And yet Palestine didn't arrest Yahya Sinwar with accordance to ICC arrest warrant for “extermination, murder, taking of hostages, rape and sexual assault in detention”. De jure and De facto are very different things.
> If the sanctioned Israeli politicians and military commanders think those warrants are baseless, why don't they appear before the courts to defend themselves?
Because they aren't under their jurisdiction? Because they might believe the court is biased against them?
> Americans don't seem to understand how the moral character of their politicians and their political system is relentlessly degraded by the so called Israel lobby, or they don't care, or have resigned themselves to it.
> And yet on account of Israel, the US applies these sanctions to judges carrying out the duties lawfully, and somehow they don't see how whimsical, capricious, petty and infantile such decisions are and the poor light they present the US in.
You seems to be confused this is done not for Israel's sake but for USA - they don't want the precedent of non-ICC member's government being judged in ICC to protect themselves.
Are you sure about that? Wikipedia says the following: "
3. Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by Ukraine, the Republic of Belarus, and Kazakhstan of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
4. Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
Both seems to not happen as stipulated.
Edit: I didn't read properly, 4 obviously didn't happen, my bad.
The actual memorandum is shorter than the Wikipedia article about it. The English-language portion is literally only three pages of double spaced text.
I guess you could argue the US is kinda violating 3, since I think the Trump administration tried to ask for future financial reparations in exchange for support during the war. But 4? This isn't a nuclear conflict yet right?
Didn't you read the page? "A venture capital company's fan club. Finance-obsessed man-children making the world worse." A previous version said, "A DDoS made of finance-obsessed man-children and brogrammers."
It also means perpetuating the bias, more men will then apply for the job while maybe some women that could get interested didn't get it shown, reinforcing the already existing issue.
Why do we want to perpetuate biases without a chance to allow it to potentially be corrected?
Only if the advertiser restricts the audience to only men or only women or certain age groups. If there are no such restrictions, the algorithms self-balance over time naturally. But advertisers don't want that, because it makes them waste money, so instead they prefer to manually add targeting segments.
Nope. What you eventually get is women not getting a variety of jobs they could apply to and a death of men in professions that actually need more men (e.g. nurses, teachers etc.)
We already been through this. It's not ancient history
This is exploration vs exploitation dilemma. For example let's say that 10% of ads are thrown randomly, and from these random rolls these patterns are discovered:
> [Denver+<40-50> years+men]: mechanics +10%
> [Denver+<40-50> years+men]: nurse -5%
Then the system can apply these coefficients on 90% of the other traffic.
If you are making 100% exploration (so 100% random), then it means the people are going to miss their relevant job opportunity (having a net negative impact on the society).
Increasing exploration is a solution that would legally actually reduce biases of previouses patterns, but at the cost of less relevant content.
In all cases, if the bias is real, exploration discovers them and the coefficients already naturally adjust.
One exception, advertisers can artificially restrict saying "I want only men between 30-40" in their targeting filters.
Child labor, keeping women uneducated and many other practices were the norm across ancient history. Who are we to question the wisdom of our ancestors.
I'm not using ancient history to justify it. I'm saying it's been around longer than algorithmic advertising. The comment I'm replying to suggested that this was caused by algorithmic advertising, which is a non-sequitur.
It didn't even begin to suggest it was caused by algorithmic advertising.
What it suggested was people to actually learn something about the world around them. Because we literally have jobs that at one point started as diverse/female dominated and then marketed exclusively at males. For example, IT/programming.
Also, a lot of "traditional" roles don't need additional algorithmic biases to stay the same.
A comment asserted that natural evolution of AI algos would result in women getting fewer ads for mechanic jobs, because society has that bias. You responded with:
> Nope. What you eventually get is women not getting a variety of jobs they could apply to and a death of men in professions that actually need more men (e.g. nurses, teachers etc.)
"What you eventually get" suggests that using algorithms leads to gender discrepancies. I'm saying gender discrepancies existed long prior to the algorithms. I'm not saying gender discrepancies are good (although I do think they are inevitable), I'm just saying they are the cause, rather than the effect, of the algorithm.
Ads are built the way they are because they are more effective. This presumably means women would rather be grade school teachers than car mechanics.
Second, some "institute" shouldn't be telling a company or anyone really what it can or can't show on its website. The Internet should remain a free place. If you don't like Facebook, don't use it.
Saves the employer money advertising. So schools save money. Also more realistically due to fixed budgets a school would get better quality staff. A fixed budget might mean previously the ad would be shown to 10 people interested. But if you are forced to show the ads to a bunch of people not interested you might only have it seen by one person interested.
I dont think you understand the implications of banning this. In principle you ban any kind of content recommendation. Reddit, Netflix, YouTube, Twitter, etc.
No? Our society doesn't treat jobs as equally important as all kinds of content. Having rules around content recommendation around jobs is easily doable without banning any kind of content recommendation.
I do understand how recommendation systems work, thank you.
You've written twice in this thread that you'd need to ban any kind of content recommendation system. Is that what you're advocating for? Your comments read to me as the opposite - you're saying that the only way to 100% solve this issue is by banning any recommendation system, so we shouldn't do anything instead.
This is, of course, not how we treat almost any facet of our society. No law covers 100% of cases, yet we're fine implementing new laws if they improve the situation. Why can't we do the same here?
Advertising will simultaneously become a lot more expensive and less effective. The ability of job seekers to find jobs they're willing to apply to will go down.
> At least the local AI features, being able to translate or summarize a page without sending it off to Google, seem like they'd appeal to this crowd the most.
Yes I would like more local translation support! (Faster, better, more languages, sometimes it fails on mobile for unknown reasons). Also Firefox history could use refresh (like suggested here https://community.brave.app/t/improvements-for-browser-histo... and 5 can be AI enhanced)
From Czechia (based on your name)? Why so long?
reply