people who make comments like this should be forced to sit in a corner and stare at a plot of a geometric decay function until the point sinks in.
suppose that, each usage, there is a 1-in-1000 chance that you fuck up. if you use the pen 5 times a day, that's about an 80% chance by the end of the year that you've fucked up, and it apparently only has to happen once.
The upper tiers (no, i don't mean manager, necessarily) of any technical profession basically comprise offering your "opinion", albeit one which is tempered by a lot of experience, logical analysis, and education. Most peoples' delineation of "fact" vs. opinion is, actually, nothing more than a very uninformed opinion.
Linus Torvalds is probably not the best programmer in the world, but his opinions about practical kernel design are rather valuable. It's not a fallacy to act on that.
Finally, the truth or factuality of my statements is independent of whether i convince every schmuck on the internet of them. I simply don't owe everyone that much attention.
The internet fetishism of refuting arguments by referring to a list of fallacies has made this one particularly relevant. There's a degenerate meta-strategy which goes like this:
A: [says something totally batshit crazy] B: You're totally batshit crazy! A: That's an ad hominem attack! I win!
Why would one expect a vote (ostensibly about writing merit, whatever that may be), to track on race in the first place? It's such a bizarre hypothesis to put forward, that I have to wonder. The Nobel prizes regularly go to winners with IQs significantly above the voters', and the medals in the Special Olympics are just the opposite. Why would one expect demographics of readers of science fiction to proportionally represent the demographics of the writers of science fiction, whether there are more whites than blacks or more blacks than whites or more filipinos or gays or transgendered people, or whatever else?
yeah, most people don't bother with shit like that because they correctly don't give a shit about the ridiculous possibility of someone heat-scanning their phone (immediately after they key in their PIN and set it down without pressing anything else) to discover their super-secret address book.
but if you're really concerned, it's easily "defeated".
it's in the article. the devices usually don't have enough bitdepth to resolve order, but they found two s00p@r-s3kr!t ways to do it which they aren't disclosing.
uh, what would those diseases be? the only one i can readily think of is cervical cancer which, if your partner infers is from undisclosed HPV, that mostly just says they're crazy.
other diseases can cause genital irritation or discharge, conjunctivitis, lesions, etc., but again, assuming your partner isn't retarded or batshit crazy, it's pretty easy to distinguish the etiology. if your partner's immediate and irreversible conclusion from sores on your body is that you've been screwing around, something else is wrong.
don't underestimate the amount of engineering required for the logistical infrastructure amazon has built. even apart from their gargantuan supply chains of physical goods, they also broker incredible amounts of computing resources. even if you don't like amazon, the chances are high that a company you do like uses the AWS "cloud" heavily, or even exclusively.
Indeed. I remember you well, and we live daily with the shame you brought our organization. You were given one minor task, and could not redeem even that. Though it was a day of infamy, it could have been 1000 times greater and more harrowing to America if you had only followed the example of great martyrs Mohamed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi (peace be upon them!).
That you blame the warrior-poet Osama Bin Laden's "lack of planning" for your own incompetence is great heresy! We had doubts about recruiting a Lebanese, softened by Germany, but none of us could even have imagined such an off day as to be subdued by American civilians and lose one of our great weapons, the United Airlines Flight 93. Fortunately, the day was carried by your betters who are now in Paradise.
There will be no honor for the now-anonymous coward Ziad Jarrah, nor for his traitorous Jew-loving cousin Ali! May Allah curse your family for generations.
This problem takes care of itself, really. The modern web is run by advertising, whether you like it or not, and there's no point in advertising to poors. That hipster video is probably paying for the website, not vice-versa. Someone without decent enough internet to download that is either 1) poor, or 2) too smart to buy that crap anyway, so no website for them. Easy-peasy! The free market at work (well, except for the massive subsidies to build the infrastructure for TV+, err, I mean web 2.0).
neural nets with backpropagation are as deterministic as any other algorithm; if the inputs are the same and no one has "improved" the numerical routines, you should get the same result every time you run the training algorithm. yes, you can add stochasticity to NN training to try to improve convergence, but this is true about many algorithms (whether their implementors realize it or not). running the same trained, frozen neural net on the same input should definitely always give you the same result, unless something weird is happening (as it sometimes does).
i understand that in certain cases, we need provably correct results. my point is that "deterministic" is often (but not always) the wrong word, which i think you've illustrated.
what is up with people abusing the word "deterministic"? it has become a strange euphemism in the computing world, meaning something like "reliable" or "trustworthy".
a deterministic algorithm can fuck up really, really badly (especially when it takes input from untrained or possibly malicious humans), while there are several stochastic algorithms that work quite well, often provably so. even chip cores have layouts optimized by stochastic hill-climbing!
anyway, Google is in the business of showing person A what person B wants, which is usually the product of some person C. unless everyone in the world is non-racist, then of course the algorithms will either "be racist" or suboptimal. it would basically require a strong AI to change this. (A, B, C are not necessarily distinct.)
i see your point, but on the other hand, this does seem like fraud. intentionally lying in order to sell something people wouldn't otherwise want (or to buy something they would otherwise keep) has been illegal for a while, and most libertarians would agree that it should be. just because it's easy to do, or even if the quantities of money involved are relatively small, doesn't change the fact. it does make enforcement tricky but in principle i don't know if freedom of speech is intended to cover fraud.
otoh, all ideas are speech and money is now speech, so yeah, it seems like there's a bug somewhere.
"Mayor, can you confirm the allegation that the number of thefts has recently been increasing?"
"Under my term, violent assault has decreased."
maybe it's not a very good joke. i heard it from a mathematician who was pointing out that information, in a practical sense, is not the same thing as logical deduction. at some point you have to make assumptions, and those assumptions are often more important than the thought that follows (or, "garbage in, garbage out"). strictly speaking, what the politician said was just irrelevant; however, the evasion actually means that theft has probably been increasing.
the point is: when people qualify their statements as blatantly as this, it's as close as you ever get to someone saying "i'm trying to mislead you for my own benefit."
sounds like that $22M is a total bullshit figure, unless those 20K workers were each costing ~$300K/year and working solid days without wasting any time on coffee breaks, web browsing, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh the humanity...
people who make comments like this should be forced to sit in a corner and stare at a plot of a geometric decay function until the point sinks in.
suppose that, each usage, there is a 1-in-1000 chance that you fuck up. if you use the pen 5 times a day, that's about an 80% chance by the end of the year that you've fucked up, and it apparently only has to happen once.
The upper tiers (no, i don't mean manager, necessarily) of any technical profession basically comprise offering your "opinion", albeit one which is tempered by a lot of experience, logical analysis, and education. Most peoples' delineation of "fact" vs. opinion is, actually, nothing more than a very uninformed opinion.
Linus Torvalds is probably not the best programmer in the world, but his opinions about practical kernel design are rather valuable. It's not a fallacy to act on that.
Finally, the truth or factuality of my statements is independent of whether i convince every schmuck on the internet of them. I simply don't owe everyone that much attention.
I suppose. In the real world, though, I get paid quite a bit to impart my knowledge on people. Occasionally even respected.
Doesn't seem worthwhile to spend that much time explaining things to something which is, at best, a brick wall.
The internet fetishism of refuting arguments by referring to a list of fallacies has made this one particularly relevant. There's a degenerate meta-strategy which goes like this:
A: [says something totally batshit crazy]
B: You're totally batshit crazy!
A: That's an ad hominem attack! I win!
It's all rather amusing, really.
Why would one expect a vote (ostensibly about writing merit, whatever that may be), to track on race in the first place? It's such a bizarre hypothesis to put forward, that I have to wonder. The Nobel prizes regularly go to winners with IQs significantly above the voters', and the medals in the Special Olympics are just the opposite. Why would one expect demographics of readers of science fiction to proportionally represent the demographics of the writers of science fiction, whether there are more whites than blacks or more blacks than whites or more filipinos or gays or transgendered people, or whatever else?
yeah, most people don't bother with shit like that because they correctly don't give a shit about the ridiculous possibility of someone heat-scanning their phone (immediately after they key in their PIN and set it down without pressing anything else) to discover their super-secret address book.
but if you're really concerned, it's easily "defeated".
it's in the article. the devices usually don't have enough bitdepth to resolve order, but they found two s00p@r-s3kr!t ways to do it which they aren't disclosing.
Just wipe the screen or keys and then breathe on it, if you're really worried about this (there's very, very little reason to be, really).
With modern oleophobic screens you might not even need to wipe it down.
uh, what would those diseases be? the only one i can readily think of is cervical cancer which, if your partner infers is from undisclosed HPV, that mostly just says they're crazy.
other diseases can cause genital irritation or discharge, conjunctivitis, lesions, etc., but again, assuming your partner isn't retarded or batshit crazy, it's pretty easy to distinguish the etiology. if your partner's immediate and irreversible conclusion from sores on your body is that you've been screwing around, something else is wrong.
rational?
don't underestimate the amount of engineering required for the logistical infrastructure amazon has built. even apart from their gargantuan supply chains of physical goods, they also broker incredible amounts of computing resources. even if you don't like amazon, the chances are high that a company you do like uses the AWS "cloud" heavily, or even exclusively.
read literally, it would mean "feeling like algae" (phykos/phycos=seaweed + pathos=feeling).
Want healthy, long-term productive employees?
Well, no, not really.
Indeed. I remember you well, and we live daily with the shame you brought our organization. You were given one minor task, and could not redeem even that. Though it was a day of infamy, it could have been 1000 times greater and more harrowing to America if you had only followed the example of great martyrs Mohamed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi (peace be upon them!).
That you blame the warrior-poet Osama Bin Laden's "lack of planning" for your own incompetence is great heresy! We had doubts about recruiting a Lebanese, softened by Germany, but none of us could even have imagined such an off day as to be subdued by American civilians and lose one of our great weapons, the United Airlines Flight 93. Fortunately, the day was carried by your betters who are now in Paradise.
There will be no honor for the now-anonymous coward Ziad Jarrah, nor for his traitorous Jew-loving cousin Ali! May Allah curse your family for generations.
Every other article: complaints about how websites are bloated and online video is mostly bullshit.
This article: OMG 1.5Mbps isn't enough to watch videos online!1!1!! lollololol commies!
This problem takes care of itself, really. The modern web is run by advertising, whether you like it or not, and there's no point in advertising to poors. That hipster video is probably paying for the website, not vice-versa. Someone without decent enough internet to download that is either 1) poor, or 2) too smart to buy that crap anyway, so no website for them. Easy-peasy! The free market at work (well, except for the massive subsidies to build the infrastructure for TV+, err, I mean web 2.0).
neural nets with backpropagation are as deterministic as any other algorithm; if the inputs are the same and no one has "improved" the numerical routines, you should get the same result every time you run the training algorithm. yes, you can add stochasticity to NN training to try to improve convergence, but this is true about many algorithms (whether their implementors realize it or not). running the same trained, frozen neural net on the same input should definitely always give you the same result, unless something weird is happening (as it sometimes does).
i understand that in certain cases, we need provably correct results. my point is that "deterministic" is often (but not always) the wrong word, which i think you've illustrated.
seriously. "ginger" isn't even hard to figure out, as far as anagrams go.
what is up with people abusing the word "deterministic"? it has become a strange euphemism in the computing world, meaning something like "reliable" or "trustworthy".
a deterministic algorithm can fuck up really, really badly (especially when it takes input from untrained or possibly malicious humans), while there are several stochastic algorithms that work quite well, often provably so. even chip cores have layouts optimized by stochastic hill-climbing!
anyway, Google is in the business of showing person A what person B wants, which is usually the product of some person C. unless everyone in the world is non-racist, then of course the algorithms will either "be racist" or suboptimal. it would basically require a strong AI to change this. (A, B, C are not necessarily distinct.)
Where is Eric S. Raymond when you need him? I'm sure a Level 5 Pagan could clear up all of this irrational nonsense for us.
I don't think Alex Jones represents "the Christian POV".
i see your point, but on the other hand, this does seem like fraud. intentionally lying in order to sell something people wouldn't otherwise want (or to buy something they would otherwise keep) has been illegal for a while, and most libertarians would agree that it should be. just because it's easy to do, or even if the quantities of money involved are relatively small, doesn't change the fact. it does make enforcement tricky but in principle i don't know if freedom of speech is intended to cover fraud.
otoh, all ideas are speech and money is now speech, so yeah, it seems like there's a bug somewhere.
it reminds me of that joke.
"Mayor, can you confirm the allegation that the number of thefts has recently been increasing?"
"Under my term, violent assault has decreased."
maybe it's not a very good joke. i heard it from a mathematician who was pointing out that information, in a practical sense, is not the same thing as logical deduction. at some point you have to make assumptions, and those assumptions are often more important than the thought that follows (or, "garbage in, garbage out"). strictly speaking, what the politician said was just irrelevant; however, the evasion actually means that theft has probably been increasing.
the point is: when people qualify their statements as blatantly as this, it's as close as you ever get to someone saying "i'm trying to mislead you for my own benefit."
sounds like that $22M is a total bullshit figure, unless those 20K workers were each costing ~$300K/year and working solid days without wasting any time on coffee breaks, web browsing, etc.
get another job and quit falling for bullshit.