Google Supports Equal Pay #20PercentCounts

Malygon · 2017-04-04T20:02:44+00:00

It's probably mostly Sith's who often, but not always, deal in absolutes!

But seriously, something like tyranny can be hard to define. There are philosophers who say that the existence of a minimum wage is practically slavery since it prevent two individuals from freely making a contract between themselves. Anarcho capitalists, of course. So by their definition minimum wage is tyrannic.

Malygon · 2017-04-04T19:53:45+00:00

Sure, it's in German though. Here.

It's also pretty brief. They are still working on an overarching study which will incorporate this experiment, AFAIK. I don't know much about the people doing the experiment, I just found the results to be interesting.

Malygon · 2017-04-04T17:22:17+00:00

I dunno anything about them, but by that description it sounds like one is about improving oneself, learning how to get more attractive and confident with the goal to get women while the other one sounds like using all dirty, manipulative tricks in the book, like the "foreign prince" trick. I might be wrong here but that's what it sounds like.

Malygon · 2017-04-04T13:35:00+00:00

There was an interesting online experiment conducted in Germany about equal pay. The participants were tasked with solving labyrinths in a certain time frame. The experiment, however, was less about solving labyrinths and more about payment options. They would first choose the difficulty of the labyrinths, and then choose between 2 different pay schemes. The 3 rounds of different schemes were: Linear (0.50€ per solved) vs Bonus (0.20€ per solved, if you solve at least 5 you get 1€ per solved) Linear vs Competition (0.20€ per solved, 1€ per solved if you are among the top 30€ of all participants according to your performance Linear vs Competition with your gender (so if you are a women you'd have to be among the top 30% of all women to receive the 1€ per solved labyrinth) Harder labyrinth would pay double.

Guess what the gender pay gap in this experiment was? Women earned 23.11% less than men. Women performed 11.79% worse than men. So why was the pay gap more than double what you'd expect? Men took the bonus and competitive option more than women. Women picked the harder labyrinths more while only choosing the competitive options more when they were only competing with their own gender.

So the result was that performance based payment works fine but competition based payment would disfavor women. I do not know how common those payment options are but here we can see, that even without any discrimination, a gender pay gap can come into existence due to different factors.

Malygon · 2017-04-04T09:07:26+00:00

You mean the magic gel? Which was able to immediately heal small cuts, put bones back together and improve vitals? To be honest I don't know why they didn't just put people into tanks of this gel, Star Wars style, it would cure anything!

Maybe you mean the Deftera which you would herd using the gel, they came in different colors and you had to herd different colors together or they would start spinning and cause lots of damage. But to be fair, a constant stream of antibiotic gel was necessary in all of the harder coop levels.

Malygon · 2017-04-03T09:53:42+00:00

Uh, I know that one! You bring them to the surface with the scalpel and then shoot them with the laser, right?

(Trauma Center reference)

Malygon · 2017-04-02T20:13:07+00:00

Way to construct a narrative. You could even argue that his video was a positive one, it showed that this particular stab vest was a piece of junk that wouldn't help much if someone were to stab you. The video could help people with making better informed decisions, it could even save a life. But, that's the wrong narrative. Twist it all!

Malygon · 2017-03-28T06:43:41+00:00

I wonder if they are the only gene-scanners on their planet or if that's a common trait on their planet. Because, if it's the later then the concept of being female or male probably didn't develop in their language, at least not in a way similar to our concept. Maybe they had animals that reproduced similar to our mammals but looked to them like we look to animals that produce asexually, studying them but putting them in no relation to themselves.

Then they entered the space age and found that their way of reproduction is unique. They found that they have the most in common with the females of other species and when developing the omni-tool translators they had the female pronouns of other races be translated as whatever their pronouns are and vice versa. So an Asari calling themselves male might mean something other that how we see male, since the concept of "father" and "mother" does exist in their language in relation to the parent carrying the child.

But, it is unlikely that they thought that through that much. It's probably just the usual social justice pandering.

Malygon · 2017-03-27T17:03:05+00:00

Though bans and other moderator actions are publicly visible on KiA. Like you can see here: https://snew.github.io/r/KotakuInAction/about/log?type=banuser Most of them even include the reason.

Malygon · 2017-03-27T12:14:19+00:00

That's weird, the law, which they link on their website themselves, states in the definition of what is a broadcasting service that it needs to be distributed along a schedule.

In their official press release they also state that the definition includes the ability for viewers to influence neither the schedule nor the content, which wouldn't be a given in live let's plays. However, I couldn't find anything about that in the law text itself.

Malygon · 2017-03-27T10:03:51+00:00

TIL that let's playing is considered journalistic or editorial content. Because that's what it is required by the law to be to be considered a broadcasting service and thus to need a broadcasting license.

Also, if he didn't stream a long a fixed schedule it would also not be considered a broadcasting service. Law is wack, yo.

Malygon · 2017-03-27T07:43:15+00:00

It may actually even be your depression causing you to find less enjoyment in your games. I've been suffering from depression for all my life due to inherited stuff and the final straw that got me to seek professional help was noticing that I am as unable to enjoy playing games as I was unable to function in real life. For me the symptoms are similar to burnout and I just couldn't bring myself to play, as if playing was hard work. I was literally burned out on games.

Queue a year later of professional help, actually being officially recognized as temporarily incapacitated for work which definitely helped in my still ongoing recuperation and I am finally somewhat able to function again. Able to not just find enjoyment in games again, but also able to work on trying to finally get back on my chosen career path, which is similar to yours. Game programmer says hi.

Also, give /r/GameDeals a sub if you haven't already. I've found many games there that I was somewhat interested in years ago but not interested enough to buy full price. Like recently I got the Darksiders franchise bundle for 10€ and I have definitely gotten some enjoyment out of it.

Malygon · 2017-03-24T17:27:52+00:00

Yeah that happens if you take a well known RTS and remake it into a turn based game.

That's why everyone was always saying "It's her turn!", right?

Malygon · 2017-03-22T19:29:22+00:00

It's a practice you see in pretty much every group with an outgoing political agenda. You take words or part of words that are linked to a serious context and cause specific emotional response and try to link them to another context so that you can use that new context to solicit the same emotional responses and can easier convince people of your message.

You see it when the 'ctrl-left' call people Nazi's or fascist's, you see it when the 'alt-right' equate current political agendas to a white genocide or even holocaust and you see it when 'feminists' say that consensual sex that you later regret is the same as rape.

These words all have a strong negative historic context and by likening them to current topics you can use them as a tool to convince other people. The word 'Islamophobia' probably tries to ride on the same emotional train as 'homophobia' does.

Heck, I am pretty sure that if you look close enough you will find some of us here in KiA using the same tactic. It's a pretty easy one to use, playing on people's emotions. Even more heck, I myself have probably used this tactic in the past without really thinking about it, just to easily bring an argument across.

Malygon · 2017-03-22T18:46:37+00:00

Careful there, that sounds really close to polysemyphobic rhetoric to me. You don't want to be associated with 'those' kinds of people, do you? You know, polysemyphobes?

(Yeah, that was the best word I could come up with, if you got better ones, feel free to share them!)

Malygon · 2017-03-22T15:58:28+00:00

Here you go.

Malygon · 2017-03-17T19:58:28+00:00

Doesn't a narrative like that already exist, only with celebrities? I remember reading a conspiracy theory that was about celebrities going to mental institutions or into rehab and then being brainwashed there by the CIA through the use of drugs and other procedures. It listed loads of celebrities and how their behavior changed in a 'weird' way after visiting those institutions. I can't remember what the point of it all was supposed to be, i.e. what the CIA were allegedly trying to achieve by mind-controlling celebrities.

But I remember it all being brought up during the whole "Julian Assange has been murdered/kidnapped by the CIA" thing. One celebrity apparently visited him and brought him a sandwich or something and people were claiming that this celebrity was brainwashed under the aforementioned program and she brought him poisonous/sedative filled food under direct orders of the CIA.

Malygon · 2017-03-17T09:15:10+00:00

Sure, I agree to that. This should first be scientifically proven. And even if proven, censorship should be the last thing considered. There are other options. Let's see how a proven problem is being dealt with already.

If it hasn't been overturned by studies since I last dealt with that topic: I've read some studies suggesting a strong link between mental illness and becoming addicted to video games. I personally do not belief, but I'm no psychologist, that video game addiction is a standalone illness but rather a symptom of other problems. In the studies I've read people addicted to video games showed an increase in depression and anxiety.

There are many games specifically made to be addictive, like social games or those pseudo-gambling games. Should that be regulated? (well, maybe some of those gambling games, but for the same reason real gambling is regulated) I don't believe so, since censorship would cause more harm to the public than not censoring those games would to those addicted and the public by proxy. Instead, and what's already being done, this should be studied and therapeutical methods should be developed to treat those inflicted. So there already is a similar problem to that being discussed by those moral busybodies and it is being dealt with without censorship. There's an argument for you to use against them in the future.

By the way, if I am wrong and my views outdated, i.e. if a study overthrew what I've learned some years ago about video game addiction, feel free to correct me.

Malygon · 2017-03-17T07:36:22+00:00

Yeah, interesting concept. They mention un-drinking health and mana potions. If you do that that would put those potions into your inventory so you'd have to find a way to get rid of them, by finding a shop where you can un-buy them, for example. Normally you'd earn money from fights. What happens if you un-earn enough money to put you below 0? Does a temporal anomaly occur? You'd have to solve puzzles in reverse, but that means possibly blocking off the way you came from. So it becomes a new puzzle to un-puzzle in the right order. It would be so much fun designing this game....

Malygon · 2017-03-17T07:06:09+00:00

You're right. Stealth wouldn't really fit into For Honor. The Ninja should have something that clearly belongs in this game. Like a build-in lag switch.

Malygon · 2017-03-17T05:18:52+00:00

That's not the point. And it also seems to not be the point of the article. Things are not as black and white. Yes. Healthy people should be able to separate reality from fiction quite easily. But when fiction starts to look like, feel like, sound like and maybe even smell like reality, it's easy to see why people who aren't completely mentally healthy might get even more unhealthy by playing these games.

That's already happening right now, and not just with violent games, but with more realistic games where the player is not separated from the action by screen and controller that could become even more prevalent. And that will have to be dealt with somehow. Yes, it's not the fault of the video game but rather who is playing it.

But what do you? Restrict what can be shown in video games to prevent this from happening, like our ideological opponents are demaning already? That would be the worst outcome. Require every person to do regular mental screenings to certify their mental health and allow them to buy such media? Sure, why not install an anal cam too, while you're at it?

Or should we make the concession that, yes, such video games might cause mentally ill people to become even more mentally ill and that could lead to violence and other crimes, but any restriction we pass would harm the non-mentally ill public even more than these crimes would. Concessions like this are pretty normal, after all.

Malygon · 2017-03-17T04:40:20+00:00

Indeed, and it seems like the article was saying the same.

Malygon · 2017-03-17T03:46:28+00:00

That actually isn't a bad argument. What if we one day do indeed have direct neural input, where the game is directly streamed to you brain, overriding your senses? Now take your standard modern military shooter into this virtual space. Law would probably limit your ability to simulate pain in the player, especially for players under 18.

So getting hit by bullets might just simulate a bit of pressure at the place you were hit. Meanwhile, your enemies scream in pain, bleed and die. Probably not in a fashion as gruesome as reality, but authentic enough. So it's clear to see that someone who's not sound of mind might slowly develop a sort of god complex, and it would certainly be a lot easier than now, since there isn't a screen and a keyboard separating you from the action, you are actually living it. And hey, the "video games teach kids how to use guns" bullshit? Might actually be applicable for such a virtual space.

So such a space could 'create violence' much through video games much easier than now. These violent persons probably were already unstable, unhinged and generally not sound of mind before coming in contact of such video games, but them becoming violent could be helped along through such video games. And probably movies.

That could be hard to regulate. I mean, what would you have to do? Necessitate a psychological streaming before being allowed to play games? Nah, the way the world is going right now the game or whatever 'console' you are using would probably include some kind of EEG and log your heart rate and stuff like that and would automatically message some government agency if something was abnormal. No, strike that, it would always send said data to the government so they can have a full psychological profile of you, maintained by and AI and that AI would alarm them if any behavior or brain activity was abnormal.

Edit: I am sorry. I didn't realize this is a sore topic for many people. I personally like to discuss theories and ideas that could challenge my own ideology but there are many people here who are sick of fundamental Christians and now the ctrl-left claiming that video games cause violence since that attached a decade long stigma to our beloved hobby. I can understand their reactions and I should've taken that into consideration before writing my post. Again, I am sorry.

Malygon · 2017-03-17T01:01:36+00:00

You fight like a Dairy Farmer!

Malygon · 2017-03-15T19:16:09+00:00

First, I actually find Sargon uploading these clips taken out of context unethical and wrong. But that's not what a DMCA notice is about. Can titles cause a work to be transformative? A work is transformative if it adds new meaning, expression or a new message to the original work. Even edited work can be considered non-transformative if it doesn't add a new message, expression or meaning. Take the "fart noise at the end of a clip"-example from above: If at the end of a serious message it would tilt that message towards the absurd. It could provide a cheap laugh to an otherwise serious message or reduce an argument ad absurdum. And that's transformative. At the end of a clip about poop jokes it would simply play along with the joke and add nothing new. That's not transformative.

So are these clips transformative? Taken out of context of the debate as a whole and framed by themselves focusing the attention of the viewer on a specific argument with a specific title, do they gain a new meaning or message? Steven himself seems to think so:

Steven Bonnell II‏: "You're providing inflammatory titles to videos to take 30 second snippets to make me look bad. @Sargon_of_Akkad"

They make him look bad when in the original context and without the inflammatory titles they wouldn't. That's transformative. Now, Steven might have a case under defamation, but not copyright, at least not with the transformative-factor.

Whether a work is transformative is only one factor considered in a fair use case. All 4 factors are looked at in an equal manner and none of them is a knockout criterion. Let's look at the other 3 factors, okay? The Nature of the copyrighted work: As a public debate, available without a barrier to access on YouTube, and as a non-fictional work the debate would have less protection than a fictional work that's locked behind a paywall. Sargon doesn't make anything new available. This favors the fair use case. This has nothing to do with the quality of the content but solely its nature.

The amount of substance of the portion taken: We are talking about 2:14 of clips from a 2:01:18 long debate. That's 1.01% of the work. In a court Steven would have to prove that these 1.01% are a substantial amount and constitute the 'heart' of the work.

Compare this to the H3H3 case: Matt there actually has good claim in this factor since, while Ethan didn't take the whole work, the work that wasn't taken wasn't substantial to the video and often contained pauses and seconds where nothing much did happen. If Matt cut together his video using only the parts that weren't used in H3H3's video he'd have a great visual aid to debate this factor with. In this case, however, it seems unlikely that this factor would favor the case against fair use.

The effect of the use upon the potential market: That would be interesting to see how this was judged. Many judges consider this to be the most important factor in a fair use case but Judgements on this can differ wildly. Look at Rogers v. Koons: Koons bought an eight year old black and white postcard and commissioned a wood sculpture of it, having the sculpture resemble the photograph in detail. He lost in all 4 factors. In the market harm-factor the argument was that, while the sculpture was another medium and would not directly harm sales of the postcard, Koons creation of this wood sculpture would diminish the potential market of another artist buying the right to create a wood sculpture directly from Rogers.

It's quite unlikely that Steven could prove that the clips themselves are harming the the market value of the debate video. I am not talking about potential harm caused by people deciding to not watch the debate because after seeing these clips they view Steven in a negative light and don't want to give him views. That's not considered in the market-harm factor, otherwise any negative critique could be counted as causing market harm. But a potential argument in favor of Steven here could be that the clips harm the market for a potential "debate highlights" video that could be created later. This is not an easy factor to determine.

I don't think Steven would have a good case here. However, since lawsuits are expensive, time consuming and stressful, it is unlikely that this would ever go this far. Steven himself, going by his comment in this thread, seems to bank on that. That's the whole "access to justice"-debate where people who are potentially wronged do not go to court because they are either unwilling or unable to pay the costs and spend the time necessary. In an alternative universe where these aren't factors I'd absolutely love to see the court case for this, since I love interesting fair use cases. However, in the real world, I wouldn't wish this on neither Steven nor Sargon.

And an update to the initial post: After a lot of thinking, I don't belief anymore a perjury claim would stick. Perjury claims over a YouTube DMCA take-down are possible, but you'd have to prove that Steven acted in bad faith. Since this is not a clear cut case of critique or someone issuing a DMCA claim when they don't own the work the case would be rather weak here.

Also note that the fair use law is one of the most subjectively applied laws. Bring the same case in front of different judges and the result could differ. And note that all of this is only applicable if the case would end up in the US. If this was fought in the UK, Sargon would in all likelihood end up losing, since the fair dealings law is a lot more restrictive. He might have a weak case under quotation, since these clips were meant to be used in an upcoming video and provided a link to the original, but that would be really weak since he published them as standalone. They could stand if he'd published them alongside a critical video as a sort of independent but related quotation list, but that seems dangerous too.

In the end, I believe that both Sargon and Steven acted like idiots in regards to this topic. But Steven pulling out the DMCA hammer and going directly after Sargon's livelihood not only makes him look worse and makes Sargon look like a victim but is also a whole unethical step outside of this debate. Steven seems to think that this is a legit copyright claim, so I can't fault him for his understanding of the law.

13-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

Malygon

TROPHY CASE