dysamoria

“...profanity-laced tirade...”

Are you kidding me? Where’s the tirade? How do you “lace” a nonexistent tirade with only ONE word of profanity? At best, it’s a humorous retort, but it’s probably not even that.

This story, claimed false by both parties that are alleged to have been part of the events, has been turned into a click-bait headline that leads to a piffle of nothingness.

And I had to deal with stupid video popups just to read this baited nothing article.

igorsky said:

neoncat said:

mike1 said:

AppleInsider said:

It is thought that tweaks by Apple to algorithms used in the Apple Watch changed how the data was interpreted before being collected.

"These algorithms are what we would call black boxes - they're not transparent. So it's impossible to know what's in them," said Onnela. "What was surprising was how different they are. This is probably the cleanest example that I have seen of this phenomenon."

It's amazing how smart people can be so stupid. It's not a phenomenon. It's called continual updates to tweak the algorithm over the course of almost two years. If this is an issue for your research, you make sure the software is locked down for the length of the study.

I realize this is the new-normal for Apple sites—to be a dismissive prick, like a badge of honor—but the problem the article highlights is the researchers *don't have control* over this algorithmic versioning. This is public data, that *Apple itself* is encouraging be used for these studies (ResearchKit, anyone?) I think the frustration is entirely above-board. 

If you're going to welcome someone to do their job with your data, and create an interface for that data, don't be so surprised if that person says, "yeah but... this data isn't what we need." So, where's the problem again?

Right, yes, of course, Anyone But Apple™. Sorry, I'll be better.  

I see as many posts like yours, with that sarcastic anti-Apple tone, as a see from those who defend them.  So not really sure what the new normal is around here.

There’s a difference and it’s increasingly exhausting to have to explain it to people who come along with the “you’re both the same” rhetoric.

 The sarcasm in the response is different from the sarcasm it responds to. The initial commentary was illogical, and entirely missed the point of the researchers’ complaints because the commentator’s pro-Apple bias. The response points out this bias and probably reveals the author’s frustration with that bias.

To say these two were exactly the same or “mere ideological opposites” is akin to gaslighting the person who’s understandably responding to irrational rhetoric. You also give the impression of trying to be superior by appearing neutral, where there’s a factual debate, not a mere disagreement of opinions.

The black box algorithms are an obstruction to the collection of scientifically valid data. Sane data. No one can ever know what reality is with that data, so why use the tool to collect said data? Attacking researchers for this is ridiculous and is based in pro-Apple fanaticism. The response was not “anti-Apple fanaticism”.

mike1 said:

AppleInsider said:

It is thought that tweaks by Apple to algorithms used in the Apple Watch changed how the data was interpreted before being collected.

"These algorithms are what we would call black boxes - they're not transparent. So it's impossible to know what's in them," said Onnela. "What was surprising was how different they are. This is probably the cleanest example that I have seen of this phenomenon."

It's amazing how smart people can be so stupid. It's not a phenomenon. It's called continual updates to tweak the algorithm over the course of almost two years. If this is an issue for your research, you make sure the software is locked down for the length of the study.

You’re missing the point. If they can’t tell WHY an algorithm changes the results so dramatically, the devices are useless for collecting scientific study data. The data itself might be invalid. Someone who thinks they’re so much smarter than these researchers should grasp that “software updates” do not mean “improvements” or “greater accuracy” in a situation where the algorithm itself is a black box.

tommikele said:

Is this guy really as much of a moron as his statement indicates?

He’s a laissez-faire capitalist who financially benefits from sociopathic, even fascistic, customers. He believes whatever is in his financial interests to believe. Intelligence isn’t relevant to the equation.

AI has joined the legions of “news sites” who now throw unwanted and automatically playing VIDEO POPUPS on pages.

STOP MAKING THE WEB INTOLERABLE!!