Within the parameters of the world's operating system, for a company, the only business objective there is and ever was is profit, and that, by tendency, works against the interests of humankind and this planet.
I have no idea what you are really trying to say. Something profitable by definition simply means that which benefits. The objective of any commercial business is to engage in commerce that is profitable. The profitable part is the only reason anyone would ever have for spending their time and talent on it.
This isn't about money, it's about return. If you're going to spend your time doing something, you want a good return on your efforts. If you need money to live on, and aren't independently wealty, then being commercially profitable is a requirement.
And what's the alternative? To do unprofitable work? That's no improvement. Love it or hate it, but the test of the profitability of a good or service is also an excellent proxy for its worthiness. Do you not think Slashdot a worthy place for you to spend your off hours? It's a good thing it's profitable for the owners of Slashdot, then.
If by "gamification" you mean using awards to instill performance, I give you every sport ever played along with all the performing arts. All performances are live events, they take place in real time, there are no do-overs, no second chances. It is incredibly demanding to get it right every single time. The purpose of the award system is to give the performer real-time progress feedback, without which you will never sustain the highest levels.
Where we not only rely heavily on statistics and proxies (because real data is hard to get), we rely on models of statistics and proxies. No wonder the results are all over the map. Being skeptical is not only a good idea in this case, it really is demanded by the process.
No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
If sex is not the same as gender, then why are people wanting to apply the definitions of gender to the Title IX law? The law addresses sex, exclusively.
While many religions do many good things, they generally all teach belief in what can't be proven beyond any possible doubt, since that is usually the point.
I can't count the number of times I've read this kind of misunderstanding about religious faith, but I don't mind correcting it every single time I run across it.
Religions do not teach belief in what "can't be proven beyond any possible doubt", they teach metaphysics. Not physics, but philosophy. It teaches people to reach conclusions about the ultimate origins and sources of the physical world we find ourselves in -- about which, empirical science has absolutely nothing to say.
You cannot prove that God exists or doesn't exist, because by definition God would be outside the limits of any such proof. The inability to prove something empirically is very often mistaken for the idea that it CAN'T be proven. But it's just a problem with YOUR ability to prove or disprove. Your intellectual tools are simply inadequate to the task at hand. You cannot run a test if your equipment is incapable of measuring the thing you are testing.
But the intellectual tools of empiricism are adequate to establish the fact of a physical universe. And it that very fact which demands we answer the question of WHY. Why is all of this here? Where did it all come from? What's the point? You cannot say "it came from nothing and means nothing", because it is SOMETHING.
The way that Paul puts it is, "Now faith is the assurance of what we hope for, and the certainty of what we do not see." These are philosophical commitments. They are conclusions about the meaning and purpose of life, a meaning which transcends our ability to see physically.
OK, I'll bite. What is it, then? It's a serious question. You are saying that the product of a conception between a man and a woman is not a human. What else is it, then?
Bias is a non-factual prejudice against someone. That is why it is considered unfair. If the facts are that 80% of the population of people who do the work you want are named "Dave", then it is not a sign of a moral failing if your AI exhibits a strong preference for another Dave.
No one owes you a job. If you've automated one job, simply ask for another. If your employer won't go along with that, go work for someone else with a more intelligent approach. Ultimately, doing nothing is crushing to the human spirit. Why would you want to do that? Time is irreplaceable.
Half of the prize goes to Arnold, from the California Institute of Technology, for her work on directing the evolution of enzymes -- proteins that speed up chemical reactions. In a nutshell, Arnold introduced genetic mutations into enzymes, and then looked to see what effect the mutations had. She then selected the cases where a particular mutation proved useful...
IANAC, but wouldn't it be more accurate to say she programmed those enzymes?
"Scientists talk about appetite in terms of minutes to hours. Here we are talking about seconds," says Diego Bohórquez, senior author of the study. "That has profound implications for our understanding of appetite. Many of the appetite suppressants that have been developed target slow-acting hormones, not fast-acting synapses. And that's probably why most of them have failed."
It also has profound implications regarding the manipulation of appetite by the brain.
They have been given invented forms of discomfort in order to make them slaves to unpleasant emotional responses that have no underlying basis in reality. That's the irony here.
Blockchain is a PUBLIC ledger. Your identifier is therefore in public view, right along the record of your vote. Congratulations, you've just made voting a public act, removing the one thing that prevents your vote from being coerced.
Slashdot Mirror
Mod parent up
Mod parent up. Classic.
Support for any file type.
I have no idea what you are really trying to say. Something profitable by definition simply means that which benefits. The objective of any commercial business is to engage in commerce that is profitable. The profitable part is the only reason anyone would ever have for spending their time and talent on it.
This isn't about money, it's about return. If you're going to spend your time doing something, you want a good return on your efforts. If you need money to live on, and aren't independently wealty, then being commercially profitable is a requirement.
And what's the alternative? To do unprofitable work? That's no improvement. Love it or hate it, but the test of the profitability of a good or service is also an excellent proxy for its worthiness. Do you not think Slashdot a worthy place for you to spend your off hours? It's a good thing it's profitable for the owners of Slashdot, then.
A huge, sprawling book but a lot of gold in them thar hills.
This is really pretty funny. Well done.
A good non-fiction policy/essay book by Sen. Ben Sasse. Wish they were all this thoughtful in Congress.
Yeah, who needs a scoring system to play football? That's just bloat.
Mod parent up. This can be a very good thing.
If by "gamification" you mean using awards to instill performance, I give you every sport ever played along with all the performing arts. All performances are live events, they take place in real time, there are no do-overs, no second chances. It is incredibly demanding to get it right every single time. The purpose of the award system is to give the performer real-time progress feedback, without which you will never sustain the highest levels.
Where we not only rely heavily on statistics and proxies (because real data is hard to get), we rely on models of statistics and proxies. No wonder the results are all over the map. Being skeptical is not only a good idea in this case, it really is demanded by the process.
If sex is not the same as gender, then why are people wanting to apply the definitions of gender to the Title IX law? The law addresses sex, exclusively.
Can't have it both ways. Pick one.
Extra points for using "harridans" in a sentence.
https://www.gatesnotes.com/Abo...
Really, a very nice memorial.
I can't count the number of times I've read this kind of misunderstanding about religious faith, but I don't mind correcting it every single time I run across it.
Religions do not teach belief in what "can't be proven beyond any possible doubt", they teach metaphysics. Not physics, but philosophy. It teaches people to reach conclusions about the ultimate origins and sources of the physical world we find ourselves in -- about which, empirical science has absolutely nothing to say.
You cannot prove that God exists or doesn't exist, because by definition God would be outside the limits of any such proof. The inability to prove something empirically is very often mistaken for the idea that it CAN'T be proven. But it's just a problem with YOUR ability to prove or disprove. Your intellectual tools are simply inadequate to the task at hand. You cannot run a test if your equipment is incapable of measuring the thing you are testing.
But the intellectual tools of empiricism are adequate to establish the fact of a physical universe. And it that very fact which demands we answer the question of WHY. Why is all of this here? Where did it all come from? What's the point? You cannot say "it came from nothing and means nothing", because it is SOMETHING.
The way that Paul puts it is, "Now faith is the assurance of what we hope for, and the certainty of what we do not see." These are philosophical commitments. They are conclusions about the meaning and purpose of life, a meaning which transcends our ability to see physically.
OK, I'll bite. What is it, then? It's a serious question. You are saying that the product of a conception between a man and a woman is not a human. What else is it, then?
I know. I am an election official in Virginia. We're not idiots. Of course your vote is private.
Bias is a non-factual prejudice against someone. That is why it is considered unfair. If the facts are that 80% of the population of people who do the work you want are named "Dave", then it is not a sign of a moral failing if your AI exhibits a strong preference for another Dave.
I pay for Goggle Apps and these annoying features are, indeed, enabled by default.
But she didn't introduce the mutations randomly, she introduced them intentionally.
No one owes you a job. If you've automated one job, simply ask for another. If your employer won't go along with that, go work for someone else with a more intelligent approach. Ultimately, doing nothing is crushing to the human spirit. Why would you want to do that? Time is irreplaceable.
IANAC, but wouldn't it be more accurate to say she programmed those enzymes?
It also has profound implications regarding the manipulation of appetite by the brain.
Very insightful. Mod this up.
It must be nice to have an election with only 47 ballots. In the state where I volunteer, 3.6 MILLION ballots were cast in the last federal election.
Blockchain is a PUBLIC ledger. Your identifier is therefore in public view, right along the record of your vote. Congratulations, you've just made voting a public act, removing the one thing that prevents your vote from being coerced.
And oh, it's immutable, too! Gee, thanks a lot.