to get into) shit, like manipulating public opinion using systematic targeting.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

nicklebro posted...

Ok, if you think they're the same, then actually respond to what I said instead of your strawman argument. It shouldn't matter if they're the same.

I mean, my first post was a joke, relating your argument to the identical argument that got relayed over and over when the patriot act was invoked.

The entire point is that people are entitled to their privacy. It doesn't matter if privacy doesn't afford them of anything but psychological security (it does a lot more than that, but we don't even need to argue any further).
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

nicklebro posted...

Lol that's literally a textbook strawman argument. You've replaced my argument with something else that's completely different and then just claimed that they're the same. Textbook strawman argument. If they're the same, then respond to what I said instead of what you said.

Except my argument against it applies to both arguments because...

they are the same!
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

I mean, your argument here is that if it doesn't effect you concretely it doesn't matter. It's literally the same as if you have nothing to hide then you shouldn't care.

But there's something psychologically important about having privacy. And having that privacy nonconsentually erode is aversive.

It doesn't matter if the information isn't of some detriment to me if it gets out. If I thought it was private, I'm going to be affected by discovering it wasn't.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Ah, the good old: "why would anyone value privacy unless they have something to hide?" argument.

Haven't heard this one since 2001.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Humans are natural.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

It's really just whatever unsavory categorization can be levied against the other.

Since homosexuality is now normalized, they've had no choice but to move on.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

I don't think I've been on a family vacation before.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

I remember him furiously posting about how the Clintons called a hit out on Seth Rich.

Iirc, he was convinced that the DNC leak was an inside job. That Seth Rich found out and was assassinated because of it.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Depends entirely on what you mean by use. But even on the most utilitarian of views, no degree is inherently useless.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

teepan95 posted...

Holding a lot of presentations =\= being good at presenting

People are often so set in their (sub-optimal) ways that they refuse to change

Not knowing how to get the software into presenter mode or knowing how to play youtube videos that are embedded into your slides is not "being bad at presenting", it's not knowing how the presentation software works.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Balrog0 posted...

idk that doesn't seem very meaningful to me although it is funny

Idk, seems to indicate that they haven't actually had to use the technology in a long time, meaning they are doing less presenting and more getting presented to.

If you are active in these types of research positions, you are constantly presenting your shit to people.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

Yeah, I believe you work with this stuff and don't just order people around lol.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]

This is a pretty unfunny gimmick account.
---

=E[(x-E[x])(y-E[y])]