But the question of whether he was a violent robber is central to your question. Somebody going around committing robbery might actually be enough threat. The value of the actual stuff taken isn't the most relevant part of the crime (if anything, a lower value robbery increases how dangerous a robber he is, because apparently he'll do violence over nothing).
Somebody who nicked a few sandwiches and chicken wings, however? Bad guy, we should catch him, but not a serious societal threat. My guess is the guy fits this category but I'm waiting for more info before getting too charged up.
An error that favours the patient would have to be something like a billing error, or perhaps a one-in-a-million case where providing the wrong treatment per our current knowledge was actually better / running the wrong test found something more important than you would have found by running the right test.
Neutral errors are, I expect, dominant. And of the negative errors, I expect many of them are not all that severe, eg. dentist's hand slips and he drops a mirror on your chin vs. dentist's hand slips and drills through your throat.
Irrelevant. Shares do not represent a percent of votes. The number of shares is itself arbitrary and changeable. For instance, it can do a stock split, or it can simply issue new shares and dilute the current ones.
The company can even render your vote irrelevant after the fact. There are laws against being egregious here, but in principle 51% of the company can vote to issue bonus shares to that same 51%. Usually in exchange for money (capital investment), although occasionally a part of an acquisition. Boom, now the 49% of the company at $1 per share ten years ago is 4% of the company at $1000 per share, and you only have 4% of the votes, meaning you lost 45% of the votes without even doing anything even though you voted against it. You still made a shitload of money though, so you can't complain too much.
The only meaning to quantity of shares is that their total quantity defines price per share. The only meanings to price per share are:
1. The price of one share represents the granularity with which you can buy and sell the company. As the GP says, in principle we could use a fixed granularity of a dollar instead, or of 1 cent, or of a Euro, or a troy ounce of gold, or whatever. 2. It provides a metric by which you can measure the change in share price. Even this is pretty loose, because again, the quantity of shares is changing over time as new shares are issued, old shares are bought back, etc. -- but in theory, buybacks and new share issuances are supposed to be neutral to the share value by themselves, and stock splits / merges are shown very vividly on stock charts.
For me, it eventually reaches a point where it spins on 100% of a CPU, until I disable a set of services related to iTunes. Once I disable those, iTunes is neutered and doesn't work except for USB phone sync, but the CPU is fine, which is an acceptable tradeoff.
I know this is a bold claim from somebody that's merely 31 years old, but no, that etymology does not hold. The word hacker was always at best neutral, and that's a stretch -- it was realistically negative, albeit usually carrying the implication of shoddy worksmanship rather than a malicious intruder. The notion of hacker as meaning a black-hat goes back at least 40 years.
The article outright states (twice) that inertial mass is a required assumption of this theory.
I actually think the article was unusually good, in that it struck a balance between elementary and oversimplified, and hyper-obscure. However, it did bury the lede a bit -- it also has a variable speed of light within the cone as an assumption.
Prefacing this with the fact that I don't disagree with the thrust of your argument, necessarily.
Correlation is not causation, but absence of correlation is absence of causation.
Not actually true. One example is if event A causes B, and event A is non-causally correlated to event C, and C causes ~B, then you can show no correlation between A and B even though A causes B.
Or look at this guy's argument: http://theincidentaleconomist..... I didn't check out the rest of his site but the mathematical argument seems sound.
So first, I see the top rate of capital gains tax being only 54%, and that's only on incomes above 10 million dollars.
If you want to retire before you are 110 years old, you need...about as much money as before. The income difference is nominal -- a 2.2% increase before you hit $250k / year. You can retire on much less than $250k / year in constant 2016 dollars. You don't need 10 million dollars per year to retire before 110 years old. Capital gains are likely only a portion of your income.
(besides which, the US taxes US citizens on income worldwide, and has an exit tax on people giving up their citizenship...).
See, this is the problem with people on the authoritarian Left. At no point did I ever say that you were defective for having a view I disagree with.
At no point did he say or imply that you said or implied that. What he said was that you are in a bubble if you believe the overwhelming majority of the tech community is behind Trump. And I will absolutely join him in challenging your assertion. Most techies -- like most people generally -- are not behind Trump. Forgetting personality issues for a moment, that's no surprise just because there are 4 realistic candidates (I know most people think it's Trump vs. Clinton, but Cruz and Sanders aren't completely irrelevant yet...Kasich basically is). Furthermore, the major tech job geographies are in left-leaning regions.
I admit I was surprised at how high Trump support was in an survey of tech workers I read recently, but it was lower than the general population. No, I don't have a cite handy, but then, neither do you.
This said, you did in fact open with a statement that people in tech who support a politician other than trump were defective, that defect being "don't work very hard".
You assume that your view is the absolute correct one, and that anyone who disagrees with you is either defective mentally, evil, or some other arbitrary defective thing you can think of.
I don't quite know what to say other than this is exactly what you're doing. You identified him as being in the "authoritarian Left", attributed a whole bunch of random viewpoints to him, on the basis that he disagrees with your assertion. He could himself be a Trump supporter, just one that's a bit more realistic about Trump's support within the tech community.
There can be no meaningful discussion if we can't agree that we're equals.
Then maybe don't open by saying all your opponents don't work very hard? And then when somebody challenges your boldest and least supported assertion, don't call them authoritarians that are incapable of honest conversation?
The problem is that graph is oversimplified. There's reason to suspect that increasing the minimum wage may increase your revenues along with your employee expenses, because more people can afford your services. And yes, it's also not impossible that it decreases your revenues along with your wage expenses. Depends partly on your target demographic, and the exact dollar amounts, and economic climate, etc..
This combines with possibilities like this: before the minimum wage hike, you're paying two people $7.50 / hour apiece, $15 / hour total right now, but if the minimum wage was raised to $15, you could replace both with one guy who won't work for less than $15 / hour and does the work of 1.9 of those other two guys. So per unit wages you have become 5% less efficient, not 100% less efficient. If your revenue can increase more than 5% of wages, because more people can afford your stuff, that's significant.
I am not opposed in principle to the idea of basic income, in fact I really hope it works, and it does elegantly resolve the minimum-wage problem (though it shares a problem -- what is a living wage / living basic income?). But a third option is that humans change jobs from ones which are being automated to ones which are not (yet). Where do those jobs come from? Maybe we create new jobs, or maybe we just change the standard work week to be 30 hours instead of 40.
I agree that all those problems exist for all the reasons you say they exist, but I don't think that makes it hopeless. Nuclear can be part of the future energy mix, along with lots of renewable options (maybe even a much-scaled-down level of fossil use).
You're completely full of shit. All the crazy shit you're talking about is not an issue in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, or Finland. It's not even an issue in India, where I don't recommend you go for healthcare.
Do you seriously think there is a problem of Swedes starving in the hospitals?
They're not uncorrelated but they are also not the same. And in the current tax system, wealth can breed wealth through capital gains without things formally described as income.
No, it doesn't depend on where you live. 655k US dollars per year in 2016 is solidly above upper middle class, literally anywhere human money is used.
Whether it's wealthy though is a confusion of terms, since one is a measure of income and one is a measure of wealth. But you have to be doing something wrong -- anywhere on Earth -- for 655k not to lead to being wealthy.
The argument you are making is the one your household makes about 100k US dollars per year in 2016 not being "upper-middle-class" in a couple key areas like it is for most of the country and indeed most of the world developed world (outside the developed world, it's solidly upper "class"). 655k is completely out of the question
What does "some" or "all" have to do with anything.
It's fundamentally the difference between hypocrisy and not hypocrisy.
He is saying all should pay more taxes, and then he avoids taxation. That is fundamentally hypocritical.
No he isn't, and no it isn't. He is saying he and others should owe more taxes. He does not at any point say somebody should pay taxes which they do not owe.
It's been my consistent position that you can effectively achieve the same results by labelling things as GMO-free, if that's what consumers actually want.
No law has to be passed to cause that to happen (assuming reasonable truth-in-labelling laws exist, anyway), and if consumers love things being GMO-free then they will look for the label. This has happened successfully with, for example, Kosher labels.
This way it's voluntary and nobody has to get in a twist.
A diverless car without any kind of overiding system enabling a human to take control (for whatever reason) is like a fully autonomous airplane. You will never see them.
Seriously? I'll never see a fully autonomous airplane or driverless car? You see these all the time, especially in rural areas.
So obviously these cases do fit into your "constrained set of specific roads".
Anyway, I do suspect there will be a period of time where there are fully driverless roads, fully human-driver-only roads, and mixed roads. I suspect the major highways will be among the first to be driverless only (you already aren't supposed to be a pedestrial or a cyclist on those roads).
And in that case you fucking want the ability for a human driver to override an AI if the need arises.
Only in the same sense that I want to remotely slam the brakes on asshole's car on the road if the need arises. Otherwise, at a certain point, I fucking *don't* want a human yanking the wheel from the machine. Yes, we aren't there yet, but you're ridiculous if you don't think that's happening.
AI can't take into account all possible modes of failure or unexpected events.
Literally nothing can, including humans. This is a meaningless goalpost. If you take it seriously, then cars should not be allowed, whether or not there is a human driver.
Why do you move to the things that humans are worst at? Everything you're describing is *super easy* for a computer to do better than humans. You've picked scenarios with an incredibly low bar for software to cross.
What you should be picking are things humans find easy and safe, but which are nonetheless unusual. Like "the traffic lights have failed and a private citizen has taken it upon himself to direct traffic" or "driving into a restricted off-road area which is closed to the general public and blacked out by satellites etc.". Until that's solved (and I have little doubt that they will be solved), self-driving cars will likely need a human backup driver.
You're kind of like the person from the 80s who thinks a computer may recognize writing someday, but can never beat a world champion human at chess or go due to a lack of creativity. Turns out, beating humans at games is relatively easy for computers. Solving captchas is hard. In your "self-driving cars will never work" rants, you should look for scenarios that are like captchas, not scenarios that are like chess.
It's a trained neural network and other machine learning techniques, not just a bespoke algorithm. It operates specifically by combining old knowledge to create novel knowledge. That's the fundamental of the algorithm.
It's not obvious why this "creativity" in the context of Go is fundamentally less effective than human "creativity" in the context of Go.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't care when you will take this shit seriously. I do care when Lyft will take this shit seriously.
That said, The summary kind of inflates what the article says, which in turn kind of inflates what the Wall Street Journal article it references says.
But the question of whether he was a violent robber is central to your question. Somebody going around committing robbery might actually be enough threat. The value of the actual stuff taken isn't the most relevant part of the crime (if anything, a lower value robbery increases how dangerous a robber he is, because apparently he'll do violence over nothing).
Somebody who nicked a few sandwiches and chicken wings, however? Bad guy, we should catch him, but not a serious societal threat. My guess is the guy fits this category but I'm waiting for more info before getting too charged up.
An error that favours the patient would have to be something like a billing error, or perhaps a one-in-a-million case where providing the wrong treatment per our current knowledge was actually better / running the wrong test found something more important than you would have found by running the right test.
Neutral errors are, I expect, dominant. And of the negative errors, I expect many of them are not all that severe, eg. dentist's hand slips and he drops a mirror on your chin vs. dentist's hand slips and drills through your throat.
Irrelevant. Shares do not represent a percent of votes. The number of shares is itself arbitrary and changeable. For instance, it can do a stock split, or it can simply issue new shares and dilute the current ones.
The company can even render your vote irrelevant after the fact. There are laws against being egregious here, but in principle 51% of the company can vote to issue bonus shares to that same 51%. Usually in exchange for money (capital investment), although occasionally a part of an acquisition. Boom, now the 49% of the company at $1 per share ten years ago is 4% of the company at $1000 per share, and you only have 4% of the votes, meaning you lost 45% of the votes without even doing anything even though you voted against it. You still made a shitload of money though, so you can't complain too much.
The only meaning to quantity of shares is that their total quantity defines price per share. The only meanings to price per share are:
1. The price of one share represents the granularity with which you can buy and sell the company. As the GP says, in principle we could use a fixed granularity of a dollar instead, or of 1 cent, or of a Euro, or a troy ounce of gold, or whatever.
2. It provides a metric by which you can measure the change in share price. Even this is pretty loose, because again, the quantity of shares is changing over time as new shares are issued, old shares are bought back, etc. -- but in theory, buybacks and new share issuances are supposed to be neutral to the share value by themselves, and stock splits / merges are shown very vividly on stock charts.
For me, it eventually reaches a point where it spins on 100% of a CPU, until I disable a set of services related to iTunes. Once I disable those, iTunes is neutered and doesn't work except for USB phone sync, but the CPU is fine, which is an acceptable tradeoff.
First, the population being 10% doesn't mean the market is limited to 10%.
Second, 10% *IS* a big number for Netflix and the studios. That's why the studios have insisted on doing this, and why Netflix resisted for a time.
I know this is a bold claim from somebody that's merely 31 years old, but no, that etymology does not hold. The word hacker was always at best neutral, and that's a stretch -- it was realistically negative, albeit usually carrying the implication of shoddy worksmanship rather than a malicious intruder. The notion of hacker as meaning a black-hat goes back at least 40 years.
The article outright states (twice) that inertial mass is a required assumption of this theory.
I actually think the article was unusually good, in that it struck a balance between elementary and oversimplified, and hyper-obscure. However, it did bury the lede a bit -- it also has a variable speed of light within the cone as an assumption.
Prefacing this with the fact that I don't disagree with the thrust of your argument, necessarily.
Correlation is not causation, but absence of correlation is absence of causation.
Not actually true. One example is if event A causes B, and event A is non-causally correlated to event C, and C causes ~B, then you can show no correlation between A and B even though A causes B.
Or look at this guy's argument: http://theincidentaleconomist..... I didn't check out the rest of his site but the mathematical argument seems sound.
Image recognition is not solved.
So first, I see the top rate of capital gains tax being only 54%, and that's only on incomes above 10 million dollars.
If you want to retire before you are 110 years old, you need...about as much money as before. The income difference is nominal -- a 2.2% increase before you hit $250k / year. You can retire on much less than $250k / year in constant 2016 dollars. You don't need 10 million dollars per year to retire before 110 years old. Capital gains are likely only a portion of your income.
(besides which, the US taxes US citizens on income worldwide, and has an exit tax on people giving up their citizenship...).
See, this is the problem with people on the authoritarian Left. At no point did I ever say that you were defective for having a view I disagree with.
At no point did he say or imply that you said or implied that. What he said was that you are in a bubble if you believe the overwhelming majority of the tech community is behind Trump. And I will absolutely join him in challenging your assertion. Most techies -- like most people generally -- are not behind Trump. Forgetting personality issues for a moment, that's no surprise just because there are 4 realistic candidates (I know most people think it's Trump vs. Clinton, but Cruz and Sanders aren't completely irrelevant yet...Kasich basically is). Furthermore, the major tech job geographies are in left-leaning regions.
I admit I was surprised at how high Trump support was in an survey of tech workers I read recently, but it was lower than the general population. No, I don't have a cite handy, but then, neither do you.
This said, you did in fact open with a statement that people in tech who support a politician other than trump were defective, that defect being "don't work very hard".
You assume that your view is the absolute correct one, and that anyone who disagrees with you is either defective mentally, evil, or some other arbitrary defective thing you can think of.
I don't quite know what to say other than this is exactly what you're doing. You identified him as being in the "authoritarian Left", attributed a whole bunch of random viewpoints to him, on the basis that he disagrees with your assertion. He could himself be a Trump supporter, just one that's a bit more realistic about Trump's support within the tech community.
There can be no meaningful discussion if we can't agree that we're equals.
Then maybe don't open by saying all your opponents don't work very hard? And then when somebody challenges your boldest and least supported assertion, don't call them authoritarians that are incapable of honest conversation?
The problem is that graph is oversimplified. There's reason to suspect that increasing the minimum wage may increase your revenues along with your employee expenses, because more people can afford your services. And yes, it's also not impossible that it decreases your revenues along with your wage expenses. Depends partly on your target demographic, and the exact dollar amounts, and economic climate, etc..
This combines with possibilities like this: before the minimum wage hike, you're paying two people $7.50 / hour apiece, $15 / hour total right now, but if the minimum wage was raised to $15, you could replace both with one guy who won't work for less than $15 / hour and does the work of 1.9 of those other two guys. So per unit wages you have become 5% less efficient, not 100% less efficient. If your revenue can increase more than 5% of wages, because more people can afford your stuff, that's significant.
I am not opposed in principle to the idea of basic income, in fact I really hope it works, and it does elegantly resolve the minimum-wage problem (though it shares a problem -- what is a living wage / living basic income?). But a third option is that humans change jobs from ones which are being automated to ones which are not (yet). Where do those jobs come from? Maybe we create new jobs, or maybe we just change the standard work week to be 30 hours instead of 40.
Why own a television when your phone has higher DPI and plays the same videos?
Can you provide numbers that prove the world's billionaires could easily do this?
I agree that all those problems exist for all the reasons you say they exist, but I don't think that makes it hopeless. Nuclear can be part of the future energy mix, along with lots of renewable options (maybe even a much-scaled-down level of fossil use).
You're completely full of shit. All the crazy shit you're talking about is not an issue in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, or Finland. It's not even an issue in India, where I don't recommend you go for healthcare.
Do you seriously think there is a problem of Swedes starving in the hospitals?
They're not uncorrelated but they are also not the same. And in the current tax system, wealth can breed wealth through capital gains without things formally described as income.
No, it doesn't depend on where you live. 655k US dollars per year in 2016 is solidly above upper middle class, literally anywhere human money is used.
Whether it's wealthy though is a confusion of terms, since one is a measure of income and one is a measure of wealth. But you have to be doing something wrong -- anywhere on Earth -- for 655k not to lead to being wealthy.
The argument you are making is the one your household makes about 100k US dollars per year in 2016 not being "upper-middle-class" in a couple key areas like it is for most of the country and indeed most of the world developed world (outside the developed world, it's solidly upper "class"). 655k is completely out of the question
What does "some" or "all" have to do with anything.
It's fundamentally the difference between hypocrisy and not hypocrisy.
He is saying all should pay more taxes, and then he avoids taxation. That is fundamentally hypocritical.
No he isn't, and no it isn't. He is saying he and others should owe more taxes. He does not at any point say somebody should pay taxes which they do not owe.
It's been my consistent position that you can effectively achieve the same results by labelling things as GMO-free, if that's what consumers actually want.
No law has to be passed to cause that to happen (assuming reasonable truth-in-labelling laws exist, anyway), and if consumers love things being GMO-free then they will look for the label. This has happened successfully with, for example, Kosher labels.
This way it's voluntary and nobody has to get in a twist.
A diverless car without any kind of overiding system enabling a human to take control (for whatever reason) is like a fully autonomous airplane. You will never see them.
Seriously? I'll never see a fully autonomous airplane or driverless car? You see these all the time, especially in rural areas.
http://www.uavcropdusterspraye...
http://www.enterprisetech.com/...
So obviously these cases do fit into your "constrained set of specific roads".
Anyway, I do suspect there will be a period of time where there are fully driverless roads, fully human-driver-only roads, and mixed roads. I suspect the major highways will be among the first to be driverless only (you already aren't supposed to be a pedestrial or a cyclist on those roads).
And in that case you fucking want the ability for a human driver to override an AI if the need arises.
Only in the same sense that I want to remotely slam the brakes on asshole's car on the road if the need arises. Otherwise, at a certain point, I fucking *don't* want a human yanking the wheel from the machine. Yes, we aren't there yet, but you're ridiculous if you don't think that's happening.
AI can't take into account all possible modes of failure or unexpected events.
Literally nothing can, including humans. This is a meaningless goalpost. If you take it seriously, then cars should not be allowed, whether or not there is a human driver.
Why do you move to the things that humans are worst at? Everything you're describing is *super easy* for a computer to do better than humans. You've picked scenarios with an incredibly low bar for software to cross.
What you should be picking are things humans find easy and safe, but which are nonetheless unusual. Like "the traffic lights have failed and a private citizen has taken it upon himself to direct traffic" or "driving into a restricted off-road area which is closed to the general public and blacked out by satellites etc.". Until that's solved (and I have little doubt that they will be solved), self-driving cars will likely need a human backup driver.
You're kind of like the person from the 80s who thinks a computer may recognize writing someday, but can never beat a world champion human at chess or go due to a lack of creativity. Turns out, beating humans at games is relatively easy for computers. Solving captchas is hard. In your "self-driving cars will never work" rants, you should look for scenarios that are like captchas, not scenarios that are like chess.
If a manufacturer can deliver updates remotely without you present, then so can an attacker. In both cases, the car is compromised.
It's a trained neural network and other machine learning techniques, not just a bespoke algorithm. It operates specifically by combining old knowledge to create novel knowledge. That's the fundamental of the algorithm.
It's not obvious why this "creativity" in the context of Go is fundamentally less effective than human "creativity" in the context of Go.