mtgp1000

You're stereotyping. There was a time when we agreed it was wrong to do.

>Likely unbeknownst to most Americans, the alt-right has appropriated a version of the “okay” symbol for their own purposes because it looks like the initials for “white power”; this is the symbol the man accused Cafferty of making when his hand was dangling out of his truck.

I am so tired of watching journalists repeat this irresponsible lie. The "white power" symbol was the result of a spontaneous flashmob campaign to prove that journalists will pick up and run with any ridiculous "trend" that fills their demand for racism. I challenge anyone to find a legitimate link explaining the relationship between the symbol and white supremacy that doesn't ultimately lead to a journal article sourced from cherry picked Twitter threads.

Journalism died when ideologues normalized activist journalism. We are in the midst of a mass hysteria and media outlets are fully culpable. 70 years ago we called it McCarthyism.

The intentions are there, but if you only look for the good in people you will be taken advantage of and swallowed by grifters. Some who are driven by selfishness, some who are driven by lust for disruption and/or destruction.

The general trend in the west right now seems to be an overestimation of the good in all of us, and society is increasingly paying for it. I know that many are downtrodden for reasons outside of their control but that doesn't excuse the fact that a lot of poor people are poor because they are shitty, antisocial people, and no amount of mentoring or social programs will fix them.

That's where redlining comes from. That's why poor people pay higher interest for loans, if they can even get them. It's not just blind classism or "systematic racism" without a cause. Social groups are an emergent phenomenon, not a deliberate invention.

This seems to be a pattern in society that has been spreading for a while. Most of our institutions were designed for some proportion of good faith participation. We've totally lost that, with the various hard and soft cheats in academia, with abuses in politics, devaluation of the degree, etc.

Part of it in the article's case is modernization. We could further democratize science with credentialed forums, but we'd have to allow people to publish with freedom, and upvote quality research regardless of our political leanings, and that's just not happening in US society right now, across the board.

That's the fundamental problem. We are ruling out possible results in advance, based on arbitrary social conventions, not data.

This is fundamentally unscientific and will lead to stagnation at best, regression at worst, and progress only in the unlikely case. At some point we will have to reconcile the fact that the same mathematical and scientific techniques which we correctly apply to other sets of data produce unacceptable results any time models are conditioned on demographic data.

What then?

Crime is a function of far more than just income inequality. If you perform your regressions on this single variable and then attempt to extrapolate those results to make policy, you're going to end up spending a lot of money without solving anything. Worse is that you'll potentially put millions of lives at risk.

If we want to solve problems in society we must be prepared to acknowledge all of their potential causes.

I have spent my entire adult life, some 15 years, in pursuit of objective inquiry and this is a hill that I am willing to die on, or be martyred when it inevitably costs me my job.

Only one answer is socially acceptable, regardless of what statistics indicate. And we are building a dangerous world by going down this unscientific path.

I am genuinely concerned that this will bleed into ML science and we may find ourselves collectively pursuing a rabbit hole of bad science in a vain attempt to reconcile empirical data with ideology.

Imagine attending a left leaning protest, having your participation recorded (unknowingly) forever by your phone, and then having a right wing, authoritarian government come to power and use that forever information to round up yourself and your friends.

Or imagine a left wing authoritarian government targeting lockdown protestors.

We should all be concerned about wanton data collection.

I had been paranoid about this for some time, thanks for confirming.

It is so trivially easy to decipher a person's life from their location data, especially with some simple ML.

The fact that it's so easy ensures in my mind that it's only a matter of time before this data falls into the hands of a true authoritarian administration.

You're completely missing my point. And the purpose of my hypothetical. So let me try it with your example:

>The problem was that it mis-classified entire dialects of English (meaning it completely failed at determining sentiment for certain people), deleting all comments from the people of certain cultures

What happens in the case that a particular culture is more hateful? Do we just disregard any data that indicates socially unacceptable bias?

What, only Nazis are capable of hate speech?

Let's just consider an example; where do you draw the line in the following list? To avoid sending travelers through unsafe areas:

1. Google's routing algorithm is conditioned on demographics

2. Google's routing algorithm is conditioned on income/wealth

3. Google's routing algorithm is conditioned on crime density

4. Google's routing algorithm cannot condition on anything that would disproportionately route users away from minority neighborhoods

I think the rational choice, to avoid forcing other people to take risks that they may object to, is somewhere between 2 and 3. But the current social zeitgeist seems only to allow for option four, since an optimally sampled dataset will have very strong correlations between 1-3, to the point that in most parts of the us they would all result in the same routing bias.

This personally identifying data is forever one forced update away from abuse. The fact that it's "normal" to take such a risk for such a minor convenience does not mean that it's a good idea.

But I recognize that not everyone is so paranoid. Though in the current political climate, where corporations are clearly choosing sides, you probably should be.

>When AI criminal risk prediction software used by judges in deciding the severity of punishment for those convicted predicts a higher chance of future offence for a young, black first time offender than for an older white repeat felon.

>When Amazon's AI recruiting tool inadvertantly filtered out resumes from women

>When Google's hate speech detecting AI inadvertantly censored anyone who used vernacular referred to in this article as being "African American English

There's simply no indication that these aren't statistically valid priors. And we have mountains of scientific evidence to the contrary, but if dared post anything (cited, published literature) I'd be banned. This is all based on the unfounded conflation between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity, and the erasure of evidence of genes and culture playing a role in behavior and life outcomes.

This is bad science.

So you can't grow potatoes vertically? Can you elaborate? Is it a function of physiology, i.e. calorie dense vegetables need far more leaves and supporting stems than can be practically stacked vertically?

Yeah, and my personal data never left Equifax's servers either.

You can't change your biometrics when they are inevitably hacked. If you even find out.

No way this biometric data could possibly be abused, right?

I'll stick to taping over my cameras, thanks.

A couple dozen billionaire immigrant founders says nothing about the overall contributions (or costs) of immigrants to the economy.

>action patterns are said to be produced by the innate releasing mechanism, a "hard-wired" neural network, in response to a sign stimulus or releaser

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Just like a baby deer "instinctively" can walk, but wobbles around for the first few hours, what you're seeing is something very similar to a purpose evolved neural network structure who's weights are being set through the principle of firing and wiring together (I forget what it's called).

I can't believe I got -4 for that!

Edit: hebbian learning. Point is it's probably far too much information to encode in DNA, but if you structure your neural network properly, you encode, how could I put it, the general topology of the problem you are attempting to solve, and through reinforcement learning "fill in the blanks" by training weights (or hebbian learning which functions similarly).

I don't think that's quite right. I believe that humans are essentially born as blank neural networks; it's the structure, and the graph of connections between brain structures and sensory inputs, that is effectively primed for learning certain tasks that we find to be intuitive.

A baby is not born with the knowledge of body movement, for example, but through natural exploration of the body and environment, almost all physically capable humans learn to walk.

Plastics are so enormously useful in modern life that I'm willing to accept the seeming low health costs associated with their pollution.

Yes they may be associated with certain cancers or endocrine disruption but the effects seem to be rather tiny in comparison to the myriad of ways in which plastics improve our quality of life.

If these claims of censorship were true, where would you expect to find a citation?

If I linked you threads of people like Tariq Nashad calling for racial violence against whites, my post would likely be flagged and I'd be banned for posting flamebait.

I don't think there's an explicit conspiracy but the forces are aligned such that they suppress content and naturally suppress criticism of suppression, and that creates an internet-wide false consensus.

So if I want to push myself in pursuit of my dreams, I need to sandbag because working hard sets bad precedent for others?

Edit: why is this flagged? Is it not a valid point? If you claim that there is a problem in tech because men are stoic and work long hours even during times of personal hardship, you're effectively shaming these men for working too hard. This is something that needs to be discussed before you start setting policy.

Probabilistically speaking, this isn't really surprising given the number of locales, the number of reports, and the fact that there are only 1000 combinations of digits between 0 and 1000.

The dichotomy is seems to be reflected in the growing divide between rational, scientific inquiry, and modern progressive liberal arts which are rooted in critical theory.

At this point reddit is arguably a social danger, in that it is made to look like organic content, while in truth everything is heavily censored and opinions are implicitly and explicitly approved in an absolute top down manner.

Opaque vote display and ranking algorithms, keyword based shadowbanning, ideological mods and admin - combined with an organic facade you have a platform to manufacture consensus and push propaganda onto millions of unsuspecting users, young and old alike.

Frankly it's scummy and I hope they fail.

I don't know anything about Julia...how hard would this be to port to python or a c-style language?

Edit: I was mainly asking because I was curious about the relative expressiveness Julia...

This post is at odds with the fact that the military teaches stricter rules of engagement than police forces. There may be a culture problem in the force but this post is hysteria.

Police deal with violent criminals who have no regard for police life; in fact often they are explicitly against police. They're going to learn techniques appropriate for dealing with such people. Some of those techniques will be violent and resemble "military" tactics, but that's only because the military also deals with violent adversaries.

"diversity and inclusion" initiatives are coming up on a long overdue reckoning. The premise is to allege discrimination, based solely on "evidence" in the form of inequality of outcome, and then use that unilateral accusation as justification for the accusing party to practice the discrimination they claim to oppose. Bonus: you are liable to lose your job for criticising these practices.

The comments ITT suggest that perhaps the taboo surrounding criticism of diversity initiatives is finally lifting, and rightly so.

>These racial discrepancies could be due to a variety of reasons, but it is likely that founders from underrepresented minorities are simply not granted the same amount of opportunities and experiences, specifically when it comes to funding.

This is effectively the assumption behind the modern day inequality movement and it is absolutely unproven. You can't just choose to believe what is convenient for your movement. When you have no hard evidence that the root cause is actually discrimination, you're just justifying your own racist power grab. I cannot believe that anti-white and anti-male discrimination has become so normalized in modern western society.

When does it stop? I've yet to see a single mention of a magical target demographic ratio where we go back to race-blind practices...and considering white men as an isolated demographic are a minority, when enough of corporate HR adopts such explicitly racist hiring practices, straight white men become marginalized. Its arguably happening already.

>Bad starting can also be a result of physical resistance in the engine, especially as temperatures fall below the normal operating range.

Is that true? Low temperatures directly affect the maximum output current of the battery, but I don't think engine tolerances are such that the engine starts to effectively seize up below freezing.