MawNicker
MawNicker on Hacker News
How do they control for environmental influence and correlations between environments and particular genes? Can someone elaborate on the "new statistical methods" briefly mentioned in the article.
As you've described it, the consumer's "win" is determined by Amazon's competitors. Every private advantage Amazon has serves to undercut the profits a competitor would need to develop their own productivity gains. Those are the gains that would actually show up for consumers. How are they winning?
It can't be both? Isn't that the least comforting? Not that it proves anything; People often believe what they fear is true. All you need to know is that MKUltra existed. The people responsible were never brought to justice. Maybe some of you have loose morals but I could never join this shit.
It's not like it was before. JIT engines made the situation more complicated. The security problems are hard.
My business is not your business. Privacy is not a business asset. It's a fundamental human need. Please ignore this comment though. I'm apparently a bot. I wonder how I ended up like that...
Are the other standards inclusive or repressive?
There are distinct notions of monad. Just a note.
A wonderful demonstration of copyright violation/enforcement.
That's only true if they're actually politicians and not tortured hostages.
People just get ratfucked by whoever controls the media.
I remapped my keys like this:
CAPS-LOCK ⬅ CONTROL ⬅ ESCAPE ⬅ CAPS-LOCK
Escape is just too far away for my vim-flow. This has been much better. It's mostly positive outside of vim too. The only real gotcha is using another machine.
> one of Donald Trump's campaign promises is to put Edward Snowden to death.
That is heartbreaking. Thank you for informing me. Whoever we elect, this absolutely cannot happen.
He has also suggested, "going after their families" as a strategy to combat terrorism. Can we elect someone, to stand over the world, who has made such statements? We really need a third option. A quote from some wise-guy somewhere [0]: "315 to 320 million people; this is the best two that we can come up with?"
0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3O01EfM5fU&t=37
My notion of these people (developmental and increasingly genetic) is that they exist as the scar tissue of humanity. I fear this new propaganda will only leave more scars than the old.
Psychopaths have the ability to not feel other people's pain. Super important distinction. Unless you're just hate-mongering. In which case sure, they're as good a scapegoat as any.
> Heck, the U.S. government has behaved so outrageously over the last decade that U.S. citizens are likely to blame their own government when drone strikes happen on U.S. soil!
Nah. We respect Hanlon's Dodge. Our government is a tool of the shadow government. It's a dirty mark on Americans just like the Jihad is a dirty mark on Muslims. Balkanize all the things!
"The sentiment behind it" is yours.
It is good to have a moment or two each day where I don't feel like I'm being watched. I do find myself unable to rest. Ever.
I would love a resource that related the various notions, expressions and idioms of society in the way that you just did. The sophistication of this association is well beyond anything machine learning can do. Except for maybe to crawl the internet and determine it was a relevant association stated by some human somewhere.
> I see more escapism through drugs.
Escapism is a great way to expand your mind. If you didn't believe you could escape this why would you conceive of anything else?
Millenials may be the most pathological generation in history; That's only because they were raised by the second most. They know it. They can see the history of the populist political failure; The phony institutionalization of freedom. The centralist optimization of economies as a domain of warfare. They're ants and they know it. They don't know how to proceed. They've met so many wonderful grasshoppers. Yet they feel the grasshoppers in total are evil. There is more dissonance in reality than ever before. Even if that's only because we're so aware as a society now. It has consequences on the developmental outcomes of human's that may not show up until decades after they've taken effect.
Plenty of homeless people will waste it on cigarettes. I'm actually for it. These are precisely those people for which the currently rampant paternalism is NOT helping. It just further communicates that they are no longer worthy of bettering themselves. This attitude is pervasive and exists as a direct reflection of our neo-liberal capitalistic state. It floats around like pollution in the aether between egos and stifles anyone sensitive to it. Once that's happened the means-testing merely communicates that they are being measured and slotted. That anything known of their condition will only be used to humiliate them further; There is no help. I don't have statistics at hand but these people (hobos) largely aren't reproducing. Can they not just smoke and be comfortable? Why are we so desperate to police the abuses of these systems? Making proper use of them is already it's own reward. Let's just allow people to punish themselves for as long as they feel they need to. Without giving them any more evidence that they ought to...
I agree. Seems as if a service rep made silly mistake and likely got fired for the negative PR. :/
I suspect your notion of intelligence includes more than the quality itself. Humans are complex systems and exist inside much more complex systems. If intelligence were purely adaptive then there would be a lot more of it than there is. If the adaptation of an organism didn't dominate the expression of it's qualities then they would always be manifest; They are not. When they are not, happiness is also often not. It is true that a more fully manifest human is happier. Also that as their happiness and observable intelligence are correlated. But what would result from intelligence that hadn't been able to fully manifest? I suspect the expression of many of these concerns. Your final statement equalizes on this point. In fact, the expression of these concerns is absolutely not equal among humans. I can appreciate the hesitation to accept their indication of higher intelligence. They're not remarkable thoughts. They're absolutely not thoughts we want to reward. They are only occasionally the product of excessive intelligence becoming maladaptive. A person that is failing to cope takes a fairly regular form. This form is ultimately
not an expression of their intelligence.
You seem to be talking about "adaptive" intelligence. I suspect this is in fact the nearness to an optimal quantity and not merely more of the quality itself. Also, that this fluctuates over time. Adaptation to it is a continuous process of the meta-mind. Ignorance can be recognized as a form of unconscious intelligence possessed by any finite thinking thing. The calculations of this intelligence precede the existence of any particular mind and needn't be known by it. Our capacity to know this form of intelligence is unlikely. Hence your perception of imprecision. The thing you wish were precise never will be. Psychology simply cannot talk about it. As a science it wouldn't intend to. It can only theorize about definable qualities. To understand and properly measure "adaptive" intelligence we would have to subvert the entirety of it's effects. We would have to know what it deemed unworthy of being within the finite knower; Merely to confirm that it was in fact unworthy of being known. We can only pontificate about what "adaptive" intelligence is. Perhaps we can assert it's the correlates of observable intelligence. This demands that it doesn't fluctuate over time. Anything we can know to properly define it is too finite. Knowing it would imply a more "real" intelligence we have yet to define. We cannot "know" the meta-mind.
I suspect learning. Loneliness is ultimately not the signal we think it is. It's conditioned from other more fundamental signals. One such signal is the desire to learn. To become a better version of yourself. Sustained loneliness is eventually disintegrated and mediated more fundamentally. Empathizing with the intellectual giants of history can yield wonderful quasi-imaginary friends. Notably many such people lived very similarly and have wonderful things to say about it; Almost as if they intended to be your temporally long-distance friend. If you love them as they were then you will come to see that they loved you too. Truly to the depth that they could know you. It both humbles and inspires.
I suspect the cognitive effects of depression may serve this purpose well. An endeavor (specialization) is a good way to battle depression. My inclination is to agree with you. Then I realize this "intelligence" you've described is essentially an adaption to the sluggish nature of dissonant reasoning. The more axes involved in mediating dissonance the more the set of thoughts becomes partially ordered vs fully ordered. This partial ordering demands active mediation. This is the domain for which this intelligence is just another specialization. I realize it's good but it isn't wholly superior to avoiding it outright. For instance, in noticing this I'm only more ambivalent and ultimately... depressed. I can see how I would be able to execute faster if I defaulted to the other heuristic.
The problem is that we record everything. Then we use this information to determine who gets to do anything. No one wants to mess this up.
The ruffling seems to come from the term: universal grammar. Without a proper understanding the term can cause all sorts of misapprehensions. It sounds like a mandate; it makes people rebellious. Noam Chomsky specifically disavows any evolutionary theory. He just hand waves it for the establishment of the model. Many people who "refute" him simply attempt to provide this. All he intended to build was the simplest concievable system for language parsing. That's all he ever claims to have. When he responds to criticism it is always staunchly from this context. People just don't care to understand the propositions of the actual idea. I suspect they're intent on invalidating him to undermine his political views.
Is there anything that can solve this other than what you've described? They will grow and push indefinitely. It's like mass surveillance. Encryption works. It can just be impossible. The truly terrible outcome is if "internet voting" is both an excuse and becomes recognized as such. Then the public will fear "internet voting" for X decades. Even though it's ultimately the solution to this problem.
He seems very "meh" on everything lately. Could be one of those reasons. Are you saying we should speculate about that before we complain about the drafting and ratification process?