Doingmything123

Works on Firefox 80

That's weird. I'm working on a MacBook on FireFox 77 with >50 tabs and it's slightly warm at best. I usually am plugged in when doing something like this so I can't comment on battery drain compared to Chrome

Ah, so reading up on this, it really is unintuitive. I guess the only worry then is if this will bite tax payers. Thanks for the expanation

My understanding of the reserve requirements were that they set how much of the total amount deposited the banks had to hold on to at any given time. Setting the requirement to zero means that banks can deploy all of the capital they have in loans. If anything, shouldn't this be the other way around? They want more deposits because they can use the full amount instead of say 90%(holding on to a 10% reserve) or whatever the number was and make more money while paying savers the same amount. Or are you relating this to interest rates going to zero which seems like a better point for why banks wouldn't need deposits? Though the amount of interest savers get from banks is close to zero anyways right? So it still seems to me that banks want as many people deposited with them as possible since they can now use all of the money given to them.

I'm not sure I follow your argument. Don't most savers put their money in banks who then have to redeploy it to make a profit? In fact, isn't it more useful to have banks utilize this capital instead of a crowds of ordinary people moving small sums? Banks aggregating wealth to be redeployed seems more efficient.

The government should be in the business of fighting predatory pricing. Based on the other comments that people have a very hard time figuring out how much they would be paying(significant legal jargon obfuscation) it seems like people are being "forced"(as in no alternative) into contracts where they don't have a full understanding of what they are signing/paying. That seems pretty predatory to me

I guess it's the trade off between backwards compatibility and readability/correctness/maintainability. Both languages will have technical debt overtime. In my opinion, I would much rather have to rarely update python scripts in exchange to for peace of mind that I can fix/update the script as need be. In my experience, *sh scripts can be fragile and hard to ensure correctness.

With all of the improvements to static and run-time analysis that we see within compilers like -fsanitize, will it ever get to the point were tools like GDB become obsolete? It seems to me that as more work goes into this, it will become very hard for gdb/valgrind/... to compete with the full power/knowledge available to a compiler.

Not a Rust programmer.

It seems like there is a big difference between a "mathematical certainty that certain bugs will not occur" if you play by the rules and just be a better programmer so that you don't write errors. Not that you won't have bugs in Rust but it seems like we should move towards having our tooling do more of the heavy lifting in ensuring correctness. I don't believe you will ever have the bug count drop to zero. I do believe in mathematical certainties though.

I assume the Federal Reserve Board aka the central banking system of the US

They do let you choose a goal? Lose weight, maintain, build muscle.

I am going to assume that the ~35% number that you are giving without context is the number quoted for peak female representation in earning cs degrees in the 80's. If I am wrong, please correct me. This is much later then I was thinking. I could not find numbers but everything that I have found says that at least a majority of programmers were women in before the early 70's. One of the questions I think is important is why were cs degrees so male dominated in something that was previously a female dominated field?

I am going to take your point about a reduction in sexism in other fields at face value since it seems you are more read up on that than I am. I'm not sure if this is a rebuttal to my argument though. A reduction in sexism in other fields would in fact complement an increase in sexism in computer science. I'm not sure if it is possible to distinguish the effects of each, especially if they compound on top of each other. It might be a little ironic to choose trial lawyers as an example since I don't think they have that much better of a percentage. I would also like to point out that your conclusion of "field of their choice", in my eyes, is heavily influenced by social factors.

I don't disagree but I think that in the average case nurture has a much larger affect on our lives that nature.

Why do you think the issue is biological and not social? Isn't this the nature vs nurture debate?

Robert Martin talks about how in the 60's and 70's women made up a large amount of the worlds programmers. It would seem somewhere along the way we found ways to significantly reduce the number of women entering the profession. I would argue that any biological reasons have little to no influence compared to social factors. If we accept this alternative theory, then the solution is to change the social culture around STEM to not be so exclusionary.

If your talking about the US, I would say the way some politicians paints illegal immigrants. Especially when the discussion about them centers around (what I think are exaggerations of) crime and drugs instead of the reality of how hard we have made it for them to come and help farm/pick our produce and do other manual labor.

What if the human emotional state is a byproduct of human consciousness. In that way, it isn't something that can just be chopped off as unnecessary. Not to say that it doesn't help with procreation but I think your view point is a little too cynical. What does this suggest about people that don't have kids?

Isn't this the nature vs nurture debate? It seems like this could just as easily be attributed to growing up in a good/happy family. Not to say that genes have no effect, I just think the environment you are raised in has a more significant effect.

I admit that it's unfortunate that AI can't write out their decision logic but I would argue that is because there hasn't been enough resources put into explainable AI. Considering the increasing use of these algorithms, I don't know if that is even a high priority.

I tend to think that people are not as logical as they like to think they are, myself included. Not to say there isn't good reasoning, just that much of our decision making is emotional and habitual over some pure sense of logic.

Systems like BERT seem perfectly rational to me. Are they not just following a set of rules on a given input to modify a state?(In the most simplistic sense of computation). I think the confusion is more over what the goal of these programs are and how do we encode that. This reminds me of the ai system that would pause the game of tetris so that it could never lose. Not we it's programmers intended but still accomplished it's "goal".

Ironically, I think this shows how human-like we have been able to make AI systems.

I guess the question is how well to we expect AI/ML systems to be able to generalize on a biased subset data. If you are trying to use one of these systems to make hiring decisions but you train it on data from the hires you made, should we really be surprised if biases in the original hiring(education level, gender, race, income, personality) are reflected in the AI's decisions?

As a user, I don't need Apple arbitrarily allowing big players' apps through their approval process while they hold smaller developers to a stricter standard.

I think by "user" it was meant the average user which by my estimation is not super technical and mostly sticks to larger apps anyways. Are smaller developers being held to a stricter standard though than larger developers on notarization?

"Long enough" is for certain a relative term. I don't think we should be making the comparison to banking software/appliances though. Banks are notoriously slow and I would think are more concerned with correctness than new features. Given how often we see complaints about archaic banking software I'm not sure if 1960's code is a good thing but it has longevity by design. Apple does not need to play by these rules and as an end user I'm ok with that. I think Apple should optimize for the 97-99% of average users even if it is at the expense of a few and I see this change in that lens. Besides, the users who use 8+ year old software probably have the know-how and the will to jury-rig a solution to get around this.

Entrenched ideas resist change. Some of the worst ideas in human history have been the ones that have stuck around the longest. It took over a century to adopt the heliocentric model which was centuries after Aristarchus of Samos first proposed the idea.