michannne

I mean, you just answered your own question. The far left, and I don't mean just the "American-brand" of it, is very much focused on removing the categorization of individual identity - dismantling the concepts of race, sex, background, belief, nationality, etc. By removing those categories, the aim is to resolve the discrimination inherent in systems that inevitably have some bias towards individuals based on those characteristics, and ultimately make it infeasible to establish a hierarchy of any kind. Paradoxically, in order to do so, the far left must lean heavily into categorization to "remedy" the remnants of injustice that have been levied on groups of people and level the playing field.

Rather than leaving it up to mystic interpretation, can you point out what is wrong with the sentiment "Intersectionality requires obsessive categorization"? I assume this is what you're talking about given the parent comment is strictly about far left extremism

Intersectionality paradoxically requires obsessive categorization while being promoted by those who are obsessive generalists

I agree, I vividly remember how bad some conversations used to get, to the point of ignoring or justifying certain atrocities, and I have seen that the acts of groups such as the-one-that-shall-not-be-named confined largely to certain counties in certain states. I don't know how much of the fervor dying down is attributable to 2020 having come and gone, but I'm at least a little glad that most discussions have remained firmly centrist and any leftover fires are the dying gasps of populist mainstream media wars.

You are conflating the alignment based on a subset of shared goals with shared origins. Capitalists supported "some" of the things early Nazi Germany was doing, that doesn't mean the Nazi purpose was to combat socialism (although, if combatting socialism furthered their other goals, then they wasted no time in doing that)

I liken far left extremism to descending from obsessive generalization, and far right extremism descending from obsessive categorization - from the latter of which emerges hierarchies, divisions based on things like race or genetics, and pissing contests based on labels.

>"The puppet master of them was the classic capitalism that deeply fear a thing: socialism. Those regimes ware created just to stop socialism, for the sake of big capitals"

I think this is a sorely misguided view, and if we had the ability to pull a Nazi, Hitler included, directly from the 30s/40s, they would disagree with this

It seems evident, to me at least, that Asimov views "arms-length extremism" as a core part of the identity of upper case Leftism, at least in the West (and predominantly America). The way Asimov approaches 1984 appears to be the bog-standard "Well, if you're not a Nazi then you can't possibly be as evil as the Nazis". It betrays a view of looking at politics from a standpoint of a slope, rather than a hill that descends into immorality on both sides, and I'm sure Asimov derives that view (as does much of the modern world) from the reasons behind and outcomes of WWII. IMO, we still haven't gotten past this - even entertaining such a discussion can't be had without acknowledging the 'progressive Sword of Damocles' hanging overhead, and almost always descends into whatabout-whataboutism.

I really do hope that we eventually grow out of this phase and acknowledge that even the 'good guys' can be evil, we shouldn't need to wait and see a Communist Reich to know that the Leftist version of brownshirts are a bad thing, or wait until actual genocide is happening (or accept/ignore it as a possibility, even) or wait until it has a 1-to-1 mapping with Nazi atrocity to hold those kinds of behavior accountable just because they're not Nazis and they're not actually killing people.

Based on your appearance? No, but you should be concerned for personal safety in an area with 200%× the national violent crime average, seems ridiculous not to.

I have largely been critical of machine learning for some time, I don't think it will crash though. I feel many people have been misled on what deep learning and machine learning actually do and therefore become confused on its limitations, but once you understand it as a general statistics-fitting paradigm, it is easy to ask yourself - can you solve this problem by fitting a complex pig pen around a dataset? Or, another way, is your solution based around classification in some way? If the answer is no, then modern AI techniques won't be able to get you an answer.

As crude as it may seem, rules engines and long sheets of If this Then that heuristics tend to solve more complex systems that can't be statistically fit, but I feel machine learning is slowly approaching a point where it can deduce those If Then statements. The main problem is that as humans we cannot comprehend the wealth of connections that might lead to a certain heuristic, so it is very difficult to tell a modern AI that it is wrong in a more abstract or pattern-based sense, and these approaches tend to collapse back into statistical data fitting. I can easily communicate with you if your understanding is wrong, but it is hard to do that with an AI, mostly we can either fix the data, or adjust the training parameters and wait. That is why it seems to rely on all-or-nothing, as there isn't much control on the iterative learning process on a network apart from startup options and testing after the fact.

To me, the real breakthrough will come by creating models of abstract thought. Some models exist as heuristic systems, which require an exhaustive set of rules to model various aspects of thinking, and some are probabilistic in nature and can be taught to a machine learning application, but neither of these model everything, nor do they do all of their topics equally well. Whichever paradigm can come up with a robust model first will likely come up top in the AI paradigm wars, but it could be tomorrow, could be next century.

I don't get how a lot of the things in this thread are hostile or a problem, case in point this example. It's definitely an argument that Windows functions aren't very customizable, but at the end of the day it is a Microsoft product that integrates only with other Microsoft products.

Politicizing it has almost nothing to do with whether or not it is believed, it is politicized when it has value on a political scale. Saying Country A has lower impact on the climate than Country B and therefore A should limit its production of weapons and infrastructure that rely on factories and industries that produce harmful chemicals is very obviously of value to a politician

I believe it is wiser to assume that bias exists everywhere and to choose whether you accept it or not. You accept it, Motl does not

Typically, component is just some POCO class and systems iterate over combinations of these components.

> if we have two arrays then there is lots of hopping around

Why? You can just create a custom allocation scheme assigning one giant chunk of memory to all components and give each system a custom iterator that iterates accordingly for the alignment of components it cares about

Simple fix: allow users to save video only if logged in (could prime with a CTA). Right now you cant save any video from reddit, not just nsfw, not even from the app. This would incentivize people to create an account since its easier and less shady than content grabbing sites. If they want they can even limit to the app which would at least have an impact on boosting app users

Very cool, please add C++! Would love to start making some courses

> machines treat words as if they got intrinsic meaning, when the meaning is actually negotiated between speaker and hearer at the moment of the utterance.

IMO, and I'm not a linguist, I've always felt we need to treat conversations as transactions, with each speaker acting as a party and continually updating some contract over time, with each speaker's goal to use conversational tactics i.e. clarification, questioning, answering a question, diverting the conversation, humor/jokes, lies, as a means to "guess" the contract the opposing parties are operating under, then using the best guess of the contract to later retrieve information relevant to the system when it has some confidence in the answers it can expect.

Something like an exceptionally complex game mixed with financial system theory, like I "bet" that you're going to keep talking about your cat, and maybe that bet is wrong, so I can ask a question, "What do you mean by wug?", but the act of asking that question will cost me some points, maybe you can think of it as though we're at a secret club and you use a phrase meant to represent a key and I'm supposed to respond with the proper answer. Even though I'm asking a question, I'm giving you information that you can use to update your best guess of the contract that allows you to assume I'm not part of the in-group of the club and I shouldn't be allowed in.

I've thought about a system designed like this for a bit but I suppose the biggest challenge has been how do you treat a conversation as a game considering neither party may "win" in any reasonable time frame. We could go years chatting and I could never fully predict what your answer might be because your usage of conversational tactics may be refined over years by speaking to multiple people of backgrounds similar to mine. So if I'm a cop, you might know not to admit to a crime when you figure out I'm a cop.

Right now, I don't think ML can do that, not because it's impossible but because I think conversations are as difficult as predicting the stock market. Fortunately it seems solvable, not everyone is expected to win every conversation in their lifetime

I think it's because you don't understand quite how powerful the smallpox and polio vaccines are. I can walk around wherever I want with 0 concern of transmitting some dormant smallpox or polio. I don't see why people are comparing the COVID vaccine to either of these as you can still transmit COVID. In an absolute sense, all the COVID vaccine does is make your life more bearable, but those around you still have a non-zero chance of getting it from you. When you take that into account I start to wonder why some are so obsessed with treating it like the smallpox and polio vaccines when it is anything but.

They don't?

There shouldn't be a debate about it in the first place. If you want an even higher chance of not dying if you manage to catch the virus, get the vaccine. If you care about reducing the spread, wear the mask. I don't see why either of these things need to be mandated as they sound like pretty clear cut personal decisions in my eyes but I digress.

What I am seeing are a lot of people that conflate wearing a mask to being protected from the virus' side effects, or that getting the vaccine makes it impossible for them to transmit, and that they are morally/ethically superior to those who take neither of these decisions.

Yes but where did I say anything to the contrary? If you don't have COVID, there is a 0% chance of you transmitting the disease. Regardless of if you've had it before or not, once you get the vaccine you now have a > 0% chance of transmitting the disease, and it is a statistically significant chance. All you're doing is posting articles that boast the proficiency and efficiency of the vaccine, which I never discounted. The focus here is that once you get the vaccine, you become a transmitter, doesn't matter that you have lower chance than someone who is unvaccinated. W.r.t someone who does not have COVID, they should take the same precautions against those who are vaccinated as they do for people who are not, and my post is pointing out the hypocrisy of the OP who seems to believe that since they are vaccinated, they are somehow safer to be around than someone who is unvaccinated, while to an unvaccinated person who does not have COVID, these two groups of people should be treated the exact same way.

I don't see how any of this is relevant to my comment? I never said the vaccination doesn't work

You are looking at things from the perspective of being vaccinated. Yeah you are fine because you got vaccinated. But because you are vaccinated, you now pose a risk to all unvaccinated people because you now have a non-zero chance of transmitting.

In other words, by getting vaccinated you pushed the onus of responsibility onto society.

See how this is a zero-sum game? Either everyone gets vaccinated, and maintains that vaccination forever, or someone is still getting the short end of the stick, and society as a whole loses.

I'm sure you personally feel great for getting a vaccination, but that means literally nothing in the grand scheme of things. But clearly getting everyone vaccinated isn't the focus here, not with this post nor this law. The focus is clearly to feel good about yourself if you are vaccinated and look down upon those who aren't. So I'd say keep ngaf, because as long as lawmakers share opinions like those of yourself, this issue isn't going anywhere.

You can still transmit the disease after getting vaccinated. Maybe if it was like the flu vaccine I'd understand, but it's not. I much prefer the mask mandate and the mask mandate is the only thing that makes sense, at least until they come out with a better vaccine. As it stands right now you have people getting the vaccine lulling themselves into the belief that they can't transmit to anyone, it's impossible to know the stats but easy to see it is just as bad as people who don't have symptoms thinking they don't have the disease and can't spread it.

If the goal is still seemingly to cut down spread this law does absolutely nothing but increase hubris and cause more cases as more people walk around without a mask. Walked into a CVS the other day and both the clerk and some customers had no mask on simply because they got the vaccine. So I'll stick with my mask for now.

It isn't against the law necessarily, as obscenity laws in the US only make it illegal if the medium is an image depicting a child and there is no artistic purpose (very vague). Regardless, It annoys me when organizations do this when they can easily just create a ToS outlining what isn't allowed. It truly boggles my mind the contempt that some orgs have at creating and maintaining a ToS instead resorting to hiding behind fantasy laws as justification. Just straight face tell your users "Nothing related to X of any kind or permaban", very clear, very succint.

That sounds so lazy

So freaking amazing how good the 3D depth perception is on that 3rd GIF. The right side of his hair is correctly obscured when he turns his head and even his eyelids move correctly. The only slight issue is his "lazy eye", but then you could argue the AI took a little creative liberty

Diet is most important, you can exercise as much as you want but if you're eating 2 Big Macs for every meal you won't last long on this Earth. Most diets I agree are supplements that are designed to make people "feel good" without doing the extra effort to track the foods they are eating. Maybe you mean meal plans/diet plans, because actual dieting is really what slims you down/bulks you up

Right. AFAIK there is no universal Math deity like there is Caissa for chess that can serve as a representation of "perfect math", God is the next best thing.

>It's missing some important feature, like persistence?

Hard to answer, considering....

>It's had very little advertising?

Personally, I've never heard of it and have no idea what differential dataflow is. Maybe I've done but I never gave or discovered a name for it. I don't know what spark or kafka streams are. Maybe because I've never had a use case for those that wasn't satisfied by a tool that was "good enough", or, more likely, I haven't come across anyone recommending those on projects, because they also don't know what those tools are. I would have never known what RabbitMQ was if a coworker never suggested we use it to build queues, and it turned out to be cumbersome to use and 100x more complicated than writing a stored procedure that turned out to be "good enough". Most tools fall into that space where they are marginally better in some regards over "good enough", but not better enough to accomadate for the learning curve for other developers, changes in maintenance or design, cost, etc. Advertising is pretty general and it's hard to say if which of these it's doing wrong, and depending on their market none of these might be wrong for them, just the potential market is content with "good enough" and have no need to search for tools like this.

>Rust is intimidating?

I'm not sure what the stats on Rust are but I don't think its that popular for business developers to where you could point to it for the reason a tool has failed the adoption phase