The Economist is generally a pretty good news source, but I thought this article was subpar.
Irrespective of whether this facial evaluation algorithm works or not, as things stand today, it is pointless to discuss its use in the context of meritocracy. A regime founded upon the rejection of personal responsibility, corruption and criminality makes such discussions irrelevant (algorithm or no algorithm).
At the risk of sounding like an accelerationist, I can’t get rid of the feeling that the regime members are really busy doing their best to make a new metaphorical rope.
The Economist is generally a pretty good news source,
Wew. Gotta be drinking the reactionary/lib pseudo-science sauce to believe this. Literally promoting phrenology. That’s far from the lowest point for this rag.
![The Economist on using phrenology for hiring and lending decisions: "Some might argue that face-based analysis is more meritocratic" […] "For people without access to credit, that could be a blessing"](https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/14f5a0b4-82b6-498d-a689-36c2824dd296.png){kind=link}
The Economist is generally a pretty good news source, but I thought this article was subpar.
Irrespective of whether this facial evaluation algorithm works or not, as things stand today, it is pointless to discuss its use in the context of meritocracy. A regime founded upon the rejection of personal responsibility, corruption and criminality makes such discussions irrelevant (algorithm or no algorithm).
At the risk of sounding like an accelerationist, I can’t get rid of the feeling that the regime members are really busy doing their best to make a new metaphorical rope.
Wew. Gotta be drinking the reactionary/lib pseudo-science sauce to believe this. Literally promoting phrenology. That’s far from the lowest point for this rag.
That’s why I said this article was subpar. And I even commented on this in pretty harsh terms:
I don’t agree with a lot of what they say, but I don’t believe they are malicious, at least to the extent that many American news sources are.
Plus the post filled with buzzwords that superficially sound smart strung together in a way that say nothing of value.