The definition of that arbitrary function is not known in the design phase. Its behavior is not known. Its variability is not known. Its susceptibility to false alarms and false positives in the presence of random and structured noise is not known. As this research has shown, that susceptibility appears to be quite high, and while the hackers know why, the designers may not. In computer geek terms: it's full of zero-day vulnerabilities waiting to be discovered.
This sea of ambiguity is in direct contrast with the traditional practice of engineering where the behavior of the physical objects used in the design is not only known, but it is extensively and exhaustively characterized over the full range of operating conditions expected of the finished product and beyond, with ample safety margins whose size is determined not by guesswork and rules of thumb but by rigorous statistical analysis of the variability in those expected physical conditions.
Same thing goes for equations and algorithms used in traditional engineering design. Their mathematical properties are known, and the models defined by those equations and algorithms are tested in physical experiments, not just software simulations. If software simulations are used for testing, then there are usually reams of paperwork and documentation ensuring that that software simulation models real physics to a prescribed accuracy. That's one of the reasons many engineering software codebases are dinosaur FORTRAN monoliths. They are validated against reality and the work of validating any rewrite in modern programming languages exceeds by a wide margin any annoyances from having to deal with the old codebases.
This because traditional engineering as a profession grew up in an era where consequences of mistakes cost human lives. The IT stuff did not grow up in that era for the most part and that's why there isn't the same level of professionalism in software. My degrees are in traditional engineering fields from ABET-accredited programs. But I mostly write code for a living and make one-off electronics for R&D, rather customer-facing, purposes. I never needed to get an engineering license for that and I didn't, though I have no qualms calling myself a "software engineer" or an "electronics engineer" informally. But I would never dream of using the 'E' word in a way that implied I was qualified to do engineering design of analysis for something my employer would sell to a customer that merited such analysis where, for example, safety of life were concerned.
My contention is that the academics who revived deep-learning and neural nets from mothballs in the last decade and sold it to the likes of Google and Facebook who use it mostly to score more eyeballs and clicks on ads don't have a visceral understanding of the distinction of the vast gulf between those two modes of thinking about "engineering." And they push neural networks as the panacea to places where it doesn't belong, like safety-of-life applications in self-driving cars.
AMD and Intel make parallel computing hardware add-ons as well, plus a bunch of little guys. Lesson to be drawn: don't code your stuff in CUDA, use OpenCL so that it is portable to other hardware in case any one vendor gets to big for his britches.
They still serve you ads. They push them as notifications and put them at the bottom of newly opened empty tabs. I bought one ad-free for the extra $20 a few years ago and it's the last device I'll ever buy from Amazon.
Don't play speech police. Yes, private property and all, but it's a statement of fact that your customers don't take too kindly to a platform that promises a public forum (speech) but with an asterisk. You don't look too good censoring one side but not the other already. You look worse when you give people in power a pass that ordinary users don't get. No way out of this one. Either complete freedom or complete lock-down.
Ugh indeed.
1. Vox and Mother Jones (which one of your links cites) are partisan publications, not neutral reporters of fact.
That aside,
2. Disproportionate police use of force with and arrests of members of different population groups do not imply different enforcement standards unless there is parity in overall rates of crime among those groups. Black Americans commit more crimes per capita and live in higher-crime neighborhoods on average. Thus more encounters with police. And often for good reason. Your purported source of neutral facts tacitly assumes things like that don't matter and you tacitly assume that disparate outcomes implies disparate treatment. It doesn't. White people who charge at cops also tend to catch a bullet for their troubles.
3. Sloppy wording and lose definitions make for the best scatter plots, don't they? "Gun-related" deaths includes suicides. Whether you chose to count it in the same statistic as homicide by firearm is nothing other than that: a choice. Count it to pad the numbers one way. Exclude it to pad the numbers the other way. Half of "gun-related" deaths are suicides in the US and while I don't have numbers for the other countries on the plot, let's say the slope of that line drops by half.
The per-state chart is another cart-before-the-horse abuse of statistics. My statement was about gun restrictions. The chart is about gun ownership. The two are not the same, and while the correlation is weak to start with, the argument for causation is not there. Minnesota, Vermont, Maine, Iowa, Utah and Oregon have large populations and high gun ownership but lower gun deaths per capita than Colorado, Nevada, Maryland, and Florida which also have high populations but lower gun ownership. Then there's Chicago and Maryland and Camden NJ in particular which has strict local and state laws and insane homicide rates.
This is all true, and part of my point. You can read it either way, but there will be people who assume the worst and demand censorship immediately without discussion. Discussion will be pre-empted by labelling the speaker a nazi sympathizer and shaming any who would engage in the conversation as "normalizers" of extremism, using as justification for this overreach the assumption that the statements are meant to be read in the worst was, and that they are "dog-whistles" to use the terminology from the summary.
Some people hear dog-whistles all the time, not aware that it's just the ringing in their own ears.
No, they aren't false. The myth that they are is pushed by people who stand to profit monetarily and/or politically from a wide-spread belief that they aren't true.
You can usually tell when a talking point is propaganda by the fact that it is asserted to be incontrovertible fact and that it is already commonly known, thus there is no point talking about it. Both of those tactics are repeatedly employed by both the gun grabbers and and ghetto strongmen politicians to score points in the sound-bite competition that we have allowed to pass for public debate in this country.
It's even better than that. Not only are they not drying to hide, they pop up whereever some offended snowflake deems them appropriate. Can't win an argument on merits? Call the other guy a Nazi and you're golden! I'll demonstrate:
1. American immigration laws should be enforced. 2. There is no evidence that police in America apply different standards to white citizens and non-white citizens. 3. Islamic fundamentalism motivates the violent act committed by many extremists and must be combated and defended against using within the framework of foreign diplomacy, foreign aid, military policy, and immigration policy. 4. Government benefits should only be provided to the demonstrably infirm or aged citizens and not be made available to able-bodied persons of working age. 5. Restrictions on the sale, ownership, or possession of firearms punish the law-abiding and do not make any dent in violent crime.
All of those are either factually true or present an opinion within the mainstream of acceptible American thought. How long will it take for someone to label one or all of them extreme and me an extremist beyond the pale of acceptable civil discourse.
I don't want to talk. I want to push a button and be done with it. Talking requires too much mental effort whereas button pushing is mostly muscle memory.
This applies to typing commands or search engine queries as well. If I type, I get exactly what I want in the search box. When talking, you're subject to whatever autocorrect the thing decides to apply to what you said. You know how annoying autocorrect on touchscreen keyboards is? Well, imaging the nuisance of it doing that to your voice prompts, except instead of being able to see and click or tap with a quick motion of the finger, you have to wait for it to process your words, then read it back to you (or not) and correct again. No thanks.
Voice control is for illiterate primitives. Civilized Man uses the written word.
And what alternative is that? Stand there bleeding and negotiating with that same office worker several states away, except he's now a federal employee can't be fired and who's under pressure to cut *taxpayer* spending on the biggest and most expensive government program anywhere ever?
No, it means you
1. Buy the coverage you need and not the coverage someone else tells you you need. As a man in his 30s, I don't need gynecological services, nor do I need breast cancer screenings. But the Obamacare Version 0 we have in Massachusetts says any health insurance I buy in the state must cover those services.
2. Don't elect to have things you don't need. Your flu shot doesn't need to come from an MD, or even an RN. It can come from a trained monkey at less cost. Dentistry is a model here. Don't want the super-expensive clear braces? Don't pay for them. Don't want to have your wisdom teeth out? Don't. Save a thousand or two on each. Same story with kids having their tonsils removed. Completely unnecessary, but expensive and therefore pushed as "best practice."
3. Make sure to pay the strawman his fee. No one is telling you to negotiate with the ambulance company while unconscious. I am telling you to do your homework when you buy coverage.
See. Perfect example. Changing definitions and playing word games. By this reasoning, the United States, Britain, France, and the Soviet Union were 'antifa.' What's it go to do with street thugs trashing cars and mailboxes in DC last January? Absolutely nothing. It's a lie. Every breath of it.
One left-wing troll story after another. Are you retards trying to hit your quote before the year is up or are is the supervision on their Christmas vacation this week?
Low orbit cleans itself up by atmospheric drag. There just isn't that much stuff in other orbits to worry about collision hazards. Further, it's not feasible to deorbit dead satellites out of geostationary orbits, but that's OK because there aren't many satellites there to start with, and won't be for a very very long time.
Cut back on the socialism for a second to examine the facts and you'll breathe easier.
Uh huh. Filler. For unimportant stuff. Like race riots in the streets. With body counts. Right down there with the fluff about getting a good deal on cars at the end of the model year.
Diversity of information sources is the key. Count up the number of news organizations there are. You'll probably come up with a dozen or two names in TV, newspaper, and online-only. That means the roughly two dozen people in charge of those operations are gate-keepers to everything you read out of them. Pay close attention and you occasionally see them copying from each other or sharing stories. That means there's less than two dozen or so people playing gatekeeper.
Shape of the Earth? Hundreds if not thousands of independent sources, both prominent and obscure, telling you it's round and telling you how you can see with your own eyes that it's round. And guess what, when you look...it's round.
Contrast that with the outright propaganda pumped out by a like-minded clique of a few dozen news editors telling you things that you see with your own eyes are false, and now you see the problem. I'll give an example. Last summer, Atlantic, NPR, NYT, and a few more came out with a fluff piece on Antifa. All of them used nearly the exact same wording to tell us that Antifa traces its roots to partisans fighting Nazis in occupied Poland. That's *not* a diversity of sources telling you something you can see with your own eyes to be true. It's the exact same PR copy coming at you from three different directions trying to guilt you into overlooking the fact that thugs are rioting in the streets over statues by using the exact same PR copy to imply to you heavily that they're what's really happening, what you're too dumb to see, is that the Emperor is decked out in his finest riot gear and is manning the barricades against the oncoming SS death squads.
See the difference? I didn't even have to bring up the JournoList, but what the heck: there are, in fact, documented cases of MSM journalists conspiring with each other to push a political agenda. And it's not an outlandish world-spanning conspiracy. It's a couple dozen people.
Indeed. Most people have actual jobs for a living, and of those, a fair fraction actually develop some degree of expertise in whatever it is they do. Journalists...politicians...what exactly is it that they do for a living or at the very least go to school for? Running their mouths. It takes about seven years to learn a job. What's a 25 year old pretty face on camera an expert at?
Slashdot Mirror
The definition of that arbitrary function is not known in the design phase. Its behavior is not known. Its variability is not known. Its susceptibility to false alarms and false positives in the presence of random and structured noise is not known. As this research has shown, that susceptibility appears to be quite high, and while the hackers know why, the designers may not. In computer geek terms: it's full of zero-day vulnerabilities waiting to be discovered.
This sea of ambiguity is in direct contrast with the traditional practice of engineering where the behavior of the physical objects used in the design is not only known, but it is extensively and exhaustively characterized over the full range of operating conditions expected of the finished product and beyond, with ample safety margins whose size is determined not by guesswork and rules of thumb but by rigorous statistical analysis of the variability in those expected physical conditions.
Same thing goes for equations and algorithms used in traditional engineering design. Their mathematical properties are known, and the models defined by those equations and algorithms are tested in physical experiments, not just software simulations. If software simulations are used for testing, then there are usually reams of paperwork and documentation ensuring that that software simulation models real physics to a prescribed accuracy. That's one of the reasons many engineering software codebases are dinosaur FORTRAN monoliths. They are validated against reality and the work of validating any rewrite in modern programming languages exceeds by a wide margin any annoyances from having to deal with the old codebases.
This because traditional engineering as a profession grew up in an era where consequences of mistakes cost human lives. The IT stuff did not grow up in that era for the most part and that's why there isn't the same level of professionalism in software. My degrees are in traditional engineering fields from ABET-accredited programs. But I mostly write code for a living and make one-off electronics for R&D, rather customer-facing, purposes. I never needed to get an engineering license for that and I didn't, though I have no qualms calling myself a "software engineer" or an "electronics engineer" informally. But I would never dream of using the 'E' word in a way that implied I was qualified to do engineering design of analysis for something my employer would sell to a customer that merited such analysis where, for example, safety of life were concerned.
My contention is that the academics who revived deep-learning and neural nets from mothballs in the last decade and sold it to the likes of Google and Facebook who use it mostly to score more eyeballs and clicks on ads don't have a visceral understanding of the distinction of the vast gulf between those two modes of thinking about "engineering." And they push neural networks as the panacea to places where it doesn't belong, like safety-of-life applications in self-driving cars.
Capitalism is funny that way.
AMD and Intel make parallel computing hardware add-ons as well, plus a bunch of little guys. Lesson to be drawn: don't code your stuff in CUDA, use OpenCL so that it is portable to other hardware in case any one vendor gets to big for his britches.
They still serve you ads. They push them as notifications and put them at the bottom of newly opened empty tabs. I bought one ad-free for the extra $20 a few years ago and it's the last device I'll ever buy from Amazon.
You don't even need real silicon, just a shared belief that it exists and that production targets will be met next quarter.
Don't play speech police. Yes, private property and all, but it's a statement of fact that your customers don't take too kindly to a platform that promises a public forum (speech) but with an asterisk. You don't look too good censoring one side but not the other already. You look worse when you give people in power a pass that ordinary users don't get. No way out of this one. Either complete freedom or complete lock-down.
Ugh indeed.
1. Vox and Mother Jones (which one of your links cites) are partisan publications, not neutral reporters of fact.
That aside,
2. Disproportionate police use of force with and arrests of members of different population groups do not imply different enforcement standards unless there is parity in overall rates of crime among those groups. Black Americans commit more crimes per capita and live in higher-crime neighborhoods on average. Thus more encounters with police. And often for good reason. Your purported source of neutral facts tacitly assumes things like that don't matter and you tacitly assume that disparate outcomes implies disparate treatment. It doesn't. White people who charge at cops also tend to catch a bullet for their troubles.
3. Sloppy wording and lose definitions make for the best scatter plots, don't they? "Gun-related" deaths includes suicides. Whether you chose to count it in the same statistic as homicide by firearm is nothing other than that: a choice. Count it to pad the numbers one way. Exclude it to pad the numbers the other way. Half of "gun-related" deaths are suicides in the US and while I don't have numbers for the other countries on the plot, let's say the slope of that line drops by half.
The per-state chart is another cart-before-the-horse abuse of statistics. My statement was about gun restrictions. The chart is about gun ownership. The two are not the same, and while the correlation is weak to start with, the argument for causation is not there. Minnesota, Vermont, Maine, Iowa, Utah and Oregon have large populations and high gun ownership but lower gun deaths per capita than Colorado, Nevada, Maryland, and Florida which also have high populations but lower gun ownership. Then there's Chicago and Maryland and Camden NJ in particular which has strict local and state laws and insane homicide rates.
I live in a similar part of the country. But I arrived there as an adult after having been born and raised elsewhere.
This is all true, and part of my point. You can read it either way, but there will be people who assume the worst and demand censorship immediately without discussion. Discussion will be pre-empted by labelling the speaker a nazi sympathizer and shaming any who would engage in the conversation as "normalizers" of extremism, using as justification for this overreach the assumption that the statements are meant to be read in the worst was, and that they are "dog-whistles" to use the terminology from the summary.
Some people hear dog-whistles all the time, not aware that it's just the ringing in their own ears.
No, they aren't false. The myth that they are is pushed by people who stand to profit monetarily and/or politically from a wide-spread belief that they aren't true.
You can usually tell when a talking point is propaganda by the fact that it is asserted to be incontrovertible fact and that it is already commonly known, thus there is no point talking about it. Both of those tactics are repeatedly employed by both the gun grabbers and and ghetto strongmen politicians to score points in the sound-bite competition that we have allowed to pass for public debate in this country.
You've just done it yourself.
It's even better than that. Not only are they not drying to hide, they pop up whereever some offended snowflake deems them appropriate. Can't win an argument on merits? Call the other guy a Nazi and you're golden! I'll demonstrate:
1. American immigration laws should be enforced.
2. There is no evidence that police in America apply different standards to white citizens and non-white citizens.
3. Islamic fundamentalism motivates the violent act committed by many extremists and must be combated and defended against using within the framework of foreign diplomacy, foreign aid, military policy, and immigration policy.
4. Government benefits should only be provided to the demonstrably infirm or aged citizens and not be made available to able-bodied persons of working age.
5. Restrictions on the sale, ownership, or possession of firearms punish the law-abiding and do not make any dent in violent crime.
All of those are either factually true or present an opinion within the mainstream of acceptible American thought. How long will it take for someone to label one or all of them extreme and me an extremist beyond the pale of acceptable civil discourse.
I don't want to talk. I want to push a button and be done with it. Talking requires too much mental effort whereas button pushing is mostly muscle memory.
This applies to typing commands or search engine queries as well. If I type, I get exactly what I want in the search box. When talking, you're subject to whatever autocorrect the thing decides to apply to what you said. You know how annoying autocorrect on touchscreen keyboards is? Well, imaging the nuisance of it doing that to your voice prompts, except instead of being able to see and click or tap with a quick motion of the finger, you have to wait for it to process your words, then read it back to you (or not) and correct again. No thanks.
Voice control is for illiterate primitives. Civilized Man uses the written word.
You people are why unicode is poison.
And what alternative is that? Stand there bleeding and negotiating with that same office worker several states away, except he's now a federal employee can't be fired and who's under pressure to cut *taxpayer* spending on the biggest and most expensive government program anywhere ever?
No, it means you
1. Buy the coverage you need and not the coverage someone else tells you you need. As a man in his 30s, I don't need gynecological services, nor do I need breast cancer screenings. But the Obamacare Version 0 we have in Massachusetts says any health insurance I buy in the state must cover those services.
2. Don't elect to have things you don't need. Your flu shot doesn't need to come from an MD, or even an RN. It can come from a trained monkey at less cost. Dentistry is a model here. Don't want the super-expensive clear braces? Don't pay for them. Don't want to have your wisdom teeth out? Don't. Save a thousand or two on each. Same story with kids having their tonsils removed. Completely unnecessary, but expensive and therefore pushed as "best practice."
3. Make sure to pay the strawman his fee. No one is telling you to negotiate with the ambulance company while unconscious. I am telling you to do your homework when you buy coverage.
Tell people they "deserve" healthcare services without having to worry about cost and they'll demand all sorts of needless things.
Pay medical practitioners by the procedure and they'll find all sorts of reasons to waste someone else's money.
Get government out of medicine and you might have people making rational decisions again.
The real question you should be asking is whether or not it's an improvement over the parade of SJW flamebait stories over the last week or so.
Spoiler alert: it isn't, and I'd wager not very many people are too stupid to tell.
Oh noes! Ya got me!
See. Perfect example. Changing definitions and playing word games. By this reasoning, the United States, Britain, France, and the Soviet Union were 'antifa.' What's it go to do with street thugs trashing cars and mailboxes in DC last January? Absolutely nothing. It's a lie. Every breath of it.
One left-wing troll story after another. Are you retards trying to hit your quote before the year is up or are is the supervision on their Christmas vacation this week?
Who modded this nonsense up?
Low orbit cleans itself up by atmospheric drag. There just isn't that much stuff in other orbits to worry about collision hazards. Further, it's not feasible to deorbit dead satellites out of geostationary orbits, but that's OK because there aren't many satellites there to start with, and won't be for a very very long time.
Cut back on the socialism for a second to examine the facts and you'll breathe easier.
Uh huh. Filler. For unimportant stuff. Like race riots in the streets. With body counts. Right down there with the fluff about getting a good deal on cars at the end of the model year.
Cute. No answer the question: how is Trump overreaching where his predecessor wasn't?
When Romney said it at a debate against Obama in '12, the same leftist media practically laughed him off the stage.
Diversity of information sources is the key. Count up the number of news organizations there are. You'll probably come up with a dozen or two names in TV, newspaper, and online-only. That means the roughly two dozen people in charge of those operations are gate-keepers to everything you read out of them. Pay close attention and you occasionally see them copying from each other or sharing stories. That means there's less than two dozen or so people playing gatekeeper.
Shape of the Earth? Hundreds if not thousands of independent sources, both prominent and obscure, telling you it's round and telling you how you can see with your own eyes that it's round. And guess what, when you look...it's round.
Contrast that with the outright propaganda pumped out by a like-minded clique of a few dozen news editors telling you things that you see with your own eyes are false, and now you see the problem. I'll give an example. Last summer, Atlantic, NPR, NYT, and a few more came out with a fluff piece on Antifa. All of them used nearly the exact same wording to tell us that Antifa traces its roots to partisans fighting Nazis in occupied Poland. That's *not* a diversity of sources telling you something you can see with your own eyes to be true. It's the exact same PR copy coming at you from three different directions trying to guilt you into overlooking the fact that thugs are rioting in the streets over statues by using the exact same PR copy to imply to you heavily that they're what's really happening, what you're too dumb to see, is that the Emperor is decked out in his finest riot gear and is manning the barricades against the oncoming SS death squads.
See the difference? I didn't even have to bring up the JournoList, but what the heck: there are, in fact, documented cases of MSM journalists conspiring with each other to push a political agenda. And it's not an outlandish world-spanning conspiracy. It's a couple dozen people.
Indeed. Most people have actual jobs for a living, and of those, a fair fraction actually develop some degree of expertise in whatever it is they do. Journalists...politicians...what exactly is it that they do for a living or at the very least go to school for? Running their mouths. It takes about seven years to learn a job. What's a 25 year old pretty face on camera an expert at?