anonthrowaway2

Imperfect Produce: "if you can believe that folks throw out worse-looking produce rather than sell it at stores _you_ would never frequent, make other products from it, feed livestock with it, etc, boy howdy have we got a feel-good story for you!"

You definitely can. A control system causes a signal to be ~constant and thus ~uncorrelated to whatever you care to name.

OTOH, it's often that the risks _to the doctor_ outweigh the benefits _to the doctor_ of recommending you use it. Correlated with but far from the same as the risks/benefits to you.

It's possible and extraordinarily unlikely. I think any philosopher who argues that it's _likely_ humans have a biological limitation preventing us from ever understanding the human brain is going to be making some obvious errors. Got any examples to check?

That study is super flawed. Its conclusion is directionally correct, but aggregating negative wealth just doesn't make sense in this context, so the numbers "8" and "half" are meaningless except insofar as you interpret them only with the precision "few" and "lots".

You can have the subjective experience of seeing something without the objective photons that usually cause the experience, at your discretion.

Almost everyone I know with at least a faint understanding of ML is surprised by models picking up racism etc when there was zero intent to do so, because of systemic racism etc in available data. Or at least surprised by how much can be picked up. You're bubbled if no one you know is surprised.

That is very obviously not how I begin a large, dreaded task when I am forcing myself to just start. Sounds to me like our brains work differently.

Having some challenges is more fun than just vegging all day. Having too many challenges, maybe not, but some? Necessary for most people's happiness.