Google is hiring thousands of new moderators after facing widespread backlash for allowing child abuse videos and other violent and offensive content to flourish on YouTube.
Google, which owns YouTube, announced on Monday that next year it would expand its total workforce to more than 10,000 people responsible for reviewing content that could violate its policies.
That sounds like a horrible job. Sitting viewing newly uploaded videos that the AI has picked out as offending. Soul crushing work.
Yes, one can only do that sort of thing for an hour a day. At best you spend your day watching porn, at worst you’re watching ISIS execution videos and snuff movies.
It will surely only take a second or two to confirm the video is dodgy though? They aren't having to watch the whole thing, like say a police officer would.
Google is hiring thousands of new moderators after facing widespread backlash for allowing child abuse videos and other violent and offensive content to flourish on YouTube.
Google, which owns YouTube, announced on Monday that next year it would expand its total workforce to more than 10,000 people responsible for reviewing content that could violate its policies.
That sounds like a horrible job. Sitting viewing newly uploaded videos that the AI has picked out as offending. Soul crushing work.
Yes, one can only do that sort of thing for an hour a day. At best you spend your day watching porn, at worst you’re watching ISIS execution videos and snuff movies.
It will surely only take a second or two to confirm the video is dodgy though? They aren't having to watch the whole thing, like say a police officer would.
Sure with the ISIS lopping a head off ones, but wasn't part of the issue that some sickos were altering kids cartoons / programmes and it isn't immediately obvious and as a result they were slipping through the cracks?
Google is hiring thousands of new moderators after facing widespread backlash for allowing child abuse videos and other violent and offensive content to flourish on YouTube.
Google, which owns YouTube, announced on Monday that next year it would expand its total workforce to more than 10,000 people responsible for reviewing content that could violate its policies.
That sounds like a horrible job. Sitting viewing newly uploaded videos that the AI has picked out as offending. Soul crushing work.
Yes, one can only do that sort of thing for an hour a day. At best you spend your day watching porn, at worst you’re watching ISIS execution videos and snuff movies.
It will surely only take a second or two to confirm the video is dodgy though? They aren't having to watch the whole thing, like say a police officer would.
Do ISIS do the equivalent of RickRolling?
Put up an innocent video for a few seconds then you get hit by the vile ideology
Did the convicts just burn both their reviews in ten minutes?
Yup, The Aussies are doing their best to make your bet a loser.
Still 1.17. Not too far away.
You mean England are said to have a 17% chance of recording the highest ever run chase in their history from 108-3?
They've never got within 100 of such a total.
That could still be a bit brave.
That's just England. In fact, looking at Statsguru for the 4th innings, on about 70 occasions, chasing sides have either got to or past 353 runs, or been well and truly on to get there (eg being 30 runs short with 5 wickets in hand).
Thank you. I have been saying this for ages.
As an aside, I do think that the whole mentality about what's possible in a run-chase would be different had it not rained on the 12th day (including rest days), in that 1938/9 timeless test in S Africa.
Absolutely. This all came out for me back in the 2009 Ashes, when we were batting in the third innings and the commentators were saying something like "Oh, no-one's ever chased down over 200 to win at Lords in the final innings", and at about lunchtime, when we were about 300 and something ahead, Vaughan or someone like that was being asked "So how many do we need to set them?"
He answered "We've already got more than enough". Strauss, however, was more cautious and set them a target over 500.
When Australia were 313/5 in their chase, I think Vaughan would have looked a bit too optimistic. They ended up being skittled for 406. To this day, commentators will still reel off the stat that no-one's ever chased down 200+ to win at Lords in a Test...
If we survive the first hour tomorrow without a wicket, then we ought to be odds on.
I wouldn't go that far. Looking at the historical numbers, I'd have given us a 20-25% chance at the start (purely on the statsguru numbers and without adjusting for batsmen, bowlers, or conditions). Now, I'd give us 15-20% or so. If we do survive the first hour tomorrow without a wicket, we'd be back up towards 25% or so, I'd guess. If we get to lunch without losing more than one wicket (a massive honking "if") it'd be pick one and flip the coin.
if we survive the first hour, I'd be quite tempted by those odds...
But if Corbyn gained seats from the SNP in Scotland, that would not make any difference to the anti Tory arithmetic in the Commons. To take power Corbyn needs to win Tory marginals in England, and this is something he finds hard to do -which is why on 40% of the vote, he only won a similar number of seats to Gordon Brown in 2010 who got 29%.
He actually did win quite a few Tory marginals in England last June!
And he lost most of those required to bring his tally of seats larger than Gordon Brown's in 2010
His tally of seats was higher than the 2010 figure - despite the loss of seats in Scotland.
Yesterday’s order paper showed Keith Vaz being discharged from his position on the International Trade select committee, just three months after he joined. Vaz is being replaced by Tom Watson’s old flame Stephanie Peacock. Sources say Vaz hasn’t been seen much around the House recently, and he hasn’t voted since 18 October.
I can't imagine many professions where effectively not turning up for work for 2 months would go without sanction.
It was commonplace for a number of MPs not to turn up for Select Committee meetings (which are regarded by some as a relatively small part of their job). In particular, the European Affairs Select Committee and its specialist subcommittees considering EU legislation had poor Conservative attendance - at many of the latter, no Conservative backbenchers who were nominally members ever attended at all (we used to make jokes about their evident acceptance of all EU proposals since they couldn't be bothered to look at them). An exception was Bill Cash, who attended everything: in many meetings, he and I were the only members to say anything very substantive (usually in opposite directions), with all the others included the chair clearly anxious to finish.
I imagine that Vaz asked to stand down, since non-attendance for two months certainly wouldn't otherwise lead to removal.
Comments
Devolve regulatory status in certain areas to stormont
Add papers of origin
Put up an innocent video for a few seconds then you get hit by the vile ideology
NEW THREAD
I imagine that Vaz asked to stand down, since non-attendance for two months certainly wouldn't otherwise lead to removal.