True, but HSBC thinks you read the email, because somebody fetched the tracking pixel, right? The irony is that HSBC and others who use this kind of thing probably aren't in the least interested in when or how many times you open the email. Whoever came up with this idea (probably) really did think it was (just) a pretty good way of figuring out if they have your correct email.
Bob isn't giving you any actionable information. If Alice and Bob agree, you're more confident than you were before, but you're still going to be trusting Alice. If they disagree you're down to 50% confidence, but you still might as well trust Alice.
In the US they don't hang it on trees, they just leave by the side of the trail or road or whatever. But it is very common to see bags of dogshit on the sidewalk or by the side of a trail in the US.
I have fun, but I probably wouldn't if the AI was right all the time. Or if I was helpless when it was wrong. But for now I'm still in the centaur zone.
Are you seriously saying that, because a point distribution may well make sense if the point in question is zero (or 1) other points are plausible also? Srsly?
The nonsense isn't just that they're assuming a point probability, it's that, conditional on that point probability not being true, there's only a 2% chance that theta is .5 += .01. Whereas the actual a priori probability is more like 99.99%.
I don't understand why anyone thinks self-reported happiness scores mean anything at all. I don't see how they possibly could. If someone says he's a 10 on his personal scale I guess that means he can't imagine being much happier, but I don't see how that means he's particularly happy.
I read the page on Lindsey's paradox, and it's astonishing bullshit. It's well known that with sufficiently insane priors you can come up with stupid conclusions. The page asserts that a Bayesian would accept as reasonable priors that it's equally likely that the probability of child being born male is precisely 0.5 as it is that it has some other value, and also that if it has some other value that all values in the interval from zero to one are equally likely. But nobody on God's green earth would accept those as reasonable values, least of all a Bayesian. A Bayesian would say there's zero chance of it being precisely 0.5, but it is almost certainly really close to 0.5, just like a normal human being would.
Yeah, it may seem like a "better" (because stronger) conclusion to the author that if you have more pigeons than pigeonholes you must have more than one pigeon in a hole even if negative or irrational numbers of pigeons. But you're pretty much only invoking the pigeonhole principle in discrete math, where "more than one" means "at least 2".
For a fingerprint to be useful it must not only be unique but also persistent. If I have a process that randomly installs and deletes wacky fonts, I'm unique at any given time, but the me of today can't be linked to the me of tomorrow, right?
You seem to be confused about the difference between "less" and "more". In general a yes-no question gives less than 1 bit of information if yes and no are not equally likely. There is no way it can be expected to give more.
The commutation problem has nothing to do with matrices. Rotations in space do not commute, and that will be the case whether you represent them as matrices or in some other way.
Well, I had to write it down, but I have to write down everything these days. But from the way the problem was phrased, it was obvious you don;t have to actually find to numbers.
I understand the assertion perfectly. I understand why people might feel it intuitively makes sense. I don't understand why anyone purports to believe that saying "Chinese characters" rather than bit sequences serves any purpose other than to confuse.
I don;t understand why people have any respect at all for Searle's"argument", it's just a bare assertion "machines's can't think", combined with some cheap misdirection. Can anyoneone argue that having Chinese characters instead of bits going in and out is something other than misdirection? Can anyone argue that having a human being acting like a cpu instead of having an actual cpu is something other than cheap misdorection?
It's really pretty stupid. Your encryption is there in case your laptop gets stolen. If you have people willing and able to kidnap and torture you to get your data, you have much bigger problems than the fact that they'll probably get it.
In the flick Tarantino made it seem like Lee was all bluff, that he could just talk tough and make some fancy moves and much bigger guys would all back down. The world doesn't work like that.
Abandon is too strong a word. I imagine most people who are still using 32 bit operating systems aren't too concerned about getting the very latest version of firefox either.