General election/politics

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

RE: General election/politics

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

I cannot believe what I have just heard.

In an effort to justify this new disgusting policy of sending immigrants to Rwanda, the PM has just tried to laud the UK's history of being welcoming to immigrants by using .... wait for it .... WINDRUSH, as an example.

twitter.com/Femi_Sorry/status/1514545617141473280

Every time I think Johnson can't go any lower, he proves me wrong.

And why announce all this today when the bill hasn't been passed through parliament yet ? Would it be to distract from party gate ?

Here is an interesting - and I think very pertinent - opinion on politics.

"When a regime has been in power too long, when it has fatally exhausted the patience of the people, and when oblivion beckons - I am afraid that across the world you can rely on the leaders of that regime to act solely in the interests of self preservation and not in the interests of the electorate."

Wise words - from the one and only Mr Boris Johnson in 2011.

www.twitter.com/notlikswehttam/status/1514169381906960386

christ · Futures qualifying

Bob in Spain wrote:
"... you can rely on the leaders of that regime to act solely in the interests of self preservation and not in the interests of the electorate."

Off the top of my head I cannot think of any regime anywhere ever (no matter now new or old) that could be trusted to put the interest of the electorate before their own. There is also the problem (in a democracy at least) that not all of the electorate shares the same interest, so failure is guaranteed in some circles (e.g. emmsie's issue).

This politics lark seems to work best when the section of the electorate that one is in has interests that align with the regime, then happiness can ensue.

... and I apologise: in my earlier post I did mean to say "present company excepted".

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

The more I read about this Rwanda policy, the more angry I get - BE WARNED - RANT COMING.

I have just read this thread on Twitter explaining the policy. I do NOT know the person who has posted it, but it is being retweeted by ITV's head of European Affairs so for me that gives it credibility.

https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1515216051151286273

An asylum seeker arrives in the UK. The UK government has now given itself the power (subject to ratification) to

Put this person on a plane - WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT and without any UK asylum claim even being considered.
Send this person to Rwanda - WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT
Once there, the person's only option is to claim asylum - IN RWANDA
So asylum seekers can be forcibly deported to Rwanda never having any asylum claim in the UK assessed.
The UK government is PAYING Rwanda for each person that they take.

This is nothing short of STATE SPONSORED HUMAN TRAFFICKING BY THE UK GOVERNMENT.

Boris Johnson, Priti Patel and their cohorts are as bad as the people smugglers. If this plan goes ahead, they should be prosecuted for people trafficking.

-- Edited by Bob in Spain on Saturday 16th of April 2022 02:25:10 PM

JonH comes home · Tennis legend

Agreed its morally bankrupt and not the way I want to treat anyone who wants to try and come to our country for any reason.

indiana · Tennis legend

The Rwanda government obviously happy to take the UK's dirty money even though they have clearly not been chosen because of their attractiveness as a place to settle!!

Elegant Point · Satellite level

Shameful. Pritti Patel is herself the daughter of immigrants (I know slightly different to asylum seekers, but still seeking a better life??) but instead of empathy she seems determined to stop others entering the UK.

The idea of shipping your asylum seeks off to somewhere else isnt new. It is an effective deterrent, Australia managed to decrease the number of asylum seekers from thousands to a few hundred by implementing such a policy.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61106231

Elegant Point · Satellite level

Companies using tech to right the wrongs of society - Rare is the new rocket fuel for social mobility

The Bank of England. Freshfields. Linklaters. Slaughter and May. Allen & Overy. Clifford Chance. Boston Consulting Group. Bain & Company. Deloitte. Morgan Stanley. I could go on: a list of more than 150 of elite employers across law, finance and management consulting that make up most of Britains most prestigious and well-paying employers, the bedrock of our national establishment. And they have one other thing in common: they have quietly started using a radical new recruitment algorithm that shoves aside posh-but-mediocre candidates for the stars of the working class.

Would be interesting if politicians were recruited using the algorithm wink

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/only-posh-kids-get-city-jobs-this-man-has-an-algorithm-to-change-that-mg8m0thfw

https://contextualrecruitment.co.uk/

christ · Futures qualifying

Algorithms can not and should not be trusted.

They aren't magic, they are simply programmes that simply enshrine the beliefs and biasses of the coders/ engineers that created them into something that appears scientific, and then (where "machine learning" is involved) they go off in directions that cannot be predicted to do things that are usually unguessable and unjustifiable. Did no-one learn anything from the Post Office "infallible software" fiasco?

This way lies SkyNet.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

christ wrote:
Algorithms can not and should not be trusted.

They aren't magic, they are simply programmes that simply enshrine the beliefs and biasses of the coders/ engineers that created them into something that appears scientific, and then (where "machine learning" is involved) they go off in directions that cannot be predicted to do things that are usually unguessable and unjustifiable. Did no-one learn anything from the Post Office "infallible software" fiasco?

This way lies SkyNet.

Trusted, no, and nor should humans.

But they can and should be used

christ · Futures qualifying

Coup Droit wrote:
christ wrote:
Algorithms can not and should not be trusted.

They aren't magic, they are simply programmes that simply enshrine the beliefs and biasses of the coders/ engineers that created them into something that appears scientific, and then (where "machine learning" is involved) they go off in directions that cannot be predicted to do things that are usually unguessable and unjustifiable. Did no-one learn anything from the Post Office "infallible software" fiasco?

This way lies SkyNet.
Trusted, no, and nor should humans.
But they can and should be used

First, terminology. Humans use algorithms. They always have, since before the term was coined. An algorithm is just a structured approach to problem solving, using rules developed through experience. What we are referring to here are automated (computerised) algorithms, nowadays usually involving what is laughably called "artificial intelligence".

Humans can be questioned, and backed up by other humans, and cross-checked. Algorithms are largely immune to such things. The person that designed an algorithm knows (or should know) it is limited. The person that bought the algorithm has no such qualms.

I agree that algorithms can be used, I don't agree that automated algorithms "should" be used - if they are used they should be used with an overabundance of caution (probably enough caution as to render their usage non-cost-effective). The irritating thing is that they are used in place of humans, or as a filter before human involvement, and by then it is too late if the algorithm is flawed (which they all are, to some extent). I mentioned the Post Office software with a reason, as it was trusted for way longer than it should have been (which was "not at all", as it turned out).

Recruitment algorithms make opaque decisions for unfathomable reasons, but are still used to reduce "an unmanageable number" of applicants down to a "manageable number", but by then those that have lost the opportunity have no recourse to appeal (nor, generally, any idea why they were filtered out).

An algorithm cannot identify a "posh-but-mediocre candidate" let alone a "star of the working class". What it can do is identify someone that meets the criteria programmed in for posh, or a star, or working class, or mediocre, or ...: this identification is wholly and completely dependent on the creators of the algorithm who are working with their own idea of what constitutes each of those things, and are working to produce their algorithm with limited resources and insufficient time for development and testing, so they can't even be sure that it is doing what they tried to make it do. This algorithm can be sold to the "posh-but-mediocre" and "working class star" managers that are already in place as a miracle cure so that they can guarantee the perfect workforce without wasting time and money on skilled recruiters. Doomed to ignominious failure, like all other snake-oil solutions.

I speak as someone for whom such things are a stock in trade.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

I'm with you, christ - and am in a household with two PhD holders tech workers, in machine learning/AI/Big data/Algorithm whathaveyou subjects (I know nothing about the mechanics, just the law of them)

What I mean is, people should not be put off by the term - I know people who think 'algorithms are out to get us', that they're the devil incarnate, etc etc. They're part of the huge tech revolution that has done an enormous amount of good, IMO. But are not golden pill to the world's ills.

steven · Tennis legend

I agree with both of you, particularly with christ's detailed arguments. It's not that algorithms don't have their place in saving time and perhaps even making people question their assumptions, it's when people start assuming that machines are actually intelligent / infallible / anything more than just bug-ridden automated versions of part of their programmers' minds that the problems occur. People being people, that's exactly what many of them do assume, especially if that suits their purpose or lets them abdicate responsibility for making their own decisions.

Making those assumptions isn't limited to those who aren't scientifically educated either - my wife is an electrical engineer/biostatistics faculty at a US university and she often complains that machine learning has become like a cult religion in some areas of academia.

Elegant Point · Satellite level

I agree with most of the comments above and its not just academia, big data and machine learning are bang on trend in industry too.

People are prone to errors and bias and as Christ pointed out algorithms can definitely be bias based depending on the designer. Amazons CV screening project was allegedly dropped because the machine learning, learnt to discriminate against CVs from women.

The application of algorithms created to help may indeed have unintended consequences, such as the PO scandal (also mentioned by Christ). Lack of robustness testing, due diligence and basic common sense from those in charge seemed a factor..Pretty sure contextual algorithms have been used for university admissions over a number of years.

Not sure I am as worried about Skynet as the possibility of another (possibly deadlier) virus outbreak, WW3 or the annihilation of wildlife.

globalhealth.duke.edu/news/statistics-say-large-pandemics-are-more-likely-we-thought

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

Slightly off topic but huge sighs of relief all round as Macron defeats Le Pen in France. In the end, it wasn't as close as some people were calling it, but there have been some nervy moments over the last few weeks.