That is a retarded justification.
It’s incredibly valuable to understand how the enemy thinks.
22,578 karma · joined March 8, 2011
tom@primozic.org
It’s incredibly valuable to understand how the enemy thinks.
I'm not the one who started banning though. I'd be open to first unbanning plastic straws and incandescent light bulbs, then unbanning artificial meat. Let the market decide!
But I definitely want to ban them before they ban me.
The proof is in the pudding / free market. If the alternatives (paper straws, LED bulbs) were better, people would voluntarily buy them! (cf: mobile phones vs. stationary phones, almost noone has the latter these days, because the former are just - better!) Instead, they're banned because they're better.
As we've seen with incandescent light bulbs and plastic straws, "free market" is only temporary, until the "bad" thing simply gets banned.
They're just pre-emptively banning artificial meat, to prevent real meat from being banned!
I actually think they pay their workers too much though - for not working.
I think standard unemployment on full salary is 2 years, even if you quit your job yourself!
Generous benefits invite abuse…
so in reality, it's just "pick your own poison" to various degrees...
No, you got this exactly the wrong way.
In fact, it was Russia who initially funded European (German) "green" movement, their main purpose was opposing nuclear (by far the greenest elective source of energy, as evidenced by France's carbon footprint), so that Europe (Germany) would get hooked on Russian gas.
The plan worked brilliantly!
Much much easier said than done.
99% of companies that want to hire employees won't hire a contractor/consultant instead for that job.
How do I know? 15 years experience, top candidate in many interviews, great salary / employment. Yet every time I've tried to get a consulting arrangement set up it's been extremely hard and ultimately unprofitable (i.e. pays significantly less than full-time job, on average).
- US is special because it is by far the richest and most entrepreneurial (big) country in the world; it gets the creme of the crop of the world, and corresponding economic growth, which no other Western country can replicate; many people want to move to all Western countries (e.g. Europe is experiencing an immigration crisis) but unfiltered (low-skill) immigration doesn't result in economic growth
- illegal (slave?) labour on farms is simply delaying automation, which is ultimately detrimental to economic growth [1]
- in fact, recent studies (and public data) show that non-Western immigrants are not net taxpayers, therefore they result in the opposite of economic prosperity (see graph in [2])
If it does, then Export to PNG almost certainly removes it (while also removing all other selectable text)
The model is considered fair if its performance is equal across these groups.
One can immediately see why this is problematic, easily by considering equivalent example in less controversial (i.e. emotionally charged) situations.
Should basketball performance be equal across racial, or sex groups? How about marathon performance?
It’s not unusual that relevant features are correlated with protected features. In the specific example above, being an immigrant is likely correlated with not knowing the local language, therefore being underemployed and hence more likely to apply for benefits.
As it turns out, Dolan's main contribution wasn't the algorithm (which is overly complex, as proven by Parreaux's simpler implementation), but the type language - the insight that most subtyping constraints can be removed and/or simplified to simple union and intersection types, assuming certain simplifications of the type system (namely: positive/negative types, and distributivity of union/intersection over function types).
https://lptk.github.io/programming/2020/03/26/demystifying-m...
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3409006
Parreaux is continuing to work on this problem, and has since removed one of the assumptions/simplifications (positive/negative types) in his work on MLstruct
The most important part of marketing and PR is lying to your customers.
This kind of "world models" that can understand physics enough to be able to predict short term future (like humans can) are crucial for any kind of real-world AI (i.e. robotics, including self-driving), because they constitute what could be termed as "physical common sense" (that humans have, but also animals, to some degree).
Is it enough for self-driving? No, you also need to understand road rules, communicate with humans (pedestrians and fellow drivers), etc. but it's a good, possibly necessary, step - it allows you to better handle many unpredictable (tail of distribution) situations:
https://www.reddit.com/r/SelfDrivingCars/comments/1g75ftb/wa...
Is data enough? Maybe not, there's a lot of progress on RL now that can do wonders without even more data. Is data necessary? No evidence to the contrary, yet.
The key ingredient is data - the bitter lesson. It's not about better algorithms, but simply about algorithms that can process more data efficiently (e.g. transformers).
Tesla is one of the few companies that have a data flywheel - a fleet of (non-self-driving) cars collecting real-world data worldwide all the time at massive scale!
Now that is an insourmountable lead. (Along with good engineering, which, believe it or not, is still a competitive advantage - see e.g. German car companies unable to launch a single useful on-board computer, let alone a software-defined self-driving car.)
Google is one of the few companies that could compete, even without Waymo, because of YouTube.
0-25 education, 25-67 work, 67-82 pension, it's almost equivalent (42 working, 40 not working)
In the real world, the assumptions are weaker and the dynamics are much more complicated than a toy model, but you can still transfer the same conclusions - in this example, that pension requires making babies and that without a good negative feedback mechanism, the system eventually collapses.
Well yeah, but before government-organised pension, it was your kids taking care of you when you get older, so the system was much more balanced (or rather, only imbalanced on the micro scale, not at a mega scale we see now...)
Retirement depends on having young workers. People approaching 60, 70 simply didn't have enough kids to have good retirement. It's not a problem that has easy and/or fast solutions. Yet, actions have consequences...
None of them considers that "the system" gives them food, water and energy, and that procurement of these in the absence of system means literally toiling from birth until death.
A better idea that is both far less extreme as well as sorely needed, is simply... drumroll... charging employees (executives and others responsible) with criminal charges (and jail time)!
People often complain about:
- performance impact, either speed (most languages) or binary size (C++); this, however, is mostly an implementation concern, and doesn't impact Rust at all, as exceptions can simply be syntax-level compiler sugar, and can be compiled exactly the same as Result type is currently (having said that, the optional stack trace is another potential issue, which would have a performance impact even in Rust)
- checked exceptions - this is particularly a concern in Java, which has a fairly poor type system (closed subtyping only) and no type inference, so declaring all unhandled exceptions is tedious
- non-checked exceptions - in this case, "every exception can happen anywhere" so it's ostensibly unsafe (well it's just how life is, and even Java has special unchecked exceptions such as OutOfMemory that can happen anywhere) - some people claim that "exceptions can't just randomly jump out of code" is a benefit of not having exceptions but usually those people sweep OutOfMemory and DivisionByZero under the rug (e.g. Rust, where they just "crash" the program)
Rust would obviously fit the checked exceptions path, as the Result implementatoin basically is "poor-man's checked exceptions". It only needs to flip the syntax sugar - propagate by default (and implicitly), "catch" and materialize using `?` - as well as making Error an open enum (such that you can add cases implicitly - see e.g. OCaml's exception type `exn` [1]) - and that's basically it!