> "The idea that children could be out without a parent hovering was just completely unknown to them," Macklem recalls. "And the fact that the kids talked to someone who they obviously knew but who was not a parent."
I didn´t know the situation in the US was quite so dystopical that kids on their own was any surprise...
Well, the mountaineer reason of ”because it’s there”, which honestly is probably the more honest and moral of the two. To become a ”mulit-planet species” in a real sense we need more earthlike planets, else the iss in orbit around the moon would be enought to make the claim. Consider that we don’t cout ourselves as an underwater species just by virtue of submarines. Even if we made a self sustaining underwater base and condemneded people to live there forever it would just be those poor people living underwater, we aren’t suddenly a underwater species.
Right, so you haven't heard any of the noise over NK sending up rockets then? Nukes are not spy sattelites, they are extremely destructive and symbolic weapons and you say the russians will be fine with an overflight based on their faith in the current administration... because that is really the argument to be had in this scenario: is instrument error more or less likely than a trumpian sneak attack?
Uh, you remember how indyref was Cameron gambling the cohecion of his country for the opportunity to steal a policy issue from the opposition? The idea that indyref was allowed out of respect of popular will is utterly deluded, Cameron never cared for the scots as they are too left to vote for him.
Well, in the important case of finding something new and interesting you need proper MC to verify your understanding. In practice you are right that using the NN like it actually speaks about reality will be common and not too harmful, people do lots of dubious least squares fits and astronomy still survives!
I'm not saying a NN doesn't reproduce analytical expressions, rather that "take everything and mix it together a bunch of times using this recipe" is not the form that the laws of nature has.
I'm not sure what you think explicit construction proves, it is clearly a case of taking preexisting knowledge and expressing it in what is doubthlessly a more akward form.
I guess you train it on things you know and use it to tell if a new observation looks familiar or not. You can't use the NN for the final analysis because its just a pile of linear algebra shaped like a causal theory: there is no actual physics in it.
No, you can of course write some simple stretchy model that fits fast. The thing with NNs is that you don't have to domuch work to get a good fast model, you use cpu cores for that instead.
Astronomy strives to be a science, so ultimately it needs to tune causal models with data. NNs will by their nature never be causal (their entire point is that they can approximate everything), so they will be used like here to find candidates to investigate with real models.
You mean you count not showing up to vote as an active vote choice that should be protected by secrecy? Because the secrecy of the physical votes is produced by the mixing of large numbers of indistinguishable containers prior to reading, not by the votes being handed in by strangers.
Astronomy now is a science, but historically there wasn't any distinction and much astronometry (measurements of the sky) was done to increase the accuracy of the predictions.
It could well be they are doing epicycles caculations to determine stellar positions etc
Facilitating the organisation of neo nazis is likewise dangerous, to the point that people die regularly. That is the other, just as real danger, that you are trading the dangers of censoring eminem with.
There is also the fact that all these companies already have arbitrary censorship in place, so this isn't an argument about the principles: that one is long lost. This is an argument about the existing excemption racism has.
The op speaks about the choices of people based on thier lived experience of working these jobs, and the grand parent is also arguing inside that context. You present arguments that clearly seek to support of the GP, but talk about the outsiders erroneous perception of these jobs when their harshness is an agreed premise. And its not even my premise you argue againts, I merely inherited it from the the user you try to defend!
Thats funny! By your summary women have poor representation in tech fields because the working conditions are bad, so people should stop trying to get women into the sector because the will get crappy jobs. Let me suggest that a sane person would argue in support of improving working conditions instead of perpetuating suffering, but I guess thats a point of contention in these contexts....