"But still, COMPASS shows a strong bias, as it overestimates the recidivism of black people by a factor of two while at the same time, underestimates the recidivism rates of whites by about the same amount."
That is completely false. Did you even bother to read the article you're posting about? It includes this sentence which might interest you: "The predictive accuracy of the COMPAS recidivism score was consistent between races in our study – 62.5 percent for white defendants vs. 62.3 percent for black defendants." And this one: "Across every risk category, black defendants recidivated at higher rates."
What the article said that you apparently misinterpreted was this: "These contingency tables reveal that the algorithm is more likely to misclassify a black defendant as higher risk than a white defendant. Black defendants who do not recidivate were nearly twice as likely to be classified by COMPAS as higher risk compared to their white counterparts (45 percent vs. 23 percent). . . . The test tended to make the opposite mistake with whites, meaning that it was more likely to wrongly predict that white people would not commit additional crimes if released compared to black defendants."
Your error was also pointed out to you by another poster. You are completely misstating what the article actually says when you say things like "COMPAS expects black people to commit further crimes twice as often". "Twice as likely to be classified as higher risk" does not mean "expects them to commit further crimes twice as often." It means what it actually says.
I suggest you read the article before commenting further.
And by the way, how do you know who needs a lift up, anyway? Do you go into their entire family history, whether or not they have alcoholic parents, or were adopted, or were bullied in school, or maybe have one leg shorter than the other, or do you just go by skin color and discriminate on that basis? Most people call that racism, but you think it makes you some sort of saint. It doesn't.
You don't think requiring someone to be "considerate" is a bit much? Who is going to be the arbiter of that? Subjective social things like that should not be requirements to attend a conference. Or to participate in an internship program. Or a free software project.
No, it doesn't presume white people don't vote democrat. (Here's a hint for you -- assuming the other person is making silly assumptions doesn't lead to good argumentation on your part.)
It says that when you remove 12% of a population that vote 95% D from a population that is split pretty much 50/50 D/R, you are going to be left with a significantly R-leaning group.
Get it now?
It's only not a refutation if there's no such thing as math. Otherwise, it is. Take your pick. (Although it would have been better if I had said "lean Republican in proportion to their non-diversity") If you have a set of Ds and a set of Rs mixed together, and from that and you select a set with more Rs, shockingly you get more Rs. If you can find a way to dispute that, let me know.
What does it have to do with anything? It points out the triviality of the non-diverse neighborhood argument, you twit. If blacks vote Democrat then obviously less diverse neighborhoods are going to vote Republican and therefore vote for Trump. This isn't exactly complicated. I'm sorry if you thought it was such a big important point that you couldn't understand an obvious refutation.
No causality is proven by any of that. How big a surprise is it that black people vote Democrat (to pick the easiest example)? None of the rest is any better thought-through, but I don't feel like responding to all that BS.
"Unlike our humans, the chair-building bots were not fully autonomous, as scientists needed to program the sequence of steps they took in advance. " Exciting!
Outside of riots, in what sense do groups "act"? I do not take responsibility for the actions of people who happen to share gross genetic characteristics with me.
If you think a 30 year mortgage at prevailing interest rates is stupid, you are in dire need of a math lesson. Real interest rates are in the 2% range, and appreciation will probably run much more than that. In addition, mortgage interest is deductible.
It's a joy, really, to have this recapitulation of the "Slashdot Reading Comprehension Test", where we find out exactly which Slashdot posters can actually read an argument and understand its major points. Or whether they even bother to read it at all.
Case in point would be this fellow Locke2005, who has no idea what Damore said, what the timeline was of how this document got out of Google (or how it did so), or even why Damore wrote it in the first place.
But he does call Damore a "douchebag", which I guess he thinks passes for deep thought and a knowledgeable viewpoint regarding these issues.
You are just plain wrong.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca....
1101. No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy:
(a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office.
(b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.
1102. No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.
Is there a difference between being "hit" with lawsuits and just having someone file one against you? I've always wondered this. Is actual physical impact involved? Because some of those briefs can be pretty thick.
Slashdot Mirror
"But still, COMPASS shows a strong bias, as it overestimates the recidivism of black people by a factor of two while at the same time, underestimates the recidivism rates of whites by about the same amount."
That is completely false. Did you even bother to read the article you're posting about? It includes this sentence which might interest you: "The predictive accuracy of the COMPAS recidivism score was consistent between races in our study – 62.5 percent for white defendants vs. 62.3 percent for black defendants." And this one: "Across every risk category, black defendants recidivated at higher rates."
What the article said that you apparently misinterpreted was this: "These contingency tables reveal that the algorithm is more likely to misclassify a black defendant as higher risk than a white defendant. Black defendants who do not recidivate were nearly twice as likely to be classified by COMPAS as higher risk compared to their white counterparts (45 percent vs. 23 percent). . . . The test tended to make the opposite mistake with whites, meaning that it was more likely to wrongly predict that white people would not commit additional crimes if released compared to black defendants."
Your error was also pointed out to you by another poster. You are completely misstating what the article actually says when you say things like "COMPAS expects black people to commit further crimes twice as often". "Twice as likely to be classified as higher risk" does not mean "expects them to commit further crimes twice as often." It means what it actually says.
I suggest you read the article before commenting further.
And by the way, how do you know who needs a lift up, anyway? Do you go into their entire family history, whether or not they have alcoholic parents, or were adopted, or were bullied in school, or maybe have one leg shorter than the other, or do you just go by skin color and discriminate on that basis? Most people call that racism, but you think it makes you some sort of saint. It doesn't.
Yup, truth continues.
And now we reach the real reason for this discrimination you're participating in - so that you can feel good about it.
You don't think requiring someone to be "considerate" is a bit much? Who is going to be the arbiter of that? Subjective social things like that should not be requirements to attend a conference. Or to participate in an internship program. Or a free software project.
Your definitional argument is bullshit. Not being inclusive toward me because of my gender or skin color IS discrimination.
Spare us your ridiculous sanctimony. Or should I say "citation needed"?
You are as wrong as wrong can be. Not only is it bigotry, it is exactly the same sort of bigotry it purports to be "undoing".
No, it doesn't presume white people don't vote democrat. (Here's a hint for you -- assuming the other person is making silly assumptions doesn't lead to good argumentation on your part.) It says that when you remove 12% of a population that vote 95% D from a population that is split pretty much 50/50 D/R, you are going to be left with a significantly R-leaning group. Get it now?
It's only not a refutation if there's no such thing as math. Otherwise, it is. Take your pick. (Although it would have been better if I had said "lean Republican in proportion to their non-diversity") If you have a set of Ds and a set of Rs mixed together, and from that and you select a set with more Rs, shockingly you get more Rs. If you can find a way to dispute that, let me know.
What does it have to do with anything? It points out the triviality of the non-diverse neighborhood argument, you twit. If blacks vote Democrat then obviously less diverse neighborhoods are going to vote Republican and therefore vote for Trump. This isn't exactly complicated. I'm sorry if you thought it was such a big important point that you couldn't understand an obvious refutation.
No causality is proven by any of that. How big a surprise is it that black people vote Democrat (to pick the easiest example)? None of the rest is any better thought-through, but I don't feel like responding to all that BS.
I get so tired of these bad hominim arguments.
Hear hear!
"Unlike our humans, the chair-building bots were not fully autonomous, as scientists needed to program the sequence of steps they took in advance. " Exciting!
Outside of riots, in what sense do groups "act"? I do not take responsibility for the actions of people who happen to share gross genetic characteristics with me.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/d... is one of the many available examples.
If you think a 30 year mortgage at prevailing interest rates is stupid, you are in dire need of a math lesson. Real interest rates are in the 2% range, and appreciation will probably run much more than that. In addition, mortgage interest is deductible.
You're making his point.
If you haven't heard it, you haven't been listening. The government routinely argues discriminatory lending cases on just such a basis.
I think I may vomit
It's a joy, really, to have this recapitulation of the "Slashdot Reading Comprehension Test", where we find out exactly which Slashdot posters can actually read an argument and understand its major points. Or whether they even bother to read it at all.
Case in point would be this fellow Locke2005, who has no idea what Damore said, what the timeline was of how this document got out of Google (or how it did so), or even why Damore wrote it in the first place.
But he does call Damore a "douchebag", which I guess he thinks passes for deep thought and a knowledgeable viewpoint regarding these issues.
You are just plain wrong. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.... 1101. No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy: (a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office. (b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees. 1102. No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.
Is there a difference between being "hit" with lawsuits and just having someone file one against you? I've always wondered this. Is actual physical impact involved? Because some of those briefs can be pretty thick.
The article talks about one insurance company; the headline says "insurers". Not the best job composing that headline.