There's no proof of that. In fact there's still no proof to my knowledge that nicotine itself is harmful - to the contrary, it may have neuroprotective properties.
43 karma · joined June 14, 2020
There used to be a word for this as well; we called it "putting words in other people's mouth".
One can criticize aspects of a movement without being against the whole movement, or the people in the movement.
>one which is rightly considered offensive to most of modern society
What hubris.
His rockets are [mostly] not exploding, his cars are selling to [mostly] good reviews, and neuralink seems to be doing something too.
Perhaps his cult of personality is deserved because although he (along with basically the entire industry) overpromised on self driving timelines, nonetheless he does seem to be one of the few people with the practical vision to take us into a techno future.
Consider that this guy went from a payment processing app to a bonafide private rocket company and is democratizing space flight (and satellite internet!) in what, about a decade?
People love to hate the guy, I believe because he has brash and harbors some unpopular (callous but rational) opinions. Regardless, the respect that he gets from his fanboys is arguably in deserved, if you're the type to find inspiration in great people.
Those people are here, anonymous votes give them a voice that they are socially being denied.
That was egregious.
The only encultured attitude I see here is the modern western delusion that the average child (or person) intrinsically wants to make the substantial, multi year effort required to learn complex subjects.
The vast majority of people do not enjoy learning. No one wants to spend their time on math problems (outside of a tiny minority).
This is also tied to the nonsensical idea that we are all equally capable of everything; the ability to learn (both in general and by specific subject) is randomly distributed and probably normally so like many biological processes. That itself ensures that given equal curiosity, not all children will make the varied effort required to learn.
Thank you, dang, you have shepherded a glimmering institution among a sea of rough.
It can't be good for individuals or our collective to consume all of our media in short, predigested clips (or posts, or comments). I genuinely believe that the average capacity for "long running" thoughts (and general idea complexity) is being eroded.
All of our media seems to be
I suppose the crime here is misleading investors as to the proportion of funds that go to salary...but I don't know what they're doing with the money, and unfortunately they might be passing on more of it than some popular charities.
Article needs work perhaps.
I think these lessons are less appropriate as our hardware and our understanding of neural networks improve. An agent which is able to [self] learn complex probabilistic relationships between inputs and outputs (i.e. heuristics) requires a minimum complexity/performance, both in hardware and neural network design, before any sort of useful[self] learning is possible. We've only recently crossed that threshold (5-10 years ago)
>The biggest lesson that can be read from 70 years of AI research is that general methods that leverage computation are ultimately the most effective, and by a large margin
Admittedly, I'm not quite sure of the author's point. They seem to indicate that there is a trade-off between spending time optimizing the architecture and baking in human knowledge.
If that's the case, I would argue that there is an impending perspective shift in the field of ML, wherein "human knowledge" is not something to hardcode explicitly, but instead is implicitly delivered through a combination of appropriate data curation and design of neural networks which are primed to learn certain relationships.
That's the future and we're just collectively starting down that path - it will take some time for the relevant human knowledge to accumulate.
I think the answer is heuristics based on priors(e.g. board state), which we've demonstrated (with alphago and derivatives, especially alphago zero) that neural networks are readily able to learn.
This is why I get the impression that modern neural networks are quickly approaching humanlike reasoning - once you figure out how to
(1) encode (or train) heuristics and
(2) encode relationships between concepts in a manner which preserves a sort of topology (think for example of a graph where nodes represent generic ideas)
You're well on your way to artificial general reasoning - the only remaining question becomes one of hardware (compute, memory, and/or efficiency of architecture).
What term would you prefer? One that does not presume innocence?
Which supports my point, that trying to view native practices through modern concepts is a bit like forcing a square peg through a round hole.
>One of the reasons that many continue to think that aboriginal Americans had no concept of private property, however, is because many tribes did regard land as being communally owned. Carl Watner explores the topic in The Journal of Libertarian Studies
The article seems to conflate "private property" with land ownership. Even this particular paragraph speaks of "communal ownership" which isn't quite the same as the concept of ownership in modern US law, though there are certainly provisions for group ownership.
Point is that article only supports what I'm saying, that it's borderline slanderous to assign morality to the behavior of cultures from 300+ years ago according to modern laws and ideas. Regarding this discussion, "theft" certainly becomes a strong word when you consider how different (and heterogeneous) concepts and practices were back then.
It's also interesting that you choose the word "theft" as though the natives even had a concept for land ownership. Seems people are too eager to view history through a modern moral lense these days.
I don't have access to the full article but if they are laying the case for having Robinhood regulated (as I suspect) then I'd say what's even more unfair is preventing responsible people from having nice things because irresponsible people can't be trusted not to hurt themselves, or understand the risks they're taking.
Granted, that bit about gamefication does concern me, it's sort of dopamine abuse - I'd argue to an extent it's a dark pattern, just like frequent unsolicited attention grabbing notifications from other apps to encourage use.
I am not going to choose who I work with based on their race/sexuality/gender.
>Researchers should listen to, amplify, cite and collaborate with communities that have borne the brunt of surveillance: often women, people who are Black, Indigenous, LGBT+, poor or disabled.
Right, we know, only privileged straight white men escape the clutches of surveillance.
All these ideologues are doing is setting the stage for the marginalization of whites, a global minority and soon to be minority majority in the US. I can't believe this kind of casual discrimination has not only been normalized, but is openly and explicitly encouraged.
This is not ok.
Edit: you know, the same way that it takes generations to build wealth, it takes generations to build knowledge, especially institutional knowledge. If we just hand over a chunk of our industries to people because of their identities, by definition we will be even less of a meritocracy - and that's bad for all of society.
This isn't about me. This is about the country running off a cliff. And it's the fact that I'm not even allowed to question your presumptions about how the system benefits whites at the expense of blacks - which is statistically unsupported, but that's beside my point.
Again, it's the fact that I risk being unpersoned for even bringing it up.
The premise is that the system is white supremacist in nature and must be torn down. From there it is implied that if you do not support tearing down the system, you are a white supremacist. And what do we do to white supremacists?
Except the vast majority of people who are iffy about what's going on aren't supremacists of any sort. The word "racist" is quickly losing effect.
Politics might not be 1 dimensional, but pendulums are.
What do you expect these people to feel when they are being accused openly of white supremacy and Nazism, simply for not going along with leftist politics? That's a unilateral carte blanche to be violent. Punching Nazis is great but it's a serious problem when you are far too loose with labels, as we've been watching. Silence is violence, right?
I assure you that the millions of non-white immigrants who [reluctantly] lean towards Trump are not white supremacists - but all it takes is a single accusation to literally ruin a life. When that is the status quo, it isn't surprising to hear people say that they are voting right like "their life depends on it" because it increasingly seems to.
Regardless of the justification, you cannot deny that BLM are presently the aggressors, openly rallying to explicitly subvert US institutions. Not everyone has to agree with the culmination of the long march through the institutions.
The only "side" interested in actual free speech currently is the "far right", unlike left leaning forums and media outlets which explicitly censor one particular point of view, regardless of whether it is backed by legitimate science which should be open to discussion.
Censorship has undeniably become a leftist problem, if you insist on reducing the high dimensional space of political leanings to a single myopic dimension. Unbelievable that in 2020 people are shamed for going to the last places on the internet where discourse is unrestricted.
Also calling the_donald "far right" really indicates the bias of discourse online. Which is part of the problem - people are deliberately loose with language and netizens (at least on reddit) truly believe that Nazis have taken over the Republican party...
The "radical right" enclaves on the internet are literally the only places where you won't be banned for not falling in line.
We need to have this discussion in more than one dimension. Left/right and authoritarian/anarchist are orthogonal metrics.
https://fee.org/articles/how-the-federal-government-created-...