I am personally betting 80% of the people that left NYC will be back. Plus a lot more that will move to NYC for the first time.
It sounds great to live in a cottage... but once you realize there's nothing interesting going on there, and you essentially live your life through a screen and a microphone... it's not what most people want long term.
Google just bought (not rent) an extra building for $2B. They said that when they give new hires a choice, NYC ranks #1 in their preference.
I live in NYC and I can tell you there are more people on the streets than pre-covid. And international travel/tourism is just getting started.
I still go to NYC to do inspections and other work-related tasks, and sure, if you're single and coming from the burbs or out of state, it's your adventure to the big city. I suspect those are the Google employees you are referring to, not native NY'ers. I don't think the 80% will be most of those who left, and I don't see the crowds you say you see compared to pre-COVID. MTA ridership is down 40% or more, and there are less cars, so I am not sure about your perception of more people. Although, I said bucolic, I don't mean a satellite dish on top of a cabin far from civilization, although, I did live in East Java, Indonesia for a year where 40% of the homes had dirt floors. I loved it much more than my apartments in NYC. I live in Nyack, NY now, and it has enough to do and see. I also prefer to do physical activities and see some trees, and be able to see starts in the sky than glaring LED screens full of adverts all around me. I had worked at the Brooklyn Museum in 80s and after living in Brooklyn/Manhattan apartments then, the best thing NYC offered me was the skate circle in Central Park during the Summer, but I also found that in my travels to Montreal, Spain, and all other parts of the world including SE China. All the other supposed benefits of museums, theaters, and film were mainly for tourists. Most of the people I grew up with became cops, garbage men, iron workers, criminals, or died. Times Square was not the Disneyland it is today. I actually preferred the more characterful Times Square of the 70s and 80s, and the NYC when crime dropped in the 80s. Me and my pals were hanging in the subway tunnels decades before the hipsters brought all their fluff down there to have impromptu raves in the 2000s, but I don't think that is still happening, although with law enforcement standing down a lot more, it has more potential again. NYC like most places in the world are becoming homogeneous centers of group think and like, mostly due to the pervasiveness of tech, big tech, and corp. cronyism. All my working-class friends are relatively fit, and aside from the crossfit acolytes, office workers and the population in general when you walk the streets of NYC look a lot less fit than I recall from the 1970s to the 1990s. Modern, urban, cube life is not for me.
When corporations hide facts we call them immoral, and when they publish the facts we are scratching our heads?
Facebook does a lot of internal research which to me seems to be coming from a good place. Doing that research carries a lot of risk for them; e.g. the recent 'whistleblowers' mainly leaked that exact research reports. But instead of giving Facebook credit for even doing that, we always take a negative approach.
Note: I don't like facebook, I don't even have a facebook account, but unless we encourage good behavior (even at places we dont' like) how do we expect things to get better?
Yeah I also find it surprising that people are shocked that Facebook have internal studies into e.g. whether instagram causes depression in teenage girls (answer: inconclusive), like they’re a bad company for investigating whether their products have negative effects on people…
Thanks for the article, it was an interesting read, since I was mostly going of the WSJ stuff before.
I nonetheless feel that with social research in the private sector absolute certainty or even studies that would pass peer review are a bit too high of a bar to meet before we can talk about the organisation knowing something. But I guess thats more of a semantic argument.
After reading the NYT article it still seems to me that a more ethical company would have done more to address the probable issues. Meta did very little and seemed to cherrypick the most favourable public studies.
Anyyway, all this doesn't seem suprising or even unusual to me. I generally don't think that we should expect companies to act very ethical. Rather, incentive structures should be created/amended in a way so that purely self interested companies act as if they were ethical.
We are told again and again that correlation is not causation, but we readily ignore this maxim when we are looking for an account that we hope is true. At a time when Facebook is regularly vilified (sometimes deservedly), wanting to believe that its practices have caused teenagers’ mental health to suffer is understandable. But wanting doesn’t make it so.
> We are told again and again that correlation is not causation
I'm beginning to suspect that maybe we're told this too often, so we're starting to take it for granted that correlation can't be causation. But the saying actually only means that correlation is not necessarily causation. Quite often, correlation is actually there because of causation.
The shock comes because it doesn’t fit the narrative that Facebook is all evil, all the time. Nuance, complexity, and evenness are lost on some. No one and nothing is all bad all the time.
The reporting on this study has been terrible. It was a really small study of female teenage Instagram users who reported having various problems. Of them, 13% blamed Instagram for making things worse, which was actually less than the number that said Instagram made things better. And this is all based on self-reported data anyway, so none of us should be taking it very seriously.
Just because you were honest with your partner about cheating on them doesn't mean they have to stay with you. That isn't a mixed message about whether your partner wants to hear the truth or not. You're not being punished for telling the truth about what you did, you're being punished for what you did.
I think you are just missing the backstory. Of course if you are approaching what Facebook does with naivety you end up sounding.. naive.
The whole reason this report was put out by Facebook in the first place is because people used their own tool Crowdtangle to point out how the most popular pages of all were pushing political and medical misinformation to billions and were run by foreign spam mills. So they gutted Crowdtangle and published this report cleansed of any reference to "questionable" pages. But as a previous submission [1] showed, the numbers they state don't add up. And as this submission shows, if you dig into what Facebook wants to tell you is popular, it's all still the most garbage, devoid of value scam content - and it is their algorithm that is promoting it above all.
In hindsight, I can see this quote is generating a lot of discussion about the content reporting, but I intended to focus the latter part of the sentence, which I thought really highlights the ridiculousness of social media.
What if I told you that an adversary can place explosives at different parts of the bridge and set them off to see if the bridge goes down? and they can try over and over again until they succeed once, and then you are screwed.
this is the asymmetric nature of the threat. The governments of the west need to align and go after the offenders or sanction countries that give them refuge. It's impossible for a single company to defend itself against adversaries that can keep trying over and over again with impunity.
The title is misleading and wrong. "AI" from a specific company(Epic) can't detect sepsis. But technology exists from people that known what they are doing, such as Johns Hopkin's spin-off Bayesian [1], and they have been very successful in detecting Sepsis.
That's fair- I've edited the title to make it more specific. I've not come across Bayesian but I'm going to add their research on the site to summarise down the line.
Epic would tell you that they have been very successful in predicting sepsis too. But it's hard to train a model that generalizes to data from other sources (the problem described in the article). How does BH's model work outside Johns Hopkins? That's the real test.
It sounds great to live in a cottage... but once you realize there's nothing interesting going on there, and you essentially live your life through a screen and a microphone... it's not what most people want long term.
Google just bought (not rent) an extra building for $2B. They said that when they give new hires a choice, NYC ranks #1 in their preference.
I live in NYC and I can tell you there are more people on the streets than pre-covid. And international travel/tourism is just getting started.