gxigzigxigxi

The deal could not be good enough, because the liability for breaking their own privacy policy would probably be much larger, not to mention the loss of user trust. Even Facebook does not sell the list.

> Since death is inevitable due to the eventual heat death of the universe, then from an operations research perspective it makes much more sense to focus effort on getting rid of the fear of death than trying to end death itself.

I don’t think that’s true from a global optimization perspective. If you’re trying to maximize contented moments, it makes sense to spend time thinking about how to extend life (assuming you’re talking about the number of happy moments for people who are currently alive), even if those moments still must eventually cease. Because trillions of years of happy moments is a lot more than 80-100 years of happy moments. Only if you’re trying to minimize unhappy moments does removing fear of death become a better goal.

However, from a local optimization perspective, since there is little anyone can individually do about their medium term probability of death, I agree that figuring out how to cope with and minimize that fear is probably the best strategy.

it doesn’t really matter what you enjoy if we are talking about what is needed to make a given language faster. That being said, nodejs on v8 is a lot faster than ruby and dynamically typed, so I do agree with your conclusion that static typing is not necessarily the answer.

That only matters if the deity in question cares for the cause of your morals. Which surely a class of theoretical deities would, but not all imaginable ones.

I think if you can mostly get over your fear of death that’s greAt, but I’m not sure it is feasible. Fear of death is evolutionarily adaptive like almost nothing else is, so it’s wired in at a pretty deep level.

(You wouldn’t want to entirely escape it —- a little fear is good to keep you from doing stupid thing.)

I dont accept the premise that a large fraction of Google’s actions are abuse.

I don’t work on anything I consider socially harmful, FWIW. Before you ask, I don’t think most people would consider what I do socially harmful either, if they knew what it was.

I don’t know if I’m a sheep or a rock star but I do know I enjoy my work and probably get paid more than I could get anywhere else.

??? You seem like you’re trying to find a fight here for reasons I cannot fathom. All I think of you as an employee of one of these companies is that you’re probably less well compensated than you could be.

Of course, although all to a lesser extent, since they are widely believed to pay less.

Not sure if you have a specific one in mind but I for one am curious.

Something something correlation causation

I know a fair number of people who had fun, interesting careers in their 20s. But when we talk about investments and saving, they all seem to suddenly realize that time is limited, and if you’re going to trade it for money, it’s best to get as much money for your time as you comfortably can.

As a Googler, Facebook would certainly be a place I would consider if I wasn’t at google. You’re right, of course, that it is a better than fine employer.

Exceptions to the general rule that fires mostly affect those who live in the woods. Does not affect my assertion that living away from the woods dramatically decreases your risk/worry of being involved in or affected by forest fires.

Right now I’m talking about property damage, not safety. I would absolutely say that a homeowner who knowingly takes the risk to buy a house with shoddy wiring should bear the risk of that choice (as opposed to the state).

Heh? You can absolutely decide how your house is going to be built and/or refuse to live in a house not built to your standards. Moreover, they certainly have the power to live elsewhere.

Why not place the blame on who made the ultimatr choice to live in a place: the homeowner?

Sure. If there was gross negligence, some liability would be reasonable. Probably not 100% of damages, but some. That’s not what we are talking about though. I think under current law they could be liable even if they took all due care.

I sure hope the liability laws are not such that PG&E gets wiped out. I don’t think it makes much sense to assign most of the causal weight to a spark when it would do nothing without all that tinder. There would have been another spark, eventually.

If you don’t want to sometimes worry about forest fires, don’t build your house in the woods. It isn’t that complicated.

No, I meant what I said.

If you want an answer from someone who actually knows, consider contacting your gsuites account rep or asking on the support forum for gsuite. It is apparent from the other responses find their root in uninformed paranoia rather than actual knowledge.

(I don’t actually know either, and I think it depends on what you mean by “scan” and what program you’re worried is doing said scanning. It also depends what you mean by “for their own benefit.”)

Hrm. It is different. Google going against fake news is google avoiding the promulgation of falsehoods. That is, in a sense, an effort to change people’s beliefs. But in that sense, anything and everything that google does or doesn’t do would be considered an effort to change beliefs, which makes it a useless statement.

I’m not suggesting that the model would infer the truth from the input. Just that it would render a reasonably reliable estimate that the subject is dissembling. I don’t think the actual words used would be the principle component of such a determination.

To be fair to the computers, that’s about the speed we train image classifiers to run at, if not faster. It seems likely that if we were willing to tolerate a second or two of latency we might be able to devise architectures that are able to see through some of the images that confuse current architectures.

I wonder if a machine-learning approach really would learn how to detect lies. There is already a huge corpus to train on: police interrogation videos. It would take significant effort to label deception that was later confirmed. But I’ll bet we could teach a computer to see through almost any lie if we decided it was an important thing to spend time on.

Thanks. So if the artist is both the performer and the writer, they get about ten percent. So that’s one power of two accounted for. I think my assumption about the typical number of CD listens is also quite conservative.

They do sum it up. $5k for 1M streams. Which is reasonable or not compared to CDs depending on your assumptions. Let’s say a CD has ten tracks and the average buyer plays a CD five times. That’s fifty streams per buyer. One million streams yields twenty thousand CD buyers under this assumption. CDs are $10 (or were the last time I bought them ages ago). That means $200k gross, but the band would probably not see more than 20% of that at the most optimistic. Still, $5k is a lot less than $40k.

But if you double the number of plays a typical CD buyer would listen, and halve the band’s cut, you’re suddenly in the same neighborhood. You also have to factor in that many Spotify streams are not full track listens.

I wouldn’t consider myself an “older person” with “outdated visions.” But I still wouldn’t want to work with or be managed by someone working remotely.