Read the paper. It gives a probability density function. A result outside the PDF would falsify the paper. Of course, what’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?
Yes, and that conclusion makes no sense. A classification algorithm for admission to an engineering school doesn't classify people based on whether they "are engineers", they classify people based on whether they are likely to succeed as engineers, a completely different question.
Semantics. Swap the wording if you like. The result is the same.
Furthermore, people don't "insinuate those factors" into classification algorithms; factors are used only if they are actually predictive..
Your certainty is unjustified. Deep learning models are considered to be “black-boxes”. Black box models lack transparency. It is often impossible to understand how and why a result was achieved. Likely an AI would be given a large dataset -- certainly more than SAT score alone. Can you be certain that nothing in that dataset would identify race or gender? Even course history could betray this data.
That would happen if admissions algorithms classify students according to "is the person an engineer", but that's not what they do.
It is not inconceivable that an admissions algorithm would be trained using a data set of successful engineers. As noted above, even something as benign as course history could betray the gender or race of the candidate. How would you know how large a factor race and gender played in the decision?
I don't even think you know what institutionalized bias is.
Again you have attributed a quote to me that I have never written nor uttered. You have yet to respond without trying to put words in my mouth. This is a very disingenuous tactic. I'm happy to discuss this with you but please engage with what I've actually said.
How do you get from the observation that the typical engineer in the US is white and male to "use that classification algorithm to filter who gets admitted into the college of engineering"?
So, stop avoiding the issue and answer the question.
I start with the observation that genitalia and colour are not actually part of the definition of an engineer. I then note that if you insinuate those factors into your classification algorithm then you have exactly an institutionalized bias. I conclude that it becomes a real problem If you then use that classification algorithm to filter who gets admitted into the college of engineering. The algorithm then reinforces its own bias.
How do you get from the observation that the typical engineer in the US is white and male to "we filter applications based on race and gender"?
You put those words between quotes, but it isn't a quote. Those words are your own. What I said was:
"Genitalia and colour are not actually part of the definition of an engineer. If you insinuate those factors into your classification algorithm then you have exactly an institutionalized bias. It becomes a real problem If you then use that classification algorithm to filter who gets admitted into the college of engineering. The algorithm then reinforces its own bias."
Picking typical representatives of a class to represent the class is not an "institutionalized bias".
Genitalia and colour are not actually part of the definition of an engineer. If you insinuate those factors into your classification algorithm then you have exactly an institutionalized bias. It becomes a real problem If you then use that classification algorithm to filter who gets admitted into the college of engineering. The algorithm then reinforces its own bias.
Lady Ada: "We're engineers, but historically when there was a photo of an engineer..."
James McLurkin: "It didn't look like either of us."
Lady Ada: "I think this is something that we think about because, what is an engineer semantically? We know it isn't by definition a 35 year old white male who lives in San Francisco."
James McLurkin: "But if you look at the magazine covers, if your dataset of engineers is magazine covers...
It's an interesting point. The last thing we want to do is institutionalize our biases.
So this person wants to be away from government regulation, such as regulation on carbon dioxide emissions,...and is preparing for climate change refugees. This seems highly contradictory as one would normally expect such a person to be in favour of regulations to prevent climate change.
There are certainly people who reject science because of the regulatory implications. In that case they are selecting for facts based on a desired conclusion. That is the irrational position. Surely one should base a conclusion on the available facts.
Nathalie Mezza-Garcia, on the other hand, accepts the best available science even though she is opposed to the regulatory implications. That is rational. In addition, she proposes an alternative to regulation. That is also rational.
This is really the debate we should be having. What mix of mitigation/adaptation is appropriate? Her solution of zero mitigation may seem extreme, but it is at least rational.
When the computer hacking laws were introduced, that was one of the drawbacks: Intent does not matter, for the law. So in this case, it is just the law enforcement being nice in not pursuing the case while they are convinced there was no intent.
The very first item in the list of mandates from the original 1958 NASA act is:
The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the following objectives:
(1) The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;
Beyond that, NASA is interested in predicting the atmosphere and habitability of distant planets. There are a few planets that we have access to and can study directly. None are so convenient as Earth, upon which we have (tens/hundreds of) thousands of sensors. Why should we render NASA blind to the one planet that we can readily study?
During his confirmation hearing, he agreed that human activity “absolutely” contributed to climate change, but sparred with Senator Brian Schatz, Democrat of Hawaii, over whether it was “a contributor” or the “primary cause.”
"From everything that's being discussed about this, it's likely the person was likely trying to download content of public documents from a public internet site."
I guess technically you could say changes in the albedo of the Earth changes the amount of energy it reflects back to the sun which would cause some change on the sun
That's covered by the cryosphere/GMT coupling. Rise in temps leads to melting ice/reduced albedo and further rise in temps. Solar output doesn't change because of GMT.
Plus as you point out, he doesn't understand what the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy is though he references it frequently. He seems to have a few favourite words that he supposes can win any argument, but no real understanding of what they mean. I'm beginning to suspect that we're arguing with a not very sophisticated chat bot.
The Earth's climate is coupled to the output of the Sun.
I'm not saying that changes in the sun's output don't affect the climate on Earth.
Hardly controversial, but js290 is saying that the reverse is also true. That is ridiculous. GMT is coupled with the carbon cycle, with ocean circulation, with the cryosphere, etc, but not with solar output. That is a one way relationship. I'm quite certain that he learned the words "non-linear" and "coupled" (but not their definitions), got lost in the math, and then concluded that climate is intractable.
Bottom line, his premise is wrong. Everything that follows is also wrong. He becomes rather silent when you point this out to him.
We would be satisfied if you could provide any evidence at all to support your claims. At least then there would be something to debate. All you have offered is hand waiving.
You keep suggesting that variations in global mean temperature drives solar output, but you haven't provided any evidence. Please show us the physics and we will gladly solve the math.
Slashdot Mirror
Plus he rides a space dinosaur in his 1978 debut: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Wrong. "Will" is falsifiable. "Could" is not.
Read the paper. It gives a probability density function. A result outside the PDF would falsify the paper. Of course, what’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?
Probably the fact that there are consequences is some part of the reason Canadian police show greater restraint.
Hopefully someone finally starts to sort out the cultural problem the US police has too.
Indeed. Canadian police vs known terrorist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
US police vs unarmed man pleading for his life: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Stark contrast.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Not terribly convincing.
Yes, and that conclusion makes no sense. A classification algorithm for admission to an engineering school doesn't classify people based on whether they "are engineers", they classify people based on whether they are likely to succeed as engineers, a completely different question.
Semantics. Swap the wording if you like. The result is the same.
Furthermore, people don't "insinuate those factors" into classification algorithms; factors are used only if they are actually predictive..
Your certainty is unjustified. Deep learning models are considered to be “black-boxes”. Black box models lack transparency. It is often impossible to understand how and why a result was achieved. Likely an AI would be given a large dataset -- certainly more than SAT score alone. Can you be certain that nothing in that dataset would identify race or gender? Even course history could betray this data.
That would happen if admissions algorithms classify students according to "is the person an engineer", but that's not what they do.
It is not inconceivable that an admissions algorithm would be trained using a data set of successful engineers. As noted above, even something as benign as course history could betray the gender or race of the candidate. How would you know how large a factor race and gender played in the decision?
I don't even think you know what institutionalized bias is.
Again you have attributed a quote to me that I have never written nor uttered. You have yet to respond without trying to put words in my mouth. This is a very disingenuous tactic. I'm happy to discuss this with you but please engage with what I've actually said.
How do you get from the observation that the typical engineer in the US is white and male to "use that classification algorithm to filter who gets admitted into the college of engineering"?
So, stop avoiding the issue and answer the question.
I start with the observation that genitalia and colour are not actually part of the definition of an engineer. I then note that if you insinuate those factors into your classification algorithm then you have exactly an institutionalized bias. I conclude that it becomes a real problem If you then use that classification algorithm to filter who gets admitted into the college of engineering. The algorithm then reinforces its own bias.
How do you get from the observation that the typical engineer in the US is white and male to "we filter applications based on race and gender"?
You put those words between quotes, but it isn't a quote. Those words are your own. What I said was:
"Genitalia and colour are not actually part of the definition of an engineer. If you insinuate those factors into your classification algorithm then you have exactly an institutionalized bias. It becomes a real problem If you then use that classification algorithm to filter who gets admitted into the college of engineering. The algorithm then reinforces its own bias."
Picking typical representatives of a class to represent the class is not an "institutionalized bias".
Genitalia and colour are not actually part of the definition of an engineer. If you insinuate those factors into your classification algorithm then you have exactly an institutionalized bias. It becomes a real problem If you then use that classification algorithm to filter who gets admitted into the college of engineering. The algorithm then reinforces its own bias.
Lady Ada: "We're engineers, but historically when there was a photo of an engineer..."
James McLurkin: "It didn't look like either of us."
Lady Ada: "I think this is something that we think about because, what is an engineer semantically? We know it isn't by definition a 35 year old white male who lives in San Francisco."
James McLurkin: "But if you look at the magazine covers, if your dataset of engineers is magazine covers...
It's an interesting point. The last thing we want to do is institutionalize our biases.
So this person wants to be away from government regulation, such as regulation on carbon dioxide emissions, ...and is preparing for climate change refugees. This seems highly contradictory as one would normally expect such a person to be in favour of regulations to prevent climate change.
There are certainly people who reject science because of the regulatory implications. In that case they are selecting for facts based on a desired conclusion. That is the irrational position. Surely one should base a conclusion on the available facts.
Nathalie Mezza-Garcia, on the other hand, accepts the best available science even though she is opposed to the regulatory implications. That is rational. In addition, she proposes an alternative to regulation. That is also rational.
This is really the debate we should be having. What mix of mitigation/adaptation is appropriate? Her solution of zero mitigation may seem extreme, but it is at least rational.
When the computer hacking laws were introduced, that was one of the drawbacks: Intent does not matter, for the law. So in this case, it is just the law enforcement being nice in not pursuing the case while they are convinced there was no intent.
"In order to break this law, you have to have done it with fraudulent intent," said David Fraser, a lawyer with McInnes Cooper in Halifax who specializes in technology and privacy laws.
Tyndall describes an apparatus and experiment in 1861: "On the Absorption and radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connexion of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction"
The very first item in the list of mandates from the original 1958 NASA act is:
The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the following objectives:
(1) The expansion of human knowledge of phenomena in the atmosphere and space;
Beyond that, NASA is interested in predicting the atmosphere and habitability of distant planets. There are a few planets that we have access to and can study directly. None are so convenient as Earth, upon which we have (tens/hundreds of) thousands of sensors. Why should we render NASA blind to the one planet that we can readily study?
During his confirmation hearing, he agreed that human activity “absolutely” contributed to climate change, but sparred with Senator Brian Schatz, Democrat of Hawaii, over whether it was “a contributor” or the “primary cause.”
Scientists believe that it is extremely likely that most of the observed increase in global average surface temperature over the last half century was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. In fact, some studies put the human contribution higher than 150%. That is, non-anthropogenic factors have had a net cooling effect. Human factors have caused all observed warming and also masked that cooling effect.
Mr. Bridenstine is promoting an extremely fringe position that isn't supported by the evidence. I'm not sure why we should celebrate that.
Intent matters:
"In order to break this law, you have to have done it with fraudulent intent," said David Fraser, a lawyer with McInnes Cooper in Halifax who specializes in technology and privacy laws.
"From everything that's being discussed about this, it's likely the person was likely trying to download content of public documents from a public internet site."
I guess technically you could say changes in the albedo of the Earth changes the amount of energy it reflects back to the sun which would cause some change on the sun
That's covered by the cryosphere/GMT coupling. Rise in temps leads to melting ice/reduced albedo and further rise in temps. Solar output doesn't change because of GMT.
Plus as you point out, he doesn't understand what the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy is though he references it frequently. He seems to have a few favourite words that he supposes can win any argument, but no real understanding of what they mean. I'm beginning to suspect that we're arguing with a not very sophisticated chat bot.
The Earth's climate is coupled to the output of the Sun.
I'm not saying that changes in the sun's output don't affect the climate on Earth.
Hardly controversial, but js290 is saying that the reverse is also true. That is ridiculous. GMT is coupled with the carbon cycle, with ocean circulation, with the cryosphere, etc, but not with solar output. That is a one way relationship. I'm quite certain that he learned the words "non-linear" and "coupled" (but not their definitions), got lost in the math, and then concluded that climate is intractable.
Bottom line, his premise is wrong. Everything that follows is also wrong. He becomes rather silent when you point this out to him.
A collection of unintentionally ironic comments by js290:
js290: "You don't understand the problem well enough to "fix" anything. That makes you a deceiver and a dupe, an useful idiot as it were."
js290: "Studying mathematics is hard, being an ideologue is easy."
js290: "I'm not convinced most of you have studied enough math nor physics to understand the problem beyond the politics of it."
And my favourite:
js290: "It's pretty obvious you don't know what a coupled system is."
We would be satisfied if you could provide any evidence at all to support your claims. At least then there would be something to debate. All you have offered is hand waiving.
Please keep up: I'm suggesting solar output drives global mean temperatures.
No. You've suggested they are coupled. This is a fantastic claim for which you have provided no evidence.
You keep suggesting that variations in global mean temperature drives solar output, but you haven't provided any evidence. Please show us the physics and we will gladly solve the math.
Do you have any evidence at all to suggest that "climate model must first have an accurate model of the Sun"?
Simply asserting it doesn't make for a very good argument.
The Sun may be loosely coupled to the Earth,
Is it really? You have some very interesting theories. Maybe you could explain the mechanism whereby temperatures on Earth affect solar irradiance?