21 books
—
11 voters
Algorithms Books
Showing 1-50 of 983

by (shelved 254 times as algorithms)
avg rating 4.35 — 9,257 ratings — published 1989

by (shelved 165 times as algorithms)
avg rating 4.34 — 2,673 ratings — published 1997

by (shelved 132 times as algorithms)
avg rating 4.42 — 5,223 ratings — published 2015

by (shelved 119 times as algorithms)
avg rating 4.42 — 1,813 ratings — published 1983

by (shelved 69 times as algorithms)
avg rating 4.13 — 34,381 ratings — published 2016

by (shelved 56 times as algorithms)
avg rating 4.17 — 649 ratings — published 2005

by (shelved 51 times as algorithms)
avg rating 4.24 — 476 ratings — published 2006

by (shelved 44 times as algorithms)
avg rating 4.38 — 1,884 ratings — published 1973

by (shelved 42 times as algorithms)
avg rating 4.16 — 431 ratings — published 2013

by (shelved 40 times as algorithms)
avg rating 4.33 — 6,892 ratings — published 2008

by (shelved 39 times as algorithms)
avg rating 3.87 — 378 ratings — published 2008

by (shelved 29 times as algorithms)
avg rating 4.20 — 3,213 ratings — published 1986

by (shelved 25 times as algorithms)
avg rating 4.41 — 222 ratings — published

by (shelved 22 times as algorithms)
avg rating 4.11 — 11,588 ratings — published 2018

by (shelved 22 times as algorithms)
avg rating 4.43 — 522 ratings — published 1969

by (shelved 21 times as algorithms)
avg rating 4.42 — 510 ratings — published 1973

by (shelved 18 times as algorithms)
avg rating 4.39 — 581 ratings — published

by (shelved 18 times as algorithms)
avg rating 3.88 — 228 ratings — published 2002

by (shelved 18 times as algorithms)
avg rating 4.34 — 142 ratings — published 1989

by (shelved 17 times as algorithms)
avg rating 4.10 — 1,317 ratings — published 2011

by (shelved 17 times as algorithms)
avg rating 4.50 — 768 ratings — published 1998

by (shelved 16 times as algorithms)
avg rating 4.09 — 90 ratings — published 1997

by (shelved 16 times as algorithms)
avg rating 4.22 — 148 ratings — published 2010

by (shelved 16 times as algorithms)
avg rating 3.82 — 3,631 ratings — published 2012

by (shelved 16 times as algorithms)
avg rating 4.23 — 206 ratings — published 1975

by (shelved 15 times as algorithms)
avg rating 4.50 — 117 ratings — published

by (shelved 15 times as algorithms)
avg rating 3.93 — 243 ratings — published

by (shelved 14 times as algorithms)
avg rating 3.87 — 29,566 ratings — published 2016

by (shelved 14 times as algorithms)
avg rating 4.12 — 205 ratings — published 2005

by (shelved 14 times as algorithms)
avg rating 4.52 — 486 ratings — published 2002

by (shelved 13 times as algorithms)
avg rating 4.49 — 41 ratings — published 2019

by (shelved 13 times as algorithms)
avg rating 4.20 — 1,136 ratings — published 2002

by (shelved 13 times as algorithms)
avg rating 3.74 — 6,404 ratings — published 2015

by (shelved 12 times as algorithms)
avg rating 4.74 — 235 ratings — published 2011

by (shelved 12 times as algorithms)
avg rating 4.52 — 91 ratings — published 2011

by (shelved 12 times as algorithms)
avg rating 4.14 — 669 ratings — published 1996

by (shelved 11 times as algorithms)
avg rating 4.45 — 42 ratings — published

by (shelved 11 times as algorithms)
avg rating 4.50 — 64 ratings — published

by (shelved 11 times as algorithms)
avg rating 4.18 — 67 ratings — published

by (shelved 11 times as algorithms)
avg rating 4.55 — 134 ratings — published 2013

by (shelved 11 times as algorithms)
avg rating 4.18 — 33 ratings — published 2008

by (shelved 11 times as algorithms)
avg rating 4.25 — 53 ratings — published 2010

by (shelved 11 times as algorithms)
avg rating 4.20 — 56 ratings — published 2002

by (shelved 11 times as algorithms)
avg rating 4.13 — 130 ratings — published 1998

by (shelved 11 times as algorithms)
avg rating 4.34 — 1,857 ratings — published 1988

by (shelved 10 times as algorithms)
avg rating 3.89 — 127 ratings — published 1999

by (shelved 10 times as algorithms)
avg rating 3.95 — 247 ratings — published 1993

by (shelved 10 times as algorithms)
avg rating 4.14 — 175 ratings — published 2011

by (shelved 10 times as algorithms)
avg rating 3.89 — 1,649 ratings — published 2012

by (shelved 10 times as algorithms)
avg rating 3.87 — 31 ratings — published 2008

“The issue is not merely one of false stories, incorrect facts, or even election campaigns and spin doctors: the social media algorithms themselves encourage false perceptions of the world. People click on the news they want to hear; Facebook, YouTube, and Google then show them more of whatever it is that they already favor, whether it is a certain brand of soap or a particular form of politics. The algorithms radicalize those who use them too. If you click on perfectly legitimate anti-immigration YouTube sites, for example, these can lead you quickly, in just a few more clicks, to white nationalist sites and then to violent xenophobic sites. Because they have been designed to keep you online, the algorithms also favor emotions, especially anger and fear. And because the sites are addictive, they affect people in ways they don't expect. Anger becomes a habit. Divisiveness becomes normal. Even if social media is not yet the primary news source for all Americans, it already helps shape how politicians and journalists interpret the world and portray it. Polarization has moved from the online world into reality.
The result is a hyper-partisanship that adds to the distrust of "normal" politics, "establishment" politicians, derided "experts," and "mainstream" institutions--including courts, police, civil servants--and no wonder. As polarization increases, the employees of the state are invariably portrayed as having been "captured" by their opponents. It is not an accident that the Law and Justice Party in Poland, the Brexiteers in Britain, and the Trump administration in the United States have launched verbal assaults on civil servants and professional diplomats. It is not an accident that judges and courts are now the object of criticism, scrutiny, and anger in so many other places too. There can be no neutrality in a polarized world because there can be no nonpartisan or apolitical institutions.”
― Twilight of Democracy: The Seductive Lure of Authoritarianism
The result is a hyper-partisanship that adds to the distrust of "normal" politics, "establishment" politicians, derided "experts," and "mainstream" institutions--including courts, police, civil servants--and no wonder. As polarization increases, the employees of the state are invariably portrayed as having been "captured" by their opponents. It is not an accident that the Law and Justice Party in Poland, the Brexiteers in Britain, and the Trump administration in the United States have launched verbal assaults on civil servants and professional diplomats. It is not an accident that judges and courts are now the object of criticism, scrutiny, and anger in so many other places too. There can be no neutrality in a polarized world because there can be no nonpartisan or apolitical institutions.”
― Twilight of Democracy: The Seductive Lure of Authoritarianism

“Modernity has become algorithms. Our reality is now intercepted by the exploration and exploitation of our psychic cues that rewrite history by rerouting consumption, elections, public opinion, and civil war.”
― The Definitive Guide to Thriving on Disruption: Volume III - Beta Your Life: Existence in a Disruptive World
― The Definitive Guide to Thriving on Disruption: Volume III - Beta Your Life: Existence in a Disruptive World
The following shelves are listed as duplicates of this shelf:
algorithm