What a wild card. Has Musk said why he purchased twitter in the first place? IRL he seems so introverted. It's just odd to me he'd have any interest in a social media company.
3,134 karma · joined June 16, 2015
What's next, plant-based fugu based on the reasoning that it 100% eliminates the possibility of tetrodotoxin poisoning? Part of the reason puffer is considered a delicacy is there's a non-zero chance it could kill you. Not because it is so yummy.
Oysters are fleshy slime balls, and I'm able to get past the texture and actually enjoy the taste because of some je ne sais quoi. Slime grown in a lab and artificially flavored does not share the same mystique.
edit- the longer I browse their website for the exact methodology, the less impressed I am with this group. The "Introducing the Superforecasters" section is so cringe.
I personally enjoy the oysters at my local fish shop, when i happen to be there on their 'oyster day' and they have them laid out on ice. If it weren't for that, oysters would never enter my psyche; I've never been at the supermarket thinking damn I'm really craving oysters. And if I did happen to see a bag of oysters next to a bag of foysters in the freezer section, you can bet I'm not buying either. I cant be alone on this.
In the meanwhile, others might be interested in visualizing a Reddit (and HN) hug of death:
https://www.tylermw.com/visualizing-a-reddit-hug-of-death-an...
(n.b. 2017)
https://texaslodging.com/child-labor-laws-2017/
> Now minors [in New Jersey] will no longer need parental consent or anything from the school district to secure a work permit. Instead, the state Labor Department will create a centralized database for teens to register for work permits, which will be accessible to employers when interviewing potential employees.
https://newjerseymonitor.com/2022/07/06/teens-in-n-j-can-wor...
Instead of posting more links I will just summarize what I am finding... Instead of parental consent most states require a work permit which is more formal documentation than just a parent saying ok. Obtaining a work permit includes a review process, and require the submission of various materials which sometimes includes written permission from a parent, for some age groups.
I mean... is it?
Here it is again, more generically: as the p-alpha level for rejecting the null hypothesis decreases, the tendency for Type-2 errors increases.
Do you disagree?
In a world where time and resources are not a factor, an infinite amount of data could be collected to ensure both types of error are minimized. In such a world, alpha can be made arbitrarily small. In worlds that have limited resources to dedicate to experiments, a judgement needs to be made as to whether we are more comfortable with Type-1 or Type-2 errors. If for a given experiment it is decided to set an extremely low alpha (e.g. 7-sigma) it is being implied that we would rather preserve the prevailing theory (null) than reject it in favor of the experimental data.
If a social science experiment was funded at the level of CERN/LHB I have no doubt they would choose a more restrictive alpha, and likewise if LHB had less resources they would likely drop their alpha accordingly based on some power analysis. I say this as someone with a phd in a hard science. Obviously it doesn't excuse the field completely for their reproducibility issues. They should make a more concerted effort with their limited funds, perhaps using the model of particle physicists who pool funds to make a fewer number of experiments more rigorous through higher amount of data collection. But this is all aside the small point I originally intended to make..
As for you not understanding the first bit, that might be a personal limitation, or some sort of aphasia.
Setting the bar at 7 sigma means we will only reject the null (our math based theory) if the observed experimental data would have only occurred by chance, under the null, with a probability of less than one in ten million.
Hence, setting such a high bar to reject the math based theory means we are relatively biased towards preserving our mathematical preconception about the world rather than accepting (unexpected) physical evidence. If we set the bar at say, three sigma, the bias shifts towards accepting the physical evidence.
The point is, the p alpha criterion is not what makes an experiment rigorous.
Two final thoughts...
(1) Maybe within the next 50 years devs can instill into AI, some meaning of death. As it is, I find some comfort knowing my driver realizes the difference between a field and a 40-foot cliff along the coast of Big Sur, and our shared theory of mind regarding the consequence of swerving to avoid something in those situations.
(2) Regarding humans being more tolerant of human error. I think this might be because when a human gets in an accident, there is always the ability to reason that person is different than us: old, tired, drunk, distracted, etc. And both the situation and the cognition are unique to one person. Naturally, we would have done something different to avoid the accident, we reason. If an AI gets into an accident, and we know that same exact AI is driving 10 million cars, including our own, that freaks us out a little.
An interesting experiment would be for Uber to send two cars for pickup, one human and one self driving. And let people choose.
However, there will inevitably be conditions that require the use of general intelligence (rather than driving heuristics), and in those situations all you can do is pray the computer acts rationally despite not having GI.
I think self driving cars have already passed the test of "number of crashes" or "number of fatalities" per mile driven. But I don't think that's enough to sway the public, if every once in a billion miles a self driving car slowly drives off a cliff for no apparent reason.
I'm sure they celebrated their great victory and validation, by further slagging this prof on tiktok.
Where is my cane...