GroupDIY

General Discussions => Brewery => Topic started by: kambo on June 10, 2019, 01:46:30 AM

Title: conspiracy theories
Post by: kambo on June 10, 2019, 01:46:30 AM
OMG, it was a very odd moment,
this dude at friends BBQ, was totally believing no human being ever went to space!
there is no space station, its all made up to believe us on something to control us
due the high level of radiation
astronauts would be needed 3 feet thick lead shields  around them to survive!

it was pretty weird moment! couple of guys tried to understand his mid set, but it was better
idea to " HEEEEEYYYYY LOOOOOK WHOO IS HEEEREEEEE " change the subject ,
worked just fine  ;D
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: ruffrecords on June 10, 2019, 03:50:22 AM
What does the guy do for a living. Will anyone employ him?

Cheers

Ian
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: cyrano on June 10, 2019, 06:16:27 AM
If believing in weird things would hinder employment, we'd see a lot more unemployed, I'm afraid.

I've known a sales person who believed golf was a conspiracy...

Despite his beliefs, when that company was taken over and the new overlords started investing heavily, he took golf courses. And, lo and behold, playing golf with the top brass made him a CEO. Unfortunately, the company went under six months later. Much to the amusement of the former CEO, who'd already started a new company.
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: Tubetec on June 10, 2019, 06:39:54 AM
The more outlandish theorists provide great cover for all manner of bad stuff by muddying the waters .
Of course radiation is a major problem in space , and it took work to find ways of sheilding people from it effectively ,tons of lead isnt the answer .

Brown nosing  the company directors out on the golf course obviously does work ,in the short term at least , brings to mind 'Curb your enthusiasm ' and the day out on the golf course , Larry kills a prize bird and gets kicked out of the club ;D

 
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: ruffrecords on June 10, 2019, 07:06:23 AM
If believing in weird things would hinder employment, we'd see a lot more unemployed, I'm afraid.

I agree. Believing in them is one thing but openly voicing them in public is another. If he has told friends at a Barbie he will probably have told work colleagues too. Would you trust anyone who voiced such a view?

Cheers

Ian
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: Dualflip on June 10, 2019, 08:46:43 AM
You are missing the biggest conspiracy of all time! that is that the  earth is flat  :o
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: leitmo on June 10, 2019, 09:36:08 AM
You are missing the biggest conspiracy of all time! that is that the  earth is flat  :o

Did you watch Netflix documentary? Hilarious!
Quote: "I can see Seattle from here so it must be flat"  ;D
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: benb on June 10, 2019, 09:45:45 AM
I thought this was going to be about the New York Times story about a week ago, about Navy pilots seeing flying objects making impossible maneuvers.

I read a comment in a Twitter reply chain on this "Yeah, the government has been putting out these stories for the last two years, they're getting the public used to it so when they officially announce the existence of space aliens the public won't be shocked and panic."
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: JohnRoberts on June 10, 2019, 10:20:19 AM
Some conspiracy theories are dumber than others (just like people). I don't think government is smart (competent) enough to successfully pull off a decades long fraud like that.

It is bad enough to watch government conspire in plain sight to manipulate the sheeple.

JR
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: Ricardus on June 10, 2019, 11:06:17 AM
Some conspiracy theories are dumber than others (just like people). I don't think government is smart (competent) enough to successfully pull off a decades long fraud like that.

It is bad enough to watch government conspire in plain sight to manipulate the sheeple.

JR

The govt successfully keeps secrets for decades all the time. If they didn't we'd know everything the CIA and NSA knows.

That whole belief you voiced is seriously flawed reasoning. It's often repeated without question, and that's why it's so pervasive.

Not that I'm arguing FOR area 51 aliens in storage, but just with the logic.
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: kambo on June 10, 2019, 11:38:10 AM
Did you watch Netflix documentary? Hilarious!
Quote: "I can see Seattle from here so it must be flat"  ;D

ohh that one was hilarious :)))
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: kambo on June 10, 2019, 11:45:26 AM
What does the guy do for a living. Will anyone employ him?

Cheers

Ian

yup, has a very top paid work too!



Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: pucho812 on June 10, 2019, 01:26:44 PM
OMG, it was a very odd moment,
this dude at friends BBQ, was totally believing no human being ever went to space!
there is no space station, its all made up to believe us on something to control us
due the high level of radiation
astronauts would be needed 3 feet thick lead shields  around them to survive!

it was pretty weird moment! couple of guys tried to understand his mid set, but it was better
idea to " HEEEEEYYYYY LOOOOOK WHOO IS HEEEREEEEE " change the subject ,
worked just fine  ;D

It's interesting. I have seem many a person wear the tin foil hat and claim how we never went into space or went to the moon. It's a fascination subject to observe.  Despite all the evidence and everything they still believe we have never been there.   I am willing to entertain them and listen because  it's a good exercise plus it's also neat to see how they string the evidence together with things like the Van Alden belt and such.

Here is a factoid that is useless but funny. Neil Armstrong, after his moon trip, used to be at parties and tell really bad jokes about being on the moon. When no one would laugh he would say "I guess you had to be there".  That is genius if you ask me.
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: ruffrecords on June 10, 2019, 02:14:16 PM
yup, has a very top paid work too!

Maybe he was just winding you all up?

Cheers

Ian
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: kambo on June 10, 2019, 02:19:59 PM
Maybe he was just winding you all up?

Cheers

Ian

oh no... he was dead serious!
he is seriously believing in many conspiracy theories, i heard!

edit: he is not an engineer or anything like that... i think studied something social!


Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: JohnRoberts on June 10, 2019, 02:29:38 PM
The govt successfully keeps secrets for decades all the time. If they didn't we'd know everything the CIA and NSA knows.
I expect there is a difference between keeping a state secret confidential and pulling off a massive fraud like faking space travel, and keeping that secret from the public for decades.
Quote
That whole belief you voiced is seriously flawed reasoning. It's often repeated without question, and that's why it's so pervasive.
You do not say why my logic is flawed, only that it is popular, which doesn't make it wrong?   Do you believe government is successful at promulgating frauds and keeping them secret for decades?
Quote
Not that I'm arguing FOR area 51 aliens in storage, but just with the logic.
I stand by my opinion that government is too incompetent to pull off a massive elaborate fraud on that scale "and" keep it secret.

Opinions vary and often do. That is pretty much the theme of this thread.

JR

PS: Back in the 60s I held a secret clearance while working on a Navy project at MIT Instrumentation lab.
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: kambo on June 10, 2019, 04:39:45 PM
government is too incompetent to pull off a massive elaborate fraud  on that scale "and" keep it secret.

+1
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: dmp on June 11, 2019, 10:35:30 AM
There is a concept in behavioral psychology that people who are very intelligent and competent in one field will extrapolate their competence to other fields. Thus, someone that is employed and successful in one area might believe the wildest conspiracies in other fields, but not have nearly the background to justify the belief.
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: ruffrecords on June 11, 2019, 10:54:24 AM
There is a concept in behavioral psychology that people who are very intelligent and competent in one field will extrapolate their competence to other fields. Thus, someone that is employed and successful in one area might believe the wildest conspiracies in other fields, but not have nearly the background to justify the belief.

I think this is quite common. All people have some form of expertise but are expected to decide on things well outside their competence. It's a fact of life Take AGW for one. There are very few people  (if any) in the world able to comprehend the all encompassing physics that defines how the climate varies over long periods of time. It does not stop lots of people claiming we need to stop burning fossil fuels.  Equally, few, if any, Brits understand enough about the way the EU operated to be able to decide whether to vote for or against Brexit. Doesn't stop them voting though.

Cheers

Ian
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: dmp on June 11, 2019, 12:03:54 PM
I think this is quite common. All people have some form of expertise but are expected to decide on things well outside their competence. It's a fact of life Take AGW for one. There are very few people  (if any) in the world able to comprehend the all encompassing physics that defines how the climate varies over long periods of time. It does not stop lots of people claiming we need to stop burning fossil fuels. 

That is a good example but you have it reversed. People with expertise outside thermodynamics / climate science feel capable of believing that GHG driven climate change is a conspiracy. Even though a majority of the  experts disagree with the conspiracy theory. (both experts in climate science and those with a background sufficient to understand the 'all encompassing physics'). My background and field of work is energy systems and simulation and I had a lot of course work in grad school on thermodynamics, etc... and the evidence that GHGs provide a forcing effect on climate is conclusive, IMO. Additionally I personally see a consensus opinion among experts on this.

Another bias that contributes to this type of thing is called the confirmation bias. Once you have a 'side' then you continue to see / seek out the facts that support your side. This is easy to do in the age of the internet where your browser goes down a rabbit hole of facts supporting, for instance, climate change denial.
But when you actually study / work in a field, you are confronted with a more broad range of opinions / facts and have more trouble descending into a isolated bubble.

Do flat earthers know they're wrong? no. (or maybe some do and are just trolls, I don't know)

Understanding the limits of your own expertise is one of the most difficult intelligence tasks there is.
Daniel Kahneman had a funny illustration of this called the 'Tvorsky' test, referring to a very intelligent colleague of his (Amos Tvorsky). The test was how quickly a person realized Tvorsky was more intelligent than they were.  The quicker they realized this, the more intelligent they were. 

On the flip side, there is something called an 'appeal to authority' bias used to discredit minority beliefs because a 'expert' disagrees with it. Minority views are extremely important in science and there are many examples in history when a fringe /anti-establishment view turned out to be correct. 

Predicting the future of any chaotic system is impossible and no expert can conclusively say what the climate will be like over the next few decades - but IMO arguing that that fact discredits climate science is foolish. A lot of conspiracy beliefs are argued by getting lost in the details and complexities

Finally, I would urge you to check out the Factfulness by Hans Rosling. It goes over many important issues confronting humanity including some of the most challenging, like population growth. It lays out a fact based world view that is optimistic for the future.

If people are truly interested in understanding the world, we should spend less time arguing for our side, and more time learning the facts - and base our views on those facts.

Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: JohnRoberts on June 11, 2019, 12:12:19 PM
I think this is quite common. All people have some form of expertise but are expected to decide on things well outside their competence. It's a fact of life Take AGW for one. There are very few people  (if any) in the world able to comprehend the all encompassing physics that defines how the climate varies over long periods of time. It does not stop lots of people claiming we need to stop burning fossil fuels.  Equally, few, if any, Brits understand enough about the way the EU operated to be able to decide whether to vote for or against Brexit. Doesn't stop them voting though.

Cheers

Ian
+1  ;D ;D  Not just the complexity of the sundry factors interacting, but about a practical, realistic response.

There are cute aphorisms about people too stupid to know they are stupid, but it is part of our genetic wiring to think we understand stuff even when we don't, to shut up our inner voice from constantly screaming, so we can perceive and respond to more immediate hazards....   Besides Dunning-Kruger effect, I have also known wealthy people who thought they were smarter than they are because of their wealth (while there may be some weak correlation).

JR
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: living sounds on June 11, 2019, 03:25:01 PM
The only thing that stops any of us from being stupid is the scientific method. Most people still don't understand that, and in today's unregulated media environment and the influence of big pocket special interests keeps many of them from at least getting presented its findings (aka the facts).

Obviously our default way of thinking is inductive, not deductive, but it is possible to train yourself to think more rationally. It's when people's current world view gets threatened by facts that they start to work against them. But the next generation tends to embrace these facts, and overall the system works toward a less warped view. At least that's what I hope...
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: living sounds on June 11, 2019, 04:50:57 PM
I agree and like to always keep an open mind to whatever is presented. Wheat bread is good for you, vaccines cause autism.... and countless other things in my short life have been flipped around, changed, re-thought etc.....


Things tend to be more complicated than initially thought. But "vaccines cause autism" has never been science. We need to do a better job at communicating science.

As for falsification... yes, that's what science is all about.
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: AusTex64 on June 11, 2019, 04:59:00 PM
I think basic human nature and ego precludes conspiracies truly working. The thing is "someone always wants to be the man", the one who spills the beans and gets the attention and credit. Look at it on a smaller scale like affairs with powerful people. Someone always squeals.

And there's the other side of it, the other ego argument "I know what's really going on, the truth, and you don't". So I more cool.
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: ruffrecords on June 11, 2019, 05:07:11 PM
That is a good example but you have it reversed. People with expertise outside thermodynamics / climate science feel capable of believing that GHG driven climate change is a conspiracy. Even though a majority of the  experts disagree with the conspiracy theory. (both experts in climate science and those with a background sufficient to understand the 'all encompassing physics'). My background and field of work is energy systems and simulation and I had a lot of course work in grad school on thermodynamics, etc... and the evidence that GHGs provide a forcing effect on climate is conclusive, IMO. Additionally I personally see a consensus opinion among experts on this.
Excellent. Please point me to this conclusive evidence. I do hope it includes due consideration of ALL the factors that influence climate and uses language a bit more scientific than ' a forcing effect on climate'.

Cheers

Ian
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: dmp on June 11, 2019, 05:10:43 PM
But "vaccines cause autism" has never been science. We need to do a better job at communicating science.
As for falsification... yes, that's what science is all about.

+1
a hypothesis is part of the scientific method but there are a lot of wing-nut conspiracy theories that have zero science behind them.
Observing a correlation is not science.   "correlation does not imply causation"

An alternative way to think is to consciously take a Bayesian approach. Take your prior beliefs, learn new facts, and reconsider your beliefs. Instead of approaching discussions with the mindset to tell/convince others of what you think, approach discussions to learn new things. Even change your mind. Our society does not value changing your mind nearly enough.
Thomas Bayes was a normal guy that developed a influential method for statistics of conditional probabilities.

One of the more important conspiracy theories that was proven true in recent years was government surveillance with major leaks (Snowden, etc)
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: dmp on June 11, 2019, 06:01:41 PM
Excellent. Please point me to this conclusive evidence. I do hope it includes due consideration of ALL the factors that influence climate and uses language a bit more scientific than ' a forcing effect on climate'.

Cheers

Ian

You can start here - good info - try to get the big picture and don't get lost in the weeds
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas)

Also, again I recommend Factfulness, by Hans Rosling, I think there is a chapter on CO2 / climate change.

If you read all that and digest it you'll be a lot closer to making a reasonable judgment on a complex scientific issue.  But you will never find conclusive evidence about something like this because there is no 'alternative earth' to use as a control group for the past century (and future). The atmosphere / climate is a complex chaotic system.

If you look at what humans are doing in a geologic timeframe, we are turning a huge amount of stored carbon into CO2 in the blink of an eye. It's nuts.  There is a lot of reason for hope, however, particularly because of the increasing rate of progress of technology.

As far as critical thinking goes, if you approach discussions with the goal of stating your view and trying to 'win' the argument, you're really not going to grow at all.  Why not approach a discussion as an opportunity to learn?

Some conspiracy theories are proven true with time. More however are just crackpot theories. But the distinguishing characteristic of a conspiracy theory is it goes against the preponderance of authority opinion (gov, science, etc).

Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: Matador on June 11, 2019, 07:42:22 PM
As for falsification... yes, that's what science is all about.
Just one nit here: there are some aspects of science, mainly 'Bayesian system sciences' that don't operate under a 'falsifiable' criterion, and fall more under a 'preponderance of evidence' criterion.  Climate science is one of these areas, whose underlying systems are interdependent enough and of sufficient complexity that is is enormously difficult to distill down to discrete levers that can be pulled.  These tenants are covered very well by the Duhem-Quine Thesis.

The classic climate argument that comes up is a hypothetical scenario where if we can identify some time period where greenhouse gases were rising yet global average temperature is falling, then GHG as a warming agent is falsified.  However it doesn't work like that, because there are myriad other levers that pull on global temperatures that are also interrelated as well (to quote Duhem-Quine - "it is impossible to isolate a single hypothesis in the bundle").

This is one of the more frustrating aspects of system sciences that most don't grasp.
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: living sounds on June 11, 2019, 09:00:53 PM
Just one nit here: there are some aspects of science, mainly 'Bayesian system sciences' that don't operate under a 'falsifiable' criterion, and fall more under a 'preponderance of evidence' criterion.  Climate science is one of these areas, whose underlying systems are interdependent enough and of sufficient complexity that is is enormously difficult to distill down to discrete levers that can be pulled.  These tenants are covered very well by the Duhem-Quine Thesis.

The classic climate argument that comes up is a hypothetical scenario where if we can identify some time period where greenhouse gases were rising yet global average temperature is falling, then GHG as a warming agent is falsified.  However it doesn't work like that, because there are myriad other levers that pull on global temperatures that are also interrelated as well (to quote Duhem-Quine - "it is impossible to isolate a single hypothesis in the bundle").

This is one of the more frustrating aspects of system sciences that most don't grasp.

I agree. But falsification shouldn't be as simple as finding one non-correlate and extrapolating, nay, concluding from that single piece of information that the whole theoretical foundation as well as the giant body of observations is bunk. Doing that, would, again, be wholly unscientific.

But we're dealing with very personal believes of people, that's what makes it so hard to follow the science to its conclusions.
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: ruffrecords on June 12, 2019, 03:56:46 AM

As far as critical thinking goes, if you approach discussions with the goal of stating your view and trying to 'win' the argument, you're really not going to grow at all.  Why not approach a discussion as an opportunity to learn?

Why do you think I asked you to point me to the evidence?

Cheers

Ian
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: Dualflip on June 12, 2019, 08:32:39 AM
I believe that conspiracy theories are based on some truth, one needs to look at people like Asange or Snowden, to know that things are not as transparent as some believe, and that some conspiracy theories are in fact real.
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: JohnRoberts on June 12, 2019, 09:02:06 AM
I believe that conspiracy theories are based on some truth, one needs to look at people like Asange or Snowden, to know that things are not as transparent as some believe, and that some conspiracy theories are in fact real.
Because one or more conspiracy theories may be based on some kernel of truth, does not mean all are, including the often hyperbolic "if-then" extrapolations.

Back in the 80s when I was still writing my "Audio Mythology" magazine column, I often drilled down and found some underlying truth surrounded by unfounded popular conclusions. (Some of those decades old myths are still circulating today.)

It is human nature to embrace simple answers to complex problems. Sometimes it is that simple, more often it isn't.

JR
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: dmp on June 12, 2019, 10:03:08 AM
Why is this considered alternative?

AFAIK this is the norm and the  opposite more like sociopathy.... or whatever the  disorder is called that comes from not thinking this way
I meant an alternative to intuition based decision making or an unexamined decision making process.

If you read behavior psychology (like Misbehaving by Richard Thaler) there are all sorts of examples where people make demonstrably wrong decisions based on how the question is asked. Or people answer the same question in opposite ways depending on the phrasing.
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: cyrano on June 12, 2019, 11:12:03 AM
That's what sales people get trained for...
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: JohnRoberts on June 12, 2019, 11:49:34 AM
That's what sales people get trained for...
Don't forget politicians.  Political campaigns have always tried to influence voters, but it was only recent election cycles (since 2012) that they got more scientific about testing scripts and refining them down to a few successful ones. 

Basically tweaking the sales pitch to resonate with voters existing belief systems.  This is the value of social media for political campaigns so they can categorize us into our specific "belief" sub segments by tracking our web activity, and then pitch us effectively for those identified beliefs.

Human decision making is not completely rational or linear, so this can work. If this is used by both sides it could come down to what most people believe.  So grab them young and get them believing the right stuff.  ::)

JR
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: dmp on June 12, 2019, 12:05:58 PM
That's what sales people get trained for...

I've never met a 'trained' salesperson. In my experience it is one of the few job abilities that is natural born.

But advertising & marketing yes. Social media sites have been able to run experiments to increase user interaction (i.e. make more addictive)
Facebook / Google would run hundreds or thousands of experiments a day with different groups of users to identify ways to get them to stay longer on the platform, click more ads, etc...
They've optimized their platforms to take advantage of behavioral psychology.

Quote
Don't forget politicians.
and Politics has been manipulating people going back a long time. The GW Bush campaign did robo calls to likely Democratic voters with an annoying message pretending to be from the Democratic candidate, repeatedly calling back during dinner time. Meant to reduce the turnout of the Dem voters.
Or the swift boat veterans for truth. One of the most widespread, totally false, and effective political attacks in history.
The recent election cycle just switched the platform - fake calls became fake memes on facebook. The conspiracy theories just from the last election cycle could fill this thread. Pizzagate, health problems, etc...
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: JohnRoberts on June 12, 2019, 01:05:46 PM
I've never met a 'trained' salesperson. In my experience it is one of the few job abilities that is natural born.

But advertising & marketing yes. Social media sites have been able to run experiments to increase user interaction (i.e. make more addictive)
Facebook / Google would run hundreds or thousands of experiments a day with different groups of users to identify ways to get them to stay longer on the platform, click more ads, etc...
They've optimized their platforms to take advantage of behavioral psychology.
and Politics has been manipulating people going back a long time. The GW Bush campaign did robo calls to likely Democratic voters with an annoying message pretending to be from the Democratic candidate, repeatedly calling back during dinner time. Meant to reduce the turnout of the Dem voters.
Or the swift boat veterans for truth. One of the most widespread, totally false, and effective political attacks in history.
The recent election cycle just switched the platform - fake calls became fake memes on facebook. The conspiracy theories just from the last election cycle could fill this thread. Pizzagate, health problems, etc...
That didn't take long... I didn't mention which campaign used the psy-op campaigning to avoid the chronic us-them divisiveness. I prefer to talk about politics, not talk politics. One is an intellectual pursuit the other is just .......?
===
There is a lot of actual science behind effective sales techniques, while I have worked with a few of those "naturals" you allude to.  ::) Successful salespeople often get peter principled up into jobs they can't handle. I had to follow one new sales manager around an AES show trying to undo the damage he caused shotgunning out buzzwords with zero understanding of what the words meant.  He'd listen to me pitch a new product then try to incorporate what I said into his spiel. It would be funny if it wasn't so embarrassing.  People at AES shows generally know what the words mean, so he undermined what little credibility he started out with wearing a Peavey badge.   :o

JR

PS: I used that Peavey badge to good effect at one trade show by walking around on the last day with a pair of drum sticks and asking dumb questions to get booth people who didn't recognize me to share stuff.  Some people still think I ask dumb questions.  8)
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: Tubetec on June 12, 2019, 02:22:41 PM
Ive always had to withstand the'get your foil helmet on' comments over mobile phone tracking , of course as the technology has matured ,and post Snowden , a whole load of conspiracy theories are hardening to fact right in front of our eyes , Look at the Huawei situation , whats the US pissed off about ? that the Chinese might gain an edge on metadata or even an offensive capabillity within the infrastructure itself ,who knows .   

Like anything thats become a multibillion dollar concern ,traction is gained ,intertia sometimes keeps bad ideas going far too long .
Take for instance the likes of Monsanto and their brand of seed/genetic witchcraft , is it not concievable to think that they could be very interested in a collapse in biodiversity , yet their fields of experimental corn ,with experimental fertiliser is allowed here , some would say ,well theres no evidence it does any harm , but your trying to prove something against a powerful industry instead of taking a more careful approach in the first place .

'Vaccines are safe' ,  there reasonably safe because they were tested , in the the case of here in Ireland on unwitting  mothers and babies , is it also conspiracy that the current government has put witness testimoney of what happened in the mother and baby homes away from public eyes for 100 years , we think we have the full facts on vaccines ,think again . Lets take the case of side effects from medication , if a patient reports something and a doctor isnt scienticifcally trained to collect data , or theres some financial incentive for the medical person involved to be pals with the pharma ,I cant see how you could possibly get any credible feedback on your product .

Look at how diesel was marketed and initially incentivised by the EU before the VW emissions scandal was uncovered , here in Ireland a huge proportion switched to diesel in the last 15 years , diesel prices at the pumps went up accordingly ,the reality in cities is everyone is left with sh*tty air quality as a result of burning a much less refined product in their engines , that impacts directly on the health , an incentivised car industry now has gleaming forecourts and showrooms , ,but you'll be waiting on a trolley in a hallway if you go to the hospital .



Todays bright new idea ,turns into tomorrows apocolypse ,

Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: dmp on June 12, 2019, 03:43:07 PM
Ive always had to withstand the'get your foil helmet on' comments over mobile phone tracking , of course as the technology has matured ,and post Snowden , a whole load of conspiracy theories are hardening to fact right in front of our eyes , Look at the Huawei situation , whats the US pissed off about ? that the Chinese might gain an edge on metadata or even an offensive capabillity within the infrastructure itself ,who knows .   
The dna tracking and facial recognition tracking is coming or already here. The police have used DNA databases to catch criminals by reconstructing a family tree and narrowing a list of suspects. Privacy laws need to catch up to the technology.

Quote
Take for instance the likes of Monsanto and their brand of seed/genetic witchcraft , is it not concievable to think that they could be very interested in a collapse in biodiversity , yet their fields of experimental corn ,with experimental fertiliser is allowed here , some would say ,well theres no evidence it does any harm , but your trying to prove something against a powerful industry instead of taking a more careful approach in the first place .

The individual players are not trying to destroy the environment, but when competition is such that they optimize for $ profit only, the environment will get destroyed. People don't seem to get this.  The technology of seed/genetic warfare combined with Roundup type chemicals is a potential disaster. It has dramatically increased the yield/acre however which is good thing.
More prudence is needed in safeguarding the planet however and preventing profit driven corporations from gambling our future.


Quote
'Vaccines are safe' ,  there reasonably safe because they were tested , in the the case of here in Ireland on unwitting  mothers and babies , is it also conspiracy that the current government has put witness testimoney of what happened in the mother and baby homes away from public eyes for 100 years , we think we have the full facts on vaccines ,think again . Lets take the case of side effects from medication , if a patient reports something and a doctor isnt scienticifcally trained to collect data , or theres some financial incentive for the medical person involved to be pals with the pharma ,I cant see how you could possibly get any credible feedback on your product .


This is an interesting facet of human judgment. Say a disease kills 50 out of 1000 people and the vaccine has a serious side effect for 2 out of 1000 people. Is the vaccine 'safe'? An scientist would say the vaccine is a positive (and the reduction of smallpox, polio, measels, etc is a testiment to this) yet people will focus on the 2 out of a thousand and scream the vaccine is unsafe.

Quote
Look at how diesel was marketed and initially incentivised by the EU before the VW emissions scandal was uncovered , here in Ireland a huge proportion switched to diesel in the last 15 years , diesel prices at the pumps went up accordingly ,the reality in cities is everyone is left with sh*tty air quality as a result of burning a much less refined product in their engines , that impacts directly on the health , an incentivised car industry now has gleaming forecourts and showrooms , ,but you'll be waiting on a trolley in a hallway if you go to the hospital .

Because VW cheated on the emissions regulations does not condemn Diesel engines. Diesel engines have a efficiency gain compared to gasoline which reduces the CO2 footprint, a positive.
But VW deliberately cheated on the emissions test so they could increase the performance of the cars and leave off the SCR to increase profit (aftertreatment device that reduces emissions).  If anything this further condemns unregulated free market Capitalism, not engine technology with strict government emissions regulations.  And the lack of serious punishment for top executives confirms corruption and ensures it will happen again.

The emissions regulations of passenger car engines are very strict and getting stricter in the next decade. They are mandating such clean tailpipe emissions that car engines will actually act as air cleaners in some parts of the world where the air is polluted (china / india).  Furthermore, GHG regulations are going to force lower CO2 from engines, which is an area Diesel's have an advantage as they are more efficient than typical gasoline engines.
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: rackmonkey on June 12, 2019, 06:06:32 PM
I'm convinced UTC employed aliens in designing their transformers. It's the only logical explanation for why they were so good and why we're still trying to figure out their secrets so many years later.  :o
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: Dualflip on June 12, 2019, 06:12:26 PM


PS: I used that Peavey badge to good effect at one trade show by walking around on the last day with a pair of drum sticks and asking dumb questions to get booth people who didn't recognize me to share stuff.  Some people still think I ask dumb questions.  8)

Thats wicked! did they reveal something useful?
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: Phrazemaster on June 13, 2019, 03:54:02 AM
That is a good example but you have it reversed. People with expertise outside thermodynamics / climate science feel capable of believing that GHG driven climate change is a conspiracy. Even though a majority of the  experts disagree with the conspiracy theory. (both experts in climate science and those with a background sufficient to understand the 'all encompassing physics'). My background and field of work is energy systems and simulation and I had a lot of course work in grad school on thermodynamics, etc... and the evidence that GHGs provide a forcing effect on climate is conclusive, IMO. Additionally I personally see a consensus opinion among experts on this.

Another bias that contributes to this type of thing is called the confirmation bias. Once you have a 'side' then you continue to see / seek out the facts that support your side. This is easy to do in the age of the internet where your browser goes down a rabbit hole of facts supporting, for instance, climate change denial.
But when you actually study / work in a field, you are confronted with a more broad range of opinions / facts and have more trouble descending into a isolated bubble.

Do flat earthers know they're wrong? no. (or maybe some do and are just trolls, I don't know)

Understanding the limits of your own expertise is one of the most difficult intelligence tasks there is.
Daniel Kahneman had a funny illustration of this called the 'Tvorsky' test, referring to a very intelligent colleague of his (Amos Tvorsky). The test was how quickly a person realized Tvorsky was more intelligent than they were.  The quicker they realized this, the more intelligent they were. 

On the flip side, there is something called an 'appeal to authority' bias used to discredit minority beliefs because a 'expert' disagrees with it. Minority views are extremely important in science and there are many examples in history when a fringe /anti-establishment view turned out to be correct. 

Predicting the future of any chaotic system is impossible and no expert can conclusively say what the climate will be like over the next few decades - but IMO arguing that that fact discredits climate science is foolish. A lot of conspiracy beliefs are argued by getting lost in the details and complexities

Finally, I would urge you to check out the Factfulness by Hans Rosling. It goes over many important issues confronting humanity including some of the most challenging, like population growth. It lays out a fact based world view that is optimistic for the future.

If people are truly interested in understanding the world, we should spend less time arguing for our side, and more time learning the facts - and base our views on those facts.
The problem is -one man’s fact is another man’s fiction. It is categorically difficult to ascertain if a fact is really a fact - even if based on studies. This makes for a slippery slope that makes it easy to adhere to the confirmation bias of which you speak. Few are scientists or qualified to properly evaluate evidence and studies.

Even you referred to “climate change deniers” and by labeling them completely dismissed their point of view.

Our climate is changing, yes. But I watched an illuminating documentary that showed that scientific studies that don’t agree that humans are causing global warming are not funded, or printed in journals. Scientists with the opposing viewpoints (and there are many) simply don’t get to be heard. Follow,the money. It’s by no means “settled science”  (and neither is the science of vaccines but that’s another can of worms).

Cap,and trade. What a ridiculous joke of a way to capitalize on what should be a global effort to reduce emissions. No company should be allowed any credits to pollute, or the ability to buy credits from other companies to pollute. What a racket.

IMO the real issue is not whether or even how much humans are contributing to climate change. The real issue is we need to stop polluting and clean Gaia. This satisfies everyone regardless of climate religious belief.

How funny the media has us quibbling over the wrong questions, which keeps us from just doing what we need to do.
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: JohnRoberts on June 13, 2019, 09:15:15 AM
This reminds me of a thing that happened at the auto parts store.  My truck has a small freon leak at the compressor  and I went to go buy one of the small (cheap)  cans of refrigerant . Seems they changed the fittings on the newer style cans so the AC hose I had wouldn't work with them.. they changed the taps to be self sealing so if you remove the hose from the can, any left over wouldn't seep out...
So I had to make the decision to buy either a new $25 hose to fit with the newer style (cheaper)cans I also had to buy, or pay more for the older style can that works with my existing hose because , you can still get the old style cans, but the price has increased dramatically to make it pretty much a null either choice.

.. So they changed the newer cans to be more environmentally friendly I'm guessing but, you can still use the other kind if you pay more.  Wouldn't they just get rid of all of the other style cans instead of selling the last of them at a higher price?
Ultimately, wouldn't they just quit selling them (refrigerant refills) at all because, something else must have  a leak..... not worried about that????

They even have a cute commercial where a dog jumps out and grabs a can for his owner to beat the heat so, it seems the logic is wonky ......I think being greener is obviously a good move but the cash grab opportunities being created in between is frustrating.... at least that's a cheap move..... Silver lining
Perhaps you never heard about the hole in the ozone layer, caused by chlorofluorocarbons?

This was a real immediate problem, identified in the 80s and the world ultimately responded, to mitigate it by using different coolants .


JR
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: JohnRoberts on June 13, 2019, 11:21:58 AM
For some fresh fodder for the conspiracy nuts of the world connect the dots for a Japanese oil tanker attacked in the straits of Hormuz while the Japanese leader is in Iran talking with the Iranian leadership.

Of course sometimes coincidences are just that.

JR
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: dmp on June 13, 2019, 11:38:37 AM
The problem is -one man’s fact is another man’s fiction. It is categorically difficult to ascertain if a fact is really a fact - even if based on studies. This makes for a slippery slope that makes it easy to adhere to the confirmation bias of which you speak. Few are scientists or qualified to properly evaluate evidence and studies.

Even you referred to “climate change deniers” and by labeling them completely dismissed their point of view.
Where did I do that?  I just searched this thread for that quoted phrase and it didn't come up.

And anyway, that phrase means people deny that the climate is changing, which is ridiculous and can be shown with overwhelming scientific evidence (temp measurements, polar ice cover, migration patterns, etc). 
Some things that are completely contradicted by scientific facts can be dismissed I think (but we certainly don't have to ridicule or insult anyone).
The discussions in this thread have been about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), where Anthropogenic means human caused.  It is a much more difficult question of causation for a complex phenomenon.

Quote
Our climate is changing, yes. But I watched an illuminating documentary that showed that scientific studies that don’t agree that humans are causing global warming are not funded, or printed in journals. Scientists with the opposing viewpoints (and there are many) simply don’t get to be heard. Follow,the money. It’s by no means “settled science”  (and neither is the science of vaccines but that’s another can of worms).
I really don't care if people disagree on climate change. There will always be people that think a cold day in summer is evidence against climate change. 
I disagree on opposition research being poorly funded - it is funded by corporate interests and politic hacks. They don't get anywhere in academics or peer reviewed journals, but they have a lot of impact with fringe documentaries, youtube videos, and facebook content. 
I agree that a lot of people have a lot of difficulty determining facts from fiction.
And the thermodynamic concepts required to understand causation factors of climate change are at higher education level than average.

Similarly, the regulation of earlier pollutants that harmed the environment were controversial and had similar anti-science reactions.  The technical concepts were similarly hard to understand for non-scientific people.

Quote
Cap,and trade. What a ridiculous joke of a way to capitalize on what should be a global effort to reduce emissions. No company should be allowed any credits to pollute, or the ability to buy credits from other companies to pollute. What a racket.

IMO the real issue is not whether or even how much humans are contributing to climate change. The real issue is we need to stop polluting and clean Gaia. This satisfies everyone regardless of climate religious belief.

Developing technology that reduces pollutants has been most effective in the past. Asking for sacrifices is difficult, especially across nations, and leads to the election of populist manipulative politicians. The USA (and other countries) have effectively mandated reductions in pollutants within the country (CFCs, NOx, Soot, etc...) that forced US companies to develop cost effective technology (combustion aftertreatment devices) and/or replacements (refrigerants, low Sulfur Diesel).  The same is happening for CO2, as solar and other clean energy costs are dropping. It is cheaper to install solar than coal today.

There are still people that think free markets are good and government regulation is bad, so they come up with these free market ideas like cap and trade.  That is an economic argument coming from fiscal conservatives.
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: Phrazemaster on June 13, 2019, 12:56:46 PM
Where did I do that?  I just searched this thread for that quoted phrase and it didn't come up.

Quote
"This is easy to do in the age of the internet where your browser goes down a rabbit hole of facts supporting, for instance, climate change denial. "
Quote
I really don't care if people disagree on climate change. There will always be people that think a cold day in summer is evidence against climate change. 
I mean no disrespect but it is naive to think that we have the ability to understand this in a real way. The simple view is just this: let's stop polluting. We see climate change yes - but who or what is causing it is not what's important. Because we can't prove it.

But even if you think we can - it doesn't change what the right thing to do is: stop polluting the planet. We are not on opposite sides even if we disagree as to causation.
Quote
I disagree on opposition research being poorly funded - it is funded by corporate interests and politic hacks. They don't get anywhere in academics or peer reviewed journals, but they have a lot of impact with fringe documentaries, youtube videos, and facebook content.
Since you don't know the source of my information, you can't tell me its fringe science or the best of science. You can't tell me if it's funded by "political hacks" or Mickey Mouse. Or a bona fide scientist. It's too large a brush to paint the opposition with - "it's all funded by hacks." Really? No, not really.

And there's great money to be made on the "for" side of AGW - make no mistake. Your scientists and media are profiting from all this, hugely.

Anytime there's a big brouhaha by the political machine, it's usually time to be skeptical of what's really going on.

It was a really well done documentary - 2 hours - with considerable thought and effort put into it. And it was convincing. Suppressing the opposition's voice is always the tactic when someone is aggressive in their views.

I understand the motivation - people feel so strongly about something that they feel it's almost criminal to voice the opposing viewpoint. But this leads to anarchy, censorship, suppression. The truth loses, and we all become mentally poorer.
I agree that a lot of people have a lot of difficulty determining facts from fiction.
Quote
And the thermodynamic concepts required to understand causation factors of climate change are at higher education level than average.
100% agree. It's maniacally complex. But again - I posit that it doesn't matter either way who or what is causing climate change. Climate has changed since forever. And it will continue to do so. Reading tea leaves, even scientific ones, is just that. Guessing. No matter how strongly one believes it. Have you noticed they have started calling it "climate change" instead of Global Warming? Nobody can argue "climate change." Anyone can argue "global warming" because some areas are getting cooler.

In any case - I respect your views. I am not trying to be unkind to you in any way shape or form. Peace brother.

Mike
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: JohnRoberts on June 13, 2019, 01:01:45 PM


There are still people that think free markets are good and government regulation is bad,
me, me, me...  8)
Quote
so they come up with these free market ideas like cap and trade.  That is an economic argument coming from fiscal conservatives.
Huh... It may be "market" based but not exactly free market.

A free market phenomenon would be our emissions going down because of cheap NG, not from government force but pretty much the opposite... We have so much NG in some oilfields it isn't economic to harvest. 

Cap and trade seems like another scheme from the globalists to extract revenue that they can redistribute, after getting their slice.

JR
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: dmp on June 13, 2019, 01:20:28 PM
me, me, me...  8)Huh... It may be "market" based but not exactly free market.

A free market phenomenon would be our emissions going down because of cheap NG, not from government force but pretty much the opposite... We have so much NG in some oilfields it isn't economic to harvest. 

Cap and trade seems like another scheme from the globalists to extract revenue that they can redistribute, after getting their slice.

JR

No, I don't think so - "emissions going down" because of natural gas was more a side effect. It has a higher H/C ratio than coal and burns more cleanly but the energy market moved to Natural Gas because it is cheaper.   So it is not a free market phenomenon that produced lower emissions. Correlation does not imply causation. The market was not optimizing for less pollution, it was optimizing for lower cost / higher profit.
You can see a similar illustration in automobile technology development over the last half century. Technology continuously improved, but targeted performance and other tangibles for consumers UNLESS government mandates were forcing emission reductions or efficiency increases.  The only time consumers drove higher mpgs was when gas prices increased (again cost optimization).

Are there any true market solutions for less pollution (NOx, soot, etc) ?  I don't think anyone who understands economics would say so. Pollution is a classic externality.
If individual's are buying things that directly impact their own property or living space, they will tend to pay more for less pollution, but when it is an abstract effect on 'the commons' people will tend not to (tragedy of the commons in economics). 
There are numerous studies asking people if they would like lower pollution (yes) but how much would you pay extra ($0).

Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: JohnRoberts on June 13, 2019, 02:56:02 PM
The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics

https://thebestschools.org/features/top-climate-change-scientists/

of course there are only 5 top skeptics....lol...7.5 would be weird......

But I know of a few more skeptics that aren't on this list...... Seem like pretty smart people.....  Isn't that one scientist who actually discovered methane's negative effects on the atmosphere one of them??? Freed or Reed or something?...I'd have to look....
Try not to be so easily distracted... It  is hard enough to refine this down to the correct question(s) let alone answer it (them).

We can marshal wide agreement on some simple objective "related" questions, but it is dishonest to extrapolate this near universal agreement on say what the temperature is today, to what is the appropriate action...

Science is not a popular vote or a massive PR campaign.

JR
 
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: dmp on June 13, 2019, 03:02:15 PM
The Top 15 Climate-Change Scientists: Consensus & Skeptics

https://thebestschools.org/features/top-climate-change-scientists/

of course there are only 5 top skeptics....lol...7.5 would be weird......

But I know of a few more skeptics that aren't on this list...... Seem like pretty smart people.....  Isn't that one scientist who actually discovered methane's negative effects on the atmosphere one of them??? Freed or Reed or something?...I'd have to look....


And everything should be a controversy with an equal number of proponents and opponents... flat earth,  etc... /s

1st skeptic, associated with Global Warming Policy Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation)
A lobbying group trying to oppose policies aimed at mitigating anthorpogenic climate change. The group refuses to reveal its funding sources.  Follow the money (there's a reason it is kept hidden)

I'm not saying there are no well informed people that disagree on the impact human activity has on climate change (and operate in good faith). It is very difficult to determine causality of a complex system like the earth's atmosphere, and the proportion of people with the necessary education to understand the science is small. But I think a significant part of the opposition is operating in bad faith, funded with dark money, and in reality has lobbying goals ($) rather than scientific or search for knowledge goals.
In my opinion, if you can't conclude CO2 has no effect, we should not continue to produce it from fossil fuels. Especially when technology offers such better solutions than fossil fuel combustion.
This basically flips the paradigm.

Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: Matador on June 13, 2019, 03:43:26 PM
We see climate change yes - but who or what is causing it is not what's important. Because we can't prove it.
Forming it in this way seems nonsensical:  if one day, all of your hair fell out, the correct response shouldn't be, "Well, all that matters is that I have hair on my head, so I need to find someone that sells wigs to fix it."

No, you would go to a doctor, or someone trained to deal with such situations, and they would run diagnostic tests to determine the most likely root cause.  Maybe it's cancer, maybe you were exposed to radiation,  maybe it was an acute allergic reaction, or maybe it's just male pattern baldness.  Every one of these causal factors that resulted in hair loss has radically different remedies, only the last of which might be "It's time to find a wig or live with it."

Do not confuse complexity with comprehension - there are many complex systems that we can reason about, even with large uncertainties.  It's the entire foundation of particle physics.  Concluding it's unknowable  and thus we should act without regard for the cause is placing the cart squarely before the horse.
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: kambo on June 13, 2019, 03:43:57 PM
science apologized from EGG
and still some scientists are saying that we shouldnt eat EGG, because there is no nutrition or anything
good for us to eat it!
strange isnt it, even tho you can fact check the nutrition values of EGG in lab for 100$, or
google it for free!
trick is, they are talking about some really nasty stuff we are eating
ie: processed food, which totally makes sense, not to eat that kind of bad food! ( i dont mean  dont ever eat btw)
once you are feeling comfortable, and start to believe those guys, then they slam the EGG in ur face,  and other ideas they have... and by nature, u go
woooaa OMG, i shouldnt eat egg ... egg is bad! i should eat that, thats bad...
until u read about egg or get it tested!

egg is easy to deal with, climate change is not so... we still dont understand most of our climate/dynamics
but,
even if there is no global warming, we still must cut on any kind of pollution anyway!
but money talks as always!
i am hopeful that with in 25-50 years we all have better understanding of our planet,
and we will have very strict new rules...
technology multiplying it self...
it was 1984-5 when i first touched a computer : Sinclair ZX
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: JohnRoberts on June 13, 2019, 04:05:47 PM
science apologized from EGG
and still some scientists are saying that we shouldnt eat EGG, because there is no nutrition or anything
good for us to eat it!
strange isnt it, even tho you can fact check the nutrition values of EGG in lab for 100$, or
google it for free!
trick is, they are talking about some really nasty stuff we are eating
ie: processed food, which totally makes sense, not to eat that kind of bad food! ( i dont mean  dont ever eat btw)
once you are feeling comfortable, and start to believe those guys, then they slam the EGG in ur face,  and other ideas they have... and by nature, u go
woooaa OMG, i shouldnt eat egg ... egg is bad! i should eat that, thats bad...
until u read about egg or get it tested!

egg is easy to deal with, climate change is not so... we still dont understand most of our climate/dynamics
but,
even if there is no global warming, we still must cut on any kind of pollution anyway!
but money talks as always!
i am hopeful that with in 25-50 years we all have better understanding of our planet,
and we will have very strict new rules...
technology multiplying it self...
it was 1984-5 when i first touched a computer : Sinclair ZX
Speaking of eating funny stuff the recent faux meat boom is amusing to watch (at arms length)... They figured out how to make it taste more like meat by putting some of the same bad stuff in it... Now they're finding out it may have GMO vegetable matter in it too so not really all that green.  ::)

But most human decision making does not completely involve rational analysis but intuition and feel... non-meat meat "feels" like it should be better*** for us.  :o

JR

*** I guess plants don't fart methane 
[edit] but plants do eat CO2 and exhale O2 so a massive conversion from meat consumption to fake plant based faux meat consumption could reduce atmospheric carbon....  We're saved.. make it so #2.  :o [/edit]
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: kambo on June 13, 2019, 04:18:11 PM

*** I guess plants don't fart methane

leave a " half radish" on ur kitchen counter before u go to bed, talk in the morning :)
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: JohnRoberts on June 13, 2019, 04:37:37 PM
leave a " half radish" on ur kitchen counter before u go to bed, talk in the morning :)
I have a cute miniature flip top garbage can on my kitchen counter to collect vegetable scraps. The lid keeps most of the smells inside between emptying it into my outdoor compost heap a couple times a week. The vegetable waste doesn't smell as rank as meat scraps in my regular garbage.

I eat raw garlic every night so I personally contribute to atmospheric greenhouse gases with human methane (I also routinely exhale CO2 ).

JR
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: kambo on June 13, 2019, 11:58:29 PM
I also routinely exhale CO2

JR
good to know that,
some thinks u r an android ;)
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: boji on June 15, 2019, 11:43:05 AM
Quote
The govt successfully keeps secrets for decades all the time. If they didn't we'd know everything the CIA and NSA knows.

A testament to this is how people always refer to CIA and NSA when dangling conspiracy theories in front of people, but never mention the NRO, which has the lion's share of funding.

As for flat earth popularity, I blame the Russian/Chinese troll factories.

The UFO debate is more fun to argue about than the Van Allen radiation belts.   ;D
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: boji on June 15, 2019, 12:35:26 PM
Quote
Do you believe government is successful at promulgating frauds and keeping them secret for decades?

Regarding UFO's, probably. Disinfo is the standard chaff deployed when civilian witness testimony/reporting gets anything right about a black budget special-access project detail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robertson_Panel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robertson_Panel)

Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: kambo on June 27, 2019, 05:26:47 PM
this is little odd,
my friend was over my place to work on his short movie soundtrack,
so i received this mic from amazon on door while we were having a break,
then, i unpacked the box, started talk about it...then,... with in
2-3 min he received an email about that specific mic i just received!
i like to call it coincidence... but its odd!
that dude has/had no plans for buying any kind of mic!
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: cyrano on June 27, 2019, 06:11:18 PM
Sometimes, it isn't a coincidence.

A while ago, I needed a FB code for developers. Of course, can't get one without a FB account. So I created one. No pic, no info, no real name. Of course, the email address was correct, as it doesn't seem to work with one of the throw-away email services. I have NO FB friends, no events, just a membership of a few audio related groups. And even those are read-only. Only about a dozen people ever got suggested as friends that I really know. All of them have a FB account, obviously and none of them has much sense when it comes to privacy. I didn't "connect".

Fast forward a year or so. Discovered a nice pub while out magnet fishing and drone flying with my son on a sunny Sunday afternoon. The same night, that pub shows up in my friends suggestion list on FB.

Mind you, I haven't got a FB app on my iphone and I didn't use my iphone that afternoon. But even if you don't use it, your location obviously gets reported to FB.

I' wrecked my brain for a few days wondering how this was possible..

So I installed a filtering VPN and, lo and behold. Almost every app on iOS comes with one or more trackers built in. Some of the companies behind these trackers are open about it. Some don't even have a website. Up 'till now, the filter caught about 45 different trackers.

The filtering VPN, called Guardian isn't publicly available yet, but it will be in a few weeks.

Names of these trackers:
Amplitude
AppsFlyer
InMobi
Flurry
App Measurement
MoPub
AppLovin
AppNexus
OpenX
Scorecard Research
...

I do have a few apps that are data collectors themselves, like Shazam. Shazam was recently acquired by Apple and contains yet another tracker: Chartbeat.

And I don't even have 45 apps on my phone, so some obviously have several trackers...
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: gltech on June 28, 2019, 02:42:14 AM
Scum of the earth regarding the internet.
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: living sounds on July 01, 2019, 10:44:20 AM
Sometimes, it isn't a coincidence.

A while ago, I needed a FB code for developers. Of course, can't get one without a FB account. So I created one. No pic, no info, no real name. Of course, the email address was correct, as it doesn't seem to work with one of the throw-away email services. I have NO FB friends, no events, just a membership of a few audio related groups. And even those are read-only. Only about a dozen people ever got suggested as friends that I really know. All of them have a FB account, obviously and none of them has much sense when it comes to privacy. I didn't "connect".

Fast forward a year or so. Discovered a nice pub while out magnet fishing and drone flying with my son on a sunny Sunday afternoon. The same night, that pub shows up in my friends suggestion list on FB.

Mind you, I haven't got a FB app on my iphone and I didn't use my iphone that afternoon. But even if you don't use it, your location obviously gets reported to FB.

I' wrecked my brain for a few days wondering how this was possible..

So I installed a filtering VPN and, lo and behold. Almost every app on iOS comes with one or more trackers built in. Some of the companies behind these trackers are open about it. Some don't even have a website. Up 'till now, the filter caught about 45 different trackers.

The filtering VPN, called Guardian isn't publicly available yet, but it will be in a few weeks.

Names of these trackers:
Amplitude
AppsFlyer
InMobi
Flurry
App Measurement
MoPub
AppLovin
AppNexus
OpenX
Scorecard Research
...

I do have a few apps that are data collectors themselves, like Shazam. Shazam was recently acquired by Apple and contains yet another tracker: Chartbeat.

And I don't even have 45 apps on my phone, so some obviously have several trackers...

Wow, thanks for that information. ios was supposed to be better than Android wrt to privacy...
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: cyrano on July 01, 2019, 01:41:57 PM
It is.

But only in this way: Apple doesn't sell any of the collected data. Google is in the business of selling data.

Once you go to the app level, it's the wild west out there. And we are paertially to blame. Nobody reads EULA's, so they get away with it. Although some will be hit by GDPR. The first fines are coming in:

http://www.enforcementtracker.com/

I suppose Apple and Google will be confronted with some fine too, sooner or later.
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: living sounds on July 01, 2019, 02:36:32 PM
And we are paertially to blame. Nobody reads EULA's, so they get away with it.

Nobody (except for lawyers and judges) should have to read EULAs. Business models that rely on collecting personal consumer data should be outlawed, IMHO.
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: kambo on July 01, 2019, 02:41:48 PM
Nobody (except for lawyers and judges) should have to read EULAs. Business models that rely on collecting personal consumer data should be outlawed, IMHO.
+1
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: JohnRoberts on July 01, 2019, 02:59:20 PM
It is.

But only in this way: Apple doesn't sell any of the collected data. Google is in the business of selling data.
There is no free lunch, with Google the customers performing searches are the product, Apple just uses a different angle as they shift to a services subscription business model. Apple also monetizes their customer base by skimming a fat percentage of sales made through their app store.

Quote
Once you go to the app level, it's the wild west out there. And we are paertially to blame. Nobody reads EULA's, so they get away with it. Although some will be hit by GDPR. The first fines are coming in:

http://www.enforcementtracker.com/

I suppose Apple and Google will be confronted with some fine too, sooner or later.
Don't forget facebook who is all but begging to be regulated (please don't throw me in the briar patch.  ::) ).

I suspect they all have huge piles of cash set aside to pay government fines that are all but a done deal after (swamp) monkey see EU doing it, (swamp) monkey will surely do it.

JR
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: cyrano on July 02, 2019, 06:21:58 PM
Nobody (except for lawyers and judges) should have to read EULAs. Business models that rely on collecting personal consumer data should be outlawed, IMHO.

I agree.

There have been a few courts ruling against EULAs worldwide, but a few major players still consider a EULA to be a binding contract.

I've had a EULA for a site I used to run that required any visitor to surrender whatever money they had to me, just for reading the page. In almost ten years, nobody complained...

Kind of shows the current situation. :D
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: cyrano on July 02, 2019, 06:33:02 PM
There is no free lunch, with Google the customers performing searches are the product, Apple just uses a different angle as they shift to a services subscription business model. Apple also monetizes their customer base by skimming a fat percentage of sales made through their app store.

Apple knows the value of data all too well. That's why they're not selling any to anyone. It's not because they are concerned about our privacy. Still, it's better for us than what Google does. But then, a lot of Google's services are free.

Quote
Don't forget facebook who is all but begging to be regulated (please don't throw me in the briar patch.  ::) ).

You betcha. I'm not forgetting FB. But it's a different story. Gossip is the prostitution of conversation. And that's what FB is doing. Low value data and once the buyers find out, FB is done. Of course, they've amassed a mountain of money meanwhile, so they'll be around for a while.

Remember MySpace? They seem to have "lost" all their older data. There's a rumour they couldn't afford to pay for the storage any longer.

Quote
I suspect they all have huge piles of cash set aside to pay government fines that are all but a done deal after (swamp) monkey see EU doing it, (swamp) monkey will surely do it.

I'm pretty certain the EU is going after some lesser known targets too. And as long as fines are proportional to turnover, they'll hurt even the ones with money mountains.
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: living sounds on July 03, 2019, 06:06:18 AM
I agree.

There have been a few courts ruling against EULAs worldwide, but a few major players still consider a EULA to be a binding contract.

I've had a EULA for a site I used to run that required any visitor to surrender whatever money they had to me, just for reading the page. In almost ten years, nobody complained...

Kind of shows the current situation. :D

In Germany there are rather stringent legal limitations regarding what you can and cannot put in fine-print. These rules have been adopted within the EU to varying degrees since the early 90s, but full harmonisation is still being debated.

Nobody would have to complain against your rule about surrendering money, since it would be void prima facie. ;-)
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: cyrano on July 03, 2019, 06:53:18 PM
I wasn't expecting someone to take me to court, but send a mail maybe.

But then the EULA page only had a few dozen visitors after years, despite being linked in the footer of every page...

This was on a site that had up to 60.000 individual visitors monthly, not counting bots.
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: kambo on July 03, 2019, 08:24:43 PM
OMG, went through my iphone, ton of application gathering ton of information about you edit "me"...
btw, they say they are not selling any info, but at Flint Water Case in US, test results were getting modified pretty easy... (Michael Moore 11/9 documentary, last quarter)
you think i am gonna take their words for it   :o
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: Tubetec on July 03, 2019, 09:24:25 PM
Resistance is futile earthling ,we know what you had for breakfeast  ;D
Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: kambo on July 03, 2019, 09:34:59 PM
Resistance is futile earthling ,we know what you had for breakfeast  ;D

terminator coming out soon... i made some sound design for its trailers :)


Title: Re: conspiracy theories
Post by: JohnRoberts on July 04, 2019, 11:21:07 AM
Apple knows the value of data all too well. That's why they're not selling any to anyone. It's not because they are concerned about our privacy. Still, it's better for us than what Google does. But then, a lot of Google's services are free.
Big tech understands the marketing worth of "privacy" to brands. Apple positions itself as holier than thou regarding privacy while selling apps through its app store that blatantly collect personal data.  The news is riddled with examples of privacy violations in apps. One perverse child's app was collecting data about everything the child looked at, and sending it back to the mother ship. 

For now apple can claim that their hands are clean..... for now.

JR
Quote
You betcha. I'm not forgetting FB. But it's a different story. Gossip is the prostitution of conversation. And that's what FB is doing. Low value data and once the buyers find out, FB is done. Of course, they've amassed a mountain of money meanwhile, so they'll be around for a while.

Remember MySpace? They seem to have "lost" all their older data. There's a rumour they couldn't afford to pay for the storage any longer.

I'm pretty certain the EU is going after some lesser known targets too. And as long as fines are proportional to turnover, they'll hurt even the ones with money mountains.