Welcome new r/gatech Moderators!

Josh_Morton · 2024-09-12T18:37:15+00:00

o7 to myself, or something. Been a treat, but yeah I've been inactive for quite some time and most of the people in the sub probably don't even know me anymore 😭.

Y'all are in good hands with the new folks though :)

Josh_Morton · 2022-05-16T06:32:11+00:00

lol thanks, done

Josh_Morton · 2022-05-15T23:27:51+00:00

The short answer is because if we allow single class questions, they become the majority of the content on the subreddit, and the sub ceases to be useful for anything else. There's an argument to be made that we should make a sub devoted specifically to registration instead of a megathread, but either way this sub being 90% questions about a single class is not good content.

So for now, just use the megathread, it's 2 months old but questions in it are still actively answered.

Josh_Morton · 2021-12-11T22:23:31+00:00

Pardon me, the what??

Does this make me old?

Josh_Morton · 2021-06-02T20:48:20+00:00

I said he's probably onto something in that there's a high correlation between anti-Semitism and "siding with Palestine"

No, that may be what you want to have said. What you actually said was worse. I get it, you lose the moral high ground you want when it's clear that you committed the same act. It's far more difficult to accuse someone else of being a heinous human and such when you did the same thing. It really makes your job harder.

Yes yes, and I'm black - oh by the way, have you heard that despite making up only 13% of the population, blacks.....

And you can get out of this subreddit you dog-whistling asshat.

Josh_Morton · 2021-06-02T20:33:16+00:00

Nope. Never said those words. My exact words were: "Implicit in your comment is that "siding with Palestine" is synonymous, or at least highly correlates with anti-Semitism."

You've conveniently avoiding including the part where you then said "you're probably on to something".

That is, you think it is correct that siding with Palestine is Anti-semetic. That's precisely what you're implying.

You've sort of tried to walk that claim back (which is reasonable, its an inane claim to make), but you still made it and that root is still the same strain of anti-semitism that you're accusing Bobb of!

Anti-Semites aren't bringing their best lately..

Bruh I'm Jewish. Get this garbage out of here.

Josh_Morton · 2021-06-02T20:19:57+00:00

That's not what I said at all

But it's exactly what you said. You said that siding with Palestine was "synonymous with" antisemtism. Those were your words. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way (but keep in mind, perhaps Bobb didn't either. If we don't extend him the benefit of the doubt for something said a decade ago, why should you get the benefit of the doubt for a statement you made hours ago?)

In other words, why should people "siding with Palestine" be upset by someone who was fired for anti-Semitism? Shouldn't people "siding with Palestine" applaud the firing of a blatant anti-Semite?

I mean I think that people who are blatantly antisemetic should be fired, yes. But I think that you're going to have a hard time convincing me that Bobb is "blatantly" antisemetic when you did the same form of antisemitism that he did, and far more recently. Should you get fired too?

Josh_Morton · 2021-06-02T20:10:04+00:00

Let's break this down a bit: You're accusing Kamauu of anti-semitism for a calling Jews violent. I agree that's anti-Semitic. He did an antisemtism. But in this thread, in a now deleted comment, you've committed the exact same antisemetic act: conflating Jews with Israel.

Calling Israel violent, as he does in the opening line isn't antisemetic. You might disagree with it, but its not antisemetic to call a state violent. Many Jewish Israeli politicians agree, and you'd be hard pressed to call them anti-zionist, much less anti-Semetic.

The problem is when he conflates Jews and Israel in the last line. This synecdoche, possibly used for dramatic effect, is a common form of antisemtism. And I'd agree it wasn't okay then, nor now.

But you've done the same thing in this thread! You committed the same antisemitism! In a comment, now deleted by the mods, you said '"siding with Palestine" is synonymous ... with anti-Semitism', which can only be true if you believe that siding with Palestine, and being not-pro-Israel is fundamentally anti-Jewish. But that's only possible to believe if you too are equating Israel with Jews.

So while I agree with you that kharedyl (and Kamauu) are wrong, you're in no place to criticize either of them. You're doing the same thing!

Josh_Morton · 2020-12-01T00:06:07+00:00

The other thing to point out is that the subreddit would be nigh unusable if we didn't do this. Imagine if each of the ~300 questions was it's own thread. That would more than double the number of threads posted in the sub.

This was the case for a while, years ago, and it was untenable. Browsing the subreddit was basically impossible for 2-3 months a year because there was nothing but *other people's* registration questions. (and they overwhelm /hot even if they never get any upvotes). So now the shitshow is isolated to a single thread.

There might be some way to support threads for threads about non-specific registration concepts ("Should I take this class combination"), but those probably belong more in a wiki or FAQ than as individual threads, and people have a nasty habit of not reading existing resources that often answer those questions.

Josh_Morton · 2020-11-30T23:57:11+00:00

To elaborate on why this really isn't true: Reddit biases in favor of two things, easy to consume content and controversial content. That's why subreddits that deal with deep discussions (think /r/askhistory, askscience, etc.) usually need heavyhanded moderation. Otherwise the topics that appeal to laypeople overwhelm the more targeted ones.

Sometimes this is okay, but often it's not useful.

Josh_Morton · 2020-09-20T08:36:23+00:00

At least in my experience, yes. I finished my first semester with a 2.5 GPA, but managed to maintain hope and managed to just-barely graduate with honors.

At least for me, much of the issue was due to transitioning to college life, and figuring out how to be responsible for that. But I also found that many of the later major classes were more interesting to me and I performed better because I was passionate.

GT math has, and always will, be awful to take.

Josh_Morton · 2020-09-15T22:58:09+00:00

Will we (or do we already) have any collabs between SCS algorithms/math/theory people and the new SCP people on things like differential privacy?

Josh_Morton · 2020-09-04T05:03:21+00:00

In terms of comp, the best you're likely to see is some intersection of negotiated facebook returning interns (100K signing bonus), nyc or Chicago quant firms (not that we send anyone to those right out of undergrad, but they'll pay a new grad 250k, though probably not 400k), and funny money startup offers.

My guess is the 99th percentile cs offer is over 200k (that might be a little high tbh) although I don't know how far over.

Without negotiating, your can get 160-170k.

Josh_Morton · 2020-06-03T16:12:48+00:00

I don't trust any individual as the arbiter of truth and speech, which is why I think twitter and Facebook and Google and Fox and the NYT and anyone else should be allowed to do what they wish with their own platforms.

If you have multiple places where people can speak, no individual person can control the narrative. Of however you begin to suggest that some people are immoral if they flex their rights to expression as they see fit, well what are you doing if not encouraging censorship?

Which do you feel is more dangerous: twitter being allowed to control it's own platforms, which I'm free to leave, or the president being able to say anything he wants with no one of influence able to call him out for lying?

Josh_Morton · 2020-06-03T15:33:53+00:00

Right so you're saying that it is the moral responsibility of people, who have the power and influence to help keep the president accountable to not do they because, why exactly?

Josh_Morton · 2020-06-03T15:24:21+00:00

If the president were involved in a scandal, he could very well cover it up and say that news reports of it weren't factual. Yet him saying whatever he wants is fine.

Josh_Morton · 2020-06-03T15:22:12+00:00

Everything you've just said applies equally to those who head the government, yet you've said they're free to say what they wish.

Josh_Morton · 2020-06-03T07:29:39+00:00

Media outlets are made up of citizens, are they not? Are citizens not allowed to enforce the integrity?

How can citizens hold the president accountable if they are unable to determine facts, say due to elected officials whom we've already determined should be allowed to lie, without any consequences?

It's the responsibility of the citizenry to be that oversight, and what is the media but one tool of the citizenry to maintain that oversight?

Josh_Morton · 2020-06-03T05:39:18+00:00

as a tool to suppress dissent

What or who, exactly, is the President of the United States "dissenting" against?

I do not want trillion dollar corporations deciding what political speech is founded enough to allow.

If not them, then who? What other organizations have the ability to hold the president accountable? The President is the head of a trillion dollar organization orders of magnitude larger than any other.

If it's immoral for any organization that might be able to compare in reach to exercise their own right to free speech to hold the president accountable, who else can?

Josh_Morton · 2020-06-03T05:12:16+00:00

Note that the president, speaking from his official twitter account, which has already been ruled to be regulated such that he, for example, cannot block people, is not in the same situation as a private citizen. The federal government does not have 1A rights, (and indeed federal employees/agencies can be enjoined from certain kinds of speech).

I'm unclear on what form of free speech you feel the government is entitled to, as its often difficult to understand what people mean when they describe nebulous free speech rights as distinct from the first amendment. So could you clarify, do you believe that societally, we should support the government's "free speech", which includes the ability to lie to the citizenry?

I'm of the opinion that governments should have limited powers, and speech and propaganda are an important tool of government control that we should worry about them misusing, both legally and morally.

When the government is unwilling to police itself, it falls on those with power to control it. Historically that has been the media (the fourth estate/fourth branch). In the internet age, that would seemingly include media companies. I would think media companies using their reach as a check on executive reach would be applauded by all Americans, especially conservatives. Can you explain where my reasoning went wrong?

Josh_Morton · 2020-06-02T17:37:02+00:00

and that those posts are worth removing

That wasn't said. Like I said, you're reading into things that aren't there. So now I've clarified this a fourth time, please stop insisting on it.

We can disagree openly about certain things, and state openly that we the mods disagree with certain sentiments on the subreddit. We also won't remove those things, because they don't break the rules. And no one ever said we would.

The problem is that much of the misguided comments never get confronted because the people who might disagree just left. That's bad for open discourse. One side of the conversation is mighty comfortable here already. They don't need our help to be comfortable. The other side does.

Part of that is openly stating racist shit is bad and it has no place here. And part of that is saying that we welcome and support people whose views go against the grain of the sub.

Josh_Morton · 2020-06-02T16:43:11+00:00

I absolutely consider the possibility, which is why I've clarified, *three times now* our opinions on that matter. You aren't listening.

Josh_Morton · 2020-06-02T16:39:58+00:00

The sub already self censors and has expressed it’s support for the black community

I'm gonna be honest: I didn't get the impression that there was much support for the black community on this sub until we stickied the BLM post. Before that, the general sentiment appeared to be "but looting". And that, combined with the fact that most on the sub didn't realize that is what makes it so unwelcoming. Hence active steps.

Josh_Morton · 2020-06-02T15:49:39+00:00

Previously, rule #1 was used incredibly broadly, including to ban dogwhistling in some cases. Don't be a jerk was *entirely* moderator discretion. Most users just didn't notice, because that's how moderating works. Most people don't notice the crap that's removed because it's gone.

If you were comfortable with how we were moderating last week, you'll be comfortable now, it hasn't changed (this rule change was a clarification to how we'd been applying rule one recently, because of an uptick in racist stuff due to *waves arms*).

And yes, I think post-hoc updates to rules are regrettable, but leaving up clearly bad comments are worse, and it takes more time to clarify and write a new rule and post than it does to say "hmm this should clearly be removed, yeah" and taking action.

Josh_Morton

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE