721300+ entries in 0.467s
kakobrekla: rithm, yeah, although i fixed
the parsing side, its not gonna work because it would break
the simplicity of
the design, so nick around if you wanna dick around
dexX7: the
tool used was
https://gephi.org/ which allows
to import simple csvs but it's really slow for large datasets (or i simply don't know how
to use it properly which is not unlikely :)
dexX7: only
the assbot/#ba users
artifexd: dexX7: Did you visualize
the entire wot?
gribble: Your GPG session has been
terminated.
artifexd: Interestingly, wrt anduck, he has a
total of -69.
There are 7 -10 ratings
that are CLEARLY from
the same person.
rithm: BUT I HAVE
TO CHANGE NICKS FOR
THAT
artifexd: mircea_popescu: When asking about
the visual
tool, I meant for
the whole wot. Specifically
to identify islands, groups, etc.
mircea_popescu: artifexd actually
the controlling example is... anduck himself has a
total negaitve
artifexd: I would argue
that
the fact
that it exists at all encourages
the improper use of
the wot.
bounce: if it's well over 10 or -10
that's a clear indication it wasn't by just one rating either
bounce: the fact
that it exists at all is an interesting datum, inasmuch it doesn't say "not rated yet"
artifexd: When I said "look at
the sum", I meant look at
the single number which is
the sum of all ratings.
bounce: sure you can. "person has been rated N
times, some positive, some negative." -- negative ratings might well be
the more interesting
to read.
artifexd: Does anyone know of any wot visualization
tools? I imagine something like bubbles with names and
the lines connecting
those bubbles are colored/weighted according
to
the rating.
artifexd: Exactly. So you can't just look at
the sum of
the ratings and learn anything useful.
artifexd: I would see such a rating as reflecting positively on
the ratee.
artifexd: Imagine you had a negative rating from mtgox with
the comment "TROLL!!!!!!"
artifexd: Sometimes a negative rating would be a good
thing depending on who it came from.
artifexd: cgcardona_: I wouldn't worry about
total wot rating since it is a meaningless number.
gribble: Rating entry successful. Your rating for user danielpbarron has changed from 1
to 1.
ozbot: 13 Hilarious and Sexist Dating
Tips From 1938. - Imgur
BingoBoingo: mircea_popescu: I dunno why
the dude reverts
to assuming personal attacks other
than maybe
the one sided blindess impressed upon
the legal profession.
bounce: so, google
translate work better straight
to english or via french or/and latin first?
mircea_popescu: sadly
this has
to start by my
translating
three older romanian articles, but c'est la vie.
mircea_popescu: mkay, so i'm writing a seminal, major and epic work called "a complete
theory of economics".
bounce: the end result
to
that would still be subjective. someone else might well feel a different way.
mircea_popescu: so numbers are your standard of objectivity, but
then when i ask you <mircea_popescu> are you using "subjectivity" merely
to note
the fact
that
the numeric method does not apply ? you say no.
bounce: eh, I
think we're past
that. I can put
three lava lamps on a
table and count
them. you'll count
three
too. no feels or beliefs involved. even if our counting system is ultimately arbitrary in it existence
mircea_popescu: you seem
to be roughly in
the position of
the slave who says his master's will is divine in nature, because it's outside of his reach.
mircea_popescu: but you need a judgement call for
the
tape measure
to exist in
the first place.
bounce: both're objective; I don't need a judgement call here, I look at
the
tape measure.
mircea_popescu: god help us if our opinions of
these subjectives do not agree.
mircea_popescu: your "done corectly" is
there precisely because you
too know
this :
mircea_popescu: <bounce> an objective measure? a metre, standard
the world over. < 1 ; <bounce> whether I
take a
tape measure
to $derp or you do it, when done correctly we both will conclude
the guy's length
to be $whatever. < 2
mircea_popescu: both of
these "objectively" examples you provide strictly adhere
to your definition of subjectivity,
mircea_popescu: this is more akin
to you using inches and me using cm.
bounce: we could devise a "standard" scoring
test for WOT ratings and still draw differing conclusions based on what we see
bounce: whether I
take a
tape measure
to $derp or you do it, when done correctly we both will conclude
the guy's length
to be $whatever.
that'd be objective. we both look at his WOT ratings, we might well draw different conclusions on
the same data.
bounce: an objective measure? a metre, standard
the world over.
bounce: WOT ratings can well mean different
things
to you and me.
they're not even ment
to be used "objectively", ie in a manner independent of people's opinions.
mircea_popescu: are you using "subjectivity" merely
to note
the fact
that
the numeric method does not apply ?
bounce: you could still
try and
throw statistics at it, but
that doesn't change
the underlying subjectivity
bounce: what I mean is
that even if
the outcome is roughly
the same for different onlookers,
their conclusions are (supposedly)
their own; like how you notice
that
there's no intl. standard of interpreting ratings. nor should
there be.
mircea_popescu: if he looked
to do what he felt like it could have been subjective, as a proxy for aesthetic i guess.
mircea_popescu: so inasmuch as good is done,
this is optimal not subjective.
bounce: "subjective" as every user of
the wot looking
to form an opinion on some other user of
the wot does so as he deems good, mayhaps
taking into account
that raters will also use
their own criteria
to rate with.
mircea_popescu: if it's
the kneejerk "not usg diddled"
then might as well discard it.
bounce: also more or less saved me having
to do a write-up
bounce: and every user has a differend yardstick, making
the whole
thing subjective
to use.
mircea_popescu: understanding rather
than esteem.
the people you've dealt with are marks you may be recognised by.
bounce: anyway, "good wot relations" means
that you've met and dealt with a number of other people, and gathered
their esteem, and in doing so gathered a
total esteem enough
to be deemed worthy of
the community as a whole.
bounce: oh well. AIUI paradise lost would beg
to differ. haven't gotten around
to actually reading
the
thing.
bounce: you're saying
the poor devil is unoriginal?
mircea_popescu: god'd like
to. but
tis impossible, inasmuch as
the devil is human, and god is not
that good.
mircea_popescu: if god actually knew every
thought of
the devil, he'd have not been surprised.
bounce: (yet god knows every
thought of
the devil's, and being a good little god... lets him be?)
bounce: I'm not disagreeing with what you're
trying
to say, just
that
the
terminology could stand improvement.
mircea_popescu: the criteria is good wot relations, not "knowing
their every
thought"
bounce: no. hence
the conflation.
bounce: that's be implied
through "total non-anonymity"
though
mircea_popescu: nobody requires
to know his every move or
thought in any sense.
bounce: s/back it up/&, show he has such a
team/ etc. bit forgetful with
the details
today
bounce: guy posing as "CEO" claiming
to have lots of minions needs a good
team. since claim made, up
to him
to back it up.
that's not quite
the same as requiring
to know his every move or his every
thought.
mircea_popescu: because someone somewhere in a bureaucracy figured it's a good idea
to fucking industrialise research.
mircea_popescu: "Now academics learn
to
take a paper or a class of papers, imitate
the style,
the organization; copy
the phraseology, discuss
the historical literature and find some wrinkle on
the problem
that makes it look like a contribution.
This is what
tends
to be published, and
this is what seems
to be "original". And
these works never survive
the author."
mircea_popescu: bounce actually, misplaced shards of anonimity ruin personhood. which is why i keep having
to ask derps posing as ceos here "who's we".
bounce: disagree. it'd mean
that
the only good person be a
totally non-anonymous person, so, real personhood is only open
to, say, obama. or dubya.
davout: speaking of which i'm on way
to pop
the second bottle, please disregard all my further comments
mircea_popescu: now,
this does not reduce
to "liquor being strong ENOUGH"
davout: bounce:
the way i understand
the argument is
that ownership is akin
to
the state of an electron, until you observe it exists in a superposition of states, it can only have a state when you observe it
mircea_popescu: let's
try a different
tack. you know what a cog is. you also know what a sphere is.
bounce: when's
the liquour strong enough? well, if it's over $strength. something like
that.
bounce: or sides. you can discern both states, even if
the distance between
them is infinitesmal and only exists as an idea
to boot
bounce: you still end up with
two ends of a stick. "person", "not a person"
bounce: we're measuring
the quality. when is someone a person? whether
the scale is actually countable is immaterial.
mircea_popescu: yardstick is a matter of measuring, and
thus relegated
to quantitative discussions. we're discussing qualitative matters here.
bounce: anyway
that doesn't help much, since "distinguishing from
the others" implies a yardstick,
that in
turn is a choice bound by context
mircea_popescu: bounce fun fact...
that yielded romanian prosop, which means...
towel.
bounce: ``In ancient Rome,
the word "persona" (Latin) or "prosopon" ([...]: Greek) originally referred
to
the masks worn by actors on stage.'' --wikipedia
mircea_popescu: davout everythint
that matters is only what COULD BE HAD knowledge of.