It's hard to identify which practices are responsible for which outcomes. Suppose you wanted to combine the high happiness rate of Denmark with the low crime rate of Japan; how would you figure out which are the policies you need to accomplish that?
We got judged on both. Most security teams in my experience feel that even clicking on the link is a big risk, although I've never read a more detailed explanation of why than "oh there might be a 0-day".
My understanding is that black voters are also to the right of the median on abortion. I can't find any recent statistics - all the polls I'm seeing only break down "white" and "non-white", but black Americans trailing in support for abortion is a historically well-known phenomenon (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3852356/).
The other issues, yeah, you're right. I don't really consider taxes a social issue, but I realized I forgot about gun control.
The question isn't how you and I can individually avoid being spear phished, but what policies can be implemented across an organization to prevent it. Even the most trusted security teams aren't going to be allowed to summarily fire everyone who fails the test.
I also think this is a much stricter standard than you're recognizing. In my company's last spearphishing test, they sent out a link purporting to be a company survey immediately after an all-hands meeting announcing there'd be a survey (the real survey link came a few hours later). Expecting that nobody will be distracted enough to fall for such a thing seems unrealistic no matter how well you train them.
Being more open minded allows me to maintain a friend group who's similarly open minded, and wouldn't ostracize me for holding opinions they don't approve of. From what I've seen this strategy works for most people, and life seems like it'd be really stressful otherwise; if I for example got a stalker and needed to start carrying a gun, I wouldn't want to be in a situation where my friends will abandon me if they find out.
I of course don't begrudge anyone who feels they have to keep a closed mind in order to maintain a reputation in their community.
No, I mean to the right of the median. For example, in poll data from last year 61% of Americans overall but only 51% of black Americans support gay marriage. On some issues like interracial marriage, they're actually even further to the right; 18% of black Americans say interracial marriage is bad for society, while only 12% of Republican-leaners do.
The mixed use buildings you're referring to are approaching from the wrong direction. They're 1960s style office parks - sometimes a modern reinvention of them, sometimes literally a redevelopment on the same land - and you can't get a meaningful mixed use space in an area where everyone drives in at 9 and drives out at 5.
There are kernels of a political opinion in that comment, but it mostly consists of ad hominems against Trump supporters. They have a "fundamental deficit of character", they can't be trusted to avoid "bigotry and discrimination", they should "carry that black mark with them for the rest of their professional lives". I don't consider aggressive personal attacks like this to be political opinions; they're on the same level as wordless screams, attempts to rile people up rather than engage in discourse.
I generally err on the side of not providing links to other comment threads so as not to give the impression I'm calling for a pileon. I'd happily link it, but my old profile https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=SpicyLemonZest no longer shows the comment thread. It was on a post about federal police in Portland from last week which I'm not sure how to find.
I've been explicitly told by the HN moderators that my opinions on policing - which are well within the American mainstream and probably a touch left of center - are so controversial they constitute flamebait and I shouldn't discuss them here.
It strikes me as nonproductive to call it "stupidity" or debate whether there's a precise equality. Both halves of the country have made it clear, in word and in action, that they think some causes are worth spreading the pandemic.
The question isn't whether it's problematic in some generic sense, but whether it's hate speech or a call to violence. I'm extraordinarily skeptical that anyone sees a red triangle and thinks "ah, I understand, the triangle is telling me I should go engage in political violence".
In one of the controversies discussed in the article, Facebook banned an ad on the grounds that an upside-down red triangle constitutes hate speech - it's "a triangle symbol used by Nazis to identify political prisoners", you see. So I'm not sure the concept is quite as well-defined as you're suggesting.
On the contrary, I regularly read articles and watch videos edited by "their guys". I don't have much interest in listening to people scream on social media, but I'm genuinely happy to learn the perspectives of people who don't think the same way as me.
Obviously there's less open dialogue about it, but I think it's fair to say that it must. The CCP censors it very heavily, sometimes explicitly stating they're trying to prevent rumors and misinformation.
To be clear, Eisenstat's concern here is that Facebook isn't exercising enough editorial control over the content it allows. She argues that Facebook ought to remove content which upsets its employees, its advertisers, or the civil rights community.
As I mentioned, I don't think any single prompt can demonstrate the presence of true reasoning. If the prompt isn't shown to broadly generalize, it might just be doing a text match to something that was said before on the depths of the internet. You can see this in the next section; Kevin Lacker gets GPT-3 to demonstrate it knows some basic trivia questions, but it "knows" any prompt with the same textual structure as a basic trivia question, even if the prompt is nonsense. This strongly suggests that it's parsing out key words and doing a lookup on them rather than accessing a consistent internal model.
The terminator idea is worth dismissing in this context. Even if GPT-3 is indeed intelligent, there's no reason to think that it's a goal-based system that could independently want things or do things.
I'm not convinced that "capable of reasoning, but not consistently" is a meaningful claim. The examples seem to primarily consist of people spending hours trying things, until eventually GPT-3 outputs a chunk of reasoning they could personally do in seconds. Does that mean that GPT-3 is doing the reasoning, or does it mean that GPT-3 is an English-based lookup table and they managed to find a clever sequence of search keys?
The fact that there could be reasoning going on is certainly exciting by itself. But I don't think it's fair to call it obvious without a compact specification for how to make GPT-3 perform a general class of reasoning. Less "here's a script to make it output stuff about balanced parens", more "here's a strategy to teach it most basic string manipulations".
I'm not sure how much a better strategy could help, since most American restaurants teeter on the edge of failure even in a good year. Even if we tossed around enough aid to keep restaurant books balanced until the far off point when they can open at full capacity, how many restaurants would survive the reopening? (It's not an exact comparison, but something like 60% of restaurants fail within a year after starting.)
And how many restaurant owners are willing to put their life on pause indefinitely?
I don't know, but I'd guess it's a combination of two things:
* It's tricky to message right. Most theaters do some dynamic pricing, with discounts for certain hours or certain days, but stronger or more complicated schemes inevitably start to come across as "we're taking more money out of your wallet just because we know you'll let us".
* Charging too high of a price can shift your market segment. Most movie theaters sell themselves as entertainment for the average Joe, and having special events with $50 tickets really undercuts that.
There are many contexts where that's not a good market strategy. Movie theaters don't charge double for the opening night of Avengers movies, for example.
There are reasons to believe they might soon be that big. I'm not saying it's close to a sure bet, but in the Netherlands and Norway they're already the top selling brand - I think any reasonable analysis has to admit the possibility that they might soon replicate that success in larger countries.
Yes. A huge fraction of modern culture takes place online, through Instagram or Youtube or Facebook or Twitter. I think most people would rather go bankrupt than be barred from all Internet access.
I think the point is that, if I as an activist am aiming to maximize the number of content moderators treated well, the highest leverage way to push for that is getting people mad at Facebook. There may be a preexisting system of unpaid content moderators who are supported even less, but that's much harder for anyone to address.