ppod

That's not a particularly impressive publication record.

>It measured for what Emotra called “electrodermal hyporeactivity” by running a weak current over the skin as the sweat glands open and close. The association with suicide had been advertised by an experimental psychiatrist named Lars-Håkan Thorell, Emotra’s founder,

This has regulatory approval in the EU? Why is Harpers even writing about this?

Whether they should be means or ends is a better question than whether they are "conscious" or not, which isn't really a well-formed debate.

I'd have more time for the substance of the article if the author wasn't being a complete dick about it.

You can choose exactly who you follow, you get the twitter feed you deserve.

Not for cushion, but I've heard the other two.

There are some specific advantages that R has over other languages in this context. One is that you can use (almost)* a single source document to produce docx, pdf, and interactive html output.

* I can't quite get htmlwidgets and docx formats to work together in bookdown without using separate commands for the interactive tables (DT and flextable).

Seriously Diane?

How much would it cost to make a convincing reproduction of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_(Koons)

Or this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Square_(painting)

The value of these artworks is already only in the provenance certificates.

Completely agree, it's something that people repeat so much with no evidence.

What do you mean about R? Its packaging and distribution system is great!

"I used to be with it, but then they changed what it was. Now what I'm with isn't it, and what's it seems weird and scary to me, and it'll happen to you, too" -Abe Simpson

Don't get me wrong, I like the internet. It is almost free to record and publish material now, which probably far outweighs the value that is captured by the fat cats.

The middle man is a load balancer for risk. The middleman makes a bunch of artists moderately rich, and they lose money on most of them and make money on some of them. They take on the risk of letting an unproven artist spend a few years doing something that could turn out to generate little money, and in return they get a big share of the ones that do make money. Now, thanks to the internet, the ones that do make it big can cut out the middleman.

Now there will be no middleman to take on the small risks of many unproven artists, and because of the relentless greed and ego of Chapelle and Swift many young artists will never have the opportunity that they did.

That person is not a professional pilot. They have 160 hours.

Their description of the handling does not match what many other real pilots say about MSFS2020, and, as others have said, they are wrong about how the model is implemented. Their description of the stall characteristics also does not match my experience of playing the game.

This author has published a couple of articles like this at the New Yorker They all have this in common: the author works through some interesting and in some ways unusual cases where data or statistics have been improperly or naively applied, with some social costs. I really enjoy the articles themselves.

Then the New Yorker packages it up with a cartoon and a headline and subheadline like "Big Data: When will it eat our children?" or "Numbers: Do they even have souls?", and serves it up to their technophobic audience in a palatable way.

https://www.newyorker.com/contributors/hannah-fry

This is a tangential point, but I've recently noticed that I discover a lot of art through wikipedia. Many pages that deal with abstract concepts are illustrated with wonderful and varied selections of art, e.g.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love

>a difficulty in making many technical profession seem appealing to young people, especially young women

I wonder what is the effect of having the media tell people constantly for a decade that tech companies are evil organisations trying to invade everyone's privacy and mislead everyone as much as possible. They people who work in tech companies are "tech bros" who have no morals, and only care about making money, stealing private information, or spreading damaging and false political information. They are also sexist and racist work environments.

That's the impression that a young person would get from media coverage (coverage written by the direct competitors of many of the tech companies). I'm not downplaying the problem of sexism and racism in tech companies, I just think that it gets outsized attention in the media compared to any other industry. For example, does the energy industry have a racism problem? Or the pharmaceutical industry? Yes the impression one would get from the media is that these issues are particularly bad in tech.

It's not just the traditional media that portrays tech as evil either, its also the culture more generally in shows like Silicon Valley or the Social Dilemma.

Point of information: that's a point of information.

The unity and dedication "amongst people" was due to inter-national political competition and fear. The overall purpose of these inventions was to threaten mass murder.

This article is correct about underspecification, but completely dodges the argument on language and understanding, drawing the hackneyed, shallow distinction between "pattern matching" and "understanding".

How do you define understand? People just use the word "understand" to fill in for the magic stuff that they say humans can do but machines can't. They also sometimes use "symbolic reasoning" that way, but the best work on machine understanding and symbolic reason is done by DeepMind:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2102.03406.pdf

The examples in the original article are about truth, not understanding, mainly because we don't have anything approaching a formal definition of 'understanding'. But, if anyone does, it is probably the deep learning community, where conferences in the last 3-4 years have had hundreds of papers working carefully to examine what is the nature and structure of the knowledge encoded in these kind of systems.

The question of whether a machine can think is no more interesting than whether a submarine can swim - Edsger Dijkstra.

But it keeps academic philosophers employed I guess.

Maybe not the best choice of word, but I think that people who call themselves "liberals" actually have very conservative goals, in the sense of being against change. They might come around to a type of 'yimby' when it comes to building apartments or whatever, but e.g. the opposition to meritocratic selection processes in guise of equality among identities is actually about preserving inherited wealth and social capital. This manifests in lots of areas as a default dislike of any major technological change, because that usually implies the risk of mobility between socioeconomic strata.

There was always a bit of cynicism and criticism on Hacker News, but lately it is at a completely different level. Almost every comment on every submission is negative, if not of the work itself then of some tenuous political implication, and usually not a very original or interesting one. Overall the attitude of valuing progress and working towards invention is completely gone, replaced with the dominant cynical, pessimistic and conservative tone of academia and legacy media.

There's a note on one of them, 3am 25th March 1953:

https://coimages.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/images/290/874/me...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/24/ne...

Very well written article.

The article does not really answer the question in the title. Yes, it shows why they still had the ability to execute Sells. But the question most people have is: If you are forced to halt Buys, isn't it fairest to also halt Sells?

Now, I can see the counterargument: if you halt Sells, you are effectively preventing people from withdrawing their money from Robinhood. But, by allowing Sells (which are being bought by another party somewhere) you likely to influence the price, and you're putting your customers in a strange position relative to clients of other institutions who can still buy, and indeed, buy from Robinhood customers. I still haven't seen this question properly addressed. What are the precedents? When forced to restrict trading because of regulatory obligations in the past, has the normal response been to halt all trading or only one side?

The Federal Government does not have any restrictions on rainwater harvesting. Some states have minor regulations in terms of the amount of rainwater collecting and the means by which it is collected, but most states allow their citizens to collect rainwater while others even encourage it.

https://worldwaterreserve.com/rainwater-harvesting/is-it-ill...

There is kind of a continuum between cases that are pure squeeze 'n memes and ones that are more based on non-linear long term value propositions. Three years ago, I think you could make a case for Tesla that it was either going to go bankrupt or grow many times over, but not stay in between. It may even be that bankruptcy was the more likely outcome. But if you gather enough support in the belief that a successful outcome is possible, then it can become self-fulfilling, especially if capital is one of the main obstacles. The company can use capital raised from the boom in the share price to lower debt and invest.

In the extreme case this could be true of almost any company. Imagine if GME were just a shell and a brand. Then they raise money, get a great board, hire industry experts, and go... whatever.. compete with Steam, turn the physical stores into e-sports venues, pivot to game development, whatever. Use the money to get the expertise, and you already have the brand and attention, which is now worth a lot more. That is kind of what happened with Tesla to some extent, although they already had a great brand a genius owner.