Except that is NOT the argument made by the person to whom I responded
In your response, you said "People keep arguing that London's black cabs are better than Uber and therefore Uber should not be allowed to compete with them". Emphasis mine. The poster to which you replied did not argue this at all. He just said drivers of black cabs have been shown to be superior, and can't conceivably be "peer" to ones with lower barriers to entry. So your strawman has 2 variances with that poster : 1. No "therefore" or equivalent in that post 2. He didn't say Uber should not be allowed to compete - just that they are not peers. So Uber drivers paying extra tax might suffice. Or some extra certifications.
In addition, you are the first person to make the argument that London with only black cabs is better than London with black cabs and Uber
No. This post , the medcine doctor example, is similar, just that mine was more in your language - in the sense that some things are better than others and people choose between them. You narrow mindedly reduced choice to taxis rather than whole cities.
The post that I link to above, while essentially being similar argument, didn't use "your" language - but went into how choices have other impacts. The choice with side-effects again IS choice but at a higher level than strictly the object being chosen.
Neither have you posted the contrary. This is just a random request
Random request? You came up with random people, with their BMI values, and YOU don't think they are "overweight", without defining "overweight". If you can't go into those people's future from the time the photograph was clicked, and find their health problems, your opinion on their being overweight is meaningless.
Anyhow, I've posted links showing that waist to height is preferable
Which doesn't really show it is preferable. It doesn't answer the women question. Secondly, a large majority of men develop lots of fat only near their abdomen. While waist to height ratio does correctly predict higher CVD incidence for such people, the pattern of diffuse fat deposition all through the body causes higher joint strain. Waist to height ration does nothing to predict that. This diffuse fat deposition pattern while being more popular in women, is not limited to women.
If you narrow down the purpose of a metric to CVD prediction, that too correctly only in males, waist to height ration could be said to be better.
around 5-10%
Funny, you don't consider the ~50% women important but 5-10% "incorrect" predictions makes BMI a "lie" ?
Waist to height ratio doesn't work well on females because with low testerone levels, fat deposition isn't primarily around the waist. False positives are because it catches the health risks due to hormone imbalance in women. A large paunch is anyway a health risks in males, so this metric doesn't bring much to the table.
BTW you haven't posted health risks in future for the individuals by whose photographs you declared them non-overweight.
The math seriously works out to something akin to a 200 pound man needing to climb ~20 flights of stairs to burn the equivalent of a single piece of white bread. (90-100 calories?). That's a lot of stairs. And that's only assuming his appetite wouldn't increase to accommodate the increased output
Actually exercise reduces food cravings. See this and this. I admit these don't sound like the last word, scientifically, but I have other arguments :
1. Personal experience - being an irregular exerciser, I know both states of mind. The exerciser me yields a lot less to temptations.
2. Comfort food : Lots of people eat because they are depressed. Exercise reduces depression.
3. That's a lot of stairs : The one who exercises knows that a LOT of exercise is required to burn a little extra food. He also knows the effort / pain/ willpower required to exercise that much. The one who doesn't exercise, doesn't know at least one of these. Since it is a lot of stairs to burn the extra bread, the exerciser is more likely to choose to not eat the extra bread.
Really? I think the following people aren't overweight
From looks, that too clothed? How is your opinion any useful?
For a metric to be successful, it should be fit for a purpose. The purpose of BMI is NOT to tell whether a person looks overweight to Alomex when appropriately camouflaged in clothes.
The purpose of BMI to be an easy to compute formula for easy to obtain raw metrics to determine chances of disease. It is a difficult problem to solve. If the only objection to BMI is that overweight people according to BMI "look" non-overweight to you, that is a great metric.
Do you have an alternative ? Equally easy to calculate on equally easy to obtain raw metrics with better chance of predicting lifestyle disease than BMI? You could win a Nobel. Though I guess like all nit-picking-non-Nobel-laureates, you just don't understand the purpose of things you are picking nits in.
It is not that the black cabs are better than Uber cabs. It is that the London (+ suburbs) which can only have black cabs is expected to be better than the London (+ suburbs) which can have non-black cabs. Expected by the people of London, and I can see why they expect this.
May not be true, but the decision should be theirs.
memory, the abiltity to read memory the ability to write to memory the ability to inciment and decriment data stored in memory, and at the minimum run a NAND instruction on data.
And most human memories cannot write to infinite memory addresses and recall them correctly - which is a necessity for being a Turing machine. Not even a trillion memory addresses, most would make significant errors within hundred memory addresses.
So no, humans are a very poor approximation of a Turing machine.
Probably you need to understand that Turing machine is a theoretical concept and there need not be actual Turing machines in the world for that to make sense or be useful.
Freewill may be an illusion, but consciousness is NOT an illusion, at least to me. In fact it is the ONLY THING that I can be sure of!
The question is not about whether one's own consciousness is an illusion. But that how can you tell that the computer someone has built is actually conscious, or just behaves that way.
So all your "knowledge" about your own consciousness does zilch to tell you that what it is to call someone else "conscious". Even if you are very close to a person, you cannot tell for sure whether they are conscious or just behaving that way. As a scientific definition, the "feeling" that one is conscious is useless. As is the epistemological truism that one's consciousness is the only certain thing in the world.
Yes, and helping yourself comes first. By swerving in any direction, you might give evidence for your prosecution that you had time to swerve. By not swerving, you could argue you never had time. A jury might even forgive you for being dumbstruck. Unless your blood has one in a gazillion trace of alcohol or "drugs".
You may not be able to tell when an individual has improved enough to be safe to be let out, but you can study and implement the methods produce the greatest decrease in the rates of recidivism. And at some point we may actually be able to tell with a high degree of certainty when people are ready, it may never be a cast iron guarantee, but we can do a damn sight better than we do today[citation needed]
You can hope your chosen course of action will work all you like, but that doesn't mean it is the right way to achieve your goals.
Agreed, except for finding productive work for prisoners without generating revenue. It should also help the prisoners who know nothing except crime - I see it as a crude "job experience".
Prisoners do get their "savings" from working in prison in my country, and that's a good idea too. Not sure if it happens in the US.
A publicly owned and run prison service would be continually seeking to reduce cost
Even when government run, it is desirable that prisons do "business". I.e. make the prisoners do some work, and earn their food , shelter and even incarceration. Reasons :
1. Keeps motivation for capital punishment down. So that public doesn't scream why should this murderer be kept alive on my money?
2. In doing nothing at all, prisoners will be unable to cope up with post-release life. Prison - management is not enough work - cooking, cleaning, prison stuff repair doesn't add up to enough work to keep all prisoners busy.
3. It's simply good money-management. There are people who can't be freed, need to be made to work, and need to be fed. Rather than giving them money to dig pits and fill them back, make them work which can be sold for money.
So there is not just the reduce cost dynamic going on here, but also increase income. Also the fact that government itself doing business is a taboo in the US.
I didn't say it will never progress. But the progress isn't in sight. And we'll know when it is, by improvement in results of willing patients.
World financial system is quite dependent on alchemy not being fruitful in the foreseeable future, but economists don't say, or even assume that it will never be fruitful. Elementary changes to atoms are possible. Temporary behavior modification of willing patients is possible.
Americans do keep convicts locked for a very long time in the hope they'll improve. Since there's no way to figure out if they have improved, convicts are set loose when "society" gets tired of waiting.
Your suggestion amounts to basing the whole tenure of a convict on the "knowledge" that he will not commit similar crimes henceforth, when there is no way to acquire said knowledge. Why do you love movies so much that in order to improve them you're ready to endanger so many people?
OR your statement "until it does", amounts to locking every petty criminal indefinitely since there is no way to figure out "if it did". You might as well declare 50 states to be 50 prisons and get on with life.
Second class treatment ? Sometimes more knowledge leads to less respect for a subject. Respect for alchemy has dropped million fold in hundreds of years.
This is the second sentence : So why should society infrastructure be modified to suit them (exclusive order types on exchanges regulated of necessity) ?
And it not only answers your question that you ask as a reply to it, but makes it unnecessary. I DO NOT think everything should benefit society, I never said so. But if society adapts for individuals, individuals better provide a much bigger benefit to society in return. I don't have patience for people who write more and read less, and I am not even sorry about it.
You don't even know how much they earned, so how can you really comment on it? Virtu Financial recently filed an S-1 to go public: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/e... Total revenue: $664 million. Net revenue: $182 million. Not bad, but not exactly killing it either.
I happen to know that zero multiplied with any possible profit is zero. Society benefits ZERO by people being just a bit faster than competition and cornering a market. Hence the remark of "proportion".
What are you talking about with "society infrastructure", and particularly "exchanges regulated of necessity?" What does that even mean? Did you know that NYSE, amongst many other liquidity venues, is now a publicly traded company? The exchanges have provided these order types of their own volition, this isn't an "HFT" problem, its an exchange problem if anything- they are trying to attract the HFT flow to their exchanges!
This is exactly part of what I am saying. The other part is - regulated of necessity. If NYSE in its own greed kills investor trust - NYSE also loses. Yes financial industry in the US has enough short term greed and there is not much competition from less greedy financial players currently. But it is for the good of stock exchanges themselves that there be a semblance of trustworthiness.
As for whether this new technology is benefitting anyone, I would argue this is just a luddite argument that has been made many times before whenever there has been a disruptive new technology
This is idiotic. I don't see any clarification or examples, and this is an enormous statement. Rest seems to be based on this idiotic assumption. By needing to ask "why should everything benefit society", when I didn't even say so, you have yourself admitted HFT doesn't benefit society. Disruptive new technology rarely ends up being so useless for society in general.
I am not spouting off anything- I spent the last ten years building this stuff on both the HFT and Agency side. You read a few articles, and maybe the entire Flash Boys book? Good for you. I am trying to give you the rest of the story.
And you haven't read my post so you didn't understand that I know what you are trying to tell; but you are wrong in some places which I corrected.
Morally speaking, how different is a person that kills someone robbing them and a doctor killing someone to get a paycheck? They both killed for money, so there is not a whole lot of moral difference between the two acts.
By the principle of diminishing marginal utility, the one who has less money overall is less guilty. It may or may not be straightforward to figure who has "less money".
Willing participants are having trouble modifying their behaviour with best of today's medicine and counseling. See relapse rate of psychological counseling and psychiatric treatment. What makes you think we have a chance with potentially unwilling subjects?
We don't have to waste money in "research". Let willing patients succeed first. Alchemy has a better future than your ideas.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that is NOT the argument made by the person to whom I responded
In your response, you said "People keep arguing that London's black cabs are better than Uber and therefore Uber should not be allowed to compete with them". Emphasis mine. The poster to which you replied did not argue this at all. He just said drivers of black cabs have been shown to be superior, and can't conceivably be "peer" to ones with lower barriers to entry. So your strawman has 2 variances with that poster :
1. No "therefore" or equivalent in that post
2. He didn't say Uber should not be allowed to compete - just that they are not peers. So Uber drivers paying extra tax might suffice. Or some extra certifications.
In addition, you are the first person to make the argument that London with only black cabs is better than London with black cabs and Uber
No. This post , the medcine doctor example, is similar, just that mine was more in your language - in the sense that some things are better than others and people choose between them. You narrow mindedly reduced choice to taxis rather than whole cities.
The post that I link to above, while essentially being similar argument, didn't use "your" language - but went into how choices have other impacts. The choice with side-effects again IS choice but at a higher level than strictly the object being chosen.
Neither have you posted the contrary. This is just a random request
Random request? You came up with random people, with their BMI values, and YOU don't think they are "overweight", without defining "overweight". If you can't go into those people's future from the time the photograph was clicked, and find their health problems, your opinion on their being overweight is meaningless.
Anyhow, I've posted links showing that waist to height is preferable
Which doesn't really show it is preferable. It doesn't answer the women question. Secondly, a large majority of men develop lots of fat only near their abdomen. While waist to height ratio does correctly predict higher CVD incidence for such people, the pattern of diffuse fat deposition all through the body causes higher joint strain. Waist to height ration does nothing to predict that. This diffuse fat deposition pattern while being more popular in women, is not limited to women.
If you narrow down the purpose of a metric to CVD prediction, that too correctly only in males, waist to height ration could be said to be better.
around 5-10%
Funny, you don't consider the ~50% women important but 5-10% "incorrect" predictions makes BMI a "lie" ?
Waist to height ratio doesn't work well on females because with low testerone levels, fat deposition isn't primarily around the waist. False positives are because it catches the health risks due to hormone imbalance in women. A large paunch is anyway a health risks in males, so this metric doesn't bring much to the table.
BTW you haven't posted health risks in future for the individuals by whose photographs you declared them non-overweight.
The math seriously works out to something akin to a 200 pound man needing to climb ~20 flights of stairs to burn the equivalent of a single piece of white bread. (90-100 calories?). That's a lot of stairs. And that's only assuming his appetite wouldn't increase to accommodate the increased output
Actually exercise reduces food cravings. See this and this. I admit these don't sound like the last word, scientifically, but I have other arguments :
1. Personal experience - being an irregular exerciser, I know both states of mind. The exerciser me yields a lot less to temptations.
2. Comfort food : Lots of people eat because they are depressed. Exercise reduces depression.
3. That's a lot of stairs : The one who exercises knows that a LOT of exercise is required to burn a little extra food. He also knows the effort / pain/ willpower required to exercise that much. The one who doesn't exercise, doesn't know at least one of these. Since it is a lot of stairs to burn the extra bread, the exerciser is more likely to choose to not eat the extra bread.
Really? I think the following people aren't overweight
From looks, that too clothed? How is your opinion any useful?
For a metric to be successful, it should be fit for a purpose. The purpose of BMI is NOT to tell whether a person looks overweight to Alomex when appropriately camouflaged in clothes.
The purpose of BMI to be an easy to compute formula for easy to obtain raw metrics to determine chances of disease. It is a difficult problem to solve. If the only objection to BMI is that overweight people according to BMI "look" non-overweight to you, that is a great metric.
Do you have an alternative ? Equally easy to calculate on equally easy to obtain raw metrics with better chance of predicting lifestyle disease than BMI? You could win a Nobel. Though I guess like all nit-picking-non-Nobel-laureates, you just don't understand the purpose of things you are picking nits in.
It is not that the black cabs are better than Uber cabs. It is that the London (+ suburbs) which can only have black cabs is expected to be better than the London (+ suburbs) which can have non-black cabs. Expected by the people of London, and I can see why they expect this.
May not be true, but the decision should be theirs.
0 and 1
That is all the numbers you will ever need.
The universe however is a Turing machine
No it isn't. It isn't even a machine.
memory, the abiltity to read memory the ability to write to memory the ability to inciment and decriment data stored in memory, and at the minimum run a NAND instruction on data.
And most human memories cannot write to infinite memory addresses and recall them correctly - which is a necessity for being a Turing machine. Not even a trillion memory addresses, most would make significant errors within hundred memory addresses.
So no, humans are a very poor approximation of a Turing machine.
Probably you need to understand that Turing machine is a theoretical concept and there need not be actual Turing machines in the world for that to make sense or be useful.
Freewill may be an illusion, but consciousness is NOT an illusion, at least to me. In fact it is the ONLY THING that I can be sure of!
The question is not about whether one's own consciousness is an illusion. But that how can you tell that the computer someone has built is actually conscious, or just behaves that way.
So all your "knowledge" about your own consciousness does zilch to tell you that what it is to call someone else "conscious". Even if you are very close to a person, you cannot tell for sure whether they are conscious or just behaving that way. As a scientific definition, the "feeling" that one is conscious is useless. As is the epistemological truism that one's consciousness is the only certain thing in the world.
Yes, and helping yourself comes first. By swerving in any direction, you might give evidence for your prosecution that you had time to swerve. By not swerving, you could argue you never had time. A jury might even forgive you for being dumbstruck. Unless your blood has one in a gazillion trace of alcohol or "drugs".
Rule of bear interaction works great here too. Bring along the fat kid when jaywalking on the highway too. Problem solved.
Running towards the stampeding car goes against the millions of years of evolutionary training. Befriending fat kids doesn't.
I thought the same way. Then I realized how much worse the discourse is on other parts of the internet, and I came running back to /.
And I'm talking about the necessity of generating revenue using prison labour.
It's an MS office knockoff, what do you expect?
You may not be able to tell when an individual has improved enough to be safe to be let out, but you can study and implement the methods produce the greatest decrease in the rates of recidivism. And at some point we may actually be able to tell with a high degree of certainty when people are ready, it may never be a cast iron guarantee, but we can do a damn sight better than we do today[citation needed]
You can hope your chosen course of action will work all you like, but that doesn't mean it is the right way to achieve your goals.
Yes, covering costs needs revenue generation. Which the GP poster doesn't like.
Maybe? How else can you cover costs?
Agreed, except for finding productive work for prisoners without generating revenue. It should also help the prisoners who know nothing except crime - I see it as a crude "job experience".
Prisoners do get their "savings" from working in prison in my country, and that's a good idea too. Not sure if it happens in the US.
Yes. My point is that revenue generation is necessary.
A publicly owned and run prison service would be continually seeking to reduce cost
Even when government run, it is desirable that prisons do "business". I.e. make the prisoners do some work, and earn their food , shelter and even incarceration. Reasons :
1. Keeps motivation for capital punishment down. So that public doesn't scream why should this murderer be kept alive on my money?
2. In doing nothing at all, prisoners will be unable to cope up with post-release life. Prison - management is not enough work - cooking, cleaning, prison stuff repair doesn't add up to enough work to keep all prisoners busy.
3. It's simply good money-management. There are people who can't be freed, need to be made to work, and need to be fed. Rather than giving them money to dig pits and fill them back, make them work which can be sold for money.
So there is not just the reduce cost dynamic going on here, but also increase income. Also the fact that government itself doing business is a taboo in the US.
Btw "there is no way" doesn't mean "there will never be a way".
I didn't say it will never progress. But the progress isn't in sight. And we'll know when it is, by improvement in results of willing patients.
World financial system is quite dependent on alchemy not being fruitful in the foreseeable future, but economists don't say, or even assume that it will never be fruitful. Elementary changes to atoms are possible. Temporary behavior modification of willing patients is possible.
Americans do keep convicts locked for a very long time in the hope they'll improve. Since there's no way to figure out if they have improved, convicts are set loose when "society" gets tired of waiting.
Your suggestion amounts to basing the whole tenure of a convict on the "knowledge" that he will not commit similar crimes henceforth, when there is no way to acquire said knowledge. Why do you love movies so much that in order to improve them you're ready to endanger so many people?
OR your statement "until it does", amounts to locking every petty criminal indefinitely since there is no way to figure out "if it did". You might as well declare 50 states to be 50 prisons and get on with life.
Second class treatment ? Sometimes more knowledge leads to less respect for a subject. Respect for alchemy has dropped million fold in hundreds of years.
This is the second sentence : So why should society infrastructure be modified to suit them (exclusive order types on exchanges regulated of necessity) ?
And it not only answers your question that you ask as a reply to it, but makes it unnecessary. I DO NOT think everything should benefit society, I never said so. But if society adapts for individuals, individuals better provide a much bigger benefit to society in return. I don't have patience for people who write more and read less, and I am not even sorry about it.
You don't even know how much they earned, so how can you really comment on it? Virtu Financial recently filed an S-1 to go public: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/e... Total revenue: $664 million. Net revenue: $182 million. Not bad, but not exactly killing it either.
I happen to know that zero multiplied with any possible profit is zero. Society benefits ZERO by people being just a bit faster than competition and cornering a market. Hence the remark of "proportion".
What are you talking about with "society infrastructure", and particularly "exchanges regulated of necessity?" What does that even mean? Did you know that NYSE, amongst many other liquidity venues, is now a publicly traded company? The exchanges have provided these order types of their own volition, this isn't an "HFT" problem, its an exchange problem if anything- they are trying to attract the HFT flow to their exchanges!
This is exactly part of what I am saying. The other part is - regulated of necessity. If NYSE in its own greed kills investor trust - NYSE also loses. Yes financial industry in the US has enough short term greed and there is not much competition from less greedy financial players currently. But it is for the good of stock exchanges themselves that there be a semblance of trustworthiness.
As for whether this new technology is benefitting anyone, I would argue this is just a luddite argument that has been made many times before whenever there has been a disruptive new technology
This is idiotic. I don't see any clarification or examples, and this is an enormous statement. Rest seems to be based on this idiotic assumption. By needing to ask "why should everything benefit society", when I didn't even say so, you have yourself admitted HFT doesn't benefit society. Disruptive new technology rarely ends up being so useless for society in general.
I am not spouting off anything- I spent the last ten years building this stuff on both the HFT and Agency side. You read a few articles, and maybe the entire Flash Boys book? Good for you. I am trying to give you the rest of the story.
And you haven't read my post so you didn't understand that I know what you are trying to tell; but you are wrong in some places which I corrected.
Morally speaking, how different is a person that kills someone robbing them and a doctor killing someone to get a paycheck? They both killed for money, so there is not a whole lot of moral difference between the two acts.
By the principle of diminishing marginal utility, the one who has less money overall is less guilty. It may or may not be straightforward to figure who has "less money".
Willing participants are having trouble modifying their behaviour with best of today's medicine and counseling. See relapse rate of psychological counseling and psychiatric treatment. What makes you think we have a chance with potentially unwilling subjects?
We don't have to waste money in "research". Let willing patients succeed first. Alchemy has a better future than your ideas.