[diana_eva]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-December-04, 19:19, said:

But how would you feel if you had put thousands of hours into something and then been told by several people that it was all a sham? Be serious now.

When I first learned how to play bridge I had a LOT of bad ideas and habits picked from random people. I was told repeatedly it was all a sham. I had to unlearn everything I've worked so hard to learn and start over from scratch. I don't regret it.

[hrothgar]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-December-04, 19:19, said:

Trust me when I tell you that I'm not being malicious and it was not a schtick. I simply posted my ideas. You told me that my ideas are based on ignorance. I know my ideas are based on very much research; however you are telling me that my research has all been misguided. It is possible that you're right but at this point I really don't feel like starting over. Maybe someday, maybe soon. But how would you feel if you had put thousands of hours into something and then been told by several people that it was all a sham? Be serious now.

I seem to recall a comment on your part a week or two back that you needed to get ready for Orlando...

I don't suppose that you can point at a bridge score for any of the events down there that might prove that you actually exist and aren't a random troll?

[diana_eva]

hrothgar, on 2016-December-04, 19:37, said:

I seem to recall a comment on your part a week or two back that you needed to get ready for Orlando...

I don't suppose that you can point at a bridge score for any of the events down there that might prove that you actually exist and aren't a random troll?

She's not a troll, cut it out. She might be posting under an alias, that's not against the BBF rules.

[mikeh]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-December-04, 19:19, said:

I appreciate you guys trying to show me the light, that the liberals have it all right and I've been a fool who has listened to charlatans. Mind you, there are many that are still calling your side the charlatans. But you have tried.

And I had this weird impression that the "Water Cooler" is a place where people can toss around ideas. You are telling me instead that I need to do more research than is required for a typical college course. While I'm not disputing that I'm somewhat lazy, if I'm going to something that feels like work in my free time, I would prefer to create my Bidding Problems for I/N players and perhaps maybe a few bridge movies for players to enjoy. I realize that being well informed is good. However, I've done a lot of political research and look where it has got me. I'm being told that I've wasted probably thousands of hours looking at the "wrong" shows and websites. So far I've received positive feedback on my bridge problems so I don't feel like that is time wasted.

Trust me when I tell you that I'm not being malicious and it was not a schtick. I simply posted my ideas. You told me that my ideas are based on ignorance. I know my ideas are based on very much research; however you are telling me that my research has all been misguided. It is possible that you're right but at this point I really don't feel like starting over. Maybe someday, maybe soon. But how would you feel if you had put thousands of hours into something and then been told by several people that it was all a sham? Be serious now.

Gimme a break

I, if not others, have repeatedly suggested you use google. Using the common sense search terms... at most 3 or 4 words....you can find how silly your notions are. The socialist professor story generates evidence of its being a made up story in 1 second. The Clinton murder nonsense....type Clinton murders into google....and you claim we are asking you to spend thousands of hours? Personally, had you checked out every story I called you out on, which was 9I think) literally every one, you might spend a couple of hours, but only if you actually read a few of the references.

[y66]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-December-04, 19:19, said:

I appreciate you guys trying to show me the light, that the liberals have it all right and I've been a fool who has listened to charlatans. Mind you, there are many that are still calling your side the charlatans. But you have tried.

And I had this weird impression that the "Water Cooler" is a place where people can toss around ideas. You are telling me instead that I need to do more research than is required for a typical college course. While I'm not disputing that I'm somewhat lazy, if I'm going to something that feels like work in my free time, I would prefer to create my Bidding Problems for I/N players and perhaps maybe a few bridge movies for players to enjoy. I realize that being well informed is good. However, I've done a lot of political research and look where it has got me. I'm being told that I've wasted probably thousands of hours looking at the "wrong" shows and websites. So far I've received positive feedback on my bridge problems so I don't feel like that is time wasted.

Trust me when I tell you that I'm not being malicious and it was not a schtick. I simply posted my ideas. You told me that my ideas are based on ignorance. I know my ideas are based on very much research; however you are telling me that my research has all been misguided. It is possible that you're right but at this point I really don't feel like starting over. Maybe someday, maybe soon. But how would you feel if you had put thousands of hours into something and then been told by several people that it was all a sham? Be serious now.

I feel sure you know that the important question is how are you going to spend the next 1,000 hours? Did you ever read At The Table? Check out the chapter titled "Moose". I'm guessing those late night sessions, Bobby Goldman's relentless search for the truth and the lumps Hamman took from Moose and his teammates are among his happiest bridge memories. The next chapter is titled "The Juggernaut"!

From The white flight of Derek Black:

Quote

Late this summer, for the first time in years, he traveled to Florida to see them. At a time of increasingly contentious rhetoric, he wanted to hear what his father had to say. They sat in the house and talked about graduate school and Don’s new German shepherd. But after a while, their conversation turned back to ideology, the topic they had always preferred.

Don, who usually didn’t vote, said he was going to support Trump.

Derek said he had taken an online political quiz, and his views aligned 97 percent with Hillary Clinton’s.

Don said immigration restrictions sounded like a good start.

Derek said he actually believed in more immigration, because he had been studying the social and economic benefits of diversity.

Don thought that would result in a white genocide.

Derek thought race was a false concept anyway.

They sat across from each other, searching for ways to bridge the divide. The bay was one block away. Just across from there was Mar-a-Lago, where Trump had lived and vacationed for so many years, once installing an 80-foot pole for a gigantic American flag.

“Who would have thought he’d be the one to take it mainstream?” Don said, and in a moment of so much division, it was the one point on which they agreed.

[Kaitlyn S]

mikeh, on 2016-December-04, 20:11, said:

Gimme a break

I, if not others, have repeatedly suggested you use google. Using the common sense search terms... at most 3 or 4 words....you can find how silly your notions are. The socialist professor story generates evidence of its being a made up story in 1 second. The Clinton murder nonsense....type Clinton murders into google....and you claim we are asking you to spend thousands of hours? Personally, had you checked out every story I called you out on, which was 9I think) literally every one, you might spend a couple of hours, but only if you actually read a few of the references.

Did you know that Google shows you what they think you want to see? A poster on another site challenged me as you are now to look something up. He told me to look up, as he had, the percentage of Muslims in the USA that wanted Sharia law. I posted my top 10 hits. He thought I was full of crap since every one of my top 10 hits said that 51% or more of Muslims in the USA wanted Sharia law. Not surprisingly, he got different results. One of the other posters pointed out to him that I was not full of crap, but I was getting sites that Google thought I wanted to see. (I have since been to some more liberal sties so I don't think I would get those 10 hits anymore.)

They do the same with their autofill. He typed in Muslim and got suggestions like Muslim women. I typed in Muslim and all my suggestions had to do with jihad.

So I could indeed follow your suggestion to do a simple Google search on things and they would simply back up my preconceived notions. In fact, a few months ago I did Google "Clinton murders." Nine of the top ten hits all were alt-right wing sites which said that they happened and not to believe any clueless liberals that tell you otherwise. I'm dead serious! The tenth one was Snopes that said that many of the rumors were proven false but many of them have not been checked yet. (Of course some of the other sites claimed that Snopes was a liberal front. What am I supposed to think? I did my research, and that's what came up. Honestly. My bias was already cooked into the search engine.)

By the way, your bias is also reflected in your Google searches.

If you'd like, I'd try an experiment, Give me any hot-button search term and we'll each post our top five links I'll bet mine are alt-right and yours are alt-left.

[Kaitlyn S]

diana_eva, on 2016-December-04, 19:44, said:

She's not a troll, cut it out. She might be posting under an alias, that's not against the BBF rules.

True.

This year I came back to BBO after several years off. I couldn't log into the forums with my old username so I used this one. My name is not Kaitlyn Smith. However, I would have no problem posting any of the same posts in the Water Cooler under my real name. However, I would not have been able to post honestly about bridge experiences, at least about negative ones.

My spouse works for the ACBL. We have, in the last year, been told that speaking badly about any of ACBL's products or services is unacceptable. This makes it impossible to speak about my true feelings about tournament bridge under my real name without compromising my spouse's position.

I think I'd be allowed to type: ♥ The masterpoint :♥ is such ♥ a wonderful ♥ thing! ♥ Everybody ♥ should try ♥ to get ♥ as many ♥ as possible! ♥

If someone thinks I'm trolling, you'll have to trust me when I tell you that I posted much more obnoxiously under my old username which identified me. In fact, one of the people calling Kaitlyn S a troll likely called my real name a troll also! However, the ACBL didn't have as many issues with free speech then so I was able to post opinions with abandon.

So, as long as anybody can link my ideas to Kaitlyn Smith's ideas, I will not be likely to be posting on BridgeWinners.

[mike777]

"If you'd like, I'd try an experiment, Give me any hot-button search term and we'll each post our top five links I'll bet mine are alt-right and yours are alt-left. "


By 2050 AI IQ will measure, any standard accepted measurement , millions of times greater than the sum of all of humans.


I allow you to choose all posts.

[Kaitlyn S]

mike777, on 2016-December-04, 22:34, said:

"If you'd like, I'd try an experiment, Give me any hot-button search term and we'll each post our top five links I'll bet mine are alt-right and yours are alt-left. "


By 2050 AI IQ will measure, any standard accepted measurement , millions of times greater than the sum of all of humans.


I allow you to choose all posts.

LOL why would we get different hits with that search? There's nothing political there and we might agree.

But in any event, my top five are:

http://waitbutwhy.co...volution-1.html

http://waitbutwhy.co...volution-2.html

http://nautil.us/iss...mans-are-coming

http://marvin.cs.uid...out/quotes.html

http://dunedinstudy....YoungAdults.pdf

[diana_eva]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-December-04, 22:43, said:

LOL why would we get different hits with that search? There's nothing political there and we might agree.

But in any event, my top five are:

http://waitbutwhy.co...volution-1.html

http://waitbutwhy.co...volution-2.html

http://nautil.us/iss...mans-are-coming

http://marvin.cs.uid...out/quotes.html

http://dunedinstudy....YoungAdults.pdf

I think he's just posting a mike777 aphorism about AI (how google's search engine is optimized to show you search results that are likely to be relevant to you based on previous searches and visits), not suggesting that you search that phrase.

[diana_eva]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-December-04, 22:33, said:

True.

This year I came back to BBO after several years off. I couldn't log into the forums with my old username so I used this one. My name is not Kaitlyn Smith. However, I would have no problem posting any of the same posts in the Water Cooler under my real name. However, I would not have been able to post honestly about bridge experiences, at least about negative ones.

My spouse works for the ACBL. We have, in the last year, been told that speaking badly about any of ACBL's products or services is unacceptable. This makes it impossible to speak about my true feelings about tournament bridge under my real name without compromising my spouse's position.

I think I'd be allowed to type: ♥ The masterpoint :♥ is such ♥ a wonderful ♥ thing! ♥ Everybody ♥ should try ♥ to get ♥ as many ♥ as possible! ♥

If someone thinks I'm trolling, you'll have to trust me when I tell you that I posted much more obnoxiously under my old username which identified me. In fact, one of the people calling Kaitlyn S a troll likely called my real name a troll also! However, the ACBL didn't have as many issues with free speech then so I was able to post opinions with abandon.

So, as long as anybody can link my ideas to Kaitlyn Smith's ideas, I will not be likely to be posting on BridgeWinners.

You didn't have to explain yourself about your private life and stuff. It's OK to post under an alias on BBF, especially if you're not doing so exclusively about controversial topics in the WC. I appreciate your sincerity.

[Kaitlyn S]

diana_eva, on 2016-December-04, 22:59, said:

You didn't have to explain yourself about your private life and stuff. It's OK to post under an alias on BBF, especially if you're not doing so exclusively about controversial topics in the WC. I appreciate your sincerity.

It seemed like Richard & cherd were pushing hard for the truth. I thought I would make it easy for them 'cause they're such cool awesome dudes

[mike777]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-December-04, 22:43, said:

LOL why would we get different hits with that search? There's nothing political there and we might agree.

But in any event, my top five are:

http://waitbutwhy.co...volution-1.html

http://waitbutwhy.co...volution-2.html

http://nautil.us/iss...mans-are-coming

http://marvin.cs.uid...out/quotes.html

http://dunedinstudy....YoungAdults.pdf

fair enough but you claim no politics or close to zero?


again so what? you post links but say nothing as to your view point or truth.


you state you might agree so do you or not??

[mike777]

diana_eva, on 2016-December-04, 22:54, said:

I think he's just posting a mike777 aphorism about AI (how google's search engine is optimized to show you search results that are likely to be relevant to you based on previous searches and visits), not suggesting that you search that phrase.

hmmm not sure your point


yes I suggest that phrase. In fact I advocate that phrase for years and years on these forums.


If you feel the phrase or advocate is nonsense....fair enough and why?

[diana_eva]

mike777, on 2016-December-05, 00:19, said:

hmmm not sure your point


yes I suggest that phrase. In fact I advocate that phrase for years and years on these forums.


If you feel the phrase or advocate is nonsense....fair enough and why?

You missed the point completely. The experiment is this:


Google search shows different results to different people.
Give me a topic to search
I search that topic on google on my browser
You search that topic on google on your browser
We each post top 5 links, the results that appear first in the list

So she went ahead and posted the 5 links that google showed her.

Is this what you wanted to do with your phrase? Run it through a search engine? If so, she just gave you the experiment results and you should give yours to compare.

[mike777]

diana_eva, on 2016-December-05, 00:33, said:

You missed the point completely. The experiment is this:


Google search shows different results to different people.
Give me a topic to search
I search that topic on google on my browser
You search that topic on google on your browser
We each post top 5 links, the results that appear first in the list

So she went ahead and posted the 5 links that google showed her.

Is this what you wanted to do with your phrase? Run it through a search engine? If so, she just gave you the experiment results and you should give yours to compare.

no that was not the experiment.


what I did was the experiment...we disagree


If we cannot agree what we test, Houston we have a problem.


please see my posts not yours.

--------------------

nOw if you wish to forget your experiment and test what I did fair enough.


as for your test as you post it, not testable...you need to rephrase.

[diana_eva]

mike777, on 2016-December-05, 00:39, said:

no that was not the experiment.


what I did was the experiment...we disagree


If we cannot agree what we test, Houston we have a problem.


please see my posts not yours.

Please see the post you quoted and read it carefully. Kaitlyn's post, the one you quoted just before your AI phrase. I was simply trying to explain what she meant coz you seem confused.

[helene_t]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-December-04, 22:10, said:

the percentage of Muslims in the USA that wanted Sharia law.

I know that "sharia law" means "throwing gay men off the roof of tall buildings, and counting a male witness as equal two too female witnessess, and execute people who leave islam" to most of us who are not muslims.

I am sure it means similarly sinister things to some muslims. But not to all. So the % may well depend on how the question is phrased, and in any case a more specific question would probably be more interesting.

[kenberg]

Kaitlyn S, on 2016-December-04, 22:10, said:

Did you know that Google shows you what they think you want to see? A poster on another site challenged me as you are now to look something up. He told me to look up, as he had, the percentage of Muslims in the USA that wanted Sharia law. I posted my top 10 hits. He thought I was full of crap since every one of my top 10 hits said that 51% or more of Muslims in the USA wanted Sharia law. Not surprisingly, he got different results. One of the other posters pointed out to him that I was not full of crap, but I was getting sites that Google thought I wanted to see. (I have since been to some more liberal sties so I don't think I would get those 10 hits anymore.)

They do the same with their autofill. He typed in Muslim and got suggestions like Muslim women. I typed in Muslim and all my suggestions had to do with jihad.

So I could indeed follow your suggestion to do a simple Google search on things and they would simply back up my preconceived notions. In fact, a few months ago I did Google "Clinton murders." Nine of the top ten hits all were alt-right wing sites which said that they happened and not to believe any clueless liberals that tell you otherwise. I'm dead serious! The tenth one was Snopes that said that many of the rumors were proven false but many of them have not been checked yet. (Of course some of the other sites claimed that Snopes was a liberal front. What am I supposed to think? I did my research, and that's what came up. Honestly. My bias was already cooked into the search engine.)

By the way, your bias is also reflected in your Google searches.

If you'd like, I'd try an experiment, Give me any hot-button search term and we'll each post our top five links I'll bet mine are alt-right and yours are alt-left.

I tried both "Clinton murders" with the quotation marks and Clinton murders without the quotation marks. The results were different. I have come to expect this. With the quotes, Google treats the two words as one phrase, without the quotes it treats it as two separate words. Or at least that's what I figure is the explanation. The latter is for people interested in both Clinton and in murders, the former for people specifically interested in Clinton murders.

Ok
For "Clinton murders"
http://www.huffingto...4b007c36e4f5ffa
http://www.wnd.com/2...triguing-cases/
http://www.whatreall...p#axzz4Ry7TCZ8m
http://www.thepoliti...ount-increases/
http://townhall.com/...ly-die-n2203000

Oops! I am going to stop here. Except for possibly the first one, this looks more than a little nutty. I am getting concerned about my computer. Some websites are more difficult than others to dismiss, I already am finding this to be the case with these sites. And I will probably be getting weird ads now when I log onto bbo to play. From Becky's online shopping I already get ads for women's dresses, swimsuits and so on. And sometimes for some very strange men's clothing. I can't explain that last part. Anyway, I find it best to stay off of weird sites. That's not because I can't stand reading their content, although that can also be an issue. It is because the internet is not an entirely safe place.

Anyway, I suppose Google does take into account perceived interests. But when I typed in U/U to see stuff about Unusual over Unusual I got stuff about the University of Utah and, for some reason, the Central Board of Film Certification. So I wouldn't push this idea too hard.

[diana_eva]

kenberg, on 2016-December-05, 07:27, said:

Anyway, I suppose Google does take into account perceived interests. But when I typed in U/U to see stuff about Unusual over Unusual I got stuff about the University of Utah and, for some reason, the Central Board of Film Certification. So I wouldn't push this idea too hard.

Google does take into account previous search history and browser cookies if any. If I search for bridge on my mom's computer I get mostly people jumping off bridges and famous bridge news. On my computer google knows already which bridge I'm referring to and it shows me some contract bridge results, if not 1st hit, at least among top 10, not on page 3 like on a diff computer.