This reminds me of a friend of mine in high school who was... well interesting. Tony was into cryptozoology, pyramid power, orgone energy and all that sort of thing. One day he informed me he'd built a working UFO detection alarm, following directions he'd got from one of the ufologist magazines he subscribed to (this was before the Internet).
"How do you know it actually works?" I asked.
"Because it goes off all the time," Tony said.
The moral of the story is that it's easy to convince yourself that something you built works. But to have rational confidence in something, you've got to have some kind of independent empirical confirmation. The Russians built a system to disrupt NATO military use of GPS, but the only way they can know that it would work is to actually disrupt a NATO military exercise.
I am very familiar with Multon's essay, but if you think politics didn't exist in Milton's time I don't think you should be worried about *my* historical literacy.
I bet a food chemist can do a pretty good job of telling you why a food tastes the way it does. Besides the basic taste components of sweet, salty, bitter, sour, and umami, the perceived flavor of food is primarily carried by volatile chemicals that can be isolated by chromatography. The remaining psychophysical element is texture, which can be mechanically analyzed.
Sure, there may be subtle elements that are beyond the state of science at present to characterize, but insofar as elements that can be precisely characterized and are unique, there is just as much fundamental justification for copyrighting them as there is for copyrighting story or melody elements.
The real problem is that we don't customarily copyrighted tastes. Doing so would introduce a change in the way people expect things to work we're not ready for that change.
Property is a social construct if anything is. If you were the last person on Earth, it would be meaningless to worry whether it was morally right to break into a house or circumvent the DRM on a book. When politicians created the notion of "intellectual property" around two to three centuries ago, they were intentionally engineering a change in their society. That change isn't as well integrated in our culture as personal possession or real estate, which have been part of our culture since preliterate times.
Intelligence is really just a broad catch all for suite of processing capabilities displayed by the human brain. You can get computers to duplicate many of those capabilities, in fact it already has, and I would argue there is really no set of processing capabilities humans have that could not in principle be duplicated by machine.
I also have no doubt that AI will generate artifacts like music and images that will pass a kind of artistic Turing test; and arguably it already has. Most people wouldn't be able to distinguish between apparent nonsense generated by modern art and apparent nonsense generated by algorithms.
But art is communication. The reason that modern art, be it painting or music, seems like nonsense to you is because it's like you've walked in on the end of a long and very abstruse conversation. You don't have any shared context with the artist and so his work is meaningless to you.
So the issue with AI art isn't whether algorithms can provoke an aesthetic response in an audience. A Mandelbrot set program can do that. The question is whether the AI itself has something to say. Does the AI have qualia -- conscious, subjective experiences -- that it is trying to share with you? If there's nobody home inside the box, there is nobody to be communicating with. The turing test can tell you whether an AI has equivalent capabilities to a human artist, but can it tell you whether the AI has conscious experience?
That's actually my point: accuracy and confidence are two different things. From my experience serving on juries, voting to convict probably implies more than a 90% level of belief. As people near a conclusion they switch from reasoning to rationalizing, which means that last bit of certainty is spurious.
If your small faraday cage is perfect and infinitely conductive, it will work perfectly. If is reasonably well constructed and fairly conductive, it will work well enough.
I suspect real world behavior for such shields is more complex than the simple high school physics model, and that the device inside is less than perfectly shielded. The shield in a shielded cable can be thought of as an imperfect Faraday cage, and depending on application it may not require grounding or it may need to be grounded at one or both ends.
In any event grounding never hurts and in practice sometimes it helps.
The idea that grounding is mandatory may come from preppers building room sized Faraday cages so their stuff survives a post EMP apocalypse. Not only is such a large build likely to have numerous imperfections, in some situations the cage and it's contents can acquire a large static charge relative to ground.
Well, it's an empirical estimation of what reasonable doubt tends to amount to, at least. My guess is people don't convict very often without feeling more certain than that in a Bayesian sense, but you do have to account for confirmation bias.
If this is mostly happening via the old magnetic strip than what does the chip even have to do with this story?
If you can intercept the conversation between the EMV chip and the terminal, you can skim enough information to produce a counterfeit mag stripe that will work. That's actually a long-standing vulnerability in the EMV system.
There was supposedly a fix which involved programming different ICCV codes on the chip and in the mag stripe, but that fix depends on the card provisioners to implement. This is typical of security debacles: a fundamental weakness in the system isn't really fixed by a band-aid that requires everyone to do the right thing.
You see: it never stops. If you like feeling this way, by all means carry on, but to me at least you don't sound happy. In fact, you don't sound like you feel safe, which is actually more important.
I am not a threat to you. Stan Lee was not a threat to you. Comic books with plotlines you don't like can't hurt you. None of the people you rail against are likely to harm you. And you will never feel content by trying to change everyone else. As Marcus Aurelius said, "Very little is needed to make a happy life; it is all within yourself."
I told my boss that the only reason I was getting on the flight was that the client needed me, and that if he ever put me on a flight like that again I'd resign.
If crushed rock were economical to use in Dubai concrete, they wouldn't ship sand from Australia. They'd crush rock from a local quarries. It would make sense to set up a crushing plant because Dubai uses a huge amount of concrete and has plenty of rock.
Sand commodity costs represent 2% of the finished price of concrete. That means it represents a bit more than 2% of the input costs, but we can reasonably conclude it's not a limiting factor in concrete use *at present*. But remember we're talking about a future scenario in which sand is sufficiently expensive that we produce aggregates by a method which anybody could, but which nobody currently finds profitable.
Which is not to say concrete will disappear, only that it will be more expensive, and even modest increases in concrete production costs will have big economic effects... and count those impacts on tarmac as well. Now if we *could* switch to crushed rock before the price of sand rises that would be a good thing, because of the ecological and social impact of mining river sand. But it would make practically all the infrastructure and commercial building we do more expensive.
That's one of the important arguments against the Idaho stop.
It seems to me that you could argue a priori either way. Maybe some kids will see adults going past a stop sign and think it's perfectly safe to do that any time. Or you could argue that many kids are prone to ignore signs anyway, and that since drivers are expecting this in Idaho stop jurisdictions, children doing that will be safer.
Chances are every scenario you can imagine will occur at some time and place. What we need to determine is whether Idaho stop jurisdictions are more dangerous for children. And if so (or not), are there conflating factors? Maybe Boise is just a safer place to operate a vehicle than, say, Boston.
This is precisely what the empirical data appears to disprove. Now having worked all my life with data, I am skeptical of it; a little data can be misleading because you never know whether you inadvertently are sampling some special case. However more jurisdictions that report positive results from the Idaho stop rule, the less likely it is to be a fluke.
I think it is at least plausible that the accident rate isn't significantly higher, because cyclists have a stronger incentive than cars to avoid risks. A cyclist is a lot more vulnerable than a driver, even in a pedestrian-vehicle accident. Cyclists also have much better situational awareness than drivers.
However there are sure to be some cyclists who will do risky things. The question is whether making those things illegal have any effect on them.
One of the things they don't tell you about capitalism in civics class is that companies do everything they can to avoid competition by making their prices hard to compare with other vendors. They do this by making transactions absurdly complicated (car dealers), by bundling irrelevant stuff into the deal (mobile phone companies, cable companies), unbundling essential stuff (airlines and baggage fees) or by adulterating/diluting their product (airlines and seat sizes).
If you are price comparing two tickets between the same destination, the airlines make it quite difficult to figure out what you're getting for the price, the incidentals you'll have to pay, and even the certainty that you'll actually be able to board the plane. There's intense competition to get the lowest found ticket price in a computerized search, but a price ranking of alternatives is highly unreliable.
On top of this, many airline passengers are in the same position that Microsoft Windows users were for many years: other people make the purchasing decision. I once had an employer book me on an itinerary that took twenty three hours from the time I boarded in Manchester, NH to when wheels touched down in Sacramento, thanks to layovers in Newark and Phoenix. Normally I'd fly out of Boston (where I live) and it would take about eight and half hours, but my boss figured out he could save fifty bucks by making me drive an hour north to a smaller airport.
Plus is saves on gym time. You're getting seven and a half hours of light exercise a week, and if you're a typical male you're burning about 4000 calories a week, which is equivalent to about a pound of fat; while you probably eat more to compensate, it makes it a lot less likely you'll gain weight than the people driving past you.
Seven and a half hours of light exercise is also well within the range that is optimal for cardiovascular health, and research shows that this volume of exercise improves brain performance in memory and executive function tasks. Research also shows that regular exercise works as well as medication and psychotherapy combined at treating depression.
Cyclists also develop more robust immune systems; taking up cycling cuts the number of sick days in half.
Some jurisdictions allow something called the "Idaho stop", which allows cyclists to treat a red light as a stop sign and a stop sign as a yield sign.
Now personally, as a cyclist I'm dubious of this, but empirical studies of this rule show it actually reduces accidents. That actually mystifies me. On one hand I can believe the rule wouldn't increase accidents, because of cyclists' sense of self-preservation, but I can't quite see why it would actually reduce accidents. The one exception I can think of is the "right hook", where a motorist making a right turn hits a cyclist going straight or also making a right turn. This can happen even when the motorist sees the cyclist, because most drivers have a very poor idea of where their passenger-side rear corner is in a turn.
Advocates are divided on the Idaho stop. On one hand it's simpler and politically more palatable to simply say "bikes and cars are equivalent"; but I suppose there's no a priori reason why the rules ought to be exactly the same.
Oh, I think if everyone in Manhattan were riding bikes or in pedicabs, there'd still be a need for traffic lights, although in many cases they could be replaced with (very small) roundabouts. The big difference would be that your infrastructure dollar would go a lot farther. Road damage goes up as roughly the cube of vehicle weight.
The other thing that you get good at as you get older is spotting a straw men and ad hominems.
The problems being reported in this is not indicative of our "running out of sand", but the price of cheap, legally-mined sand rising. This is how economics works: in a capitalist society you'll never run out of a mineral resource because it will get priced out of practicality, leaving you with plenty of that commodity still in the ground that you just can't use. This has three consequences: (1) people try to get more efficient at using the resource; (2) people look for alternatives; (3) the rising price of the commodity fosters conflict and crime, until the first two consequences succeed in reducing the demand.
So we'll always be able to make natural sand-based concrete; it'll just be too expensive to use as liberally as we do today. That's the reason we aren't using crushed stone today: it's physically feasible, but economically pointless. If it ever becomes economically feasible to use crushed stone, either there's been some kind of rock-breaking technological breakthrough, or we're paying a lot more for concrete.
A world in which concrete was expensive would look very different, and transitioning to such a world would likely involve some societal stress.
I like to have dinner around 6:30 PM. I could wait until each member of my family happened to be hungry and then feed them individually, but I don't. Because we all know dinner is coming at 6:30, everyone times their earlier meals they're ready to eat at 6:30. This is not natural behavior, but neither is it somehow underhanded. It's simply a logistical convenience made possible by the invention of the clock.
That's pretty much how all non-agrarian work is coordinated: we agree on when we'll show up for work and when we get home.
The purpose of daylight savings was to give people working industrial jobs more daylight leisure time in the summer. Remember, when it was first adopted electric lighting wasn't something those people would have. They could have got the same effect by telling everyone in your society to adjust their schedule twice a year, but the government doesn't regulate the start and end time of work shifts. It *does* regulate the time standard, making that the simplest mechanism for accomplishing this.
Daylight savings never made sense in near-tropical or near-arctic regions. Nor is the case for shifting back and forth between standard and daylight savings compelling in a world of ubiquitous electric lighting. You can either stick with standard time, and lose summer daylight leisure time, or stick with savings time year round, getting ready for work in the winter with the aid of light bulbs.
Not only CFCs, particulate and aerosol emissions cool the Earth, in fact they drove global cooling from 1940 to 1970 or so. We could reduce global warming by tuning our engines to emit more pollution.
What's going on here isn't scientists being perverse; it's nature being complex, and not obligated to make our jobs easy.
Well, once you filter it through a typical reporter's capacity for understanding, Relativity is BS.
What the studies in question actually do is correlate a generalized preference for bitter tastes to antisocial personality traits. This would have almost no correlation to liking specific bitter foods, particularly black coffee, which is also a cocktail of pharmacologically acrtive compounds -- including of course caffeine, which is a potent stimulator of the brain's dopamine-mediated reward mechanisms. Beer, likewise, is usually bitter, but alcohol is also a powerful dopamine stimulatior.
But even repeated exposures to non-psychoactive bitter foods can habituate people, and eventually make those foods desirable. We crave what we are accustomed to eating, even if it is radicchio. Many vegetables have bitter components, which is why you have to learn to like them.
Slashdot Mirror
This reminds me of a friend of mine in high school who was... well interesting. Tony was into cryptozoology, pyramid power, orgone energy and all that sort of thing. One day he informed me he'd built a working UFO detection alarm, following directions he'd got from one of the ufologist magazines he subscribed to (this was before the Internet).
"How do you know it actually works?" I asked.
"Because it goes off all the time," Tony said.
The moral of the story is that it's easy to convince yourself that something you built works. But to have rational confidence in something, you've got to have some kind of independent empirical confirmation. The Russians built a system to disrupt NATO military use of GPS, but the only way they can know that it would work is to actually disrupt a NATO military exercise.
I am very familiar with Multon's essay, but if you think politics didn't exist in Milton's time I don't think you should be worried about *my* historical literacy.
I bet a food chemist can do a pretty good job of telling you why a food tastes the way it does. Besides the basic taste components of sweet, salty, bitter, sour, and umami, the perceived flavor of food is primarily carried by volatile chemicals that can be isolated by chromatography. The remaining psychophysical element is texture, which can be mechanically analyzed.
Sure, there may be subtle elements that are beyond the state of science at present to characterize, but insofar as elements that can be precisely characterized and are unique, there is just as much fundamental justification for copyrighting them as there is for copyrighting story or melody elements.
The real problem is that we don't customarily copyrighted tastes. Doing so would introduce a change in the way people expect things to work we're not ready for that change.
Property is a social construct if anything is. If you were the last person on Earth, it would be meaningless to worry whether it was morally right to break into a house or circumvent the DRM on a book. When politicians created the notion of "intellectual property" around two to three centuries ago, they were intentionally engineering a change in their society. That change isn't as well integrated in our culture as personal possession or real estate, which have been part of our culture since preliterate times.
Intelligence is really just a broad catch all for suite of processing capabilities displayed by the human brain. You can get computers to duplicate many of those capabilities, in fact it already has, and I would argue there is really no set of processing capabilities humans have that could not in principle be duplicated by machine.
I also have no doubt that AI will generate artifacts like music and images that will pass a kind of artistic Turing test; and arguably it already has. Most people wouldn't be able to distinguish between apparent nonsense generated by modern art and apparent nonsense generated by algorithms.
But art is communication. The reason that modern art, be it painting or music, seems like nonsense to you is because it's like you've walked in on the end of a long and very abstruse conversation. You don't have any shared context with the artist and so his work is meaningless to you.
So the issue with AI art isn't whether algorithms can provoke an aesthetic response in an audience. A Mandelbrot set program can do that. The question is whether the AI itself has something to say. Does the AI have qualia -- conscious, subjective experiences -- that it is trying to share with you? If there's nobody home inside the box, there is nobody to be communicating with. The turing test can tell you whether an AI has equivalent capabilities to a human artist, but can it tell you whether the AI has conscious experience?
That's actually my point: accuracy and confidence are two different things. From my experience serving on juries, voting to convict probably implies more than a 90% level of belief. As people near a conclusion they switch from reasoning to rationalizing, which means that last bit of certainty is spurious.
If your small faraday cage is perfect and infinitely conductive, it will work perfectly. If is reasonably well constructed and fairly conductive, it will work well enough.
I suspect real world behavior for such shields is more complex than the simple high school physics model, and that the device inside is less than perfectly shielded. The shield in a shielded cable can be thought of as an imperfect Faraday cage, and depending on application it may not require grounding or it may need to be grounded at one or both ends.
In any event grounding never hurts and in practice sometimes it helps.
The idea that grounding is mandatory may come from preppers building room sized Faraday cages so their stuff survives a post EMP apocalypse. Not only is such a large build likely to have numerous imperfections, in some situations the cage and it's contents can acquire a large static charge relative to ground.
Well, it's an empirical estimation of what reasonable doubt tends to amount to, at least. My guess is people don't convict very often without feeling more certain than that in a Bayesian sense, but you do have to account for confirmation bias.
If this is mostly happening via the old magnetic strip than what does the chip even have to do with this story?
If you can intercept the conversation between the EMV chip and the terminal, you can skim enough information to produce a counterfeit mag stripe that will work. That's actually a long-standing vulnerability in the EMV system.
There was supposedly a fix which involved programming different ICCV codes on the chip and in the mag stripe, but that fix depends on the card provisioners to implement. This is typical of security debacles: a fundamental weakness in the system isn't really fixed by a band-aid that requires everyone to do the right thing.
You see: it never stops. If you like feeling this way, by all means carry on, but to me at least you don't sound happy. In fact, you don't sound like you feel safe, which is actually more important.
I am not a threat to you. Stan Lee was not a threat to you. Comic books with plotlines you don't like can't hurt you. None of the people you rail against are likely to harm you. And you will never feel content by trying to change everyone else. As Marcus Aurelius said, "Very little is needed to make a happy life; it is all within yourself."
Apparently Stan Lee made your life miserable.
Well, here's an opportunity for an empirical test. See if your life is any less miserable now that he's gone.
If your life never seems to get better, no matter who dies or who ends up in office, maybe your problem isn't what you think it is.
I told my boss that the only reason I was getting on the flight was that the client needed me, and that if he ever put me on a flight like that again I'd resign.
If crushed rock were economical to use in Dubai concrete, they wouldn't ship sand from Australia. They'd crush rock from a local quarries. It would make sense to set up a crushing plant because Dubai uses a huge amount of concrete and has plenty of rock.
Sand commodity costs represent 2% of the finished price of concrete. That means it represents a bit more than 2% of the input costs, but we can reasonably conclude it's not a limiting factor in concrete use *at present*. But remember we're talking about a future scenario in which sand is sufficiently expensive that we produce aggregates by a method which anybody could, but which nobody currently finds profitable.
Which is not to say concrete will disappear, only that it will be more expensive, and even modest increases in concrete production costs will have big economic effects... and count those impacts on tarmac as well. Now if we *could* switch to crushed rock before the price of sand rises that would be a good thing, because of the ecological and social impact of mining river sand. But it would make practically all the infrastructure and commercial building we do more expensive.
That's one of the important arguments against the Idaho stop.
It seems to me that you could argue a priori either way. Maybe some kids will see adults going past a stop sign and think it's perfectly safe to do that any time. Or you could argue that many kids are prone to ignore signs anyway, and that since drivers are expecting this in Idaho stop jurisdictions, children doing that will be safer.
Chances are every scenario you can imagine will occur at some time and place. What we need to determine is whether Idaho stop jurisdictions are more dangerous for children. And if so (or not), are there conflating factors? Maybe Boise is just a safer place to operate a vehicle than, say, Boston.
This is precisely what the empirical data appears to disprove. Now having worked all my life with data, I am skeptical of it; a little data can be misleading because you never know whether you inadvertently are sampling some special case. However more jurisdictions that report positive results from the Idaho stop rule, the less likely it is to be a fluke.
I think it is at least plausible that the accident rate isn't significantly higher, because cyclists have a stronger incentive than cars to avoid risks. A cyclist is a lot more vulnerable than a driver, even in a pedestrian-vehicle accident. Cyclists also have much better situational awareness than drivers.
However there are sure to be some cyclists who will do risky things. The question is whether making those things illegal have any effect on them.
That's a self-limiting behavior.
That's the same problem with any law. There are drivers that don't stop at the stop line; that doesn't make stop lines a bad idea.
One of the things they don't tell you about capitalism in civics class is that companies do everything they can to avoid competition by making their prices hard to compare with other vendors. They do this by making transactions absurdly complicated (car dealers), by bundling irrelevant stuff into the deal (mobile phone companies, cable companies), unbundling essential stuff (airlines and baggage fees) or by adulterating/diluting their product (airlines and seat sizes).
If you are price comparing two tickets between the same destination, the airlines make it quite difficult to figure out what you're getting for the price, the incidentals you'll have to pay, and even the certainty that you'll actually be able to board the plane. There's intense competition to get the lowest found ticket price in a computerized search, but a price ranking of alternatives is highly unreliable.
On top of this, many airline passengers are in the same position that Microsoft Windows users were for many years: other people make the purchasing decision. I once had an employer book me on an itinerary that took twenty three hours from the time I boarded in Manchester, NH to when wheels touched down in Sacramento, thanks to layovers in Newark and Phoenix. Normally I'd fly out of Boston (where I live) and it would take about eight and half hours, but my boss figured out he could save fifty bucks by making me drive an hour north to a smaller airport.
Plus is saves on gym time. You're getting seven and a half hours of light exercise a week, and if you're a typical male you're burning about 4000 calories a week, which is equivalent to about a pound of fat; while you probably eat more to compensate, it makes it a lot less likely you'll gain weight than the people driving past you.
Seven and a half hours of light exercise is also well within the range that is optimal for cardiovascular health, and research shows that this volume of exercise improves brain performance in memory and executive function tasks. Research also shows that regular exercise works as well as medication and psychotherapy combined at treating depression.
Cyclists also develop more robust immune systems; taking up cycling cuts the number of sick days in half.
Some jurisdictions allow something called the "Idaho stop", which allows cyclists to treat a red light as a stop sign and a stop sign as a yield sign.
Now personally, as a cyclist I'm dubious of this, but empirical studies of this rule show it actually reduces accidents. That actually mystifies me. On one hand I can believe the rule wouldn't increase accidents, because of cyclists' sense of self-preservation, but I can't quite see why it would actually reduce accidents. The one exception I can think of is the "right hook", where a motorist making a right turn hits a cyclist going straight or also making a right turn. This can happen even when the motorist sees the cyclist, because most drivers have a very poor idea of where their passenger-side rear corner is in a turn.
Advocates are divided on the Idaho stop. On one hand it's simpler and politically more palatable to simply say "bikes and cars are equivalent"; but I suppose there's no a priori reason why the rules ought to be exactly the same.
Oh, I think if everyone in Manhattan were riding bikes or in pedicabs, there'd still be a need for traffic lights, although in many cases they could be replaced with (very small) roundabouts. The big difference would be that your infrastructure dollar would go a lot farther. Road damage goes up as roughly the cube of vehicle weight.
The other thing that you get good at as you get older is spotting a straw men and ad hominems.
The problems being reported in this is not indicative of our "running out of sand", but the price of cheap, legally-mined sand rising. This is how economics works: in a capitalist society you'll never run out of a mineral resource because it will get priced out of practicality, leaving you with plenty of that commodity still in the ground that you just can't use. This has three consequences: (1) people try to get more efficient at using the resource; (2) people look for alternatives; (3) the rising price of the commodity fosters conflict and crime, until the first two consequences succeed in reducing the demand.
So we'll always be able to make natural sand-based concrete; it'll just be too expensive to use as liberally as we do today. That's the reason we aren't using crushed stone today: it's physically feasible, but economically pointless. If it ever becomes economically feasible to use crushed stone, either there's been some kind of rock-breaking technological breakthrough, or we're paying a lot more for concrete.
A world in which concrete was expensive would look very different, and transitioning to such a world would likely involve some societal stress.
Rural Americans have no concept of the real world.
City dwellers have no concept about the real world.
It turns out, you're both right.
I like to have dinner around 6:30 PM. I could wait until each member of my family happened to be hungry and then feed them individually, but I don't. Because we all know dinner is coming at 6:30, everyone times their earlier meals they're ready to eat at 6:30. This is not natural behavior, but neither is it somehow underhanded. It's simply a logistical convenience made possible by the invention of the clock.
That's pretty much how all non-agrarian work is coordinated: we agree on when we'll show up for work and when we get home.
The purpose of daylight savings was to give people working industrial jobs more daylight leisure time in the summer. Remember, when it was first adopted electric lighting wasn't something those people would have. They could have got the same effect by telling everyone in your society to adjust their schedule twice a year, but the government doesn't regulate the start and end time of work shifts. It *does* regulate the time standard, making that the simplest mechanism for accomplishing this.
Daylight savings never made sense in near-tropical or near-arctic regions. Nor is the case for shifting back and forth between standard and daylight savings compelling in a world of ubiquitous electric lighting. You can either stick with standard time, and lose summer daylight leisure time, or stick with savings time year round, getting ready for work in the winter with the aid of light bulbs.
Not only CFCs, particulate and aerosol emissions cool the Earth, in fact they drove global cooling from 1940 to 1970 or so. We could reduce global warming by tuning our engines to emit more pollution.
What's going on here isn't scientists being perverse; it's nature being complex, and not obligated to make our jobs easy.
Well, once you filter it through a typical reporter's capacity for understanding, Relativity is BS.
What the studies in question actually do is correlate a generalized preference for bitter tastes to antisocial personality traits. This would have almost no correlation to liking specific bitter foods, particularly black coffee, which is also a cocktail of pharmacologically acrtive compounds -- including of course caffeine, which is a potent stimulator of the brain's dopamine-mediated reward mechanisms. Beer, likewise, is usually bitter, but alcohol is also a powerful dopamine stimulatior.
But even repeated exposures to non-psychoactive bitter foods can habituate people, and eventually make those foods desirable. We crave what we are accustomed to eating, even if it is radicchio. Many vegetables have bitter components, which is why you have to learn to like them.