Awesome! I'll have to recommend your book to my homeschool co-op. I was especially impressed that you noted that the problem of the original notation derived from a philosophical cause. Too many people do not realize that philosophy plays into science and mathematics, even in how we conceptualize objective facts and concepts.
Human trafficking? Civil rights violations? School shootings? Mass murder? Clearly none of these are as important as making sure rural Americans can download their porn faster.
1 in 100,000 is just not enough for something that is a matter of life and death. Considering that Google says the FAA handles over 15 million flights yearly, it is conceivable that this system could have become implemented in enough planes eventually to make 1 in 100,000 very common, even if it hadn’t actually failed much sooner than that. I would say no fewer than three sensors must be checked before fighting with the pilot for control. Of course you do have to account for the fact that the pilot could be wrong, but then we have a copilot to act as a redundancy. Any lack of redundancy is just a bad idea.
It's basically the same reason that people still compete for the world's tallest building and for breaking Guinness's silly world records--because we can. I always cringe at documentaries that try to come up with silly explanations, including space aliens, because it's amazing that we still don't understand ourselves. Humans have always been symbolic creatures--not mere practical creatures--and so we do things because we feel them to be meaningful, not simply because we think they might be useful.
Yeah, and if I remember correctly, Netflix actually encouraged sharing at least at one time, and simply set limits on simultaneous streams. So if Netflix has allowed it, then in no way can it be considered piracy.
I agree, but it does seem like she needed to do significant troubleshooting with them and somehow dispute the contract rather than just cancelling. Of course, the way things usually are they just tell you to turn your PC off and on again, and force you into private arbitration that will always rule in their favor, so maybe cancelling was the only realistic solution.
...there is an old saying about not keeping all of your eggs in one basket. Sometimes even incredibly intelligent people are capable of horrible foolishness.
Very true. I've been binging episodes of American Greed, and it seems the #1 lesson to be learned is never to invest everything in one place, no matter how good it seems to be. But thankfully another phrase is also relevant: easy come, easy go. He was awfully young to have $422,000, so chances are he can produce it again in another 7 years. (Hopefully that sounds more encouraging than callous; I just know that it's even worse when someone older or with less earning power loses everything.)
... would it give Google control over what people learn?
I don't know what you're talking about. I just asked Google Home, "Hey Google, Is Google taking over Wikipedia?" and it said, "My apologies, I don't understand." Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go see what articles Google suggests for me on Google News.
Interesting. From what you post, however, he makes a pretty strong case for a legitimate use of a pseudonym. Publishing under another name is not necessarily sketchy, and in fact it has a looong history going back thousands of years. In this case there was hardly any deception, because he merely spelled his real name backwards.
That's not the algorithms adding uncertainty and making ethical choices, that's a human performing this task and the algorithm being demoted.
True. Even if we did genuinely add uncertainty (not not mere human arbitrariness), the basic premise that greater uncertainty adds greater moral value makes little sense. Uncertainty != freedom, and thus uncertainty does not add a moral value to anything, no matter how much it gives the illusion of freedom. In fact, if we take it for granted that our basic human experience of freedom is genuinely free, then we have to admit that freedom does not typically make us unpredictable. If you offer me the choice of doughnuts or trail mix, I will pick doughnuts every time, but this does not (philosophically or theologically) mean that I am not free or that there is no moral value to my decisions for right or wrong.
In addition to this, much uncertainty is merely a matter of limited perspective anyway. My uncertainty about which parking space I will use has less to do with my free decision and more to do with my lack of foreknowledge of which spaces will be open. An algorithm might utilize such perspective-based uncertainty merely by being extremely complex, but if that adds to its moral character then it is only because it takes more real factors into account. In contrast, it might utilize random numbers, which need not even be truly random in order to add uncertainty. But such uncertainty cannot improve the moral value of its outcome because it does not take in additional real considerations, but relies on an unrelated and functionally meaningless number.
I can think of one last kind of automation that might add to the moral quality of an outcome by means of uncertainty and without arbitrary human choice. One could argue that a variety of valid decisions, averaged together, are more likely to provide moral outcomes on a broad, statistical basis. Of course this is not proved, but one could argue it. In such a case, something like rotating algorithms might simulate the plurality of human perspectives, which might have some moral value. But then it is hard to be sure that any particular outcome is especially moral.
I think it's funny that the YouTube video of the Austrian man pulling the 777 has this disclaimer: "RT is funded in whole or in part by the Russian government." Clearly somebody is worried about propaganda or "fake news," but I find it hard to decipher how this video might secretly be a covert disinformation attack against the West. Perhaps it's supposed to trick the U.S. Air Force into hiring a fleet of Austrians to pull their airplanes into position? Am I missing something?
That said, I'm not actually opposed to the idea. But I expect the lawsuits wrapped around the first case where the family can't agree on method of disposal will make this a very unpopular option....
I agree with you completely. Burial is traditional for Jews and Christians, such that cremation--a traditionally pagan practice--was not permitted by the Catholic Church for a long time. Burial in this case has little to do with fertilizing the ground and everything to do with the dignity of the human body, which we believe Christ will raise again at his second coming. Cremation does not frustrate the resurrection; St. Monica said something to the effect of, "God will not lose track of my corpse." But cremation does not adequately celebrate the eternal dignity of the body, which is not a mere disposable hunk of matter. Thus the same symbolic issues will pertain to composting as well.
Importantly, symbolism is determined by culture, religion, and subjective aspects, so some people will see a deeper significance to spreading ashes or composting, e.g. the idea of the body as connected to the earth. Thus, in a case where a family disagrees about how to deal with a body, it can easily be a disagreement between two symbolic systems, both of which see the body as meaningful while differing on how that meaning is to be celebrated.
Slashdot Mirror
Awesome! I'll have to recommend your book to my homeschool co-op. I was especially impressed that you noted that the problem of the original notation derived from a philosophical cause. Too many people do not realize that philosophy plays into science and mathematics, even in how we conceptualize objective facts and concepts.
...but if the movie is any indication, this project is going to cost a lot of money...
Aw come on, I still enjoy them. Much better to read a prank than to be the target of a prank.
Haha, lovely.
The real question is, does she perpetually have the munchies?
Human trafficking? Civil rights violations? School shootings? Mass murder? Clearly none of these are as important as making sure rural Americans can download their porn faster.
Here's my favorite: http://socaldem.smugmug.com/photos/2128563-M.jpg
1 in 100,000 is just not enough for something that is a matter of life and death. Considering that Google says the FAA handles over 15 million flights yearly, it is conceivable that this system could have become implemented in enough planes eventually to make 1 in 100,000 very common, even if it hadn’t actually failed much sooner than that. I would say no fewer than three sensors must be checked before fighting with the pilot for control. Of course you do have to account for the fact that the pilot could be wrong, but then we have a copilot to act as a redundancy. Any lack of redundancy is just a bad idea.
...except on iOS.
It's basically the same reason that people still compete for the world's tallest building and for breaking Guinness's silly world records--because we can. I always cringe at documentaries that try to come up with silly explanations, including space aliens, because it's amazing that we still don't understand ourselves. Humans have always been symbolic creatures--not mere practical creatures--and so we do things because we feel them to be meaningful, not simply because we think they might be useful.
Yeah, and if I remember correctly, Netflix actually encouraged sharing at least at one time, and simply set limits on simultaneous streams. So if Netflix has allowed it, then in no way can it be considered piracy.
I agree, but it does seem like she needed to do significant troubleshooting with them and somehow dispute the contract rather than just cancelling. Of course, the way things usually are they just tell you to turn your PC off and on again, and force you into private arbitration that will always rule in their favor, so maybe cancelling was the only realistic solution.
We Americans don't understand this word “gaol.” Perhaps you meant to say *lockemoji* *policeemoji* *sadfaceemoji*?
So the screen size to weight ratio is identical. Yes, it is thinner but no, it is not lighter.
56.83/468 = 0.121432; 49.6/400 = 0.124. So, not identical. Samsung apparently gives more screen for the weight.
Don't worry, I estimate that we'll be able to get a better estimate somewhere between one week and one millennium from now.
...there is an old saying about not keeping all of your eggs in one basket. Sometimes even incredibly intelligent people are capable of horrible foolishness.
Very true. I've been binging episodes of American Greed, and it seems the #1 lesson to be learned is never to invest everything in one place, no matter how good it seems to be. But thankfully another phrase is also relevant: easy come, easy go. He was awfully young to have $422,000, so chances are he can produce it again in another 7 years. (Hopefully that sounds more encouraging than callous; I just know that it's even worse when someone older or with less earning power loses everything.)
Don't be ridiculous. We all know there's shoggoths down there.
... would it give Google control over what people learn?
I don't know what you're talking about. I just asked Google Home, "Hey Google, Is Google taking over Wikipedia?" and it said, "My apologies, I don't understand." Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go see what articles Google suggests for me on Google News.
Interesting. From what you post, however, he makes a pretty strong case for a legitimate use of a pseudonym. Publishing under another name is not necessarily sketchy, and in fact it has a looong history going back thousands of years. In this case there was hardly any deception, because he merely spelled his real name backwards.
If only those lemurs didn't drive around in gas-guzzling SUVs, then the PETM might have been avoided!
That's not the algorithms adding uncertainty and making ethical choices, that's a human performing this task and the algorithm being demoted.
True. Even if we did genuinely add uncertainty (not not mere human arbitrariness), the basic premise that greater uncertainty adds greater moral value makes little sense. Uncertainty != freedom, and thus uncertainty does not add a moral value to anything, no matter how much it gives the illusion of freedom. In fact, if we take it for granted that our basic human experience of freedom is genuinely free, then we have to admit that freedom does not typically make us unpredictable. If you offer me the choice of doughnuts or trail mix, I will pick doughnuts every time, but this does not (philosophically or theologically) mean that I am not free or that there is no moral value to my decisions for right or wrong.
In addition to this, much uncertainty is merely a matter of limited perspective anyway. My uncertainty about which parking space I will use has less to do with my free decision and more to do with my lack of foreknowledge of which spaces will be open. An algorithm might utilize such perspective-based uncertainty merely by being extremely complex, but if that adds to its moral character then it is only because it takes more real factors into account. In contrast, it might utilize random numbers, which need not even be truly random in order to add uncertainty. But such uncertainty cannot improve the moral value of its outcome because it does not take in additional real considerations, but relies on an unrelated and functionally meaningless number.
I can think of one last kind of automation that might add to the moral quality of an outcome by means of uncertainty and without arbitrary human choice. One could argue that a variety of valid decisions, averaged together, are more likely to provide moral outcomes on a broad, statistical basis. Of course this is not proved, but one could argue it. In such a case, something like rotating algorithms might simulate the plurality of human perspectives, which might have some moral value. But then it is hard to be sure that any particular outcome is especially moral.
...It's amazing how little I have ever cared or wanted to be able to fold my phone.
...at least one member has been repeatedly engaging with the imposter, who posed as Alyssa Farah...
I hope somebody bothers to tell him that she isn't really interested in him before he tells his parents about the engagement.
I think it's funny that the YouTube video of the Austrian man pulling the 777 has this disclaimer: "RT is funded in whole or in part by the Russian government." Clearly somebody is worried about propaganda or "fake news," but I find it hard to decipher how this video might secretly be a covert disinformation attack against the West. Perhaps it's supposed to trick the U.S. Air Force into hiring a fleet of Austrians to pull their airplanes into position? Am I missing something?
That said, I'm not actually opposed to the idea. But I expect the lawsuits wrapped around the first case where the family can't agree on method of disposal will make this a very unpopular option....
I agree with you completely. Burial is traditional for Jews and Christians, such that cremation--a traditionally pagan practice--was not permitted by the Catholic Church for a long time. Burial in this case has little to do with fertilizing the ground and everything to do with the dignity of the human body, which we believe Christ will raise again at his second coming. Cremation does not frustrate the resurrection; St. Monica said something to the effect of, "God will not lose track of my corpse." But cremation does not adequately celebrate the eternal dignity of the body, which is not a mere disposable hunk of matter. Thus the same symbolic issues will pertain to composting as well.
Importantly, symbolism is determined by culture, religion, and subjective aspects, so some people will see a deeper significance to spreading ashes or composting, e.g. the idea of the body as connected to the earth. Thus, in a case where a family disagrees about how to deal with a body, it can easily be a disagreement between two symbolic systems, both of which see the body as meaningful while differing on how that meaning is to be celebrated.