The terribleness of some big company searches

By -
I just watched "Recursion Tree Method: Part 1" on YouTube.

It is recommending dozens of other videos to me on the basis of their being similar to this one.

Conspicuously absent is "Recursion Tree Method: Part 2." ("Recursion Tree Method: Part 3" is there, however!)

This is very common: YouTube seems to have no concept that an ordered series of videos ought to be presented to the viewer in order.

Netflix often puts on "Recommended for you" something I have already watched, and it "knows" I have watched, because if I choose if the episodes are all checked off as having been viewed. Sometimes, the recommendation is for something I watched just a day or two beforehand.

Comments

  1. Ken B6:13 PM

    In fairness the difficulty is recognizing that part 2 follows part 1. You might naively assume this is easy, but as you noted on the Progressive Morality thread this natural progression is frequently denied.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Samson Corwell12:29 AM

    How is it supposed to have any concept of order?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah8:25 AM

      Well, if *I* were writing the program, I might try using the "Part 1," "Part 2," "Part 3," etc in the video names as a clue to the order.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more