Jump to content

Prototype for everything corner.


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, MR Chuffer said:

A misunderstanding promoted by FB to preserve their business model, their whole modus operandi is to capture eyeballs and keep them there which they do with clever algorithms, which often serve up images and content that causes suffering, as in terrorist content, violence and sexual imagery, etc. 

 

5 hours ago, MR Chuffer said:

 

Use of FB has been described as a form of gambling, triggering the same dopamine responses in the brain, the continual "scroll" at the bottom of the page is like another throw of the dice which is why so many people "lose" themselves in FB - its designed like that (according to papers I've read from my son's degree course, and he's being taught how to hook sheeple through these technologies).

 

I use Facebook and have never seen any images of 'terrorist content, violence, sexual imagery, etc'; Perhaps because I don't go looking for such ? I belong to Groups catering to my interests, and I find Messenger invaluable for keeping in touch with family, friends and former work colleagues. I am well aware of FB's all pervading power and influence but used in the right way it is simply another means of communicating, and for me the advantages far outweigh any disadvantages. I also find being described as a sheeple insulting. 

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MR Chuffer said:

A misunderstanding promoted by FB to preserve their business model, their whole modus operandi is to capture eyeballs and keep them there which they do with clever algorithms, which often serve up images and content that causes suffering, as in terrorist content, violence and sexual imagery, etc. If it didn't cause suffering, why is the presence of the Alt Right so contentious in the US and similar extreme political views - left and right - such a bone of contention? If it causes no harm, why don't they just leave such content there?

 

Use of FB has been described as a form of gambling, triggering the same dopamine responses in the brain, the continual "scroll" at the bottom of the page is like another throw of the dice which is why so many people "lose" themselves in FB - its designed like that (according to papers I've read from my son's degree course, and he's being taught how to hook sheeple through these technologies).

 

But I've spent too much time on this already, this is your view so I'll let you get on with it, others, many others, choose not to.

 

1 minute ago, caradoc said:

 

 

I use Facebook and have never seen any images of 'terrorist content, violence, sexual imagery, etc'; Perhaps because I don't go looking for such ? I belong to Groups catering to my interests, and I find Messenger invaluable for keeping in touch with family, friends and former work colleagues. I am well aware of FB's all pervading power and influence but used in the right way it is simply another means of communicating, and for me the advantages far outweigh any disadvantages. I also find being described as a sheeple insulting. 

 

Mr Chuffer is correct in thinking that Facebook works hard to keep your eyeballs on screen, the refresh of the news feed is deliberately set to create a dopamine induced reaction akin to gambling - you don't know what the result will be from the refresh and by inducing you to regularly refresh it gives you another dopamine hit.  Facebook in itself is not evil, unethical perhaps, but not evil, they don't set out to harm but unfortunately it has been a side effect of their modus operandi.

 

What Facebook wants is information, enough to be able to sell your behaviours to advertisers and it is there it makes it's money, it doesn't sell the data, that would be financially disastrous, it sells promises to advertisers of response rates based on it's intimate knowledge of it's users.

 

When it comes to free speech it is in a difficult place, if it doesn't censor then it can rightly claim itself to be a distributor of content only and in no way editorally responsible for what is shared, the moment it censors then it is editing it's content and it becomes something different that regulators can home in on and control it, which it doesn't want. 

 

Self harm imagery on Instragram (owned by Facebook), right wing media, left wing media and a certain President have brought all this to a head and Facebook, along with Twitter, have begun to act where they feel they need to, but all they have done is create a perfect storm for those being denied access to claim that it is politically motivated and now censoring free speech and potentially Facebook is now responsible for it's content making it come into the cross hairs of regulators.

 

The biggest issue as a user on Facebook is the newsfeed algorithm, it was meant to drive the dopamine effect and keep people staring at the screen by giving them more of what they like, all it did was create a massive echo chamber where you only hear the stuff you believe in, never challenging you and just cementing what you already believe.   This isn't an issue perhaps to those of us who simply use Facebook to stay in contact with people we know and like trains, but if you aren't so particular about who you share to and with then the echo chamber effect is disastrous and you are in danger of going down the rabbit hole.

 

Facebook does try to stem illegal content, there is software to look for sexual imagery, there are people who review content as well (who'd want that job) but people will always find ways, it's not just Facebook this happens to, all social media has an underbelly that the owners will be looking to remove but they just spring up again rather like whack a mole.  Facebook is about to standardise it's Messenger service based on the WhatsApp model with end to end encryption - for regulators that is a worry, but all Facebook is doing is following the other similar encrypted messaging services that exist, they are simply following the market.

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

On 20/04/2021 at 18:55, montyburns56 said:

041311  Ipswich Station 1986

 

Internal User 041311 . Ipswich Station . 04th-June-1986

 

 

Platform 1 was a bit short in those days! :)

 

EDIT: ...and (potentially) mobile. What are they storing in there that would warrant the use of a 'Shocvan'?

Edited by talisman56
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, talisman56 said:

EDIT: ...and (potentially) mobile. What are they storing in there that would warrant the use of a 'Shocvan'?

Photo from 1986 just after electrification to Ipswich - obviously the shock van is storing spare electricity. You can see a wire going top left to bottom right from the electrification stanchion into the van, and another wire coming out of the right hand side of the van (or is that a lightning conductor?)

Edited by eastwestdivide
added ref to fast ticket collector
  • Like 1
  • Funny 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, woodenhead said:

 

Mr Chuffer is correct in thinking that Facebook works hard to keep your eyeballs on screen, the refresh of the news feed is deliberately set to create a dopamine induced reaction akin to gambling - you don't know what the result will be from the refresh and by inducing you to regularly refresh it gives you another dopamine hit.  Facebook in itself is not evil, unethical perhaps, but not evil, they don't set out to harm but unfortunately it has been a side effect of their modus operandi.

 

What Facebook wants is information, enough to be able to sell your behaviours to advertisers and it is there it makes it's money, it doesn't sell the data, that would be financially disastrous, it sells promises to advertisers of response rates based on it's intimate knowledge of it's users.

 

When it comes to free speech it is in a difficult place, if it doesn't censor then it can rightly claim itself to be a distributor of content only and in no way editorally responsible for what is shared, the moment it censors then it is editing it's content and it becomes something different that regulators can home in on and control it, which it doesn't want. 

 

Self harm imagery on Instragram (owned by Facebook), right wing media, left wing media and a certain President have brought all this to a head and Facebook, along with Twitter, have begun to act where they feel they need to, but all they have done is create a perfect storm for those being denied access to claim that it is politically motivated and now censoring free speech and potentially Facebook is now responsible for it's content making it come into the cross hairs of regulators.

 

The biggest issue as a user on Facebook is the newsfeed algorithm, it was meant to drive the dopamine effect and keep people staring at the screen by giving them more of what they like, all it did was create a massive echo chamber where you only hear the stuff you believe in, never challenging you and just cementing what you already believe.   This isn't an issue perhaps to those of us who simply use Facebook to stay in contact with people we know and like trains, but if you aren't so particular about who you share to and with then the echo chamber effect is disastrous and you are in danger of going down the rabbit hole.

 

Facebook does try to stem illegal content, there is software to look for sexual imagery, there are people who review content as well (who'd want that job) but people will always find ways, it's not just Facebook this happens to, all social media has an underbelly that the owners will be looking to remove but they just spring up again rather like whack a mole.  Facebook is about to standardise it's Messenger service based on the WhatsApp model with end to end encryption - for regulators that is a worry, but all Facebook is doing is following the other similar encrypted messaging services that exist, they are simply following the market.

Let's keep the Facebook type discussions to Facebook.

I come on here to get away from all that.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 5
  • Round of applause 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, keefer said:

 

Mk1 RKB (kitchen and buffet) with probably an RUO for dining (48 loose seats in 2+1 layout).

There were RSOs around but the ER seemed to favour the RUO.

 

Thanks. I've also found this picture which looks like they've used 2x RBR?? instead.

 

High Dyke Class 55 9007 Kings X to Bradford May 73 C1259

 

  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

For those early BR modellers who like pick'n'mix liveries I have just been reading some Railway Magazines from 1955. In the loco notes there was a comment that 6910 Gossington Hall had been seen at Paddington on 4/10/1955 in BR lined black livery but a green tender still lettered GW and carrying the GWR crest. 

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, montyburns56 said:

 

Thanks. I've also found this picture which looks like they've used 2x RBR?? instead.

 

High Dyke Class 55 9007 Kings X to Bradford May 73 C1259

 

RU and RB.........

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, melmerby said:

How long did the Mk1 catering vehicles last in the rakes of later coaches?

 

 

I think the last ones were on the GE mainline for Anglia about 2000, probably hastened a little by the paranoia in the 90s about mk1s telescoping at the slightest bump.

At least they stay in line unlike that 800 at Neville Hill

  • Like 5
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, ianmacc said:

Propelling a rake of wagons over set track curves is always a lottery! 

An issue made worse by modern small tension lock couplings, buffer locking replaced by hook swing creating derailments due to the small loops.

 

Edited by john new
Typo
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, montyburns56 said:

"No you idiot, I said I wanted a sand COLOURED Western...."

 

Carlyon Bay, St.Austell, Cornwall 1992

 

3 of a kind No.3. 4w-4PH (SL 2.4/1981) Carlyon Bay, St.Austell, Cornwall.

 

Obviously a "cop" for the bloke on the left with book and pen!

  • Like 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
  • Funny 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I remember of the beaches round St.Austell, the stuff wasn't sand as we know it but the waste from china clay mines washed down the rivers ............. it must be well over fifty years since I experienced it and still remember what it felt like under bare feet .... OUCH !

Edited by Wickham Green too
Link to post
Share on other sites

Spot on!  A really thick beach mat and shoes was essential!

That little railway was a very successful operation in its day and was seldom seen running without a full load.  Maintenance might have been a problem with salt air and that sand, but ballast was freely available in large quantities.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 26/04/2021 at 08:52, john new said:

An issue made worse by modern small tension lock couplings, buffer locking replaced by hook swing creating derailments due to the small loops.

 

Yes and overriding lifting the trailing wheels of the leading wagon off the rails. Worse when mixing manufacturers. 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
On 28/04/2021 at 16:29, luckymucklebackit said:

If that Western was in Desert Sand Livery  would you be able to see it?

 

 

Yes, because it only became invisible in the Sahara. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...