It is not merely a statement of fact; it was the one fact out of all the facts in the universe that was selected. Since choice was involved, it clearly reflects at least somewhat on the chooser.
Secondly, human communication takes place on multiple levels; it's not just about conveyance of facts. Consider all the uses of the word "f*ck". Grammatically slots into a sentence as a noun, verb, adjective, or even adverb ("You are f*cking unbelievably stupid."), but it doesn't actually function semantically as that part of speech. Linguists call a word whose semantic function in a sentence is to convey attitude an expletive.
Everybody uses expletives occasionally, even your sainted grandma probably used the kind weak tea cusses linguists call minced oaths. But over-reliance on expletives conveys the impression of ignorance or mental deficiency. Why?
It's not the word choice that's the problem; it's an over-reliance on shared attitude. That implies an inability to marshal facts, or understand and make use of attitudes that may differ from your own. Take Lincoln's Gettysburg Address or Churchill's Finest Hour speech and compare them to Trump's tweeting. It's not just length that's the difference, the Gettysburg Address would fit comfortably into a six entry tweet storm.
Like Lincoln and Churchill, Donald Trump's *also* attempts to weld emotion and fact into a persuasive instrument, and as such his tweets are revealing. They aren't aimed at influencing foreign leaders, the opposition in the US, or even his own party as a whole. They are aimed exclusively at his own base within his party. He leans heavily on attitude for the same reason you're more likely to swear casually when communicating with a team you work closely with than with strangers.
Trump has difficulty reaching out to people who don't have an intense emotional attachment to him. That is why the Republicans have had such difficulty with their legislative agenda. Under a Reagan or even a George W. Bush they'd have crushed it last year. But Trump does not draw people together even when they have similar aims; people in his orbit are at continual risk of being ejected.
Because when you can't compete, change the rules to your favor.
And your point would be? The argument *for* affirmative action is that the status quo ante competition is unfairly rigged so that people in certain groups can't compete. This can be contested several ways:
(1) denying that the status quo is rigged.
(2) denying that the status quo being rigged is a problem.
(3) accepting that the status quo is a problem but denying that anything can be done about it.
(4) accepting that the status quo should be changed but denying that affirmative action is the right thing to do about it.
When you buy a wedding cake you pick the design out of a book. The only reason they're made to order is that they're larger than the cakes people usually need, not because the baker has to come up with a unique design that reflects his opinions about your specific choice of spouse.
I can see this argument if you're talking about a wedding photographer, who is at least a participant in the proceedings. But a baker isn't. He just needs to make the cake the customer picked out and have it ready on a specific date.
Actually there is abundant data confirming that minorities get different treatment by police than whites. For example epidemiological research says whites are slightly more likely to use weed than blacks, but law enforcement statistics show that blacks are roughly 3x more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession.
It is also true that police actually shoot roughly twice as many white people per year as blacks, but there are five times as many whites as blacks. This doesn't mean that every time a cop shoots a black man that race is a factor, but statistically it is bound to be a factor in a large number of shootings, although not in the simplistic way favored by many left-wing blogs on the topic -- although that probably happens at least some of the time. Assuming that the police are no better or no worse than society at large they must have enough racist sociopaths to produce at least a few shootings like that per year.
My parents were married as an interracial couple in the 1940s, they had to rent their apartment through a straw buyer. Now it's all well and good to say, "you have the civil right to marry anyone you want," but it's not very meaningful if that means giving up on a roof over your head.
Now wedding cakes are a cause celebre specifically because it's a trivial issue. But confronting this level of triviality is an intrinsic consequence of line-drawing. Either you draw no lines, in which case you as a person whose personal life choices may be unpopular are in possession of legal rights are effectively meaningless. Or you draw the line somewhere, in which case somebody is giving up something.
I'd argue that the fact that what is given up either way on this question is trivial, it's somewhere in the general vicinity of "right" when it comes to line drawing.
Raspberry PI isn't a CPU. It is a single-board-computer designed for computer-science education and for rapid prototyping of embedded systems. The CPU in question is the Cortex A53 processor, which according to the manufacturer's datasheet is intended as a:
High efficiency processor for a wide range of applications in mobile, DTV, automotive, networking, storage, aerospace, and more.
This doesn't sound like a toy. It sounds like it is meant to be simple and efficient to integrate into industrial designs. That probably means that power consumption is a higher priority than squeezing the most performance out of the chip, which in turn means less aggressive use of speculative execution to keep as much of the chip working at any given time as possible.
So not being as vulnerable to this particular side channel attack isn't the result of the forethought of the Raspberry Pi's designers, or or Broadcom or ARM Holdings. It's the result of the intended applications of the CPU.
I'll tell you what I told my kids when it comes to information literacy: in a world with seven billion people, you can find examples of any kind of you can imagine. Christian terrorists? Oh, please, that's easy; there are even Jewish Neonazis out there. It doesn't make everyone who calls himself a Christian a terrorist.
What this means is that if you set out to confirm your preconceptions about some group people, you can find examples that do that. If you set out to disprove other peoples' preconceptions about that group, you will also find examples.
You can get any result you want out of a machine learning approach to classification. Training the model to give the answers you want isn't cheating, it's how the algorithms are supposed to work.
I have actually been seeing of late, YouTube rants of people actually arguing that if you are of any non-white color they you by definition can NOT be a racist.
Well, dredging strawmen from the bottom of the YouTube comment barrel is hardly epistemologically impressive.
Actually in this case I think "strategy" rather than "logic" is probably a better way of putting it. Everyone uses speculative evaluation to speed things up, Intel just does it slightly more aggressively than other chipmakers and so presents a slightly larger attack surface.
While what you say is true after a fashion consider: modern medicine has developed a near-miraculous capacity for keeping you going for years, even decades after you get sick. What it hasn't accomplished is make going those bonus years of ill-health fun.
Simple answer: you need the opinion of an objective, qualified third party who has spent some time with you face to face evaluating your specific situation. What you don't need is opinions from Internet randos. Nor is it a good idea to rely on some kind of guided self-assessment. If you don't have a substance abuse problem your self-assessment would be reliable, but if you *do* then it's one of the first things to go.
Generally if something causes you distress (including worry and undue concern), and that distress does not go away on its own after a short time, that represents *some* kind of mental health problem. What you have may be a substance abuse problem, a personality disorder (like obsessive-compulsive personality disorder), or quite possibly nothing at all but a normal, passing concern. I can't tell you which it is, nor can anyone else here.
Yeah, banning wood stoves is the obvious solution. But getting people to change their behavior is difficult and it takes a long time, even when that behavior is killing them. If you need a quick change in results you need to do the non-obvious as well as the obvious.
An alternative solution would be to charge people what their internal combustion engine costs and let the market decide between ICE and electric. Then you could let the market decide the right mix of ICE and electric vehicles.
The thing is people would never stand for paying the true cost of their ICE vehicles.
Norway is promoting electric vehicles because it has serious air pollution problems. They could address this by banning the use of wood burning, which is popular there, but because they have a lot of renewable energy reserves offering an electric car carrot is more politically feasible than threatening the public with a wood stove stick.
Yes, not your claim, but you were responding to *my* challenge.
But addressing the point you want to make, you have not shown any evidence that bears on prevalence of dead voter type fraud, only that it exists, which nobody would deny.
Also known as rent-seeking behavior. That's a term you really need to familiarize yourself with if you live in a country where corporations control the government.
Slashdot Mirror
It is not merely a statement of fact; it was the one fact out of all the facts in the universe that was selected. Since choice was involved, it clearly reflects at least somewhat on the chooser.
Secondly, human communication takes place on multiple levels; it's not just about conveyance of facts. Consider all the uses of the word "f*ck". Grammatically slots into a sentence as a noun, verb, adjective, or even adverb ("You are f*cking unbelievably stupid."), but it doesn't actually function semantically as that part of speech. Linguists call a word whose semantic function in a sentence is to convey attitude an expletive.
Everybody uses expletives occasionally, even your sainted grandma probably used the kind weak tea cusses linguists call minced oaths. But over-reliance on expletives conveys the impression of ignorance or mental deficiency. Why?
It's not the word choice that's the problem; it's an over-reliance on shared attitude. That implies an inability to marshal facts, or understand and make use of attitudes that may differ from your own. Take Lincoln's Gettysburg Address or Churchill's Finest Hour speech and compare them to Trump's tweeting. It's not just length that's the difference, the Gettysburg Address would fit comfortably into a six entry tweet storm.
Like Lincoln and Churchill, Donald Trump's *also* attempts to weld emotion and fact into a persuasive instrument, and as such his tweets are revealing. They aren't aimed at influencing foreign leaders, the opposition in the US, or even his own party as a whole. They are aimed exclusively at his own base within his party. He leans heavily on attitude for the same reason you're more likely to swear casually when communicating with a team you work closely with than with strangers.
Trump has difficulty reaching out to people who don't have an intense emotional attachment to him. That is why the Republicans have had such difficulty with their legislative agenda. Under a Reagan or even a George W. Bush they'd have crushed it last year. But Trump does not draw people together even when they have similar aims; people in his orbit are at continual risk of being ejected.
Right, but this is really about trying to infer what is being said when the speaker employs circumlocution.
Isn't close examination of your words part of the whole marketplace of ideas thing?
Wait -- so some Buzzfeed editor's twitter feed is how you find out what is socially acceptable?
Because when you can't compete, change the rules to your favor.
And your point would be? The argument *for* affirmative action is that the status quo ante competition is unfairly rigged so that people in certain groups can't compete. This can be contested several ways:
(1) denying that the status quo is rigged.
(2) denying that the status quo being rigged is a problem.
(3) accepting that the status quo is a problem but denying that anything can be done about it.
(4) accepting that the status quo should be changed but denying that affirmative action is the right thing to do about it.
When you buy a wedding cake you pick the design out of a book. The only reason they're made to order is that they're larger than the cakes people usually need, not because the baker has to come up with a unique design that reflects his opinions about your specific choice of spouse.
I can see this argument if you're talking about a wedding photographer, who is at least a participant in the proceedings. But a baker isn't. He just needs to make the cake the customer picked out and have it ready on a specific date.
Actually there is abundant data confirming that minorities get different treatment by police than whites. For example epidemiological research says whites are slightly more likely to use weed than blacks, but law enforcement statistics show that blacks are roughly 3x more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession.
It is also true that police actually shoot roughly twice as many white people per year as blacks, but there are five times as many whites as blacks. This doesn't mean that every time a cop shoots a black man that race is a factor, but statistically it is bound to be a factor in a large number of shootings, although not in the simplistic way favored by many left-wing blogs on the topic -- although that probably happens at least some of the time. Assuming that the police are no better or no worse than society at large they must have enough racist sociopaths to produce at least a few shootings like that per year.
My parents were married as an interracial couple in the 1940s, they had to rent their apartment through a straw buyer. Now it's all well and good to say, "you have the civil right to marry anyone you want," but it's not very meaningful if that means giving up on a roof over your head.
Now wedding cakes are a cause celebre specifically because it's a trivial issue. But confronting this level of triviality is an intrinsic consequence of line-drawing. Either you draw no lines, in which case you as a person whose personal life choices may be unpopular are in possession of legal rights are effectively meaningless. Or you draw the line somewhere, in which case somebody is giving up something.
I'd argue that the fact that what is given up either way on this question is trivial, it's somewhere in the general vicinity of "right" when it comes to line drawing.
Raspberry PIs and equivalents are toys.
Raspberry PI isn't a CPU. It is a single-board-computer designed for computer-science education and for rapid prototyping of embedded systems. The CPU in question is the Cortex A53 processor, which according to the manufacturer's datasheet is intended as a:
High efficiency processor for a wide range of applications in mobile, DTV, automotive, networking, storage, aerospace, and more.
This doesn't sound like a toy. It sounds like it is meant to be simple and efficient to integrate into industrial designs. That probably means that power consumption is a higher priority than squeezing the most performance out of the chip, which in turn means less aggressive use of speculative execution to keep as much of the chip working at any given time as possible.
So not being as vulnerable to this particular side channel attack isn't the result of the forethought of the Raspberry Pi's designers, or or Broadcom or ARM Holdings. It's the result of the intended applications of the CPU.
I think the question is broken. These methods aren't supposed to produce unbiased results. They're supposed to automate human judgements.
I'll tell you what I told my kids when it comes to information literacy: in a world with seven billion people, you can find examples of any kind of you can imagine. Christian terrorists? Oh, please, that's easy; there are even Jewish Neonazis out there. It doesn't make everyone who calls himself a Christian a terrorist.
What this means is that if you set out to confirm your preconceptions about some group people, you can find examples that do that. If you set out to disprove other peoples' preconceptions about that group, you will also find examples.
So in your mind, the only area of inquiry epistemology applies to is epistemology.
You can get any result you want out of a machine learning approach to classification. Training the model to give the answers you want isn't cheating, it's how the algorithms are supposed to work.
I have actually been seeing of late, YouTube rants of people actually arguing that if you are of any non-white color they you by definition can NOT be a racist.
Well, dredging strawmen from the bottom of the YouTube comment barrel is hardly epistemologically impressive.
You realize that there is no such thing anymore as obvious satire.
I know what "fiat" means; I just don't know what the poster thinks it means.
Actually in this case I think "strategy" rather than "logic" is probably a better way of putting it. Everyone uses speculative evaluation to speed things up, Intel just does it slightly more aggressively than other chipmakers and so presents a slightly larger attack surface.
I'm just curious what the difference between a "fiat decision" and a "non-fiat decision" might be.
Yeah, 'cuz there ain't no brown people in tech. Sheesh.
While what you say is true after a fashion consider: modern medicine has developed a near-miraculous capacity for keeping you going for years, even decades after you get sick. What it hasn't accomplished is make going those bonus years of ill-health fun.
Simple answer: you need the opinion of an objective, qualified third party who has spent some time with you face to face evaluating your specific situation. What you don't need is opinions from Internet randos. Nor is it a good idea to rely on some kind of guided self-assessment. If you don't have a substance abuse problem your self-assessment would be reliable, but if you *do* then it's one of the first things to go.
Generally if something causes you distress (including worry and undue concern), and that distress does not go away on its own after a short time, that represents *some* kind of mental health problem. What you have may be a substance abuse problem, a personality disorder (like obsessive-compulsive personality disorder), or quite possibly nothing at all but a normal, passing concern. I can't tell you which it is, nor can anyone else here.
Yeah, banning wood stoves is the obvious solution. But getting people to change their behavior is difficult and it takes a long time, even when that behavior is killing them. If you need a quick change in results you need to do the non-obvious as well as the obvious.
An alternative solution would be to charge people what their internal combustion engine costs and let the market decide between ICE and electric. Then you could let the market decide the right mix of ICE and electric vehicles.
The thing is people would never stand for paying the true cost of their ICE vehicles.
Norway is promoting electric vehicles because it has serious air pollution problems. They could address this by banning the use of wood burning, which is popular there, but because they have a lot of renewable energy reserves offering an electric car carrot is more politically feasible than threatening the public with a wood stove stick.
Yes, not your claim, but you were responding to *my* challenge.
But addressing the point you want to make, you have not shown any evidence that bears on prevalence of dead voter type fraud, only that it exists, which nobody would deny.
Also known as rent-seeking behavior. That's a term you really need to familiarize yourself with if you live in a country where corporations control the government.