It’s not self centered at all. People act because there is some benefit to them in their action. You suggested I take an action without providing a convincing benefit. I was actually hoping to help you, by explaining why the types of suggestions you’re providing to people are likely to fall upon deaf ears.
And yet, there are upvotes and they’re displayed to the poster. Also, I used the word ostensibly to imply I may personally have some other motivation. But in either cases, the broader point still stands: there are diminishing marginal returns to being more correct.
Definitely the people working on the model. It ultimately doesn’t matter what the users want because you can’t arbitrarily deliver an experience. You can only deliver what it’s possible to extract from the model, so growing the possible things the model can do well is most important.
Being the one best suited to meet your customers needs is a sales strategy. That might include staying open late if you can convince people they’re going to regret not tasting your food after a night out of drinking.
It’s not a captive market. It’s a market where the buyer has a need and if they don’t have that need met, then the buyer will suffer. That’s FOMO, and that’s when sales happen. If the buyer can sit on their laurels without any negative repercussions, then they’re not going to pull the trigger until their situation changes.
I disagree. For instance, let’s say I’m an auto manufacturer and I need some parts made. If I don’t get those parts, I have to stall my assembly line and lose a lot of money. If I find someone who can supply the parts in a short time frame, then I will definitely fear missing out by declining the sellers offer. If I capitulate and the seller delivers reliably, then I am going to gladly return for their services because they can ensure my business stays running.
The flaw in your logic is that you’re taking too myopic a view. In your world “making something worse” is somehow divorced from the tyranny of convenience, but in reality it’s not. Changing society is itself inconvenient, and therefore unlikely to happen unless leaving society as-is is less convenient.
You should read this piece in the NYT titled “The Tyranny of Convenience” [1]. It asserts that your entire worldview is essentially flawed. En masse, people do what is most convenient, which is completely orthogonal to what is right / wrong / best / worst. For instance, it’s an empirical fact that eating healthy and getting exercise is better than eating poorly and living a sedentary life. Yet, most people live sedentary lives.
Reducing variance in a random outcome still has value. For instance, you might have the money to cover an adverse outcome, but if you could guarantee you wouldn't need the money, then you could park it in an illiquid asset (e.g. some type of investment).
Also in the NYC area. There seems to be a major shortage of blue collar labor: contractors, carpenters, plumbers, electricians, etc. the cost of home renovations is truly staggering due to this lack of supply.
Even if the copy the header, they can only perform a replay attack, which is an improvement over leaking an API key. Also, you could include a timestamp in the signature to limit the amount of time it could be replayed.
Everything is interconnected. People who commute to work need a car. If parking is unavailable, then commuters cannot live there. If workers can't live there, then property taxes are lower and less money enters the local economy. You can't apriori say what impact these parking policies have.
Clearly there is a limit. Otherwise, you could circumvent all copyright by saying "The contents of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is <insert novel text here>". While technically a fact, it's protected by copyright.
There’s definitely an element of evolution: domesticated animals have evolved to have human recognizable emotions. But that’s not to say they’re not “real” or even “human.” Do humans have a monopoly on joy? I think not. Watch a dog chase a ball. It clearly feels what we call joy in a very real sense.
I usually have dozens / hundreds of tabs open. I restart chrome every day, so I don’t really care about the tabs themselves per se. But the fastest, context free way to navigate to a new site is to open a new tab using the hot key and then typing a url / search query. As a result, you end up with a lot of tabs. And why would you spend time closing old tabs? Also, it often happens that the contents of those tabs proves useful later, e.g. the last stack overflow post you looked at probably contained something useful, etc.
They’re not wrong in the sense they’re factually correct: OP’s life would have been different had a cure been available. But if OP’s SO approached her PI on their deathbed and said “Dear PI, what about my SO?” They’d probably be met with incredulity.
If you have no hope of landing a good partner and a job with enough money to raise kids, is scraping by with enough money to play video games and eat junk food not an attractive alternative?
MLP is a universal approximator, so there’s definitely a configuration that can match an attention mechanism. Whether or not it’d be feasible to train is another question.
Hmm this never works. I’m in a similar position in my team at work. “Hey we should do X because Y and Z.” “Hmm no, I don’t like that.” Nothing gets done…