"Thank you for adding some intelligence." "The biggest impact social media [has had] is the idea that if someone disagrees with you, it's because they are... stupid..."
did Mark Davis actually add intelligence, or do you just not disagree with him?
although this one isn't that good apart from the mockery and subject matter, i've found his other videos entertaining and interesting; I often listen to them in the background.
the closest thing to reportage here is links to a blog and also a graph of some sort i honestly don't have time to bother figuring out. it looks like temperature readings from... somewhere? someone?, hosted by "woodfortrees.org", which seem to support the claims of the blog post. um, okay? who the fuck are these people?
no, i'm not accusing slashdot editors of political bias. that is precluded by hanlon's razor, as they have already proven themselves utterly incompetent.
nor am i claiming that the story is even false. i just have no strong reason to believe it's true yet.
it's not true that there's nothing to see. local efficiency aside, it changes the economics of comparative advantage. that is, you might put up with trading with those barbarian savages for $foo over there because you're making so much more money producing $bar than $foo, that you don't produce $foo at all. however, if the startup cost of $foo is suddenly reduced by 4x (from 120 times to 30 times the cost of the barbarians' production), you might decide to take the economic hit for political advantage (starting or perpetuating a war to secure a vote has been around since humanity began) in belligerence.
sure, in mythical economic "long run", it all works out for the best, but you may not be surprised to hear that some people have shorter-term interests than that.
to elaborate slightly, i don't know how great those mental health centers were on average even when they did exist. there have certainly been horror stories; i just don't know whether they are representative. it's quite possible that they were just places to send humans to rot like garbage out of sight, and we decided not to waste the money on that since they could rot on the street just as well. i don't know.
iirc, mental health centers were cut back significantly under Reagan and no one's bothered to do much about it since then. that's one possible answer, though i'd say that a more accurate answer would be that we never really did.
all the clicking in the world doesn't help if you don't click in the right place at the right time. tbh i'm impressed the system even kept up with human players. real-time planning like this is difficult, even in a very limited setting.
another note: deep nets are so complicated, that explicit engineering isn't even really possible beyond a certain superficial level. sure, there's tinkering with representation, loss function, and the general architecture, but by-and-large, the system probably "learned" how to play on its own to a large degree. that said, i acknowledge the advantages the system had, and i don't take this entirely too seriously (it's just a video game after all). as i said, it's about keeping up at all; once you have that, winning is mostly a matter of successive optimization on better hardware.
the trend of needing fewer and fewer subject-matter experts for harder and harder problems is, i suppose, what's practically interesting here.
for instance, the performance of AI on simple video games is due, in part, to the fact that it simply has less latency in scanning the screen, pushing that information into a meat cortex, and pushing its meat appendage against an ergonomic device. this doesn't detract, imho, from the accomplishment (however much you may or may not think of it as significant in the first place).
as for cheating: well, i think people took a tech demo maybe a bit too seriously... it's still impressive imho, even if it was playing a "special edition" of dota2. i've seen much, much more incomplete proofs-of-concept get obscene funding.
if they only generated false positives, they'dn't be much of a problem. occasionally they generate true positives; even when it would be a false positive, the cop can sweeten the scene with some of his own stash, confiscated from earlier in the day.
Slashdot Mirror
well, shit! look at the brain on aaarrrgggh. you are one smart motherfucker, aaarrrgggh!
uh, Opportunist is still correct. no one would have noticed if these poors had died.
i mean, yeah, or you can just get news somewhere other than facebook.
"I don't know why phone cases don't include a manual shutter, even if it's just a silicone flap."
Because people would forget about it and then get annoyed with the case. Like you said, it's a UX decision.
"Thank you for adding some intelligence." ... stupid..."
"The biggest impact social media [has had] is the idea that if someone disagrees with you, it's because they are
did Mark Davis actually add intelligence, or do you just not disagree with him?
i suspect that the real answer to this involves John Perry Barlow getting really high with Whitfield Diffie once.
speaking of the "University of YouTube" and sovereign citizens, i found this one quite amusing: Lawyer Reacts to INSANE Lawsuit from Sovereign Citizen Law School Applicant.
although this one isn't that good apart from the mockery and subject matter, i've found his other videos entertaining and interesting; I often listen to them in the background.
the "theory" is called Raman spectroscopy and it's been oversold in a bunch of bullshit pseudo-scientific products recently.
the closest thing to reportage here is links to a blog and also a graph of some sort i honestly don't have time to bother figuring out. it looks like temperature readings from... somewhere? someone?, hosted by "woodfortrees.org", which seem to support the claims of the blog post. um, okay? who the fuck are these people?
no, i'm not accusing slashdot editors of political bias. that is precluded by hanlon's razor, as they have already proven themselves utterly incompetent.
nor am i claiming that the story is even false. i just have no strong reason to believe it's true yet.
cvrses! foiled again by moose and sqvirrel.
it's not true that there's nothing to see. local efficiency aside, it changes the economics of comparative advantage. that is, you might put up with trading with those barbarian savages for $foo over there because you're making so much more money producing $bar than $foo, that you don't produce $foo at all. however, if the startup cost of $foo is suddenly reduced by 4x (from 120 times to 30 times the cost of the barbarians' production), you might decide to take the economic hit for political advantage (starting or perpetuating a war to secure a vote has been around since humanity began) in belligerence.
sure, in mythical economic "long run", it all works out for the best, but you may not be surprised to hear that some people have shorter-term interests than that.
dude, everyone does that. it's just what uneducated fucks of any stripe do instead of talking.
who the fuck would offload actual work onto a phone?
interesting. since this is a political topic, i'll have to ask for references.
well, yes. but it's cheaper to just let them rot.
oh, and "crony" is superfluous here. you can just call it "capitalism".
you can do that, y'know. even in linux.
wealth densities. population is just a poor proxy. if the residents mattered enough, they'd have those amenities.
1. it was a joke.
2. we're working on your suggestion anyway.
to elaborate slightly, i don't know how great those mental health centers were on average even when they did exist. there have certainly been horror stories; i just don't know whether they are representative. it's quite possible that they were just places to send humans to rot like garbage out of sight, and we decided not to waste the money on that since they could rot on the street just as well. i don't know.
iirc, mental health centers were cut back significantly under Reagan and no one's bothered to do much about it since then. that's one possible answer, though i'd say that a more accurate answer would be that we never really did.
all the clicking in the world doesn't help if you don't click in the right place at the right time. tbh i'm impressed the system even kept up with human players. real-time planning like this is difficult, even in a very limited setting.
another note: deep nets are so complicated, that explicit engineering isn't even really possible beyond a certain superficial level. sure, there's tinkering with representation, loss function, and the general architecture, but by-and-large, the system probably "learned" how to play on its own to a large degree. that said, i acknowledge the advantages the system had, and i don't take this entirely too seriously (it's just a video game after all). as i said, it's about keeping up at all; once you have that, winning is mostly a matter of successive optimization on better hardware.
the trend of needing fewer and fewer subject-matter experts for harder and harder problems is, i suppose, what's practically interesting here.
yeah, i read that: "Machine Control of Semi-Autonomous Combatants in Simulated Areas of Conflict."
DoD money is great, isn't it?
for instance, the performance of AI on simple video games is due, in part, to the fact that it simply has less latency in scanning the screen, pushing that information into a meat cortex, and pushing its meat appendage against an ergonomic device. this doesn't detract, imho, from the accomplishment (however much you may or may not think of it as significant in the first place).
as for cheating: well, i think people took a tech demo maybe a bit too seriously... it's still impressive imho, even if it was playing a "special edition" of dota2. i've seen much, much more incomplete proofs-of-concept get obscene funding.
venmo me, but just call it "scientific equipment".
if they only generated false positives, they'dn't be much of a problem. occasionally they generate true positives; even when it would be a false positive, the cop can sweeten the scene with some of his own stash, confiscated from earlier in the day.