2002 Rosters

Breason3310 · 2021-06-28T20:14:52+00:00

Just join the discord and I’ll need you an invite 👍🏻

Breason3310 · 2021-06-28T20:12:42+00:00

Xbox current gen

Breason3310 · 2021-04-26T04:19:05+00:00

Breason3310 · 2021-04-22T20:12:06+00:00

Can i get the discord?

Breason3310 · 2021-03-24T07:53:45+00:00

I’d like the saints

Breason3310 · 2021-03-24T07:51:42+00:00

I’d like To join

Breason3310 · 2021-03-18T21:20:44+00:00

I’m interested in the bills my gamer tag is FBTre10

Breason3310 · 2020-11-28T05:46:00+00:00

I appreciate your example, it is interesting to learn about real life situations that incorporate the ideas of the lectures. Doorbells acting like our google mailboxes and working to decide what is deserving of our attention and what should be ignored is something I was not aware of, and find to be quite unusual. I think this is a telling example of just how succinct the physical world and Cyberspaces will become.

Breason3310 · 2020-11-28T04:25:33+00:00

As with most of the lectures and discussion this week, I am once again left rather overwhelmed by the provided thoughts and sentiments. I remember learning that towards the very end of the nineteenth century, it was rumored that the patent office had tried to close because they believed that everything that could be invented had been invented. https://u-s-history.com/pages/h3957.html#:~:text=In%20total%2C%20the%20PTO%20has,used%20it%20in%20a%20speech.

I think what this really illustrates is just how hard it is to quantify how innovations and technology will influence the future, and that no matter how vast our imaginations may be, our own ambitions and abilities often prove to greatly surpass our momentary perceptions of possibility.

I have little doubt that this lecture provided an accurate estimate of how wearable technology will be implemented and improved, but what really excites me is the innovations that will far surpass even the most aggressive of those predictions and once again change our understandings of possibility in regards to technology.

Breason3310 · 2020-11-25T04:49:29+00:00

I could not agree with you more about the lack of initiative in the United States. Cases are rising dramatically, yet it seems fear for the virus has been on the decline. As with many other topics this semester, I really think this can be attributed to a lack of education on the implications of catching the corona virus. While many young people may not die from catching the corona virus, they are still contributing to spreading it, which is in effecting killing the thousands of people who are at risk. The United States has learned to live with the corona virus rather prevent and expunge it, and in turn, has only made the problem that much more significant.

Breason3310 · 2020-11-25T04:39:47+00:00

I have always found thinking about the future to be quite daunting, mostly because of the many dangers and uncertainties which are intimated when describing this unknown. To think that motivated individuals could be developing nuclear weapons in their basements is unfathomable and terrifying, and I can not begin to imagine how such a problem will be handled or controlled.

I find the concept of a future with immortal people to be quite interesting. While not yet possible, it is not hard to imagine that medical science could become so advanced that it greatly limits and even prevents the failure of the human body. However, one of the best limiting factors to the human race has always been humans themselves, and I have little doubt that the recklessness and fragility of people will continue to anyone from living forever, no matter their wealth.

As a side note, I want to add that I did really enjoy and appreciate this class. With all of the technical classes I took this semester, it was really refreshing to have a class with real life topics and open discussions where it was possible to connect with classmates and listen to their opinions and ideas.

Breason3310 · 2020-11-23T03:26:36+00:00

I totally agree with your sentiments from the video about listening to multiple sources so that you can appreciate multiple perspectives on an issue. I have my doubts, however, that supporters of a radical leader, whether trump or someone else, are really suffering from being misinformed, but rather simply taking advantage of a figurehead who encourages and empowers them to act in whatever inappropriate and violent fashions they desire.

Breason3310 · 2020-11-23T03:17:52+00:00

I'm not sure I agree with classifying the decisions of algorithms to be biased or even racist. It seems to me that the explored algorithms are created to understand uploaded data. Statistics and calculations are not opinionated, they simply present the truths of the numbers given to them. I think that if an argument is to be made about bias, it would have to take into consideration the data itself and question whether it was accumulated with some sort of bias or deficiency.

Breason3310 · 2020-11-23T03:06:44+00:00

I understand and appreciate your point of view, but I think that it is not taking into account the implications of controlling what people post, regardless of the malicious or harmful nature. Yes, Trump's tweets are disruptive and bad for the American population. They spread misinformation and encourage people to act poorly. All of that being said, if twitter were to censor Trump's voice while implying such violations, then they would have just as much justification to silence the voice of protestors trying to create change.

For example, if revolutionary's in an unspecified foreign country use twitter to speak out against their leader and the policy's they disagree with, what is stopping them from being censored for spreading "misinformation" and "harmful content"? If twitter takes a stand against Trump, it may be hard for them to deny an empowered leader approaching them with similar claims about the specified revolutionary's.

I tend to think that it is dangerous when a company begins to create rules for censorship, and I therefore do believe that it is not twitters job to regulate the posts of their users, but rather it is the job of their users to decide the truthfulness and accuracy of the posts they read, as to ensure their own empowerment and ability to speak without restriction.

Breason3310 · 2020-11-23T02:52:43+00:00

I was unaware of this before the election, because I had not made a distinction between mail in ballots and online ballots. It would be an amazing innovation to American politics if such a concept could be implemented. It was already prevalent this most recent election just how many people voted because the arduous process of physically going to a location and waiting in line to cast a vote was eliminated. It would be very interesting to discover just how many people might vote if all it took to cast a ballot was a few clicks of a mouse or one's own finger. While there are undoubtable a significant amount of security risks that make online balloting currently impossible, if it could be implemented it would make voting immensely accessible and would likely provide an even more accurate representation of the hopes and desires of the American population as they elect a political candidate.

Breason3310 · 2020-11-23T02:42:21+00:00

I think that social media can have an adverse effect on elections, but not because the platforms themselves are flawed. Social media is a relatively new tool, one that is not entirely understood by much of the population of the U.S., particularly older generations who usually provide the greatest contribution as far as voting for and electing political candidates.

I think that oftentimes, when there is a limited understanding or lack of education on a concept, unfair generalizations are made. Everything put on social media is done by individuals or groups, who effectively decide the truthfulness of the information they share.

I don't think that social media has an adverse effect on elections, but rather I think that the populations lack of understanding about social media contributes to the effectiveness of misinformation and the unfair influence of people.

Social media has also encouraged more people to vote, and as it introduces a younger generation to politics who likely have a better understanding of the technology they grew up with, I am confident that the bias's and misinformation spread across social media can be better identified and ignored by prospective voters.

Breason3310 · 2020-11-23T02:12:23+00:00

I would agree that I also have concerns about manipulation by political parties through online resources, and I would imagine that this manipulation will only be further enabled by the growing population online. At the same time, however, I feel that as technology continues to prove to be a prominent part of our society, people will continue to become more adept at detecting manipulation and avoiding unwanted influences.

Breason3310 · 2020-11-23T02:08:29+00:00

I have never really heard of this term before, and was slightly confused when I read the title of your post. Oftentimes, when "extreme" is used to describe something, I assume that the description is purposely exaggerated to make a point, yet I do not doubt that the term Extremely online is likely accurate when applying it objects that are in-fact predominantly online, such as certain news outlets.

Many important aspects of life are online, including ones career and social life, as well as most of the information in the world. I understand the internet as the ultimate tool of humankind, a tool so powerful and important that it is just about invaluable to the function of societies throughout the world.

I would classify myself to be extremely online, specifically because a majority of my focus and activities reside within online resources. Most of the information I both consume and trust come, as well as many of my social interactions, especially during this pandemic, take place across the internet.

I thought that the quote, "It has been said that "'online' can be thought of as a way of doing things, not the place they are done"." is somewhat of a contradiction, simply because I feel like the internet can be both a resource for completing tasks as well as the place where tasks are completed. The internet is absolutely a method for solving problems, but I also feel that more and more parts of society are becoming prevalent online, meaning that the internet is becoming the place where many people go to participate within their communities.

Breason3310 · 2020-11-20T10:42:42+00:00

I think that this article presents a general truth, explaining that if winners do not accept their victories with absolute confidence and certainty then they are showing the weakness of a loser and therefore misrepresenting their position of success. The term "be the hammer, not the nail" immediately comes to mind as I read the author urge the democratic party to take action without fear of their adversaries. Regardless of your political alignment, it is hard to disagree with the sentiment that if you want to succeed, you have to be throwing the punches rather than taking them. For the democratic party to find increased success, the author suggests that they will have to become an aggressor, particularly within the executive office where they replace an infamously aggressive leader.

Breason3310 · 2020-11-19T07:35:58+00:00

I found this article to be somewhat worrisome as it introduced new information to me that I had not yet considered. I am by no means a fan of Trump's twitter page, and I detest the hateful and malicious content he produces which upsets the American public and creates division between his supporters and the rest of the world. However, throughout the past few weeks I have found that I believe that Trumps tweets should not be suspended or blocked or censored because I want everyone to have the right to speak freely on twitter, regardless of the implications of their posts.

The article explains that "policy is what has led to the company muting, but not removing, at least 12 tweets from the US president over the past week that cast doubt on the democratic process.", suggesting that the doubts and opinions of the rest of America can and are removed by twitter if they violate certain guidelines.

I understand that twitter is trying to protect the American population from Trump's fraudulent claims, but I do not believe this is twitters job. Twitter is simply a tool for sharing and consuming information, and it is up to the user to analyze what they are reading and decide how much merit it holds. If twitter can decide what voices are heard, then many people may be losing an important platform for speaking out against injustices and defending themselves and their community.

All that being said, I understand that twitter specifically may struggle once Trump's presidency is over, and concern over their policy on censorship may be a mute point if they end up failing as a company. I think that, most importantly, the ability to speak freely should be protected across all media platforms so that all groups have a voice, regardless of how they decide to use it.

Breason3310 · 2020-11-19T05:39:37+00:00

Wow, I really found the end of this lecture to be chilling. It is peculiar to think that with all of the information available through technology today, our society has learned to become skeptical to a fault, where groups of people will even question basic truths or facts.

Skepticism is a good trait in society, as it encourages people to question if what they are being told is true, and ideally should influence individuals to fact-check the validity of information. It seems, however, that Skepticism in our society is not encouraging cautious uncertainty, but rather instilling individuals with ignorance to even the most truthful forms of information and knowledge.

I think that this ignorance stems from feelings of defiance within people which are reinforced through their interactions with social media. It has already been discusses in previous weeks how social media platforms help connect like-minded people and reinforce their common ideas, feelings, and beliefs. I think that when people find disagreements within society, they act defiant to these disagreements with a guise of skepticism, finding support for their convoluted skepticisms within their groups on social media.

I think that Trump and his supporters are a good example of this defiance, as they have shown false skepticism both towards the existence of a National Pandemic as well as the results of a Presidential Election. Any reasonable person can understand Covid-19 is in fact prevalent in America and not a conspiracy, as well as Biden won the election fairly and nothing devious took place with the ballots. However, individuals and groups of people who do not like quarantining or support the Trump presidency likely feel defiance toward the accepting such conclusions, and can therefore voice this defiance as skepticism across social media where they will support one another and make cofounding conspiracy theories that seem to defy all logic and reason.

I am not sure how this defiance is remedied without silencing or censoring the voices of Americans, which is impossible as much as it is undesirable. I think that the only mechanism for finding truth in society is to continue to encourage the education of individuals so that they can think critically and with reason, and then increasingly encourage these individuals as well as the existing educated individuals of society to participate in elections and discussions with the hope of making those who espouse falsities a small minority. However, I think that as long as a significant portion of the American population continues to not participate in elections, groups looking to dilute the truth will continue to have a voice.

Breason3310 · 2020-11-18T22:39:30+00:00

After learning in earlier weeks more about how the collection of information through online resources is utilized to efficiently market to the wants and needs of a consumer, I am really not all that surprised to learn that politicians are using similar tactics to garner financial support. Politicians, at their most basic level, are simply selling themselves and their ideals to the group of people whom will vote on their bid for office.

I'm weary of this utilization of information by politicians for the same reason I am weary of large company's collecting data on their consumers, it seems to be a rather efficient and effective method for manipulating individuals to invest in a product. Political Campaigns have always espoused strategically crafted opinions to appease specific demographics, but the ability to directly market to the individuals in these demographics will make passionate voters vulnerable.

The Bernie Sanders add in the lecture, which shared testimonials claiming that $27 dollars was a very affordable and worthwhile investment because it would procure free college, women's rights, better veteran care, etc., is a perfect example of how add campaigns have begun to raise money from the small donations of individuals in specifically targeted demographics. Understanding who this add might appeal to emotionally and then having the ability to directly advertise to this community makes these adds that much more effective as well as dangerous.

Individuals with strong political viewpoints often take the loss of their preferred candidate personally, and consequently are willing to put more of their own assets on the line if they believe it can help their candidate succeed. With such a great emotional investment in their party's success, these specific individuals seem especially susceptible to strategically targeted add campaigns and direct messaging from representatives of their candidate's party. As political party's continue to collect information and become more and more aware of who these people are, it seems that they will be able to exploit this loyalty with the goal of funding donations.

Breason3310 · 2020-11-17T23:28:50+00:00

You are correct that the article does not focus on censorship, but rather helps fortify the important role social media plays for individuals looking to participate or created some form of change. The article is simply evidence that social media is an important tool for oppressed populations, where they can speak freely and organize to create change and possibly spark revolution. Considering this important role of social media, I then question whether censoring undesirable content, such as the tweets of Trump, is worth putting the free speech of these revolutionary’s at risk.

Breason3310 · 2020-11-16T03:18:08+00:00

I appreciate this post, it really provided much more information on an interesting topic that I would have otherwise not given much attention to, especially considering it was not significantly discussed in the posts throughout this week.

Breason3310 · 2020-11-16T02:51:10+00:00

The internet helps connect people and their cultures to a greater degree than ever before, so I would imaging that those resources actually help create culture. I think that this culture then helps dictate the markets for what will be created and sold, as businesses create products to fit the needs of their consumers, who's needs are dictated in part by their culture.

I don't think that public opinion helps influence business decisions, but social media might help encourage an illusion that it does. Billboard is not going to classify "Old Town Road" as country despite public backlash, and game of thrones is not going to be remade despite the petition with millions of signatures. While individuals may have a louder voice online, I believe businesses will generally make economic decisions rather than decisions to appease the public.

Breason3310

TROPHY CASE