miscPerson
If you butcher an animal, you have X lbs of meat now. Maybe you don’t need all of that immediately just to survive.
If you only need Y < X to feed yourself, you can sell the excess and buy a new animal plus food to fatten it up.
This converts a onetime benefit (killing an animal you have now) into a sustainable way to provide for yourself.
It’s also pointing out that the fundamental choice in what’s acceptable or not is dumb: someone who made a mistake while young and genuinely has tried to build a better life should be welcomed into society, while criminals who continue to promote a criminal and violent lifestyle should not be.
It’s also mocking that people who talk about “social justice” are often deeply racist and unforgiving people — which perhaps could be fairly criticized for tone, but is again not a false dichotomy.
Social justice!
Mr Musk won’t put 2.5% of his money where his mouth is. If he genuinely thought there was a problem to fix, he’d fund a demonstration of the solution.
The US government already spends $2B a year funding small business innovation across a range of industries. What more can we do?
Can you explain what a made up quote has in common with repeating a quote from the CEO of a famously data driven company on problems with data models?
— Jeff Bezos
Trusting your eyes over people with replication rates in the 20-50% range (ie, social scientists) is probably a rational choice.
There’s plenty of evidence that polls have systemic inaccuracies — question phrasing, people giving “right” answers, etc.
Look at how Amazon is treated: with nearly a million workers, a few dozen complaining is enough for major media outlets to broadcast that they’re a bad employer.
Can you point to any employer where 1 in 10,000 workers doesn’t have a bad experience?
As an example, major news networks blatantly lied about the Covington kid because it fit their ideology.
Major news networks are untrustworthy, you just happen to support the narrative some of them are selling.
All of these systems suck, so let’s favor people who can lead voluntary large tribes over the politically connected, such as the politburo.
Mathematics didn’t have a strong notion of proof until the late 1800s/early 1900s. Contradictory “proofs” in calculus created a need for a more rigorous system of reasoning. (It took until the 1950s to formalize what an ‘infinitesimal’ is — but those were used in early calculus prior to limits.)
That gave us electronic computers, as the effort to reduce proofs to things that could be mechanized bore fruit. Every program is a proof!
Since then, the idea of proof and structuring mathematics has been radically redefined — introducing things like category theory and type theory as alternatives to set theory, while studying the impact of certain axioms and developing tools around “reverse mathematics”, which is fitting a set of axioms to the theorems you want to be true.
Modern mathematics is working on the study of logic topology, extending our reasoning tools to deal with complexities around proving equality in the hopes we can automatically verify mathematics. These tools overlap heavily with AI research.
The applications here are what you might guess: new AI methods, data analysis methods, verification of software, etc. The DOD has paid a fair bit to support that research into software verification, for instance. The NSF and others fund “big data” analysis.
I’m less familiar with other parts of mathematics, but —
The study of knot theory has impacts for physical sciences, from particle physics (anyons) to fluid dynamics. In particular, there’s some work to be done in higher order knot theory and computational knot theory (ie, how to be efficient). MSFT is building a quantum computer based on this — and has suggested that higher order knots might not require as expensive of hardware.
In number theory, we still don’t know much about almost all real numbers. Things like Chaitins constant exist — and such uncomputable, normal numbers form the bulk of the reals — but we don’t really know how to get our hands on them. In less exotic research, elliptic curves are used in cryptography. There’s some work I don’t quite understand in building out a homomorphic encryption — where we can operate on encrypted data.
In many areas, we’re still working through the algebra-geometry correspondence, which we got hints of 400 years ago but only formalized once topology and category theory were invented — and still are building tooling around.
And there’s lots of areas I have no idea about — but I assume are being similarly productive.
Ones that I know of, but can’t comment on: fractals, differential equations, bifurcation theory, and chaos theory.
What’s the difference between that and a GAN transforming the request?
It sounds like worrying if submarines swim.
Not that I believe computers have quite reached the level that an expert artist does — being able to suggest modifications to a request — but saying they don’t produce “art” also seems incorrect.
VS Code pops up three notification windows every time I open a .py despite me having closed them literally hundreds of times now.
Apparently it’s smarter than me, and just knows I need its plugins and system integrations despite a year of adamantly refusing.
For instance, in retail, Walmart does substantially more business — via brick and mortar stores — and is rapidly growing online.
“@Disney #MayThe4th This tweet enters into Disney’s offered contract, except that Disney agrees to pay $100,000 for the license to optionally publish this Tweet and to include it in Tweet analysis corpuses. If Disney doesn’t explicitly object within 48 hours or collects this tweet as part of a database, they accept this modification.”
IANAL, genuinely curious.
Quarantine is harmful, and only useful if we’re preventing something worse. That’s probably the case, broadly — but the policies in other countries raise questions about US policies.
This is compounded by the arbitrary nature of closures, eg public construction and landscaping can continue but private can’t. People resent politicians arbitrarily (and self-servingly) picking winners and losers in the economy.
It’s further compounded by the fact that leaders haven’t announced a clear vision for when this ends. People complied because they cared and wanted to prevent deaths — but now we’re in a situation where the workforce is devastated and being hurt by arbitrary requirements, with no clear plan.
Naturally, people aren’t just going to sit there hurting — and if leaders don’t articulate a clear direction towards fixing things, people will find their own.
This sounds like an interesting idea.
Let’s judge people on the content of their character and not color of their skin:
Why should a poor Asian student from a troubled neighborhood be denied while a wealthy black kid with lower scores is admitted?
“Because Asians elsewhere do well while blacks elsewhere struggle” is an inherently racist answer.
I don’t support racism, even if you claim you’re racist for the “right” reasons — like every other bigot in history.
You’re also ignoring that the point of pointing and calling is precisely to keep you from responding robotically if something deviates and to maintain your attention on active control/correction. It’s when you don’t point and call that you respond robotically. Your comment about “cog” gets to what I was calling demeaning: most of the jobs people refer to that way require intelligence and active response that machines can’t really master — they’re being done poorly if you’re just being a “cog in a machine”.
Robots are okay, but they’re not really useful for certain jobs (yet) because they’re either not smart enough, not flexible enough, or too costly to respond intelligently to deviations from the norm. Pointing and calling amplifies that human capacity.
Using motion and language to amplify our natural faculties for best effect at a social purpose sounds pretty human to me.
I’m curious, what activity do you view as not dehumanizing?
I legitimately don’t see how it’s more dehumanizing than say, speech guidelines at retail or standards for how to use a tool in construction.
I pointed and called in a data center as we went through the checklist — because I wanted to do my job correctly, and used the best available technique to do so. That’s what being a professional others can depend on is: doing the silly technique so your work is correct.
I find embracing that much more liberating than being inefficient just so others might not judge my conduct from a position of ignorance. That strikes me as demeaning.
Have you ever considered that if you need to do a lot of explaining, and not even your own parents follow your logic, but the other person can persuasively summarize their argument... you might just be wrong?
A question for people downvoting:
Do you think I’m wrong or do you just not like what I’m saying?
It seems easy to correct me about the Harvard admissions point, if I’m just factually mistaken.
At the very least, we know it isn’t parsimonious, though that wasn’t clear until after it was developed (and the philosophical inclination to preserve locality was reasonable).
Eg, the “natural numbers” are a recipe to make as many as you want (by taking the successor of the last one) but not an actual (as in existing) infinite collection — the only ones which exist are the ones you construct, and the “potential infinity” refers to the fact that you can always make a new one.
> More than 95 percent of Fortune 500 companies run Microsoft Azure.
For example, I worked at a large media company and we had a couple Azure services spun up related to our email service.
But the bulk was on AWS, which handled our business workloads — eg, serving video.
Is Microsoft counting my former employer among that 95%?
Best of luck!