Reaction to are bots entitled to freedom of speech?

Here is the prefacing article:

Are bots entitled to freedom of speech?

First amendment wording, of course, makes vague construed meaning of speech though it is probably more clearly implied communication.   

The answer to the question is yes, probably, bots could potentially be safeguarded as having protected forms of speech since neither does the amendment differentiate really who is doing the speaking.  That is speech could be individuals, groups of individuals, institutions, businesses, and have multiple authors.  Secondly, even if parsing the difference between human and non human in such distinction, the embedded authorship and protections of this, could be construed as protected as well, could it not?  The amendment again does not make distinction between whether such speech originates from human or not, nor distinction given to citizenship or anything else.  The amendment in the most abstract form reads to protect speech.  

Now online speech on private servers may have limitations as given by the distinction of public and private places.  Technically any twitter bot, could be banned (as has happened) even if the originating speech was technically coded by a human author...in other words, even if the authorship of such speech were ruled human, still limitations of speech in private spaces apply.  

Businesses are likewise curtailed even in public forums the right of speech in so far as advertising (signage space and format, for instance), and thus even so time restrictions could apply to say bot advertising spam in public spaces in the future as given by any locality (or broader) laws passed.  

Whether you like the bot, because it truly cares or misrepresents itself as human, for instance, is irrelevant in view of the law.  This doesn't mean, of course, that online the bot always has protected speech.  Obviously, twitter banned a number of bots on its servers,, and has its own reason to do so, most excepting those alt right people having lost a number of 'friend' voices might complain.  Other than they, whether bots have freedom of speech is probably irrelevant to issues of bot communication and handling of other issues...why need to pass laws in the first place in other words with respect to curtailing bot speech?

As it has been suggested in article that bots and 'fake news' going hand in hand have played a role in offering much 'misleading content'.  That being said, and not equally applicable to groups of individuals or governments in the past having done much the same.  Bots may serve in automation being able to scale volume of information but in many respects are as good (at present) as the human programmers that have conceived of manners in which to manipulate people.  Secondly, all the tools for scaled dissemination of 'misleading news' exists as easily for people.  I raise the point: what is the distinction between task automation and 'bots'? In this sense, I would ask what delineates tools of scale and automation relative to a bot having performed such tasks excepting that a human was required to do multiples of such task relative to having instructed a bot to perform all of these, nonetheless, by degrees of difference, task automation were involved in either process.  In other words, if the 'bot' writes the email as a well as compiling the mass mailing of deception, relative to the human that task wise does the same thing, only not having the bot at his or her disposal, what makes one so different relative another? The tools of task automation (email address lists),  and so forth, are still there...is such task automation worthy of the characteristic 'bot' and in the descriptive of censorship not protected speech when it is used and employed?  This indicates only the legal and logical problems of parsing distinctions of 'bot' if any such definition is construed for the purposes of law making legality of speech.  It is, perhaps, not only cumbersome but potentially absurd and labyrinthine. 

Perhaps, the future looks different in this respect, if machine learning systems have 'learned' better ways in deceiving people, and there is an unwillingness to tackle systemic issues in this respect. 

Musk and social site for ranking news articles

https://www.vox.com/2018/5/24/17389388/elon-musk-twitter-pravda

Article starts off with Musk doesn't understand how journalism work.  Doesn't?
A rant?  President spends most of his day Twittering and Musk five minutes differentiates less a rant and being unhinged? 

I hadn't followed another article's rants on freedom of the press, or how consent drive media otherwise, in a 'free country' has amounted so much to the culmination of what we have today.  Musk isn't responsible for the erosion of media outlets (such as the Denver Post given all of its layoffs) and that a major hedge fund (outside of Musk's control) would be engaged in all the cost cutting that effectively makes parts of media merely outlets of topically surface reporting, or for that are more likely to be silenced.   

Musk does, however, raise important points regarding 'fake news' especially when its used in connection with popular social media sites like Facebook.  In an age, where consumer advertising is driven to pushing hyperbolic reinforcement of personal subjectivity.  'Fake news' has been akin to provisioning a false social reality and social manipulation at that. 

Finally the article's red herring is laid that Musk is offering a smoke screen...hmm...as though categorically effort and attention is focused to things that Musk should be paying attention...exempting that the oval office does precisely this sort of thing repeatedly more often that many in politics have simply stopped responding.

Facebook is now being pressed for misuse of consumer data as well as its role related to 'fake news'.  Google has lost (for its ad sense) major sponsors for provisioning alt-right content that such sponsor weren't interested in endorsing or having wanted affiliation.  More so if Musk's ideas were employed in a way effectively so as to limit the influence of false social biasing, we might have at times better picture of how people nationally or world wide felt about any number of media articles, and in some ways, we might see, how the alt-right were given all the power of distorting an image to make it appear as being far more popular and accessible than it really were.  Trump could hardly stand the reality  (that were allegedly 'fakes') of the inauguration crowd images, or that his lead weren't as commanding as a hoped for a country so swept about by Trump's vision.  A perfect storm of social media culture has, of course, complimented Trump and his entourage, and only the usual consent of authoritative press making has been relied upon here in combating Trump.

As to other matters....

Apparently Grimes related to Musk in a intellectually curious way that sparked some dating interests, or so what...sounds pretty normal to me.  The other half of media doesn't get smart people relating to one another beyond something saccharine being involved.  Musk couldn't be more perfect for Grimes...given anagrams and all... :)

Into the cosmos

 
    The dawn of space faring era has already begun but it is predictable in many ways.
It is one given to consideration to cost, economy, and scale.  Much as any exploration of the world in the past were considered by commission and anything else making lucrative the possibility of an endeavor, exploration likely wouldn't have taken place for itself alone.  That is, without any number of purpose, and gain for economy in store.
 Applications for low and high Earth orbit are commonplace.  A manned moon landing, on the other hand, would be quite limited in duration and scope for all the extensive preparations made, scientific purpose were attached, of course, to these missions.  If  given to political and social ramifications, all set to notion of 'just because'.  On the other hand, such missions have not been repeated.  If it weren't merely to the cost exorbitance, the possibility of failure also popping a big sword, anything practical to come of future missions should be as ill fated as lunar colonies and giant spoke and hub (gravity simulating) lunar space wheels.  Energy expense for planetary terrestrial ascent has and will continue to be a likely daunting challenge well into the future.  It isn't just that Earth's gravity happens to be likely on the size scale of planets modest, or even its atmosphere representing another part of this challenge.  Classical mechanics about biology always place constraints on accelerated forces involved.  The classical chemical rocket expends momentum change with enough ease.  Imagine the momentary energy needed to in one burst.  For instance, if having devised a slingshot to hurtle something into space,  formidable air friction threatening any hurtled vessel since it isn't the sort of energy that is just mach 2 or 3 but in the double digit range (that is red hot energy for air friction), and thus the problem of launching things into space a merely conservative path problem.  Air friction is certainly part of this problem, and as much as imagining escape velocity having taking limits to infinity in such problem might entail all the necessary energy to do what is required to get a vessel away from any planet, and that even where gravity is sensed considerably weaker above...it is always necessary to expend energy to ensure that such vessel (via centripetal acceleration) isn't also pulled back to Earth.  Fortunately, this expense in a rarefied environment means that air friction isn't so much the problem, and that such fuel also applies much more in return relative to the same expense at a much lower altitude.  The cosmic dance of the moon about the Earth, is 2,300 miles per hour while it is 240,000 miles away from Earth...that velocity is necessary, otherwise, the moon and the Earth would fall into one another, and certainly another great cosmic melancholia would beset its inhabitants.  Thus the other part of the problem in sending thing up is ensuring that they stay up there, especially when sending things away to infinity is highly unlikely.  A space shot, while having been proposed at times in the past, rightly has stayed theoretical in most cases, or only in application to the projectile for weapons purpose...where a melting projectile isn't given as much consideration relative to whether it can at least reach its intended target...thus no need for heavier considerations of things like heat shield and so forth.  Movie's like Interstellar, hint at the mathematical and energy realities of evacuation for such planetary apocalyptic scenarios.  That is, to say, the energy to do so, at present, goes beyond a scale that our world economy could handle.  Amazingly enough we may not be so much up for the scale of things involved in the math, and when the mother ship and all life boats have been launched into the heavens via the screen, we are as likely to accept such possibility.   

   The cost per kg of sending things into low earth orbit has dropped considerably in price tag, on the other hand, and this makes more remarkable the feat of cost, economy, and scale of space faring in the future.  I would argue far more important than one time symbolic purpose that could offer the same residential purpose of any hosting Olympic city.  That is, what is left behind, however, isn't as likely decay where it has stood but an obvious time warp given to abandon, and in that presence what a civilization had achieved, in view of the alien archaeologist should be only more obvious.  Clearly that dreams and aspirations weren't given to optics alone, but proved robust and commonplace.

   Fantasies of explorers past dabbled into quite romanticized fictions, in their accounts, even as the cost, purpose and more mundane details would surface for accountants.  Captivating the social energy of audiences, financial speculations, and hoodwinks in store would prove as necessary ingredients.  While others like Pizarro would make fortune, seizing amazing stores of gold, having the technology to do so, forcing upon hearts and minds through shock and awe.  Otherwise, inexplicably, how should so many numbers otherwise fall despite major technological advantages that his band of conquistadors would possess?  Nonetheless, even given the supposed impetus to religious conversions, economy were a major driving force to such exploration and the seizure of land.  Wealth and enrichment, to the tune of a gamble, but not without preparations, not without reconnaissance.  Nothing was happenstance by Pizarro's mission to conqueror Peru.  That is given by the application of having done, precisely this sort of thing in the past, and having the necessary implements in place achieving these goals.

     What conqueror wanders into a wasteland, otherwise, that has little to offer and considers this worthy?  It is one fictionalized in paper, and at least, despite any number of lost vessels for any measure of achievement. Despite losses, social capital could be had for any commissioned journey, and when ever resources could be seized, and nothing of established administration and legal right should exist for indigenous peoples, seizure could prove most profitable relative to any king attempting to purchase land otherwise holding such resources, already having been measured and likely in some way, having suffered from then modern technological depletion in a way that would prove distinct relative the new world.

   The cosmos offers potentially something similar here.  Though as always, there is any age old problem, considering transport and logistics.  Fortunately, what could be seized should likely only require the forced religious conversion of alien microbes at best, at least for this solar system.   Having to deal with gravity and energy requirements and so forth, humans in such age, provide lesser roles in all likelihood.  Low quality of life indicators for more permanent residence are just as likely given the limitation of scale for habitation elsewhere.  If resident outposts in Antarctica are prime examples, one could hardly describe permanent residence, or anything close to metropolis, and that township at best are geographically peripheral and more likely provide year round habitability.  Spectacular failure of self sustaining and completely resource independent bubble cities have proved that the idea of colonies elsewhere could well be omen of what were to come.   If there isn't something potentially exponentially foreboding in the cost of things.

   I imagined the colonists of the future having arrived in successive waves, as in the ships that brought them there at all such expense.  That trip could be imagined, like the old world colonist, or something like fur trappers set about to make their fortune and having left another life and children behind when fortunes were made.  Though in reality, while we can think of the past, and imagine it in parallel, there is all the exponential gape of one world relative another.  The cosmic sea isn't merely a living sea in the same sense or scale.  It is far more vast and empty than that.  It is the difference of scale that makes such journey, a more likely one way trip, or at least one that is scaled to small populations when humans are sent elsewhere.  Otherwise, the less glamorous thought is that these inhabitants were likely born from cheap transport and petri dishes and never knew the sunrise on Earth.  How could one describe the tragedy of lost seeds, otherwise, that never experienced consciousness and whose parents were machines that did their best in care for their children's survival?

Rise of the terminators

CNET article on Project Maven

Combining lethal drones with machine learning has added yet another element which seemingly puts machines alone in the decision making of life and death, and now adding to this whatever distinction between private and governmental interests should appear to be less obviously so.  Could military operations be moving more so in the direction of outsourcing its operations to mercenary contractors? 

   If the last war in Iraq proved that more and more blurring of these lines, it seems Google may be offering its services to aid in the destructive capacity of who lives and who dies.

Though a maybe a few things to be reconciled, when machine learning algorithms mistake a turtle for a gun

When 'bad' decision making becomes an algorithm! 

Indignation

   Indignation
   Dare to have an opinion where the sun always shines on the emerging utopia of the       wastelands! 
   Dare to have an opinion that sparks indignation,
   For all seeing eyes!
   Better it is imagined that all is right with pretense in protecting,
   Paradox, absurdity otherwise in acting

Arbitrary

anyone with permission is granted that...

anyone...

Reducing image noise for nighttime shots

Machine Learning enhancing night images

Noisy night images are definitely headed out the door.  AI and machine learning will likely help users produce clearer and higher quality productions without so much user effort.

Op-ed to op-ed: After 14 years...

Here's the original article:

After 14 years, I’ve had it. I’m leaving Seattle

Honestly hadn't lived there for well over a decade, and that being said, had few to any run ins with the homeless even in areas of the city where populations had higher numbers.

Involuntary treatment actually is not customary in so far as mental health treatment around the country and there is a reason why this is the case.  One because of the historical legacy of forcing people into treatment and the legacy of abuse, the idea of going back to forcible treatment is probably not a popular one.  I'd suggest to the science writer to do his research on this topic.

Alex complains about spiraling costs of housing...well, Seattle trends like any other higher demand West Coast city that is likely going to have increasing housing costs.  A city that has increasing international real estate appeal is one that is also more high demand and likely becomes less affordable to locals that aren't as wealthy.  Get over it, and find another place to live if its too much.  A lot make their money, get their job experience,  and leave to other parts of the country where the cost of living is more reasonable, and where certainly housing is more affordable.  It may not be as pretty scenery wise elsewhere but you may find in the long run, you have more money in your wallet for travel anyways.

Decided to move to the East side, Bellevue, Issaquah, maybe Mercer Island, Kirkland, or wherever else? 

Complains about minimum wage hikes...
Gentrification of the city hadn't helped, but honestly there were a lot of locals moving out of Seattle city proper a long time before you came along.  Seattle has mostly had a narrative of revolving people in and out...entire building in Fremont (on the historic registry) moved to Ballard to make way for Whole Foods now defunct.  The city has continually faced erosion and a lot of migratory transplants for quite some time.  There's nothing new in your op ed here.  The wealthy want their businesses to serve them, let them have it, and expect wage standards advocated.  Honestly I've traveled to countries elsewhere where food costs are exorbitantly higher (double to quadruple) what typical American costs are...such country appears to be managing quite well...business still operate there, and people are still willing to pay for the costs (tourists and locals alike).

So what if you leave...I did...like a lot of others in the revolving door of the modern American landscape.  Try picking a place that is a little less desirable and maybe you'll find more civility.