It also shows up Intel as kind of being full of shit and intentionally going out their way to stop people simply doing a chip-swap upgrade to foist unnecessary MB upgrades. If you read the original discussion thread on the overclock forum, it appears intel has been a bit deceptive about pin outs in order to discourage people working this out.
I basically log into WoW to meet people I know there. I also have no problems finding enough time for work and other personal interests besides gaming. Yet I log into WoW almost every day. Am I doing this "addiction" thing wrong?
Well this here kind of indicates that since its not impairing you, then probably not.
But it also highlights one of the friction lines that philosophers have made (particularly the phenomenologists) regarding psychiatry that a lot of what are called "mental illnesses" dont seem to really have much to do with "illness" and more to do with alternative ways of cognition. Lets take someone whos mildly autistic, but none the less has a reasonable social life, love life, work life etc. What exactly is "ill" about it? Wheres the impairment? Woudlnt it just be easier to note the guys wired a bit differently. A lot of things classed as mental illnesses dont really seem to be dehabilitating things, or causing distress or harm. Largely psychiatry has taken this on board, removing homosexuality for instance off the box because theres no evidence its any more harmful than being left handed. Transgenderism is off the books too , and replaced with an alternative diagnosis that applies specifically to distress caused by it when young people realise they are transgendered and freak the fuck out because they dont want to be but cant seem to change it.
So is someone who plays WoW every day "mentally ill"?. No, unless its causing them harm or distress. For many, its just how they live their life, and thats fine.
Seriously. Safari uses a "smart brackets" scheme to turn curly brackets into left and right brackets.Which is unicode. Slashdot just splatters it all over the place. A decade ago this might be semi acceptable as a lot of places where still using legacy code that made unicode fiddly to deal with, but in 2017 modern web frameworks handle unicode more or less transparently.
Granted Slashdot still runs off crusty old Perl, surely its not THAT hard to update to modern unicofe handling.
I've known people who have been pretty savagely hooked on WoW or other MMOs, but I strongly suspect video game addiction isnt a disease, its a symptom of something deeper like social anxieties (Easier to grind dungeons than make IRL friends), poor executive cognitive function (Ie being garbage at making life priorities and staying on task) or depression.
But a stand-alone mental disorder? How do you even define that, whats the cut off point and why. Seems spurious to me.
It is conceptually closer to Embarcadero's (Delphi) proprietary FireMonkey framework. Both use rendered widgets with a GPU accelerated backend.
So by "modern" we're talking about 90s technology rebranded for the web age?
Because while the old delphi component model was convenient (And I say this with the utmost respect, I spent 15 years as a delphi coder), it lead to some seriously unmaintainable code that modern techniques like the MVC frameworks and even newer ideas like Flux et al sought to fix.
Or is this one of those things like NoSQL where marketers drag out bad ideas we abandoned in the 80s and 90s, and sell them again as the next big thing because most coders are too young to remember why it was a bad idea in the first place?
Flutter is the most modern cross-platform mobile framework yet.
- The API is very high level (component oriented). Very easy to pick up. - The tooling is the best there is. Hot reload is fantastic. Only WYSIWYG editors are missing, but UI design is just editing component trees. - Not a Javascript hybrid framework. - Native compilation. - Talks to the platform API, although a bit clunky on that front. - Google's framework (This may be a con for some). - Free.
So..... basically ReactJS, with a proprietry moon language thrown in, and no JSX?
Seriously dude, Flutter is only "modern" if you havent kept up with what the rest of the world is actually doing.
I waa skeptical at first about the russian thing, but watching one particularly dubious account I noticeed it acciidently posted its 'ra ra americana trump is the best' thing as coming from Moscow on the twitter geolocation thing. Big old HMMMMM from me on that one.
So yeah, theres definately something fishy going on with these bots and troll accounts.
The biggest threat to Trump is the gullibility of morons like you. The dems have been FAR FAR FAR more creative with the truth than Trump could ever be.
Branson hasnt got a lot of involvement in Hyperloop one. He just put an investment in last year of reasonable enough size to warrant whacking Virgin in front of the name
Such models have no common sense yet - can't tell if "the use of the umbrella causes the rain or the other way around". They can't think like us, they just copy text and try to hit all the sub-topics with naturally sounding language based on the source material. It's more similar to Google translator than a human Wikipedia editor.
Hmm. Don't be so sure. There is a certain sense that embodiment, being in a body, is a necessary part of familiar intelligence. Humans are to some extent the way we are because we are lugging a very needy meat machine around, but its also a meat machine that provides us with lots of useful "common sense", that the rain didnt come from the umbrella, for instance. But even without it, its basic induction that because it also rains when there isn't an umbrella, the umbrella isnt the important correlation. And thats something AI should in theory handle trivially.
The only thing it wont handle so obviously, is the embodiment parts. What it actually means to be human. What the qualia of hunger is, what it feels like to really get unhinged over sexual attraction, the joy of sleep, and the misery of sickness. I mean it could fake it, but its going to struggle with it. Then again, I read stories about AI's being better at reading human emotions than humans, and I guess we're in unknown country with this science.
We should distrust it completely, as the paper gives no examples of any of the tweets or accounts they classified as being "bots". None whatsoever. Lots and lots of stats about their model and many implausible claims of it being perfect, but nothing that could be used to actually verify their claims.
Or alternatively you could have read the paper and seen that it used the Cresci/De Pietro/Petrocchi/et..al dataset which is publically available and has been for a while now.
If you read the actual paper you'd know exactly how much confidence one can place. (Hint, its extremely high). 96% on a single tweet text read, up to over 99% once network , metadata and other factors are taken into account.
6 CONCLUSIONS Given the prevalence of sophisticated bots on social media platforms such as Twitter, the need for improved, inexpensive bot detection methods is apparent. We proposed a novel contextual LSTM architecture allowing us to use both tweet content and metadata to detect bots at the tweet level. From a single tweet, our model can achieve an extremely high accuracy exceeding 96% AUC. We show that the additional metadata information, though a weak predictor of the nature of a Twitter account per se, when exploited by LSTM decreases the error rate by nearly 20%. In addition to this, we propose methods based on synthetic minority oversampling that yield a near perfect user-level detection accuracy (> 99% AUC).
So how much should we distrust this? Unless that under 1% really upsets you, I'd say "Almost completely"
Would alien life fear us or welcome us, that is the question.
I'm fairly convinced any discovery of alien life is bad bad news for us. If its the more likely finding if microbial life, we'd have to wonder what happened to the complex life, and is there some "great filter" that means our time is numbered.
And if its complex grey-alien type life, we're screwed because they'd take one look at our hyper aggressive territorial species that's insane enough to use nukes on our own species and conclude that since we're on the brink of hitting the stars were simply far too dangerous to keep around.
But you see that is the problem; those things are never defined,
Clearly this isn't true however. Regularly courts are able to make legal rulings based on it, and in this case companies able to make legal decisions based on it. That means, its well defined. One thing working in courts taught me is that where something IS poorly defined, the first thing that happens is a judge defines it. Then it is clearly defined.
DIscrimination laws and the like are often very long and complicated precisely because defining the terms are important.
Good. The more anal Microsoft is, the more incentive to rescue these refurbs from the dark side, and install Linux or FreeBSD on them. In the long run, we are not helping poor people by giving them computers with "free" closed source OSes.
A moral goal obtained at the expense of someone else's freedom is hardly moral if that some else was pursuing a compatible moral goal (Ie both in the name of easy access to software) too. Because ultimately its contradictory, and it uses people as merely means to an end and is contradictory. And yeah de-ontological arguments have their limits, but ratfucking people who are basically brothers in cause is hardly a commendable thing
A friend of mine is a journalist who makes his living off the website he writes for now that the newspaper it sprung out of has died. That means he's 100% dependent on ads to pay the rent (The sites fairly opposed to paywalls). So understandably he's got a bee in his bonnet about ad blockers.
My self on the other hand actively advocate people using full strength no exception ad blocking, simply because I've had on more than one occasion been pwned by zero days sprung out of advertisements dropping malware on my machines without my consent. In the current deeply unethical state of internet advertising, its just too dangerous to permit ads in my browsers.
And so we have a problem. Because without good writers and content makers being able to make a living off their trade, we're going to lose a lot of the good content on the net to paywalls, and a lot of content makers are simply going to quit. And thats BAD for the internet.
So maybe companies like Google and Apple laying smackdowns on badvertising , despite the conflict of interests involved might be what it takes to save the internets content infrastructure from the slow death that losing advertising might bring
The Climate Science community has shown itself to be rather untrustworthy when it comes to data.
Luckilly we have conspiracy theorist anonymous cowards to show those pesky scientists the truth
From "hide the decline"
A conservative talking-point discredited a long time ago. The "hide the decline" was a reference to a well understood flaw in arctic treeline tree ring data where Carbon isotope ratios go out of whack sometime in the 1980s, roughly around the time of cheynobyl. The "hide the decline" is a reference to removing faulty data. Scientists cleaning out errors is a stupid reason to distrust scientists
to the wholesale guesstimation of temperatures over the vast majority of the globe
A thing that doesnt actually happen.
, to their explicit political activism, any statement about fact from these people should be looked at with a ton of salt.
Methodologies, original data, modifications to data, all need to be disclosed and justified...explicitly. Unfortunately, scientists seem loath to do this.
How exactly is it innappropriate to request records of semi-public statements by an unelected member of the executive branch that reflect heavily on the growing evidence that he's unsuitable and hopelessly corrupt at the role? FOI excemption rules only protect personal information, national security secrets and certain deliberative exchanges (Ie discussions between work collegues). This fits none of those criteria and I doubt it would survive a court challenge
My grandfther, had he not died abouty 5 years ago, might well have come close to these. His first pieces of software where in the late 1960s whilst he was working as a research chemist at the CSIRO. He continued writing software throught his career, particularly writing it for the mainframes used at the BP refinery he worked at , for IBM and VAX mainframes. By the time he passed away 5 years ago, he was still coding bits and pieces on his trusty old PC
Skeptical science dot com? You might as well have posted from dailykos or Fox News for all those biased jerks are worth reading.
My comment stands. Oceans have continued to rise at same slow pace since last ice age (despite false claims from faked up pseudo science web sites).
Its a pop science, not pseudo-science site. Its accurate, but simplified, and its widely respected in the scientific community as a reliable and accurate public science site.
I'm sure theses others, but those where just some of the references off the *very* page you dishonestly try to handwave as 'pseudoscience".
You can't just throw mud like that at widely respected sources of information without at least justifying who so much of the scientific community is wrong, but random AC on the internet is right
because it's not a problem with github; it's a problem with morons misusing github.
Shrugging off a probblem and saying "Its misuse, its not us" was exactly the attitude microsoft took to security in the mid ninteys that gave windows the attrocious reputation for security it has.
Username re-use is a LONG established security fail, especially in conjunction with githubs provision of security crtitical REST endpoints. Sure it requires a malicious human to exploit the vunerability, but thats true of all security failures.
Hmm to some extent but not quite how you say. Theres bit of a myth that a photographer needs your permission if they photograph you. They really don't, or news reporting would be nigh on impossible. If your in a public place, you arent held by the courts as having an "implicit right to privacy".
When it comes to Cops type shows, thats very different, because its about two things 1) Implying someone is a criminal which might be held to be defamatory if the person is innocent, and 2) Prejudicing juries in the case of impending trials. Arguably theres a third case of Protecting witnesses too.
The defamation things important here. Because thats ultimately whats alleged with these. Depicting a mainstream actress being bukaked by a room of mustached dwarves might well lead people to the opinion that the actress was off a low moral standing, which could have drastic effects on their employability. That would be a text book defamation case, and unfortunatetly sticking "Its fake!" under the video might not be enough to sway a jury that there is no possibility of mistaken impressions, especially with the habit videos have of taking lives of their own on the net.
And regardless, its pretty clear its going to be deeply upsetting to the actress and the actress family to witness a video of themselves in an ultrareilistic gangbang. The potential of causing emotional distress is very high, and yes, that can certainly be grounds for judicial intervention
Slashdot Mirror
Its a hobby.
It also shows up Intel as kind of being full of shit and intentionally going out their way to stop people simply doing a chip-swap upgrade to foist unnecessary MB upgrades. If you read the original discussion thread on the overclock forum, it appears intel has been a bit deceptive about pin outs in order to discourage people working this out.
Well this here kind of indicates that since its not impairing you, then probably not.
But it also highlights one of the friction lines that philosophers have made (particularly the phenomenologists) regarding psychiatry that a lot of what are called "mental illnesses" dont seem to really have much to do with "illness" and more to do with alternative ways of cognition. Lets take someone whos mildly autistic, but none the less has a reasonable social life, love life, work life etc. What exactly is "ill" about it? Wheres the impairment? Woudlnt it just be easier to note the guys wired a bit differently. A lot of things classed as mental illnesses dont really seem to be dehabilitating things, or causing distress or harm. Largely psychiatry has taken this on board, removing homosexuality for instance off the box because theres no evidence its any more harmful than being left handed. Transgenderism is off the books too , and replaced with an alternative diagnosis that applies specifically to distress caused by it when young people realise they are transgendered and freak the fuck out because they dont want to be but cant seem to change it.
So is someone who plays WoW every day "mentally ill"?. No, unless its causing them harm or distress. For many, its just how they live their life, and thats fine.
Seriously. Safari uses a "smart brackets" scheme to turn curly brackets into left and right brackets.Which is unicode. Slashdot just splatters it all over the place. A decade ago this might be semi acceptable as a lot of places where still using legacy code that made unicode fiddly to deal with, but in 2017 modern web frameworks handle unicode more or less transparently.
Granted Slashdot still runs off crusty old Perl, surely its not THAT hard to update to modern unicofe handling.
I've known people who have been pretty savagely hooked on WoW or other MMOs, but I strongly suspect video game addiction isnt a disease, its a symptom of something deeper like social anxieties (Easier to grind dungeons than make IRL friends), poor executive cognitive function (Ie being garbage at making life priorities and staying on task) or depression.
But a stand-alone mental disorder? How do you even define that, whats the cut off point and why. Seems spurious to me.
Imagine if they installed it on a beowulf cluster.
We'sd probably end up with grits in our pants.
So by "modern" we're talking about 90s technology rebranded for the web age?
Because while the old delphi component model was convenient (And I say this with the utmost respect, I spent 15 years as a delphi coder), it lead to some seriously unmaintainable code that modern techniques like the MVC frameworks and even newer ideas like Flux et al sought to fix.
Or is this one of those things like NoSQL where marketers drag out bad ideas we abandoned in the 80s and 90s, and sell them again as the next big thing because most coders are too young to remember why it was a bad idea in the first place?
So..... basically ReactJS, with a proprietry moon language thrown in, and no JSX?
Seriously dude, Flutter is only "modern" if you havent kept up with what the rest of the world is actually doing.
I waa skeptical at first about the russian thing, but watching one particularly dubious account I noticeed it acciidently posted its 'ra ra americana trump is the best' thing as coming from Moscow on the twitter geolocation thing. Big old HMMMMM from me on that one.
So yeah, theres definately something fishy going on with these bots and troll accounts.
Hell of a claim...
Got any examples?
Branson hasnt got a lot of involvement in Hyperloop one. He just put an investment in last year of reasonable enough size to warrant whacking Virgin in front of the name
I think I have my new pretend fact for upsetting my super-devout linux buddies.
Bing means "Bing is not GNU"
figure a fake Gates quote to use with one of those "inspiring quote" images of Bill , and theres an object de art of perfect troll spam
Hmm. Don't be so sure. There is a certain sense that embodiment, being in a body, is a necessary part of familiar intelligence. Humans are to some extent the way we are because we are lugging a very needy meat machine around, but its also a meat machine that provides us with lots of useful "common sense", that the rain didnt come from the umbrella, for instance. But even without it, its basic induction that because it also rains when there isn't an umbrella, the umbrella isnt the important correlation. And thats something AI should in theory handle trivially.
The only thing it wont handle so obviously, is the embodiment parts. What it actually means to be human. What the qualia of hunger is, what it feels like to really get unhinged over sexual attraction, the joy of sleep, and the misery of sickness. I mean it could fake it, but its going to struggle with it. Then again, I read stories about AI's being better at reading human emotions than humans, and I guess we're in unknown country with this science.
Or alternatively you could have read the paper and seen that it used the Cresci/De Pietro/Petrocchi/et..al dataset which is publically available and has been for a while now.
If you read the actual paper you'd know exactly how much confidence one can place. (Hint, its extremely high). 96% on a single tweet text read, up to over 99% once network , metadata and other factors are taken into account.
So how much should we distrust this? Unless that under 1% really upsets you, I'd say "Almost completely"
I'm fairly convinced any discovery of alien life is bad bad news for us.
If its the more likely finding if microbial life, we'd have to wonder what happened to the complex life, and is there some "great filter" that means our time is numbered.
And if its complex grey-alien type life, we're screwed because they'd take one look at our hyper aggressive territorial species that's insane enough to use nukes on our own species and conclude that since we're on the brink of hitting the stars were simply far too dangerous to keep around.
Clearly this isn't true however. Regularly courts are able to make legal rulings based on it, and in this case companies able to make legal decisions based on it. That means, its well defined. One thing working in courts taught me is that where something IS poorly defined, the first thing that happens is a judge defines it. Then it is clearly defined.
DIscrimination laws and the like are often very long and complicated precisely because defining the terms are important.
A moral goal obtained at the expense of someone else's freedom is hardly moral if that some else was pursuing a compatible moral goal (Ie both in the name of easy access to software) too. Because ultimately its contradictory, and it uses people as merely means to an end and is contradictory. And yeah de-ontological arguments have their limits, but ratfucking people who are basically brothers in cause is hardly a commendable thing
Its kind of critical at the moment.
A friend of mine is a journalist who makes his living off the website he writes for now that the newspaper it sprung out of has died. That means he's 100% dependent on ads to pay the rent (The sites fairly opposed to paywalls). So understandably he's got a bee in his bonnet about ad blockers.
My self on the other hand actively advocate people using full strength no exception ad blocking, simply because I've had on more than one occasion been pwned by zero days sprung out of advertisements dropping malware on my machines without my consent. In the current deeply unethical state of internet advertising, its just too dangerous to permit ads in my browsers.
And so we have a problem. Because without good writers and content makers being able to make a living off their trade, we're going to lose a lot of the good content on the net to paywalls, and a lot of content makers are simply going to quit. And thats BAD for the internet.
So maybe companies like Google and Apple laying smackdowns on badvertising , despite the conflict of interests involved might be what it takes to save the internets content infrastructure from the slow death that losing advertising might bring
Luckilly we have conspiracy theorist anonymous cowards to show those pesky scientists the truth
A conservative talking-point discredited a long time ago. The "hide the decline" was a reference to a well understood flaw in arctic treeline tree ring data where Carbon isotope ratios go out of whack sometime in the 1980s, roughly around the time of cheynobyl. The "hide the decline" is a reference to removing faulty data. Scientists cleaning out errors is a stupid reason to distrust scientists
A thing that doesnt actually happen.
Oh put a sock in it, crazy person.
How exactly is it innappropriate to request records of semi-public statements by an unelected member of the executive branch that reflect heavily on the growing evidence that he's unsuitable and hopelessly corrupt at the role? FOI excemption rules only protect personal information, national security secrets and certain deliberative exchanges (Ie discussions between work collegues). This fits none of those criteria and I doubt it would survive a court challenge
Well Iâ(TM)m sure glad random anonymous coward is here to point out how all the scientists are wrong. Thank god for the internet!
My grandfther, had he not died abouty 5 years ago, might well have come close to these. His first pieces of software where in the late 1960s whilst he was working as a research chemist at the CSIRO. He continued writing software throught his career, particularly writing it for the mainframes used at the BP refinery he worked at , for IBM and VAX mainframes. By the time he passed away 5 years ago, he was still coding bits and pieces on his trusty old PC
Its a pop science, not pseudo-science site. Its accurate, but simplified, and its widely respected in the scientific community as a reliable and accurate public science site.
However. You want actual papers huh?
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~ste...
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holoc...
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holoc...
http://science.sciencemag.org/...
http://www.pnas.org/content/pn...
I'm sure theses others, but those where just some of the references off the *very* page you dishonestly try to handwave as 'pseudoscience".
You can't just throw mud like that at widely respected sources of information without at least justifying who so much of the scientific community is wrong, but random AC on the internet is right
Shrugging off a probblem and saying "Its misuse, its not us" was exactly the attitude microsoft took to security in the mid ninteys that gave windows the attrocious reputation for security it has.
Username re-use is a LONG established security fail, especially in conjunction with githubs provision of security crtitical REST endpoints. Sure it requires a malicious human to exploit the vunerability, but thats true of all security failures.
Hmm to some extent but not quite how you say. Theres bit of a myth that a photographer needs your permission if they photograph you. They really don't, or news reporting would be nigh on impossible. If your in a public place, you arent held by the courts as having an "implicit right to privacy".
When it comes to Cops type shows, thats very different, because its about two things 1) Implying someone is a criminal which might be held to be defamatory if the person is innocent, and 2) Prejudicing juries in the case of impending trials. Arguably theres a third case of Protecting witnesses too.
The defamation things important here. Because thats ultimately whats alleged with these. Depicting a mainstream actress being bukaked by a room of mustached dwarves might well lead people to the opinion that the actress was off a low moral standing, which could have drastic effects on their employability. That would be a text book defamation case, and unfortunatetly sticking "Its fake!" under the video might not be enough to sway a jury that there is no possibility of mistaken impressions, especially with the habit videos have of taking lives of their own on the net.
And regardless, its pretty clear its going to be deeply upsetting to the actress and the actress family to witness a video of themselves in an ultrareilistic gangbang. The potential of causing emotional distress is very high, and yes, that can certainly be grounds for judicial intervention