#data quality metrics

[garymdm]

Beyond Validation: How the Best Data Quality Rules are Actually Business Rules

Data quality is the lifeblood of good decision-making. Inaccurate or incomplete data can lead to missed opportunities, wasted resources, and even regulatory fines. But how do we ensure our data quality rules are effective? Conventional Data Quality MetricsData Quality Rules are Business RulesFraming the Data Quality ConversationThe Power of Business-Driven RulesMoving from Validation to Business…

[vertagedialer]

[imrovementcompany]

Six Sigma DMAIC

The Six Sigma quality improvement methodology uses a problem-solving technique called DMAIC. It stands for Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control. Here is a quick summary of each stage of the DMAIC process: Define: This stage defines the project’s scope and problem precisely. Ensuring that everyone participating in the project has a clear grasp of the issue and what needs to be done is the goal…

[mostlysignssomeportents]

The Coprophagic AI crisis

I'm on tour with my new, nationally bestselling novel The Bezzle! Catch me in TORONTO on Mar 22, then with LAURA POITRAS in NYC on Mar 24, then Anaheim, and more!

A key requirement for being a science fiction writer without losing your mind is the ability to distinguish between science fiction (futuristic thought experiments) and predictions. SF writers who lack this trait come to fancy themselves fortune-tellers who SEE! THE! FUTURE!

The thing is, sf writers cheat. We palm cards in order to set up pulp adventure stories that let us indulge our thought experiments. These palmed cards – say, faster-than-light drives or time-machines – are narrative devices, not scientifically grounded proposals.

Historically, the fact that some people – both writers and readers – couldn't tell the difference wasn't all that important, because people who fell prey to the sf-as-prophecy delusion didn't have the power to re-orient our society around their mistaken beliefs. But with the rise and rise of sf-obsessed tech billionaires who keep trying to invent the torment nexus, sf writers are starting to be more vocal about distinguishing between our made-up funny stories and predictions (AKA "cyberpunk is a warning, not a suggestion"):

https://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2023/11/dont-create-the-torment-nexus.html

In that spirit, I'd like to point to how one of sf's most frequently palmed cards has become a commonplace of the AI crowd. That sleight of hand is: "add enough compute and the computer will wake up." This is a shopworn cliche of sf, the idea that once a computer matches the human brain for "complexity" or "power" (or some other simple-seeming but profoundly nebulous metric), the computer will become conscious. Think of "Mike" in Heinlein's *The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_Is_a_Harsh_Mistress#Plot

For people inflating the current AI hype bubble, this idea that making the AI "more powerful" will correct its defects is key. Whenever an AI "hallucinates" in a way that seems to disqualify it from the high-value applications that justify the torrent of investment in the field, boosters say, "Sure, the AI isn't good enough…yet. But once we shovel an order of magnitude more training data into the hopper, we'll solve that, because (as everyone knows) making the computer 'more powerful' solves the AI problem":

https://locusmag.com/2023/12/commentary-cory-doctorow-what-kind-of-bubble-is-ai/

As the lawyers say, this "cites facts not in evidence." But let's stipulate that it's true for a moment. If all we need to make the AI better is more training data, is that something we can count on? Consider the problem of "botshit," Andre Spicer and co's very useful coinage describing "inaccurate or fabricated content" shat out at scale by AIs:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4678265

"Botshit" was coined last December, but the internet is already drowning in it. Desperate people, confronted with an economy modeled on a high-speed game of musical chairs in which the opportunities for a decent livelihood grow ever scarcer, are being scammed into generating mountains of botshit in the hopes of securing the elusive "passive income":

https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/15/passive-income-brainworms/#four-hour-work-week

Botshit can be produced at a scale and velocity that beggars the imagination. Consider that Amazon has had to cap the number of self-published "books" an author can submit to a mere three books per day:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2023/sep/20/amazon-restricts-authors-from-self-publishing-more-than-three-books-a-day-after-ai-concerns

As the web becomes an anaerobic lagoon for botshit, the quantum of human-generated "content" in any internet core sample is dwindling to homeopathic levels. Even sources considered to be nominally high-quality, from Cnet articles to legal briefs, are contaminated with botshit:

https://theconversation.com/ai-is-creating-fake-legal-cases-and-making-its-way-into-real-courtrooms-with-disastrous-results-225080

Ironically, AI companies are setting themselves up for this problem. Google and Microsoft's full-court press for "AI powered search" imagines a future for the web in which search-engines stop returning links to web-pages, and instead summarize their content. The question is, why the fuck would anyone write the web if the only "person" who can find what they write is an AI's crawler, which ingests the writing for its own training, but has no interest in steering readers to see what you've written? If AI search ever becomes a thing, the open web will become an AI CAFO and search crawlers will increasingly end up imbibing the contents of its manure lagoon.

This problem has been a long time coming. Just over a year ago, Jathan Sadowski coined the term "Habsburg AI" to describe a model trained on the output of another model:

https://twitter.com/jathansadowski/status/1625245803211272194

There's a certain intuitive case for this being a bad idea, akin to feeding cows a slurry made of the diseased brains of other cows:

https://www.cdc.gov/prions/bse/index.html

But "The Curse of Recursion: Training on Generated Data Makes Models Forget," a recent paper, goes beyond the ick factor of AI that is fed on botshit and delves into the mathematical consequences of AI coprophagia:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.17493

Co-author Ross Anderson summarizes the finding neatly: "using model-generated content in training causes irreversible defects":

https://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2023/06/06/will-gpt-models-choke-on-their-own-exhaust/

Which is all to say: even if you accept the mystical proposition that more training data "solves" the AI problems that constitute total unsuitability for high-value applications that justify the trillions in valuation analysts are touting, that training data is going to be ever-more elusive.

What's more, while the proposition that "more training data will linearly improve the quality of AI predictions" is a mere article of faith, "training an AI on the output of another AI makes it exponentially worse" is a matter of fact.

Name your price for 18 of my DRM-free ebooks and support the Electronic Frontier Foundation with the Humble Cory Doctorow Bundle.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/03/14/14/inhuman-centipede#enshittibottification

Image: Plamenart (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Double_Mobius_Strip.JPG

CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en

[catboybiologist]

I'm going to document some things about my transition, and I want feedback about what to record!

As you can probably tell from my previous joke post, I’m about to start MtF HRT! There’s one thing that I want community feedback on, however. As a biologist, I want to document my transition in detail, and I’m going to be making a data spreadsheet to keep track of some key metrics. But I want to know something from y’all, the trans community here! Before I start taking HRT, I want to have an extensive list of what I should measure, and I want to make sure I don’t miss anything. If there’s any metric you are curious to see documented in a single person from the start of HRT onwards, please let me know!

The ones that I already know I want to include are:

Medical metrics (still undecided if/when I want to post these around for privacy)

Dose of each drug taken

Administration route of each drug taken

T levels (when available)

E levels (when available)

Body metrics (my body is on display with pics here anyways so might as well)

Height

Weight

Band

Bust

Waist

Hip (measured from thickest point around hips/thighs)

Shoulder spread

Qualitative notes

Skin quality/softness

Body and facial hair growth notes

Mood and emotional shifts

Libido

Potential side effects and brain fog

Pictures (less likely to be consistent about this but I’ll try. Some will be public, but a lot will be for my own purposes or sharing among friends.)

Face picture with mask (public)

Full front body picture, short shorts/underwear and sports bra (public)

Full side profile, masked, short shorts/underwear and sports bra (public)

Neutral face picture, maskless (private, may post later)

Nude full body front picture (private)

Nude side profile (private)

Unclothed chest (private, may post later)

I plan to take each of these on about a monthly basis. I want to make as much of this information as publicly accessible as possible, obviously within privacy limits. The most likely option is that I’ll record this from the start, but I’ll post the information itself at a lag. Please let me know if there’s anything else you want to see documented in this way! Or, of course, anything you wish you think would be useful or fun for myself to see, even if I don't record it publicly.

For reference, I had my initial blood taken earlier this month at a consultation appointment, and will have my appointment to get the actual prescription late next week. So lmk what you think!

I’m gonna make at least one other post about trans stuff, but I also want to emphasize that I’m going to be taking this very slow. So mostly, I thought this data would be a fun way to keep track of changes when I get kind of “frog pot” about what’s going on.

[hmfaysal99]

New Business Marketing Tips And Tricks for Success

Starting a new business can be an exciting endeavor, but it also comes with its fair share of challenges, especially in the competitive landscape of today's market. Effective marketing is crucial for the success of any new venture. Here are four essential marketing tips and tricks to help your new business thrive.

Define Your Target Audience: Before diving into marketing efforts, it's essential to identify and understand your target audience. Define your ideal customer persona by considering demographics, interests, pain points, and buying behaviors. Conduct market research to gather valuable insights that will guide your marketing strategies. Tailoring your messages and campaigns to resonate with your target audience will significantly increase your chances of success.

Once you have a clear picture of your audience, choose the most suitable marketing channels to reach them effectively. Social media, email marketing, content marketing, and pay-per-click advertising are just a few options to consider. Your choice of channels should align with where your audience spends their time online.

Create Compelling Content: Content marketing is a powerful tool for new businesses to establish their brand and build credibility. Develop high-quality, informative, and engaging content that addresses the needs and interests of your target audience. This content can take various forms, including blog posts, videos, infographics, and podcasts.

Consistency is key when it comes to content creation. Develop a content calendar to plan and schedule regular updates. Providing valuable content not only helps you connect with your audience but also boosts your search engine rankings, making it easier for potential customers to find you.

Leverage Social Media: Social media platforms have become indispensable for marketing in today's digital age. Create profiles on relevant social media platforms and engage with your audience regularly. Share your content, interact with followers, and participate in industry-related discussions.

Paid advertising on social media can also be a cost-effective way to reach a broader audience. Platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn offer targeting options that allow you to reach users who match your ideal customer profile.

Monitor and Adapt: Marketing is an ever-evolving field, and what works today may not work tomorrow. To stay ahead of the curve, regularly monitor the performance of your marketing efforts. Analyze key metrics such as website traffic, conversion rates, and return on investment (ROI). Use tools like Google Analytics and social media insights to gather data and insights.

Based on your findings, be prepared to adapt your strategies and tactics. If a particular marketing channel isn't delivering the expected results, reallocate your resources to more promising avenues. Stay up-to-date with industry trends and keep an eye on your competitors to ensure your marketing efforts remain relevant and competitive.

In conclusion, effective marketing is essential for the success of any new business. By defining your target audience, creating compelling content, leveraging social media, and continuously monitoring and adapting your strategies, you can position your new business for growth and long-term success in a competitive market. Remember that success may not come overnight, but with persistence and the right marketing approach, your new business can thrive.

[covid-safer-hotties]

‘It has not gone away’: As COVID-19 cases rise in Colorado, health experts call for continued vigilance

Wearing a high-quality mask, cleaning the air and other protective measures continue to be important as CDC now says SARS-CoV-2 is a year-round threat

Wearing a high-quality mask, cleaning the air and other protective measures continue to be important as CDC now says SARS-CoV-2 is a year-round threat

Flu and RSV have come and gone this year, so if cold-like symptoms have been putting a damper on your summer plans these past few weeks, Colorado health experts say it’s very likely the coronavirus is to blame.

The state — just like pretty much the rest of the country — is experiencing a rise in COVID-19 cases this summer due to two different strains from the Omicron family – KP.2 and KP.3. Nicknamed “FLiRT” by variant trackers to help the public better understand the wide variety of circulating strains of the virus, these two strains combined — which may be better able at getting past the body’s defenses due to mutations in the spike protein — accounted for nearly 55% of all strains circulating across the state as of June, the most recent data the state has.

“Since about April of this year, we've started noticing an increasing trend in the number of COVID cases that have been going on in the state of Colorado,” said Dr. Ming Wu, a primary care physician at AdventHealth in Littleton. “We've seen more cases in the clinics, people testing positive for COVID.”

Data from the state confirms those observations. COVID-19 cases have been on an upward trend since mid-May in Colorado, with nearly 1,300 new cases reported in just the last week alone, according to the latest data from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). Those numbers are likely an undercount, however, since most people now test at home — if at all — and the majority don’t report their results to state or federal health authorities.

Hospitalizations for COVID-19 in Colorado have also increased to levels not seen since March, with 111 people hospitalized for the disease as of Tuesday compared to 66 at this same time last year — a nearly 70% increase when comparing year-to-year. It's not clear, however, how accurate this picture really is since hospitals are no longer required to report COVID-19 hospital admissions to the federal government.

Across the country, emergency room visits for COVID-19 increased to 23.5% as of July 6, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), with about 1.3 hospitalizations per 100,000 people. Though the numbers might seem concerning, they are still lower than last winter, when 7.7 hospitalizations per 100,000 people were reported by the CDC.

Concentrations of the virus in wastewater — which has replaced case numbers as a more reliable metric to show how prevalent the virus might be in the community — have also increased over the past several weeks across the state, with more than half of all treatment facilities showing steady increases in viral replication since early May, when none were, according to CDPHE data.

“The fact that we still have thousands — 2,000 cases — every week that are (being) reported is of concern,” said Dr. May Chu, a clinical professor at the Colorado School of Public Health. “It should tell us that we shouldn't forget that SARS-CoV-2 is still amongst us. It has not gone away.”

Though it may be surprising to some to see a rise in COVID-19 cases over the summer, Chu said that ever since SARS-CoV-2 appeared on the map, Colorado — along with the rest of the country — has always had a summer surge.

Chu said that virologists like herself expect that as the virus continues to circulate in people for the foreseeable future, “that a regular pacing might occur and then we can begin to predict when it could occur, probably along with the other respiratory viruses.”

It’s not clear if that will ever come to pass, however, as the CDC quietly admitted in an update posted over the Fourth of July holiday that SARS-CoV-2 is likely to remain a year-round threat given “there is no distinct COVID-19 season like there is for influenza (flu) and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)."

In its update, the CDC recommended a multi-layered approach so you can protect yourself against infection and prevent others from becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2. The multi-layered approach includes getting vaccinated, wearing a well-fitting, high-quality mask, ventilating indoor spaces, practicing proper hand hygiene, and following CDC quarantine guidance if you test positive for the virus.

What’s causing the uptick in cases this summer? CDC officials say a number of factors could be at play, including new variants that are not just more transmissible but better able at getting past our body’s defenses, as well as decreasing immunity from previous infections and vaccinations.

Though the newer “FLiRT” variants have mutations that make them more transmissible, Chu said those mutations aren’t statistically important as their rate of transmission only varies slightly compared to previous strains. However, because many different strains of the virus are circulating at the same time, “you can imagine that there’s a lot more virus growing,” she said.

“Part of it too is a bit of the virus variation. The virus still is young enough that it'll keep changing based on environmental circumstances,” Chu said, adding that “as it changes, it could get worse or it could get less infectious. We actually don’t know.”

Wu, on the other hand, attributed the rise in COVID-19 infections to the low uptake of vaccines across the state.

Data from the CDPHE shows about 30% of Coloradans ages 5 and up have only gotten 3 doses of the COVID-19 vaccine (up to 6 doses are available now for certain groups of people).

“A lot of patients have said, you know, I've gotten enough COVID vaccines. I don't want this one, and so they haven't gotten it,” Wu said.

What you can do to protect yourself and others this summer While COVID-19 vaccines can protect you from getting seriously ill, they might not protect you against SARS-CoV-2 infection, both experts said.

“If you’re in a room that's tightly closed, with a lot of people that you don't know, you should mask because that increases the chance the transmission,” Chu said. “If you are the vessel for the reproduction of that virus, you're going to … make yourself sick, and other people are likely to get it from you. So you just have to be careful.”

Wu agreed, adding other measures like handwashing and socially distancing from others if you're sick could help protect not just yourself but others as well.

“If you do feel ill and you need to go out, wear a mask to protect your neighbor. If you sneeze and your germs aren't spreading everywhere, you're preventing your neighbor from getting that virus and so you're protecting the community,” he said.

If you test positive for COVID-19, Chu recommends calling your healthcare provider immediately and seek antiviral treatment like Paxlovid “as soon as you can” as it’ll help you from getting worse.

Those looking for added protection should get vaccinated now against COVID-19, both experts said, though if you want to wait it out a little longer, an updated COVID-19 vaccine targeting the most recent variants will be available later this year.

The threat of Long COVID remains after infection Though scientists and other health experts have seen a trend toward less severe outcomes and more typical symptoms of the flu with each new wave of the coronavirus, an encounter with COVID-19 doesn’t come without risks.

“With flu, there is not the residual Long COVID symptoms that about 8% of people suffer from. Flu doesn’t have that. RSV doesn’t have as much of that,” Chu said. “It is a risk and because this virus is still adapting to people, you're going to have lots of cases.”

While people who have had severe COVID-19 are at increased risk of developing Long COVID, CDC officials have said Long COVID can affect anyone, including children. Commonly reported symptoms include fatigue, brain fog and post-exertional malaise (PEM), but more than 200 symptoms have been associated with the condition which can affect various organs of the body, including the brain, the heart, the lungs, the kidneys, the reproductive system, among others.

The illness can last for weeks, months, or even years, and can be debilitating “in ways that significantly limit the daily activities of affected individuals,” according to the latest annual report on Long COVID in Colorado. It’s believed Long COVID has affected 10% of the state’s population so far.

Chu said that while scientists have been able to learn more about Long COVID since the start of the coronavirus pandemic four years ago, “the outcome at the moment still doesn’t tell you exactly how we can predict – one, if you can get Long COVID, and two – what your symptoms are (going to be). We're still gathering that information.”

Which is why Chu said it’s important for Coloradans to remember that COVID-19 is still around us and to be aware of the risk each infection can bring.

“If you are able to mitigate it, or reduce it by masking, by the various different kinds of practices that we've all known about for (years) now that continue to be in effect, then the risk of (developing Long COVID) gets lower,” she said.

[sataniccapitalist]

Socialist Countries are Outpacing the US in GDP and IQ

Socialist nations are surpassing the United States in various metrics, from economic growth to intelligence quotient. This video explores how countries with socialist policies are outperforming the U.S. in key areas like GDP, education, and overall quality of life. We'll examine data comparing socialist and capitalist economies, debunk common misconceptions, and analyze the factors contributing to these surprising trends. Join us as we delve into the complex relationship between economic systems and national success, challenging long-held beliefs about socialism and capitalism. Whether you're interested in global economics, political systems, or social development, this video offers thought-provoking insights into the changing dynamics of world powers.

How Socialist Countries are Outpacing the U.S. in Everything from GDP to IQ

/ how-socialist-countrie...

[sewer-toridae]

Hello everyone, time for ✨Flight Rising Statistics✨

Not sure if anybody has done this before but I made a spreadsheet of every primary gene and how many dragons have what gene. Numbers are current as of March 30th, 2023. The link to my Google Sheet is here for all my work and data.

Of course, some genes have been out since launch and others are quite new, but I think it’s just fun to look at numbers. As of today, there are 40 primary genes, including Basic.

First off, let’s start off with the top 10 most numerous and least numerous genes! Numbers are of unexalted dragons.

Here are some charts to show off the data as well.

Of course older genes are going to be higher on the list and newer genes lower, but I was really surprised how many gem genes were in the top 10. Iridescent especially holy shit. Not only are gem genes the more expensive genes, but they have the highest breeding rarity.

Now let’s look at total exalted and unexalted dragons.

Similar rankings. To make it a little bit more interesting, I calculated the percentage of dragons for that gene that are exalted. For example, only 30.35% of all Tide dragons are exalted.

Despite having the most total dragons (and I have on my master spreadsheet that they have the most exalted dragons as well) Basic doesn’t even crack the top 10. They’re actually right in the middle at #20. I’m guessing that’s because of do many active progens, progen children, and gen 1s. I think this data makes sense. Older genes have the highest exalt ratio while newer genes have a lower exalt ratio. Genes that have been around for while have been fed to more dom battles, and people in general often want genes that are newer and more exciting (because they’re new.) I wanted to include Mosaic at #11 because despite it being at or near the bottom of dragons with the gene, it has a much higher percentage of exalted dragons than the other genes that are on the bottom with it.

I think that the most important metrics are how many active dragons there are and the ratio of exalted to unexalted. This isn’t a perfect grading system, but I ranked all genes from 1-40 in both active dragons and exalt ratio then averaged them out. The higher the score the better.

This isn’t a perfect ranking because some of them feel kind of off. My gut says that Basic should be #1 because it has a ton of active dragons and a great exalt ratio, and that Mosaic would be last. But it does makes sense in ways and worth a look at because genes I know to be well liked are ranked very high, and less popular and “cheaper” genes are still ranked lower.

So what does this all mean? Probably nothing! This is just the primary genes and also doesn’t factor in color. There’s tons of different qualities to dragons and various reasons why a dragon could be exalted. There’s plenty of dragons that have “unpopular” genes that are very loved and look great. Anywho, I’m no statistician but thought this was a fun look at statistics.

Feedback? Thoughts? Should I do secondary and tertiary? Or. I think it would be more beneficial to do an ancient species since most of their genes come out at once.

*uses this data to sell you gem genes* Did you know that if your dragon has a treasure gene it has a 40% higher chance of being exalted?? Buy my gem gene bundle for only $49.98 and stop your dragons from being exalted TODAY

[betterbemeta]

Something I am noticing lately on our current 'content and engagement-driven' internet is the mass platforming of stuff that 'sounds like it makes sense to a human being' as its only basis. It resembles 'a real thing' that people can hear of, but it's served completely blind to knowledge of the topic at hand.

It's not quite misinformation because it doesn't have to be an intentional trick or fringe conspiracy theory, or 'fake news' style progpaganda, or something with any kind of comprehensible 'goal.' And its often fully automated: it's about feedback loops in the selection of content, not 'content creation.'

So 'accurate' information on how and how often people select A, B, or C... but no information about what A, B, or C are or any factual information about them. Sort of like how 'AI art' will return output based on prompts, vast amounts of indexed 'reference' and trained data, but doesn't know 'what it's looking at.'

The result is similar to 'enshittification' but doesn't have to do with gutting usability to deliver returns to investors. It has to do with automated systems self-gutting a platform's usability because they do not actually 'know' anything, they just evaluate the navigation patterns of prior users.

This is a really simple, innocent, non-malicious starting point:

This is an audio-based youtube video that was made by a human being (I assume) who mixed Blue Noise and Violet Noise with the sounds of actual blueberries being shaken in a box for relaxation purposes. There's nothing inherently wrong with it. Please don't find and bother the blueberry noise person, nothing (that I know of) is their fault.

The thing is, 'white noise/pink noise/brown noise' are specific audio patterns that are sometimes studied for their benefits on concentration, sleep quality, etc. Which is why people are searching for them on the internet, they want practical benefits. There are other 'color' noises but any benefits are even less well-known, or their application for study is very specific (Violet Noise is studied for tinnitus relief, I believe.)

While the blueberry noise video is just for fun, for the benefit of anyone who enjoys it, it exists within a 'topic' that a platform like Youtube has matched to be 'about' some practical benefit. But you don't need to actually know anything about Pink Noise or Brown Noise to get to that topic, you just need to search 'concentration noise.'

You could plonk down a 10 hour video of your own farts and title it "rainbow noise for homework focus!" and the algorithm cannot 'know' that no part of what you posted is "a real thing." It would only see the activity metrics, who got to it from where, and how popular you are, and its potential to keep users engaging with the platform.

People navigate 'white noise/pink noise/brown noise' for ADHD relief, to soothe their babies to sleep, or to help with chronic insomnia or headaches. Even if studies on the effectiveness of 'well known' color noises are still only preliminary (this study only had 22 participants!), there is some basis for their benefit... but no evidence yet that supports the benefit in mixing different color noise patterns, like the blueberry noise video. It's just for fun. The issue is that Youtube doesn't know what 'just for fun' is.

If you listen to enough audio pattern content to encounter our blueberry noise friend you probably are going to run into 'Alpha/Beta/Gamma Frequencies', 'Solfeggio Tones', and 'Binaural Beats.' But, again, the algorithm has no real human knowledge: it doesn't 'know' the difference between any of these things or what they're studied for, or if any real benefit has been confirmed. But content reflecting machine curation's inability to understand will float to the top, based on user activity patterns:

Alpha waves have nothing to do with being an alpha chad. But through association without comprehension, platforms have 'learned' what 'alpha' means and as a result content will appear and be promoted that bridges multiple ways people use 'alpha' as a search term.

High frequencies produced by the human brain have been associated with memory recall and learning, but listening to high frequencies as 'brain waves' has nothing to do with this, and especially not a dystopian drive to 'increase productivity and output.' But people are searching for how to do that, because of the demand their lives place on them.

There is no sound frequency you can listen to that heals the body or reduces inflammation but due to this principle I'm describing that's messing with the internet, you can search this on Google and it will now not give you any credible information on the first page, it will assume that what you're talking about is legitimate and show you results that 'you're looking for':

It will not assume you would be interested in a 'no' or 'this is not real.' None of the Page 1 Google Search Results pictured above are based in any scientific fact. Maybe if you're a stressed out zebrafish. Legitimate medical practices that use frequencies are like... shock wave lithotripsy for kidney stones to break them apart. But once a web platform records people searching for audio content that confers dramatic 'real' results, it will retrieve other kinds of content as if it's credible:

I think it goes without saying that this has no basis in fact and it's not just somebody's fun entertainment project, and it's not something a typical person would seek out or casually believe to be true.

Anyway. The blueberry noise is fun and fine. But the current internet is on a form of evil autopilot that can't discern white noise intended to soothe babies from the innocent only-for-fun blueberry noise from The Law of Attraction. It's like the perfect totally-blind robot salesperson without ethics or morals of any kind. If you ask it for medicine it will eventually sell you cyanide pills simply because they are pills and so many people are interested in cyanide these days.

[garymdm]

Mastering Data Quality Management: Unlocking the Potential of High-Quality Data in the Real World

Data-driven organizations must prioritize data quality management to maximize the value derived from their data assets. Accurate, reliable, and high-quality data is the foundation for effective data analytics, particularly in the dynamic realm of supply chain management. In this article, we delve into the key aspects of data quality management, from establishing defined data and data quality…

[jelliegirl]

do you guys remember when avatar 2 was coming out and one of the "gotcha!" things people would post to make fun of it was like, a screenshot of how few fanfics were written for the first avatar movie (which was the highest grossing movie in the world at the time) vs. some silly franchise that was panned by critics having significantly more fics on ao3?* dont get me wrong i do not think avatar was a good movie but measuring the cultural impact of a movie based on how much fanfiction people write about it is so hilariously out of touch. homoerotic shipping potential is not the metric by which you should measure the quality or popularity of anything ever lmao

*this data was clearly skewed because the freaky avatar fics would have been on ff.net back in the day anyway

[artbyblastweave]

Building up grassroots support for a third-way policy platform I’m tentatively calling Omelassian Techno-utilitarianism- a system under which we use data-driven metrics to identify the person in the country with the lowest quality of life, at which point we direct the full might of the government towards making that person’s quality of life as horrible as possible, thereby dramatically raising the median quality of life of all other citizens

[hellsgate-roadhouse]

Article by: noel kirkpatrick (September 5 2018)

Call it Apocalypse 2040.

In the early 1970s, a computer program called World1 predicted that civilization would likely collapse by 2040. Researchers from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) had programmed it to consider a model of sustainability for the world.

The prediction has resurfaced because Australian broadcaster ABC recirculated a 1973 newscast about the computer program. The program's findings, however, never really went away, as its results have been re-evaluated over the nearly 50 years since they first appeared.

The bad news for us is that the model seems to be spot-on so far.

The computer model was commissioned by the Club of Rome, a group of scientists, industrialists and government officials focused on solving the world's problems. The organization wanted to know how well the world could sustain its rate of growth based on information that was available at the time. World1 was developed by Jay Forrester, the father of system dynamics, a methodology for understanding how complex systems operate.

When deciding the fate of civilization, the program considered several variables, including pollution levels, population growth, the availability of natural resources and global quality of life. These factors were considered in tandem with one another as opposed to separately, following the Club of Rome's perspective that the world's problems are interconnected.

Such an approach was novel in the 1970s, even if the forecast World1 produced wasn't intended to be "precise." The program produced graphs that demonstrated what would happen to those metrics in the future, without even accounting for things like climate change. The graphs all indicated a downward trajectory for the planet.

According to the 1973 ABC segment, World1 identified 2020 as a tipping point for civilization.

"At around 2020, the condition of the planet becomes highly critical. If we do nothing about it, the quality of life goes down to zero. Pollution becomes so seriously it will start to kill people, which in turn will cause the population to diminish, lower than it was in the 1900. At this stage, around 2040 to 2050, civilized life as we know it on this planet will cease to exist."

This was not the end of the model. In 1972, the Club of Rome published "The Limits to Growth," a book that built off the work of World1 with a program called World3, developed by scientists Donella and Dennis Meadows and a team of researchers. This time the variables were population, food production, industrialization, pollution and consumption of nonrenewable natural resources.

"The Limits to Growth" pushed the collapse of civilization to 2072, when the limits of growth would be the most readily apparent and result in population and industrial declines.

Criticism of the book was nearly immediate, and harsh. The New York Times, for instance, wrote, "Its imposing apparatus of computer technology and systems jargon ... takes arbitrary assumptions, shakes them up and comes out with arbitrary conclusions that have the ring of science," concluding that the book was "empty and misleading."

Others argued that the book's view of what constitutes a resource could change over time, leaving their data shortsighted to any possible changes in consumption habits.

The tide for the book's finds have changed over time, however. In 2014, Graham Turner, then a research fellow at the University Melbourne's Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute, collected data from various agencies within the United Nations, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and other outlets, plotting their data alongside the findings of the World3 model.

What Turner found that was that the World3 model and then-current statistical information tended to coincide with another, up to 2010, indicating that the World3 model was onto something. Turner cautioned that the validation of World3's model didn't indicate "agreement" with it, largely due to certain parameters within the World3 model. Still, Turner argued that we were likely on "cusp of collapse" thanks to a few different factors, in particular what Turner called the end of peak easy oil access.

Writing in The Guardian, Turner and Cathy Alexander, a Melbourne-based journalist, explained that neither the World3 model or Turner's own confirmation of it signaled that the collapse was a guarantee.

"Our research does not indicate that collapse of the world economy, environment and population is a certainty," they wrote. "Nor do we claim the future will unfold exactly as the MIT researchers predicted back in 1972. Wars could break out; so could genuine global environmental leadership. Either could dramatically affect the trajectory.

"But our findings should sound an alarm bell. It seems unlikely that the quest for ever-increasing growth can continue unchecked to 2100 without causing serious negative effects – and those effects might come sooner than we think."