I don't know if this is more obvious to you than you let on but in case it's not, your software at first glance seems potentially harmful to children and is very clearly biased towards a conservative viewpoint.
It shouldn't be a suprise to end up with the user base you did when you are intentionally (or possibly unintentionally) biasing your filter the way you do.
With all due respect, the filter list reads like a list of things a drunk uncle would complain about at the family BBQ. I mean really chatGPT girlfriends???
To give some constructive criticism, I think you need to take a step back and decide if you are building a politically motivated tool or not. I want to be clear that what you have here is not representative of the moral status quo in the United States. It can be easily to think it is depending on the circles you frequent but it's statistically just not.
Consulting with someone to help eliminate politically bias in the filtering could go a long way to improve your potential customer base. Most parents I know would take one look at this and run.
In a very general sense I think your site feels too technical. Are people who can't control their children's computer usage really reading patch notes and switching website themes from a drop down?
Sorry if this sounds harsh. I originally intended to just write about the last point but after looking more into the site it became clear that there are bigger problems here.
Edit: As has been pointed out it's not so much about what you included as it is what you left out. You could potentially eliminate the bias just by balancing this list considerably. At what point do you just make an allow-list though lol?
And for every one making under 30k per year there is one making over 80k per year.
And, very interestingly and more nuanced, you can take into account how a person changes over time. For example, while I was a grad student, I worked full time and definitely fell under the poverty line. But would you really consider me a poor/destitute person?
About 60% of Americans break into the top 20% of household income at some point in their lives(>$110k/yr). In the same vein, almost 20% of Americans will earn less than the poverty rate at some point in their lives ($24k/yr).
Like I said, I think Americans have many problems, but if there is one thing we are good at it is income (and the consumption that comes with it).
What do you mean, autism is well established as a personality trait that diminishes empathy and the ability to understand other people's desires and emotions, while having a strong affinity to things, for example machines and algorithms.
Legislation is driven by people who are, on aggregate, not autistic. So it's entirely appropriate to presume that a person not understanding how that process works is indeed autistic, especially if they suggest machines are subjects of law by analogy with human beings.
It's not that autists are bad people, they are just outliers in the political spectrum, as you can see from the complete disconnect of up-voted AI-related comments on Hacker News, where autistic engineers are clearly over-represented, versus just about any venue where other professionals, such as painters or musicians, congregate. Just try to suggest to them that a corporation has the right to use their work for free and profit from it while leaving them unemployed, because the algorithm the corporation uses to exploit them is in some abstract sense similar to how their brain works. That position is so for out on the spectrum that presuming a personality peculiarity of the emitter is the absolutely most charitable interpretation.
The comments here so far seem to be jumping to conclusions. Commenters are being quick to defend the professor. I'm not sure that the full situation is being understood.
It seems there are three important points being overlooked.
- It seems that the phrase he said was not directly related to the course material.
- He was politely asked to stop saying it.
- He was likely not even pronouncing the phrase correctly and the correct pronunciation does is not easily confused with a racial slur.
> The students said some of them had voiced their concern to Patton during his lecture, but that he’d used the word in following class sections anyway. They also said they’d reached out to fellow Chinese students, who “confirmed that the pronunciation of this word is much different than what Professor Patton described in class. The word is most commonly used with a pause in between both syllables.”
This seems to me that there is an underlying problem/tension between this professor and his students who are people of color.
I am currently learning mandarin and my wife is chinese. This word, Na Ge (sometimes pronounced Ney Guh), can be said in rapid succession with little to no pauses between syllables, like an english speaker saying "um-um-um-um" or "yeah-yeah-yeah". Difficult to find a spoken version of this online, but please have a listen to this song [0] timestamped to the appropriate point.
A course on business communication in a segment apparently about "filler words" seems completely appropriate.
What concerns can these students have beyond "I am unable to handle foreign languages spoken in my presence"? These people better not visit a macdonalds in china because all the children around them will be shouting na ge whilst pointing at the menus.
