Skip to main content

Home/ GAVNet Collaborative Curation/ Group items tagged legislation

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Steve Bosserman

Which is the only country to protect in law the child's right to play? | Aditya Chakrab... - 0 views

www.theguardian.com/...-to-play-wales-law-budget-cuts

wales recreation play children legislation

shared by Steve Bosserman on 24 Aug 18 - No Cached
  • Every Welsh local authority “must secure sufficient play opportunities in its area for children”, according to the measure passed by Cardiff’s parliamentarians in 2010. It is, says Mike Barclay, who used to do Roberts’s job in neighbouring Wrexham, “a beautiful piece of legislation”. It encourages councils to ask children what events and activities they want, and to reflect their desires in annual play action plans. It puts every blueprint for a new housing estate or plan for a bypass under scrutiny for how it will affect children’s play. And it gives play officers like Roberts extra ammo when they need cash to organise aquaslides. It makes Wales the first country in the world to take play seriously.
Steve Bosserman

Realignment and Legitimacy - 1 views

www.nakedcapitalism.com/...pm-water-cooler-6-12-2018.html

shared by Steve Bosserman on 13 Jun 18 - No Cached
  • “The Constitutional Crisis Is Now” [Robert Reich, The American Prospect]. “If [Trump] refuses to accept the results [the 2020] election, as he threatened to do if he lost the 2016 election, he will have to be forcefully removed from office.” This is lunacy. In 2016, liberal Democrats floated the idea that “faithless electors” in the Electoral College should not appoint Trump — based on information from the “intelligence community” that the public was not allowed to see. From that day to this, liberal Democrats haven’t accepted the results of 2016, which is what the “Clinton won the popular vote” amounts to. Is the inability to look in the mirror a 10%-er deformation professionnelle?
  • “The Democratic Party unraveling is not good for America” [Ed Rogers, WaPo]. “The Democratic Party is not functioning as an umbrella organization or even a coalition. Instead, activists from Tom Steyer to George Soros to Planned Parenthood are operating independently*, doing things a political party otherwise would. These independent actors are pushing pet causes. Traditional party building isn’t one of them. Campaign finance reform and communication technologies have empowered wealthy individuals and collateral groups while at the same time inhibiting parties and individual campaigns. I say this not to kick the Democratic Party while it is down but because I believe in the two-party system…. We need reforms that empower parties and candidates and diminish the influence of deep-pocketed plutocrats and narrowly focused interest groups.” Rogers is a veteran of the Reagan and Bush White Houses, but he’s not wrong. NOTE * Maybe. When you start thinking, it’s hard to know where the boundaries of the Democrat Party really are. For example, are journalists who propagate Brock talking points in the party, or not? My instinct is to say that they are, but how is an institution with fluid boundaries like that to be named and categorized? Or how about an organization like Emily’s List, ostensibly independent, but directing donors only to Democrats? (And Donna Shalala, but not Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Or Cynthia Nixon. Or Zephyr Teachout. Really, Emily’s List? Really?)
  • UPDATE “One-time Ohio congressional district candidate arrested while streaming incident live on Facebook” [WHIOTV-7]. This is Sam Ronan, who ran for DNC chair and had good things to say about election rigging. The odd thing about this story, and everything I’ve seen on the Twitter, is that he was arrested at his house, and nobody is saying why the cops were there in the first place. Readers?
  • ...1 more annotation...
  • UPDATE “Maine Supreme Judicial Court rules ranked-choice voting unconstitutional” [Bangor Daily News]. From May, still germane: “In a unanimous, 44-page opinion issued Tuesday, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court’s seven justices agreed with Attorney General Janet Mills, Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap and Republican legislators that the system violates a provision of the Maine Constitution that allows elections to be won by pluralities — and not necessarily majorities — of votes.” The political establishment really, really hates RCV.
  • Bill Fulkerson on 13 Jun 18
     
    "Realignment and Legitimacy "The Constitutional Crisis Is Now" [Robert Reich, The American Prospect]. "If [Trump] refuses to accept the results [the 2020] election, as he threatened to do if he lost the 2016 election, he will have to be forcefully removed from office." This is lunacy. In 2016, liberal Democrats floated the idea that "faithless electors" in the Electoral College should not appoint Trump - based on information from the "intelligence community" that the public was not allowed to see. From that day to this, liberal Democrats haven't accepted the results of 2016, which is what the "Clinton won the popular vote" amounts to. Is the inability to look in the mirror a 10%-er deformation professionnelle? "The Democratic Party unraveling is not good for America" [Ed Rogers, WaPo]. "The Democratic Party is not functioning as an umbrella organization or even a coalition. Instead, activists from Tom Steyer to George Soros to Planned Parenthood are operating independently*, doing things a political party otherwise would. These independent actors are pushing pet causes. Traditional party building isn't one of them. Campaign finance reform and communication technologies have empowered wealthy individuals and collateral groups while at the same time inhibiting parties and individual campaigns. I say this not to kick the Democratic Party while it is down but because I believe in the two-party system…. We need reforms that empower parties and candidates and diminish the influence of deep-pocketed plutocrats and narrowly focused interest groups." Rogers is a veteran of the Reagan and Bush White Houses, but he's not wrong. NOTE * Maybe. When you start thinking, it's hard to know where the boundaries of the Democrat Party really are. For example, are journalists who propagate Brock talking points in the party, or not? My instinct is to say that they are, but how is an institution with fluid boundaries like that to be named and cate
Steve Bosserman

How We Made AI As Racist and Sexist As Humans - 0 views

thewalrus.ca/as-racist-and-sexist-as-humans

artificial intelligence algorithms sexism data mining racism

shared by Steve Bosserman on 25 May 18 - No Cached
  • Artificial intelligence may have cracked the code on certain tasks that typically require human smarts, but in order to learn, these algorithms need vast quantities of data that humans have produced. They hoover up that information, rummage around in search of commonalities and correlations, and then offer a classification or prediction (whether that lesion is cancerous, whether you’ll default on your loan) based on the patterns they detect. Yet they’re only as clever as the data they’re trained on, which means that our limitations—our biases, our blind spots, our inattention—become theirs as well.
  • The majority of AI systems used in commercial applications—the ones that mediate our access to services like jobs, credit, and loans— are proprietary, their algorithms and training data kept hidden from public view. That makes it exceptionally difficult for an individual to interrogate the decisions of a machine or to know when an algorithm, trained on historical examples checkered by human bias, is stacked against them. And forget about trying to prove that AI systems may be violating human rights legislation.
  • Data is essential to the operation of an AI system. And the more complicated the system—the more layers in the neural nets, to translate speech or identify faces or calculate the likelihood someone defaults on a loan—the more data must be collected.
  • ...8 more annotations...
  • But not everyone will be equally represented in that data.
  • And sometimes, even when ample data exists, those who build the training sets don’t take deliberate measures to ensure its diversity
  • The power of the system is its “ability to recognize that correlations occur between gender and professions,” says Kathryn Hume. “The downside is that there’s no intentionality behind the system—it’s just math picking up on correlations. It doesn’t know this is a sensitive issue.” There’s a tension between the futuristic and the archaic at play in this technology. AI is evolving much more rapidly than the data it has to work with, so it’s destined not just to reflect and replicate biases but also to prolong and reinforce them.
  • Accordingly, groups that have been the target of systemic discrimination by institutions that include police forces and courts don’t fare any better when judgment is handed over to a machine.
  • A growing field of research, in fact, now looks to apply algorithmic solutions to the problems of algorithmic bias.
  • Still, algorithmic interventions only do so much; addressing bias also demands diversity in the programmers who are training machines in the first place.
  • A growing awareness of algorithmic bias isn’t only a chance to intervene in our approaches to building AI systems. It’s an opportunity to interrogate why the data we’ve created looks like this and what prejudices continue to shape a society that allows these patterns in the data to emerge.
  • Of course, there’s another solution, elegant in its simplicity and fundamentally fair: get better data.
1 - 7 of 7
Showing 20▼ items per page