#since she also broke her moral code//take consequence for your actions | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

thecoroutfitters · 6 years ago

Link

Written by Wild Bill on The Prepper Journal.

Editors Note: A guest contribution from Soma Chakrabotry to The Prepper Journal. One I have been wrestling with for some time as regular followers will remember. A touchy subject perhaps in a world overrun with PC morality in the place of a backbone but one that has merit and deserves to be aired, and preparing our families for the realities of the real world is basic to prepping and corporal punishment reflects the realities of the real world, the one outside of the internet, video games system, safe-spaces, and the make-believe of TV and the movies.

When I was 11 years old I had a friend who’s room looked to me like the inside of a Toy’s R Us. He had every toy I think I had ever seen. While playing in his house he used a word kids shouldn’t and his father immediately banished him to his room as punishment and told me to go home. All the way home all I could think about was his “punishment” because my parents believed in and practiced corporal punishment. I don’t know what kind of adult he became but I still considered him lucky as a child as any kid would have loved to be banished to his room full of toys.

The only edits I have made are to the grammar/readability and flow of Soma’s excellent work.

We may have heard from an elder “You need a spanking” or “there have to be consequences” perhaps from a caring employer over a mistake at work. For some it reminds us of childhood days when spanking was a part of our relationship with our parents, disciplining us to learn the knots of the world, to instill that there are consequences to our actions, sometimes immediate ones, sometimes with the addition of a physiological “worry period” in anticipation of the punishment created by the words “just wait until your father/mother gets home!”

When Society Defines Rights and Wrongs

The practice of spanking a child dates back to the Biblical ages and The Bible even advocates the practice of spanking as a safe methodology for reprimanding a child, without infliction of harm while at the same time, becoming a mode of imparting discipline. Spanking is a sharp flick of the hand or wooden–paddle held with the hand on the buttocks of the child. The idea is to make him or her feel the pain to understand that discipline has been broken and it needs reprimand with the buttocks being the usual point of contact, though slaps on hands can also instill a similar message. In my opinion strikes anywhere else are a problem and should be avoided.

According to some psychologists, spanking is embarrassing for the child because before inflicting the sting it requires baring the buttocks, that is, removing the clothes and then imparting the sting. Your call, not required in my opinion.

However there are those that believe baring the buttocks is a psychological method of helping the child come out of embarrassment and actually delivers a cathartic effect in the child’s psychology. Whatever the reality the truth is spanking is still considered a safe method of child reprimand all over the world.

It should be remembered that spanking is a private affair of disciplining and should be practiced in private with the child without any third person being present – even his or her sibling. Using the occasion to set an examples for others (siblings) by letting them watch is open for discussion between the parents as to its drawbacks vs its benefits. One has to remember that every child has prestige, a self image that we do not want to damage and peers can be cruel. The moment we break the privacy, not only does the child becomes shy or rebels, but the effect of spanking loses significance as the punishment becomes more central to the child’s memory than the act that brought it about.

There should be set rules so that the child learns to recognize what is acceptable and when and does not normally break the law to get the spanking. To establish disciplines parents must formulate some code of conduct and make it known to the child verbally. They should be sternly told what is not at all acceptable and that the violation of such conduct will call for reprimand in the way of a spanking. Parents need to articulate lines such as “at no point of time shall I accept any lies or false statements from you. ” Parents’ personality plays a great deal in determining the discipline of the child. A lofty personality, as in one where the parents sets the standard that they are the parent and not a friend, means that the child knows when they are serious and does not normally cross the stated boundary line, but if they do a spanking is to be expected because they broke the code.

To keep the gravity of spanking it should not be used too frequently and used only when the matter is serious and warrants the disciplining. There should be no false threats given to the child. If threats are given and spanking not practiced, the child will develop the habit to take the threat casually and refrain from disciplining himself/herself since there are no real consequences to their actions. Hence it is always advisable to speak less of spanking as a threat as to practice it in reality.

The age group that is fit for spanking is two to four years old. This is because less than two years the child is innocent and does not commit any serious indiscipline which requires spanking. When the child grows more than five, he/she may not fear spanking anymore and needs some reinforced, stricter form of punishment, a removal/time-out NOT in a room filled with toys and distractions. This the Indian Pundit Chanakya has also told in his Sanskrit sloka. In fact he had told very nicely how to behave with children of different age-groups, a lesson which is still taken by masters as a golden rule of parenting/teaching.

Those who are dead set against spanking must realize that the child of the age group two to four only understands physical threat as a mode of disciplining. This is because their self-esteem is not very well grown and matured. With the fierce world laying its prey on child victims, that children often do not understand, the child must be made fearful of some method of immediate punishment which prevents him or her from venturing into the wilderness without the knowledge and guidance of parents. If children are not taught limitations, they will experiment which can be dangerous for them. Wild experimentation can become a trap to rob away their innocence or ruin them. Sparing the punishment is most of the time sparing the safety and guidance to childhood.

However, children are intelligent and sensitive; they must also understand the spankers right intention in disciplining them. Spanking works best when it is given out of unconditional love. Some spanking memories may become the treasure of the child when he or she grows up to a self-reliant matured man or woman, relishing the days of childhood van-guarded by parents and teachers. To be curt and courteous, because little kids also demands courtesy, the spanker should at some point of time make it clear that the next time the child must discipline himself so that such a situation can be avoided. It is natural that maybe at that point of time the child will cry some serene cries and want to relax on the lap of the spanker melting in his mind the little dynamites of remorse and complaints he or she has formed about the spanker.

A word of caution which should be strictly adhered is that no sweet caring nanny or grandma should try to save the child and stop the spanking because it demeans the estime of the spanker in the child’s mind, undermines his/her authority and gives the child the liberty to continue his or her childish menace without the fear of being reprimanded. Being the cause of sparing the rod is actually putting the child in the threshold of a danger called indiscipline and this can often lead the coveted child astray.

Follow The Prepper Journal on Facebook!

The post Does Corporal Punishment Better Prepare One for the Real World? appeared first on The Prepper Journal.

from The Prepper Journal Don't forget to visit the store and pick up some gear at The COR Outfitters. How prepared are you for emergencies? #SurvivalFirestarter #SurvivalBugOutBackpack #PrepperSurvivalPack #SHTFGear #SHTFBag

#SHTF #TEOTWAWKI #MARTIALLAW #BUGOUT #PREPPERBAG #USAF #USSOCOM #ARMY #NAVY #SurvivalFirestarter #Sur

1 note · View note

livingwithashipname-blog · 8 years ago

Text

Ermanda’s Inner Sanctum: Scorpion 3.13 “Faux Money Maux Problems”

This is another solid episode! With a 9-minute intro before the first commercial break, there is a longer, 2-fold mission. The mission is good and easy to follow and the comedy is great. Scorpion’s previous work is notarized on the dark web. We get more of Paige’s backstory with a little glimpse of her younger years with her mother, Veronica. It further explains Paige’s dissent towards her mother and why she feels better maintaining her distance. We also see Walter hilariously trying to be more emotionally aware while Sly is preparing for an upcoming debate for the Alderman election. Also, Quintis is planning their wedding! Let’s dive in!

Sly

Sly is an adorable sweetie pie! But if he wants to win this election for Alderman, he has to play the game better. As Cabe says, “honesty will get you points at the Pearly Gates. In politics, it will get you crushed!” 😂 And it’s hilarious that the best person to teach Sly all about obfuscation right now is Veronica Dineen, master con artist and vagabond! Oh boy! Good luck Sly!

Walter “Logical Dictator”

Walter tries a new method to boost team morale and be a more considerate, effective leader. Hello conch method (from Lord of the Flies)! Here we go again… HA!

Poor baby! He tries so hard and commits to his plan. And yet, it is still weird and does not work out the way he intends. Toby calls this at the top of the episode, saying that Walter is acting out of his nature and will eventually snap. By the end of the mission, he has destroyed the virtual conch and declares himself the logical dictator of Scorpion. Relive this comical moment here! As funny as this is, it is another indication that Walter needs to find better ways to take the EQ lessons he has learned and apply them in ways that best suit his nature in order to be a great boss - a lesson designed to push his emotional development this season. Paige suggests that he needs to figure this out on his own since telling and intervening for him for the past 2.5 years hasn’t worked. This is an interesting approach considering Veronica did the same with her. Head here for more of my thoughts about the “sink or swim” approach for Walter.

Quintis

It’s a countdown to the Quintis wedding! Yay! Love their teamwork this episode. They always bring out the best in each other when they’re together!

Happy

In my past reviews, I mention that a Quintis shift is on the horizon. It looks like my postulation is correct because this episode showcases Happy Quinn doing things we would expect from Toby Curtis from beginning to end. First, Happy and Toby are not prepared for the mission because they forget her work at home. What were they doing? They were looking at wedding venues all night! Makes me wonder if that’s the ONLY reason why they spaced. 😉😜😍 Second, Happy is the one who suggests checking out Crooning Crane Winery as a potential wedding venue while they wait for correspondence from the rest of team and Toby is busy tasting various wines. Third, Toby is the behaviorist, but Happy is the one who notices that they are being followed. The most EPIC part of this moment… SHE USES PDA TO ALERT TOBY ABOUT THEIR STALKER AND GET THEM OUT OF TROUBLE!!! She could have used a code word or just drag Toby to the wine barrel storage shed. She didn’t need to kiss him and yet she did! The kiss is hot and does not seem like it is simply for a ruse! Happy Quinn never ceases to amaze me! (Side note: Remember this Quintis fandom? Yeah… that was a setup. I can’t help but think… well played, Scorpion writers. Lol!) Finally, we discover that Happy has a money problem too. She can not help herself when it comes to rare motorcycle parts! With 5 figures worth of rare motorcycle parts, I hope we get to see a newly built motorcycle from her in the future! That’s a lot of dinero!

Toby

This episode gives us glimpse of what Toby has been hiding behind the scenes as I anticipated from his behavior is previous episodes. He admits to Happy that he is broke and can not afford his half for the wedding venue of her choice because he still has gambling debts. Of course, he is gutted when Happy walks away for a moment because he feels like he messed up for not telling her sooner. Thankfully, Happy reveals that she is unable to pay her half in full as well. Her admission leads into a cute moment between them where Toby becomes Happy from their first talks about marriage. Remember that Toby was the one to suggest a formal wedding ceremony while Happy wanted to quickly marry at the courthouse. Now that he is incapable of financing this plan, he concedes to the idea of marrying Happy anywhere as long as he gets the opportunity to say “I do.” Happy feels the same way, but is not on board with getting married in a parking lot. Lol! Interesting flip, no? Another interesting tidbit is that we get a confirmation that Toby is not gambling, but compares his gambling debt payments to the process of students loans paid to the University of Bruno. This is an interesting association considering that student loan debt takes years to resolve. Therefore, it makes me question several things that are not mentioned in this scene: his original debt amount, how much he has paid, his current balance, the turnover time of his payments, and the consequences for failure to meet his payment deadlines. I am thoroughly pleased that Toby kept his promise to Happy. It shows incredible growth and resiliency. Yet, I suspect we will learn more about this “Bruno” character as Quintis gets deeper into their wedding plans. Will Toby’s issue inadvertently interfere with them? How does Happy support Toby in this?

Hello to the grand beginnings of the Quintis shift! 😜🙌🏾🙌🏾

If you have talked with me privately about the show, then you already know that I called the garage rooftop as the wedding spot since Happy decided to go through with a formal ceremony in 3.08 Sly and the Family Stone. Let’s see how long it takes Quintis to finally decide on this spot. And with their financial woes, does the team pitch in to help? Who is on the guest list besides Team Scorpion? Also, another key fob makes an appearance in this episode. I fail to see that as a coincidence. 😉 We shall see! All hail the Mighty Love Oak! 💚🌳💚

Paige & Veronica Dineen

This episode gives us more insight into this mother-daughter pair. We first see Paige as young girl. Unfortunately, she is in the middle of one of her mother’s cons.

Now Veronica is back. And of course we’re thinking… what is she up to now? Come to find out Veronica can not stay in Los Angeles because of a former “business deal.” Obviously, this is the important thing she has to say to Paige. The last thing Paige wants is her mother’s ways to negatively affect the relationship she allows her to have with Ralph. But the mission gives them an opportunity to talk since Veronica uses her skills to devise a way to keep her and Paige together. And Paige learns a little more about what her mother’s past questionable jobs entailed.

I have to admit that Veronica Dineen is very instrumental in this situation. Her skill set is perfect for dealing with Lucinda & crew from Norteguay. She devises an escape plan for the guys, insults the team when things go south to get a rise out of Paige, and fakes a heart attack to move her and Paige to the room where the guys escape. (I said to myself, “this woman is good, but poor Paige.”) Yet, she has allowed herself to become so engulfed by the excitement of all her con work that she doesn’t realize or willingly admit how much her actions are a source of emotional abuse for Paige. This is especially apparent when Veronica fakes a heart attack. Since Paige is initially unaware of the lie, she honestly believes her mother is in grave danger. Her emotions in this moment show that she stills cares for her mother, but it makes sense why she wants to keep her distance.

Veronica is also impressed by the villains and proud of her daughter’s ability to work through sticky situations. She deems parenting methods as a beneficial part of Paige’s development because Paige turns out to be a strong woman and great mother. Of course, Paige thinks differently… “you’re turning abandonment into a recipe for successful parenting” (insert major side eye from Paige here). But now that they manage to save themselves, Veronica finds herself outed by news coverage of the team’s escape. And she wants Paige’s help to get her out of trouble. Uh oh! What is the “Kentucky two-step?” Dun dun dun…

Drabbles…

Walter and the conch method… 😂😂😂😂😂😂 Make it stop! My stomach hurts from laughing so much!!

Paige is so sassy with her mother in this episode! It is quite funny at times!

Lucinda: Now, if you’re uncapable, we have bullets with your names on them. Sylvester: Guilty as charged. We make ‘em, we fake 'em, we turn 'em over to you, you take 'em. That’s our motto. 😂😂😂😂😂😂 Oh Sly!

Super Fun Guy manages to save the day in a lot of ways on Scorpion. Poor Sly! He has to surrender his SFG watch for the greater good. Should we start a count of Sly’s novelty items that suffer the same fate? 😂😂😂

Happy to know that Cabe and Allie are good and her healthy eating habits are getting Cabe to change his meat-heavy eating habits. But cayenne pepper beef jerky? Roll down the windows everyone! 😂😂😂

Toby: That might be our only chance to find the guys; we got to hack it and fast! To the Genius Lair! (Happy gives him questionable look) It’s better than saying, “to the dirty garage.” 😂😂😂😂😂😂

Veronica is a good grifter but the emotional abuse she uses to get there… 👎🏾👎🏾👎🏾

That moment between the saloon owner and Cabe… YAAAAAASSS! Semper Fi! 👊🏾

Paige: You’re turning abandonment into a recipe for successful parenting. Veronica: You can’t argue with success. Me: Can I get a what the what?! 😱😱😱😱

Happy receives a call with unknown id from Simi Valley. There is no, “hello, this is Scorpion headquarters. How may I help you?” Happy just says, “who’s this?” Some things never change and I love it! 😂😂😂😂😂

Toby called it again… virtual conch destroyed! Enter egotistical Walter. Funniest part for me?

V: You going to talk him down? P: No. (grabs Veronica’s hand and speedily walks to vault) 😂😂😂😂😂

Is Veronica originally from the US midwest? The names for her cons - Tennessee, Illinois, Kentucky - have me wondering.

Is it just me or has Riley grown a couple inches this season?

#ermanda's inner sanctum #cbs scorpion #s03e13 #faux money maux problems #scorpion cbs #team scorpion #episode review #livingwithashipname

11 notes · View notes

sleepymarmot · 7 years ago

Link

To make things more complicated, our software is getting more powerful, but it's also getting less transparent and more complex. Recently, in the past decade, complex algorithms have made great strides. They can recognize human faces. They can decipher handwriting. They can detect credit card fraud and block spam and they can translate between languages. They can detect tumors in medical imaging. They can beat humans in chess and Go.

Much of this progress comes from a method called "machine learning." Machine learning is different than traditional programming, where you give the computer detailed, exact, painstaking instructions. It's more like you take the system and you feed it lots of data, including unstructured data, like the kind we generate in our digital lives. And the system learns by churning through this data. And also, crucially, these systems don't operate under a single-answer logic. They don't produce a simple answer; it's more probabilistic: "This one is probably more like what you're looking for."

Now, the upside is: this method is really powerful. The head of Google's AI systems called it, "the unreasonable effectiveness of data." The downside is, we don't really understand what the system learned. In fact, that's its power. This is less like giving instructions to a computer; it's more like training a puppy-machine-creature we don't really understand or control. So this is our problem. It's a problem when this artificial intelligence system gets things wrong. It's also a problem when it gets things right,because we don't even know which is which when it's a subjective problem. We don't know what this thing is thinking.

So, consider a hiring algorithm -- a system used to hire people, using machine-learning systems. Such a system would have been trained on previous employees' data and instructed to find and hire people like the existing high performers in the company. Sounds good. I once attended a conference that brought together human resources managers and executives, high-level people, using such systems in hiring. They were super excited. They thought that this would make hiring more objective, less biased, and give women and minorities a better shot against biased human managers. [...]

So hiring in a gender- and race-blind way certainly sounds good to me. But with these systems, it is more complicated, and here's why: Currently, computational systems can infer all sorts of things about you from your digital crumbs, even if you have not disclosed those things. They can infer your sexual orientation, your personality traits, your political leanings. They have predictive power with high levels of accuracy. Remember -- for things you haven't even disclosed. This is inference.

I have a friend who developed such computational systems to predict the likelihood of clinical or postpartum depression from social media data. The results are impressive. Her system can predict the likelihood of depression months before the onset of any symptoms -- months before. No symptoms, there's prediction. She hopes it will be used for early intervention. Great! But now put this in the context of hiring.

So at this human resources managers conference, I approached a high-level manager in a very large company, and I said to her, "Look, what if, unbeknownst to you, your system is weeding out people with high future likelihood of depression? They're not depressed now, just maybe in the future, more likely. What if it's weeding out women more likely to be pregnant in the next year or two but aren't pregnant now? What if it's hiring aggressive people because that's your workplace culture?" You can't tell this by looking at gender breakdowns. Those may be balanced. And since this is machine learning, not traditional coding, there is no variable there labeled "higher risk of depression," "higher risk of pregnancy," "aggressive guy scale." Not only do you not know what your system is selecting on, you don't even know where to begin to look. It's a black box. It has predictive power, but you don't understand it.

"What safeguards," I asked, "do you have to make sure that your black box isn't doing something shady?" She looked at me as if I had just stepped on 10 puppy tails.

She stared at me and she said, "I don't want to hear another word about this." And she turned around and walked away. Mind you -- she wasn't rude. It was clearly: what I don't know isn't my problem, go away, death stare.

Look, such a system may even be less biased than human managers in some ways. And it could make monetary sense. But it could also lead to a steady but stealthy shutting out of the job market of people with higher risk of depression. Is this the kind of society we want to build, without even knowing we've done this, because we turned decision-making to machines we don't totally understand?

Another problem is this: these systems are often trained on data generated by our actions, human imprints. Well, they could just be reflecting our biases, and these systems could be picking up on our biases and amplifying them and showing them back to us, while we're telling ourselves, "We're just doing objective, neutral computation."

Researchers found that on Google, women are less likely than men to be shown job ads for high-paying jobs. And searching for African-American names is more likely to bring up ads suggesting criminal history, even when there is none. Such hidden biases and black-box algorithms that researchers uncover sometimes but sometimes we don't know, can have life-altering consequences. [...]

Facebook optimizes for engagement on the site: likes, shares, comments. In August of 2014, protests broke out in Ferguson, Missouri, after the killing of an African-American teenager by a white police officer, under murky circumstances. The news of the protests was all over my algorithmically unfiltered Twitter feed, but nowhere on my Facebook. Was it my Facebook friends? I disabled Facebook's algorithm, which is hard because Facebook keeps wanting to make you come under the algorithm's control, and saw that my friends were talking about it. It's just that the algorithm wasn't showing it to me. I researched this and found this was a widespread problem.

The story of Ferguson wasn't algorithm-friendly. It's not "likable." Who's going to click on "like?" It's not even easy to comment on.Without likes and comments, the algorithm was likely showing it to even fewer people, so we didn't get to see this. Instead, that week, Facebook's algorithm highlighted this, which is the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge. Worthy cause; dump ice water, donate to charity, fine. But it was super algorithm-friendly. The machine made this decision for us. A very important but difficult conversationmight have been smothered, had Facebook been the only channel.

Now, finally, these systems can also be wrong in ways that don't resemble human systems. Do you guys remember Watson, IBM's machine-intelligence system that wiped the floor with human contestants on Jeopardy? It was a great player. But then, for Final Jeopardy, Watson was asked this question: "Its largest airport is named for a World War II hero, its second-largest for a World War II battle."

Chicago. The two humans got it right. Watson, on the other hand, answered "Toronto" -- for a US city category! The impressive system also made an error that a human would never make, a second-grader wouldn't make.

Our machine intelligence can fail in ways that don't fit error patterns of humans, in ways we won't expect and be prepared for. It'd be lousy not to get a job one is qualified for, but it would triple suck if it was because of stack overflow in some subroutine. [...]

Data scientist Fred Benenson calls this math-washing. We need the opposite. We need to cultivate algorithm suspicion, scrutiny and investigation. We need to make sure we have algorithmic accountability, auditing and meaningful transparency. We need to accept that bringing math and computation to messy, value-laden human affairs does not bring objectivity; rather, the complexity of human affairs invades the algorithms. Yes, we can and we should use computation to help us make better decisions. But we have to own up to our moral responsibility to judgment, and use algorithms within that framework, not as a means to abdicate and outsource our responsibilities to one another as human to human.

Machine intelligence is here. That means we must hold on ever tighter to human values and human ethics.

#technology #lava klanka is watching you

0 notes