Because corporations are much better at telling us what we need. We should let corporations locate anywhere they want and screw up the local economy because corporations knows better than we do.
I could say the same thing to you. Your feelings against minorities have no bearing on the facts about the base rate of undeserving college students of any race.
If you have data that straight white males have been allowed to stay in college even after failing to meet requirements then I'd like to see it.
The fact that you think it doesn't happen shows your naivety. People attest all the time about how they knew of someone who were in college despite not making the grades because of their parents' connections and/or money. If there's no hard data, it's because people haven't been driven enough to look for it, because hypocrites like you don't want to know the data in the first place.
It's kind of stupid to assume everything is "hunky dory"
Where did I assume that, dickhead? Sure there are problems now. Doesn't mean the past had no problems, as you and that other guy try to argue about how minorities ruined it for everyone.
What? ML solutions are programs. They are vastly easier to figure out what went wrong, compared to a human brain. You really want to claim that a human mind is easier to figure out what went wrong? In instances where we can work it out, is only due to self-attestation to what they were thinking at the time, which is not accurate, and subject to ego. And the self-attestation is also biased, leading to corrections that may not address the root of the problem.
Again, you make the mistake of not considering the base rate to begin with. You rant against "minority quota", but how many straight white males also should have flunked out but stayed in?
Kind of stupid of you to assume that everything was all hunky-dory until the minorities got in.
Because it creates jobs for them. If "corporations" had better customer service, especially after-sales service, then people won't be so angry to consider legal options, leading to corporate lawyers running out of work.
They defined high-income as in the top quartile. That's a lot of 'tile. Sure, owning a Bentley may predict higher incomes, but no use for predicting for top quartile.
Gender doesn't enter into the discussion, once it starts. But how did it start? Would it have started if the person who tweeted wasn't a woman?
You talk about a Reddit forum, but that's just a forum. That's the not the same as talking to the person directly. How many of those Reddit forum discussions proceeded to asking the male game designers in the same situation, vs how many of those discussions stayed on that forum?
So if I say "you're cluelessly explaining", versus "you're cluelessly explaining in a MAN way", does the second add any information besides the implication that men are bad?
That's not what mansplaining means. The question to ask is, would the guy have tried to explained how to do her job if she was in fact a man in the same position? It's not about cluelessness, or explaining in a "man" way. It's about whether the guy would have talked to a guy in the same position as she was.
We can never know in the case of one instance, but my experience tells me guys are slightly more willing to "correct" women on technical subjects where she is the better qualified person in the conversation, than the other way around.
On "non-technical" subjects, sure women do womansplain to men, but that seems mostly confined to "women's issues". But that seesms significantly less than technical "mansplaining".
Yeah, because Slashdotters never get their panties in a twist when someone they perceive as a layman in a subject tries to correct a person working in that field...
Have you seen Doctor Who? It's nothing like "most series". Only snobs care about canon in Doctor Who. Back during the classic run, things were being reinvented or reimagined when it suited and most people liked it well enough.
Only did it go off air than come back on again did the snobs try to stake ownership of Doctor Who and imagined a past that never was.
"It shouldn't be rushed in the first place" because doctors are human and make more mistakes when getting tired. Why would you think that would apply to AIs? The only thing that matters of AI is accuracy, and if it can be more accurate than humans while being faster, then "rushing" doesn't matter. Think it through.
This is how evolution happens. Predators identify prey. Prey with markings that deceive a predator's system survive. Or vice versa, prey identify stalking predators. Predators with markings that hide them well are more successful.
Add in a few million years of arms racfe and you've got things with stripes, spots, false eyes.
This doesn't bode well for the human race, as juggalos will become the dominate subspecies.
Without a government, the merge would have happened anyway, which gives the same end result as a government approving the merger. THE MERGER HAPPENS AS THE END RESULT.
If they approve something, it's regulation. If they don't approve something, it's also regulation. If one action is EXACTLY the same as taking no action, then how is it a regulation?
Are libertarians as severely as cognitive dissonant as you?
The government let this merger happen. That is the opposite of regulation. Of course, in the bizarro world of libertarians, government not stopping a merger is somehow another government regulation.
"Left wingers" would be against mergers and the creation of monopolies.
People forget the Clone Wars 3D animated series was also Lucas' idea. And that his original ideas of the original trilogy were also terrible.
It's never just the leaders, it's also about the people around him. I'm sure if Lucas did get around to making 7-9, he'd have had people like Dave Filoni assisting him.
Slashdot Mirror
You're the one doing virtue signalling.
Because corporations are much better at telling us what we need. We should let corporations locate anywhere they want and screw up the local economy because corporations knows better than we do.
Headline should be: "Facebook suffers over-inflated stock prices for X years."
Listen, facts don't care about your feelings.
I could say the same thing to you. Your feelings against minorities have no bearing on the facts about the base rate of undeserving college students of any race.
If you have data that straight white males have been allowed to stay in college even after failing to meet requirements then I'd like to see it.
The fact that you think it doesn't happen shows your naivety. People attest all the time about how they knew of someone who were in college despite not making the grades because of their parents' connections and/or money. If there's no hard data, it's because people haven't been driven enough to look for it, because hypocrites like you don't want to know the data in the first place.
It's kind of stupid to assume everything is "hunky dory"
Where did I assume that, dickhead? Sure there are problems now. Doesn't mean the past had no problems, as you and that other guy try to argue about how minorities ruined it for everyone.
What? ML solutions are programs. They are vastly easier to figure out what went wrong, compared to a human brain. You really want to claim that a human mind is easier to figure out what went wrong? In instances where we can work it out, is only due to self-attestation to what they were thinking at the time, which is not accurate, and subject to ego. And the self-attestation is also biased, leading to corrections that may not address the root of the problem.
Again, you make the mistake of not considering the base rate to begin with. You rant against "minority quota", but how many straight white males also should have flunked out but stayed in?
Kind of stupid of you to assume that everything was all hunky-dory until the minorities got in.
Because it creates jobs for them. If "corporations" had better customer service, especially after-sales service, then people won't be so angry to consider legal options, leading to corporate lawyers running out of work.
Good point. Let's never research anything we already know is obvious, because the obvious is never wrong.
Ordinary people would have recourse if they actually voted sensibly, instead of giving up.
They defined high-income as in the top quartile. That's a lot of 'tile. Sure, owning a Bentley may predict higher incomes, but no use for predicting for top quartile.
Gender doesn't enter into the discussion, once it starts. But how did it start? Would it have started if the person who tweeted wasn't a woman?
You talk about a Reddit forum, but that's just a forum. That's the not the same as talking to the person directly. How many of those Reddit forum discussions proceeded to asking the male game designers in the same situation, vs how many of those discussions stayed on that forum?
So if I say "you're cluelessly explaining", versus "you're cluelessly explaining in a MAN way", does the second add any information besides the implication that men are bad?
That's not what mansplaining means. The question to ask is, would the guy have tried to explained how to do her job if she was in fact a man in the same position? It's not about cluelessness, or explaining in a "man" way. It's about whether the guy would have talked to a guy in the same position as she was.
We can never know in the case of one instance, but my experience tells me guys are slightly more willing to "correct" women on technical subjects where she is the better qualified person in the conversation, than the other way around.
On "non-technical" subjects, sure women do womansplain to men, but that seems mostly confined to "women's issues". But that seesms significantly less than technical "mansplaining".
Yeah, because Slashdotters never get their panties in a twist when someone they perceive as a layman in a subject tries to correct a person working in that field...
So... they basically reinvented Australia's old HECS system?
Have you seen Doctor Who? It's nothing like "most series". Only snobs care about canon in Doctor Who. Back during the classic run, things were being reinvented or reimagined when it suited and most people liked it well enough.
Only did it go off air than come back on again did the snobs try to stake ownership of Doctor Who and imagined a past that never was.
Doctor Who has a canon?
"It shouldn't be rushed in the first place" because doctors are human and make more mistakes when getting tired. Why would you think that would apply to AIs? The only thing that matters of AI is accuracy, and if it can be more accurate than humans while being faster, then "rushing" doesn't matter. Think it through.
This is how evolution happens. Predators identify prey. Prey with markings that deceive a predator's system survive. Or vice versa, prey identify stalking predators. Predators with markings that hide them well are more successful.
Add in a few million years of arms racfe and you've got things with stripes, spots, false eyes.
This doesn't bode well for the human race, as juggalos will become the dominate subspecies.
Without a government, the merge would have happened anyway, which gives the same end result as a government approving the merger. THE MERGER HAPPENS AS THE END RESULT.
If they approve something, it's regulation. If they don't approve something, it's also regulation. If one action is EXACTLY the same as taking no action, then how is it a regulation?
Are libertarians as severely as cognitive dissonant as you?
The government let this merger happen. That is the opposite of regulation. Of course, in the bizarro world of libertarians, government not stopping a merger is somehow another government regulation. "Left wingers" would be against mergers and the creation of monopolies.
Nice opinion.
You should read the Three Body Problem and the rest of the series.
People forget the Clone Wars 3D animated series was also Lucas' idea. And that his original ideas of the original trilogy were also terrible.
It's never just the leaders, it's also about the people around him. I'm sure if Lucas did get around to making 7-9, he'd have had people like Dave Filoni assisting him.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/201... At least one executive will go to jail.
It's a wonder how SuperKendall is so naive about politics...