I'm not saying that she doesn't experience these problems, but how do you know that she experiences these problems more because she's a woman? I mean, I get my comments dismissed all the time, but being a man I don't catergorize them all as evisdence of systemic sexism. When I was very new at my current job I once treated a manager many years my senior as a secretary (not understanding his role). If he was a woman that incident could have easily been used as evidence of men treating women as secretaries.
I obviously can never know for sure, but my opinions are driven by her description of the events and my followup questions. Many times when she is venting about this topic she asks me a question such as "Am I just being crazy or is this really inappropriate?" My wife is very aware she could be overreacting in any single situation so she takes care in being introspective of her initial gut reactions. In most cases her complaints can be explained away by poor management, but often it is very hard to determine anything other than misogyny as a cause.
In nearly all cases we don't believe this discriminatory behavior to be intentional, but it doesn't change the fact that it makes many work situations more difficult for women. I can at least assure you that if my bosses treated me the way hers do on an unfortunately routine basis (not all bosses, but many of them) I would have left the company. But this behavior has been fairly consistent over 4 positions at 3 employers in the last decade so I trust her that it is unlikely to be different at a new employer. Sadly for a man this treatment would be considered unacceptable, but for women it may just be par for the course.
Why there is no outrage at the lack of women working in construction? Or that there are too few women working in remote oil rigs? Or that the army does not consist of 50% women?
First off, there are attempts to make other male dominated fields more inclusive to women, and to make female dominated fields such as teaching and nursing more inclusive to men. Google "women in combat roles" or "more male teachers needed" and start reading.
Second, STEM fields are among the highest paid and most sought after jobs in our economy. Look at any top-20 high paid jobs list and you will probably find nothing but CEO, various MD roles, lawyer, and various STEM jobs (and arguably most MD roles could be considered STEM). This makes it an important industry to tackle first when looking at gender inequality. After we deal with the "good" jobs then society could spend more times on less desirable ones.
Then there is the importance that STEM fields play in our economy. STEM and business are probably the areas where gender equality advocates focus on because improving equality here will have the greatest net benefit to our society. The US economy is not great because we have better fire fighters, construction workers, or oil rig workers. It is great because we have better run businesses and better run and funded research facilities. One of the primary drivers of increased productivity in the US over the past 40 years was women entering the workforce, and one factor which could significantly improve many STEM fields is greater inclusion of women into those fields.
You see so much talk of equality in STEM fields simply because it is relatively low hanging fruit for improving our economy.
A part of the population will be out of work. Welfare and taxation on the rich help to improve their lot.
But you miss out on having entry level jobs which help that part of the population gain the skills and work ethic necessary to get better jobs. I was a horrible worker when I started at the age of 15, and maybe wasn't even worth the $4.75 I was making (1996), but within a year my bosses had set me straight. It was an invaluable learning experience for me and I likely wouldn't be as hard working today with it.
Polling after the election did not find significant number of swing voters who voted Trump because of identity politics.
Ah yeah, about that...I'll have to find the article again, it was published in the last week. But it showed that around 16-20% of registered democrats flipped to Trump.
Considering the election came down to 77,744 votes in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, and Trump lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, any research into how Trump won has more to do with how a deeply flawed candidate barely won against another flawed candidate than it does about the state of the two political parties as a whole. Even if 20% of registered democrats flipped to Trump, a nearly equal amount of Republicans would have had to flip to Clinton and/or an equally increased amount of independents would have had to go Clinton for the numbers to work out.
The way things are going, voters who wanted to repeal Obamacare will be disappointed and voters who wanted more help for the working class are going to be disappointed. The only ones happy will be die hard supporters who just like his empty rhetoric and those who only care about a conservative supreme court.
And as it stands, the left are so fundamentally fractured that even when they're spending opponents at 2.5:1 ratios they're not winning, they're barely coming close.
The only recent elections I know of are ones in deeply Republican districts which are vacant because of Trump appointees. The mere fact a race where Republicans only months earlier had won 62-38 was only won 52-48 is at least a decent indicator of how voter sentiment has been spoiled by Trump already. Things are likely to get even worst by 2018.
From being treated like a secretary to having her comments dismissed...
Do you seriously mean that this only happens to women?
Do you seriously mean this happens to women and men to the same extent? No one is claiming women face hardships that men do not face, just that they face them more often.
Being treated like a secretary and having comments dismissed are not symptoms of a sexist workplace, they are symptoms of anyone listening to their wife talking about their day.
It is starting to become clear that many if not most ignorant political beliefs stem from false equivalencies. There are no hardships women face in the workplace that men do not also face. It is all about the extent of those hardships. There are real studies measuring ways in which worker contributions are thought of differently based on their gender, where men are expected to do "office house work" less often than women. If a woman declines to help a colleague, she is selfish. If a man does it, he is busy. And the list goes on and on.
While it is certainly true men can suffer from the same workplace challenges, they don't suffer from them as much.
Did you read the memo? Did it say anything about women being inferior to men and that they should stay in the kitchen?
I have read the memo, and you don't have to think a group is inferior in order to stereotype them.
His paper does often say women on average have differences from men. But the important thing is not whether there are differences, but the extent of those differences. When he says "women on average are more prone to anxiety" it is both a very true and very inflammatory statement without context. Women indeed do have higher rates of anxiety, but then again individuals from Euro/Anglo cultures on average have higher levels of anxiety than average women.
The reality is that this study found about 7 in 100 women suffer from anxiety as compared to 4 in 100 men. Sure it is nearly double, but how useful is it to even discuss this when bringing up gender in the workplace? Especially when in most cases there is medication to remove most symptoms. Where is the research to show to what extent anxiety affects a person's career? The mere fact he brought up higher anxiety rates at all is inflammatory and worthy of derision. It is a way to be discriminatory while maintaining you are only being fair. It is intellectually dishonest.
Any time people complain about SJWs wanting a 50/50 split in any given profession, it is nearly guaranteed everything else they say will be full of crap. Some of what they say may be factual, but only in an attempt to distract from the ignorant core of their argument. No one is fighting for a 50/50 split in STEM fields, since there are real differences between the genders and a real biological reason why childbearing affects women careers more than men. But a 60/40 or 55/45 split is likely attainable in a more discrimination free culture, and none of the minute differences between genders will inhibit that goal.
This topic comes up with my wife fairly often; even more often since we had two daughters. She is a business / data analysis at a smallish multinational manufacturing company, and while it upsets me when I see this behavior directed at my female software engineer counterparts it is even worse when you hear first hand accounts from someone you care about deeply. From being treated like a secretary to having her comments dismissed, it is all behavior any reasonably educated male should notice even without having it pointed out by female coworkers.
It is often hard to give advice to my wife because I simply don't have to deal with the same obstacles. She cannot really complain about misogynistic behavior without being branded a trouble maker, and she has to walk a very fine line between being assertive or just a bitch.
A quote from Bob Thaves about Ginger Rogers sums up the plight of women in the workforce in general, and women in STEM field especially. "Sure [Fred Astaire] was great, but don't forget Ginger Rogers did everything he did backwards and in high heels."
You're stuck in the same elitist bubble that many democrats are. The same bubble that will label people as race traitors, uncle toms, house n*iggers, and so on if they dare to walk off the plantation and make their own choices. And daring to look beyond their skin colour/race/sex/etc.
So you criticize the OP because of a belief in an alt-right boogeyman, and then label him as part of the "elitist leftist" boogeyman? This is all the same behavior of both thinking everyone is in a bubble but yourself and of false equivalency. Your willingness to declare a bubble of racists is the same as a bubble of educated but often detached liberals is beyond ignorant and intellectually dishonest.
The average person has seen race relations in the US degrade under Obama, severely degrade. Your average white, asian, etc., sees a push back by those people on the right. After years of groups like BLM, bamn, and so on attacking people. You don't think that your average working class asian would align with the right, after years of being a minority but "not the right kind of minority" by the left?
Polling after the election did not find significant number of swing voters who voted Trump because of identity politics. Identity politics mostly only mattered to each party's base. They voted for Trump for the same reason most parties cannot hold onto the white house for 12+ years: people give an irrational amount of blame/credit for their personal situation to the executive branch of government. In the past 100 years there have been 13 presidential elections after a party has been in power for at least 8 years, and the incumbent party has lost 10 of 13. It is not an indictment of the previous administration when they lose the White House, it normal operating procedure.
Unless there is a major correction, Trump has nearly no chance of getting a second term. He might not even try for one since it seems he never really wanted to be President in the first place. He likely just enjoyed the attention during the campaign. The only good thing this presidency will do is show how bankrupt the agenda and promises of the current Republican party are, and will hopefully not only cause them to lose power but also cause them to shift into a more reasonable party with real ideas for how to improve the country. I have voted for both Republicans and Democrats in the past, and would like to go back to being an independent voter.
Millions of non-billionaires donate to all sorts of charities. In 2016 it amounted to almost $400B. In every one of those cases they get a tax deduction. Are all of those people doing something wrong? Are all of those people not 'paying their full tax burden'?
The simple fact is 'your full tax burden' is defined by one thing: the law. If you are not breaking the law, then you ARE 'paying your full tax burden'.
My assumption is that in most of those cases they are not donating to charities they operate, so none of the concerns I mentioned are applicable.
And tax burden is not an official term in the IRS code, so the law has little to do with it. The law represents what those currently in power want each person's tax burden to be. Those who complain about billionaires donating to their own charities obviously take issue with these laws. Without taking sides, it shouldn't be hard to at least understand this argument. Feel free to disagree with it if you like but there isn't anything logically dishonest about it.
The 'he controls the wealth' is nonsense. The foundation controls the wealth, and their are strict laws on what can and can not be done with the money. Chief among the 'can nots' is that the money can not benefit HIM.
While I do generally like how Bill Gates has been spending his billions, just because he cannot buy a yacht with the money doesn't mean it doesn't benefit him. Bill Gates still has all the money he will ever need to buy anything he will ever want. Just about the only thing left is the ability to do the type of social engineering usually reserved for governments.
Bill Gates donates to his charity so he has control over 100% of those social engineering efforts, instead of only around 80% of it. If he paid taxes on those realized gains, the government would get to decide how to spend some of that money instead of Gates.
Ignoring whether or not it is a good thing that billionaires are able to "play government" with their billions without paying their full tax burden, it is at least true that Gates is dodging taxes with this charitable giving. Whether or not that is a bad thing is another conversation.
On one thread, AlphaGo didn't perform much better than Crazy Stone. Google threw vastly more hardware at the problem than any other Go AI, and saw the bump in skill level that you would expect from that.
The closest comparison I could find between CrazyStone and AlphaGo comes from the 2016 Nature paper (which I couldn't find a non-paywalled version of to link to). It compared a 2015 version of Crazystone with 32 CPUs to AlphaGo with 48 CPUs and 8 GPUs (Crazystone apparently didn't use GPUs at the time). The difference was an ELO of 1929 for Crazystone and 2890 for AlphaGo. This is a massive difference for a slight increase in processing power. To put it in perspective, when AlphaGo had 1202 CPUs and 176 GPUs, its ELO rating only went up another 250 points. Quite a jump, but nothing compared to the 960 point difference between Crazystone and AlphaGo on similar hardware.
While researching examples for this discussion, I have yet to come across any article claiming Google only performed better because of better hardware. Instead everyone is saying it was better software that caused the massive boost to performance. If a distributed version of Crazystone existed in 2015, and it scaled as well as AlphaGo, it arguably could have taken over 3000 CPUs for Crazystone to match a 48 CPU / 8 GPU AlphaGo machine. We will probably never quantitatively know exactly how much of its improvement is attributed to software design vs hardware, but from everything I can find it was software design improvements which was nearly entirely responsible for AlphaGo's success.
Most AI researchers were predicting it would happen within 5-10 years [wikipedia.org], which directly contradicts the early mentioned quote.
The quoted article Wikipedia used stated it was at least 5 years away, not within 5-10 years. At least 5 years could mean 5-50 for all you know after reading that article. The article also does not quote any actual researchers so it is impossible to verify the journalist's claims. And even if researchers in 2017 did think it was 5-10 years away, they were still off by nearly a decade in their chosen field of expertise. That puts the date from 2022-2027, so the thought of someone betting $10k it won't happen before 2025 doesn't appear contradicted since it is still in that range.
Go AIs had been progressing constantly over that time. Google got there a little sooner......partly by throwing a lot more hardware at it than anyone expected.
GO AIs had been progressing constantly over time, but were no where near able to beat professional human players in yearly competitions leading up to 2017. My toddler is making constant progression towards becoming college educated, but it is still around 20 years away. And Google did not win by throwing hardware at the problem. While certainly a beefy machine, it is estimated to have cost less than a third of what IBM Watson needed to win at Jeopardy. Overall it was a pretty standard machine as far as cutting edge AI competition machines go.
Regardless, this is all weak AI. AlphaGo sits there in silicon calculating, not even knowing what Go is. It is nowhere near strong AI, and we've made little progress in that area over the last 30-40 years.
We have no idea how much progress we have made over the last 30-40 years, since we don't know what it will take to develop strong AI. We will only know how close we are today in retrospect once it is finally developed. Time will tell how close our current machine learning and deep neural network techniques are to strong AI. Maybe we are 10% there, maybe we are 90%. But no one can credibly know which value is closer to the truth until it happens.
That quote is probably made up, but it does mostly line up with the sentiment of the GO AI researchers in the years leading up to Google's 2017 win. Here is the first article I found about how difficult GO AI programming is from before 2017, and it has a leading GO AI competition developer saying computers could beat professional GO players in "maybe 10 years" (said in 2014). I doubt anyone outside of Google's team felt much differently in early 2017, and I couldn't find any articles which claimed researchers were on the verge of beating human GO players using AI until after the fact.
Considering this is the trend for nearly all AI accomplishments, general AI will most likely be invented when nearly all AI researchers think it is decades away from happening.
We are nowhere near inventing that kind of AI, our current tech is not nearly good enough. (How is that for an arrogant technologist?)
Quite arrogant, considering since he feels he doesn't see the path to that kind of AI that it must mean no one possibly could.
The only thing we know for certain is that human level intelligence is physically possible. Predicting the invention of general AI is not like predicting time travel or faster than light travel. General intelligence is something we already know is possible, so artificial general intelligence it is something we know we need to be ready for.
Older workers are experienced enough to know that not all change is for the better.
The older workers who are capable enough to know that not all change is for the better, and who are able to make that determination, are the ones who move up to either technical architect roles or into upper management. These workers are rarely if ever discriminated against because of their age since their capabilities are easily demonstrated and they likely have hundreds of past coworkers who would beg their company to hire them if they ever needed a job.
The other perhaps two thirds of workers never have their experience turn into the type of wisdom you refer to. They just get set in their ways, spend too much time in a niche role while the industry passes them by, and then never have the drive to catch up again. These are the older workers who complain about age discrimination, and end up transitioning into project or product managers or if they are lucky find a non-tech company with horrible IT hiring practices and stagnate there for a couple decades.
When I am interviewing older workers I am probably guilty of age discrimination because I expect to be more impressed by someone in their 40's than someone in their 20's. If I can determine they switched careers recently then this isn't a consideration, but otherwise if I am similarly impressed by a 25 and 45 year old candidate, the 25 year old is getting hired in a heart beat (unless the job requires management experience). I feel it is more likely the 25 year old is in the process of improving into a much better worker over the next few years than someone who hasn't done it in their last 20 years on the job.
That said I tend to prefer candidates in the 30-60 range since most of the time they do impress me more in interviews than 20 year olds. As you would probably expect because of their experience.
If this biome map is still accurate then a rise of 8C/14F is not going to mean the world is uninhabitable. The equatorial region might be too much but there's plenty of land with highest summer temperatures below 72F/22C so the increase won't make those areas too hot for humans.
Habitable land isn't the biggest problem. Arable and fertile land is. A drastic shift in global temperature would make a large portion of our fertile lands unable to grow crops. Existing unarable land would not magically become fertile. Billions of people would still die even though there may be plenty of habitable land left on the planet.
Anything with "AI" in it is bullshit. There is no AI, and likely never will be. All we have are parlor tricks and algorithms.
This comment is as insightful as sacrificing virgins to help with the next harvest. We know with nearly 100% certainty we will have AI at some point. We already know human-level intelligence is possible, so it is only a matter of time until it can be recreated artificially. The only thing stopping AI is the extinction of our species before we figure it out.
With enough time, pencils and paper, a human can do what a computer can do.
And given enough time, my toddler can do anything I can do. Doesn't mean I want to wait 20 years for that to happen. Doing things with speed and consistency is exactly what computers have always been able to do that humans cannot. By your logic I can do everything Usain Bolt can do; guess I should sign up for the Olympics.
They cannot even do what humans can do (this is weak AI, no actual intelligence present), how would they do things humans cannot do?
Computers have been capable of things humans cannot do since they were just basic adding machines. Why would we even be using computers if you were correct? Do you also think a pickup truck is incapable of doing things humans cannot do just because it doesn't use strong AI to do it?
These machines: 1) Do not learn - learning requires reasoning, and these machine do not reason. 2) Do not use AI - they are not intelligent or even artificially. Again no reasoning.
1) Learning does not require reasoning, unless you believe a single cell organism with no nervous system is capable of reasoning. 2) AI is a very broad field which since its inception has included some very basic approaches such as expert systems and heuristic models.
So please lets starting using correct terms.. We are techies. We sould get this basic fact right..
Agreed. Techies should stop saying that anything short of Skynet isn't AI. It makes them sound pedantic, pretentious and stupid. Modern machine learning techniques are at the forefront of AI research and any claims to the contrary are simply ignorant.
Agreed. TV Viewers managed about five seasons with most major plot points available online and still enjoyed the show. They either read the spoilers if they were curious or kept away if they wanted to be surprised.
Any non-book readers who enjoyed the first five seasons will enjoy the seventh season even if it becomes spoiled on Reddit.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not saying that she doesn't experience these problems, but how do you know that she experiences these problems more because she's a woman? I mean, I get my comments dismissed all the time, but being a man I don't catergorize them all as evisdence of systemic sexism. When I was very new at my current job I once treated a manager many years my senior as a secretary (not understanding his role). If he was a woman that incident could have easily been used as evidence of men treating women as secretaries.
I obviously can never know for sure, but my opinions are driven by her description of the events and my followup questions. Many times when she is venting about this topic she asks me a question such as "Am I just being crazy or is this really inappropriate?" My wife is very aware she could be overreacting in any single situation so she takes care in being introspective of her initial gut reactions. In most cases her complaints can be explained away by poor management, but often it is very hard to determine anything other than misogyny as a cause.
In nearly all cases we don't believe this discriminatory behavior to be intentional, but it doesn't change the fact that it makes many work situations more difficult for women. I can at least assure you that if my bosses treated me the way hers do on an unfortunately routine basis (not all bosses, but many of them) I would have left the company. But this behavior has been fairly consistent over 4 positions at 3 employers in the last decade so I trust her that it is unlikely to be different at a new employer. Sadly for a man this treatment would be considered unacceptable, but for women it may just be par for the course.
Why there is no outrage at the lack of women working in construction? Or that there are too few women working in remote oil rigs? Or that the army does not consist of 50% women?
First off, there are attempts to make other male dominated fields more inclusive to women, and to make female dominated fields such as teaching and nursing more inclusive to men. Google "women in combat roles" or "more male teachers needed" and start reading.
Second, STEM fields are among the highest paid and most sought after jobs in our economy. Look at any top-20 high paid jobs list and you will probably find nothing but CEO, various MD roles, lawyer, and various STEM jobs (and arguably most MD roles could be considered STEM). This makes it an important industry to tackle first when looking at gender inequality. After we deal with the "good" jobs then society could spend more times on less desirable ones.
Then there is the importance that STEM fields play in our economy. STEM and business are probably the areas where gender equality advocates focus on because improving equality here will have the greatest net benefit to our society. The US economy is not great because we have better fire fighters, construction workers, or oil rig workers. It is great because we have better run businesses and better run and funded research facilities. One of the primary drivers of increased productivity in the US over the past 40 years was women entering the workforce, and one factor which could significantly improve many STEM fields is greater inclusion of women into those fields.
You see so much talk of equality in STEM fields simply because it is relatively low hanging fruit for improving our economy.
A part of the population will be out of work. Welfare and taxation on the rich help to improve their lot.
But you miss out on having entry level jobs which help that part of the population gain the skills and work ethic necessary to get better jobs. I was a horrible worker when I started at the age of 15, and maybe wasn't even worth the $4.75 I was making (1996), but within a year my bosses had set me straight. It was an invaluable learning experience for me and I likely wouldn't be as hard working today with it.
Polling after the election did not find significant number of swing voters who voted Trump because of identity politics.
Ah yeah, about that...I'll have to find the article again, it was published in the last week. But it showed that around 16-20% of registered democrats flipped to Trump.
Considering the election came down to 77,744 votes in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, and Trump lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes, any research into how Trump won has more to do with how a deeply flawed candidate barely won against another flawed candidate than it does about the state of the two political parties as a whole. Even if 20% of registered democrats flipped to Trump, a nearly equal amount of Republicans would have had to flip to Clinton and/or an equally increased amount of independents would have had to go Clinton for the numbers to work out.
The way things are going, voters who wanted to repeal Obamacare will be disappointed and voters who wanted more help for the working class are going to be disappointed. The only ones happy will be die hard supporters who just like his empty rhetoric and those who only care about a conservative supreme court.
And as it stands, the left are so fundamentally fractured that even when they're spending opponents at 2.5:1 ratios they're not winning, they're barely coming close.
The only recent elections I know of are ones in deeply Republican districts which are vacant because of Trump appointees. The mere fact a race where Republicans only months earlier had won 62-38 was only won 52-48 is at least a decent indicator of how voter sentiment has been spoiled by Trump already. Things are likely to get even worst by 2018.
From being treated like a secretary to having her comments dismissed...
Do you seriously mean that this only happens to women?
Do you seriously mean this happens to women and men to the same extent? No one is claiming women face hardships that men do not face, just that they face them more often.
Being treated like a secretary and having comments dismissed are not symptoms of a sexist workplace, they are symptoms of anyone listening to their wife talking about their day.
It is starting to become clear that many if not most ignorant political beliefs stem from false equivalencies. There are no hardships women face in the workplace that men do not also face. It is all about the extent of those hardships. There are real studies measuring ways in which worker contributions are thought of differently based on their gender, where men are expected to do "office house work" less often than women. If a woman declines to help a colleague, she is selfish. If a man does it, he is busy. And the list goes on and on.
While it is certainly true men can suffer from the same workplace challenges, they don't suffer from them as much.
Did you read the memo? Did it say anything about women being inferior to men and that they should stay in the kitchen?
I have read the memo, and you don't have to think a group is inferior in order to stereotype them.
His paper does often say women on average have differences from men. But the important thing is not whether there are differences, but the extent of those differences. When he says "women on average are more prone to anxiety" it is both a very true and very inflammatory statement without context. Women indeed do have higher rates of anxiety, but then again individuals from Euro/Anglo cultures on average have higher levels of anxiety than average women.
The reality is that this study found about 7 in 100 women suffer from anxiety as compared to 4 in 100 men. Sure it is nearly double, but how useful is it to even discuss this when bringing up gender in the workplace? Especially when in most cases there is medication to remove most symptoms. Where is the research to show to what extent anxiety affects a person's career? The mere fact he brought up higher anxiety rates at all is inflammatory and worthy of derision. It is a way to be discriminatory while maintaining you are only being fair. It is intellectually dishonest.
Any time people complain about SJWs wanting a 50/50 split in any given profession, it is nearly guaranteed everything else they say will be full of crap. Some of what they say may be factual, but only in an attempt to distract from the ignorant core of their argument. No one is fighting for a 50/50 split in STEM fields, since there are real differences between the genders and a real biological reason why childbearing affects women careers more than men. But a 60/40 or 55/45 split is likely attainable in a more discrimination free culture, and none of the minute differences between genders will inhibit that goal.
This topic comes up with my wife fairly often; even more often since we had two daughters. She is a business / data analysis at a smallish multinational manufacturing company, and while it upsets me when I see this behavior directed at my female software engineer counterparts it is even worse when you hear first hand accounts from someone you care about deeply. From being treated like a secretary to having her comments dismissed, it is all behavior any reasonably educated male should notice even without having it pointed out by female coworkers.
It is often hard to give advice to my wife because I simply don't have to deal with the same obstacles. She cannot really complain about misogynistic behavior without being branded a trouble maker, and she has to walk a very fine line between being assertive or just a bitch.
A quote from Bob Thaves about Ginger Rogers sums up the plight of women in the workforce in general, and women in STEM field especially. "Sure [Fred Astaire] was great, but don't forget Ginger Rogers did everything he did backwards and in high heels."
You're stuck in the same elitist bubble that many democrats are. The same bubble that will label people as race traitors, uncle toms, house n*iggers, and so on if they dare to walk off the plantation and make their own choices. And daring to look beyond their skin colour/race/sex/etc.
So you criticize the OP because of a belief in an alt-right boogeyman, and then label him as part of the "elitist leftist" boogeyman? This is all the same behavior of both thinking everyone is in a bubble but yourself and of false equivalency. Your willingness to declare a bubble of racists is the same as a bubble of educated but often detached liberals is beyond ignorant and intellectually dishonest.
The average person has seen race relations in the US degrade under Obama, severely degrade. Your average white, asian, etc., sees a push back by those people on the right. After years of groups like BLM, bamn, and so on attacking people. You don't think that your average working class asian would align with the right, after years of being a minority but "not the right kind of minority" by the left?
Polling after the election did not find significant number of swing voters who voted Trump because of identity politics. Identity politics mostly only mattered to each party's base. They voted for Trump for the same reason most parties cannot hold onto the white house for 12+ years: people give an irrational amount of blame/credit for their personal situation to the executive branch of government. In the past 100 years there have been 13 presidential elections after a party has been in power for at least 8 years, and the incumbent party has lost 10 of 13. It is not an indictment of the previous administration when they lose the White House, it normal operating procedure.
Unless there is a major correction, Trump has nearly no chance of getting a second term. He might not even try for one since it seems he never really wanted to be President in the first place. He likely just enjoyed the attention during the campaign. The only good thing this presidency will do is show how bankrupt the agenda and promises of the current Republican party are, and will hopefully not only cause them to lose power but also cause them to shift into a more reasonable party with real ideas for how to improve the country. I have voted for both Republicans and Democrats in the past, and would like to go back to being an independent voter.
Millions of non-billionaires donate to all sorts of charities. In 2016 it amounted to almost $400B. In every one of those cases they get a tax deduction. Are all of those people doing something wrong? Are all of those people not 'paying their full tax burden'?
The simple fact is 'your full tax burden' is defined by one thing: the law. If you are not breaking the law, then you ARE 'paying your full tax burden'.
My assumption is that in most of those cases they are not donating to charities they operate, so none of the concerns I mentioned are applicable.
And tax burden is not an official term in the IRS code, so the law has little to do with it. The law represents what those currently in power want each person's tax burden to be. Those who complain about billionaires donating to their own charities obviously take issue with these laws. Without taking sides, it shouldn't be hard to at least understand this argument. Feel free to disagree with it if you like but there isn't anything logically dishonest about it.
The 'he controls the wealth' is nonsense. The foundation controls the wealth, and their are strict laws on what can and can not be done with the money. Chief among the 'can nots' is that the money can not benefit HIM.
While I do generally like how Bill Gates has been spending his billions, just because he cannot buy a yacht with the money doesn't mean it doesn't benefit him. Bill Gates still has all the money he will ever need to buy anything he will ever want. Just about the only thing left is the ability to do the type of social engineering usually reserved for governments.
Bill Gates donates to his charity so he has control over 100% of those social engineering efforts, instead of only around 80% of it. If he paid taxes on those realized gains, the government would get to decide how to spend some of that money instead of Gates.
Ignoring whether or not it is a good thing that billionaires are able to "play government" with their billions without paying their full tax burden, it is at least true that Gates is dodging taxes with this charitable giving. Whether or not that is a bad thing is another conversation.
On one thread, AlphaGo didn't perform much better than Crazy Stone. Google threw vastly more hardware at the problem than any other Go AI, and saw the bump in skill level that you would expect from that.
The closest comparison I could find between CrazyStone and AlphaGo comes from the 2016 Nature paper (which I couldn't find a non-paywalled version of to link to). It compared a 2015 version of Crazystone with 32 CPUs to AlphaGo with 48 CPUs and 8 GPUs (Crazystone apparently didn't use GPUs at the time). The difference was an ELO of 1929 for Crazystone and 2890 for AlphaGo. This is a massive difference for a slight increase in processing power. To put it in perspective, when AlphaGo had 1202 CPUs and 176 GPUs, its ELO rating only went up another 250 points. Quite a jump, but nothing compared to the 960 point difference between Crazystone and AlphaGo on similar hardware.
While researching examples for this discussion, I have yet to come across any article claiming Google only performed better because of better hardware. Instead everyone is saying it was better software that caused the massive boost to performance. If a distributed version of Crazystone existed in 2015, and it scaled as well as AlphaGo, it arguably could have taken over 3000 CPUs for Crazystone to match a 48 CPU / 8 GPU AlphaGo machine. We will probably never quantitatively know exactly how much of its improvement is attributed to software design vs hardware, but from everything I can find it was software design improvements which was nearly entirely responsible for AlphaGo's success.
Most AI researchers were predicting it would happen within 5-10 years [wikipedia.org], which directly contradicts the early mentioned quote.
The quoted article Wikipedia used stated it was at least 5 years away, not within 5-10 years. At least 5 years could mean 5-50 for all you know after reading that article. The article also does not quote any actual researchers so it is impossible to verify the journalist's claims. And even if researchers in 2017 did think it was 5-10 years away, they were still off by nearly a decade in their chosen field of expertise. That puts the date from 2022-2027, so the thought of someone betting $10k it won't happen before 2025 doesn't appear contradicted since it is still in that range.
Go AIs had been progressing constantly over that time. Google got there a little sooner......partly by throwing a lot more hardware at it than anyone expected.
GO AIs had been progressing constantly over time, but were no where near able to beat professional human players in yearly competitions leading up to 2017. My toddler is making constant progression towards becoming college educated, but it is still around 20 years away. And Google did not win by throwing hardware at the problem. While certainly a beefy machine, it is estimated to have cost less than a third of what IBM Watson needed to win at Jeopardy. Overall it was a pretty standard machine as far as cutting edge AI competition machines go.
Regardless, this is all weak AI. AlphaGo sits there in silicon calculating, not even knowing what Go is. It is nowhere near strong AI, and we've made little progress in that area over the last 30-40 years.
We have no idea how much progress we have made over the last 30-40 years, since we don't know what it will take to develop strong AI. We will only know how close we are today in retrospect once it is finally developed. Time will tell how close our current machine learning and deep neural network techniques are to strong AI. Maybe we are 10% there, maybe we are 90%. But no one can credibly know which value is closer to the truth until it happens.
Really? Do they have the right to toss muslims off their service?
Read up on what protected classes are and when they apply.
GoDaddy is not a business that offers services to the public?
Reading comprehension fail, unless you think being a Neo-Nazi is a protected class.
A Google search turns up nothing for that quote.
That quote is probably made up, but it does mostly line up with the sentiment of the GO AI researchers in the years leading up to Google's 2017 win. Here is the first article I found about how difficult GO AI programming is from before 2017, and it has a leading GO AI competition developer saying computers could beat professional GO players in "maybe 10 years" (said in 2014). I doubt anyone outside of Google's team felt much differently in early 2017, and I couldn't find any articles which claimed researchers were on the verge of beating human GO players using AI until after the fact.
Considering this is the trend for nearly all AI accomplishments, general AI will most likely be invented when nearly all AI researchers think it is decades away from happening.
We are nowhere near inventing that kind of AI, our current tech is not nearly good enough. (How is that for an arrogant technologist?)
Quite arrogant, considering since he feels he doesn't see the path to that kind of AI that it must mean no one possibly could.
The only thing we know for certain is that human level intelligence is physically possible. Predicting the invention of general AI is not like predicting time travel or faster than light travel. General intelligence is something we already know is possible, so artificial general intelligence it is something we know we need to be ready for.
Older workers are experienced enough to know that not all change is for the better.
The older workers who are capable enough to know that not all change is for the better, and who are able to make that determination, are the ones who move up to either technical architect roles or into upper management. These workers are rarely if ever discriminated against because of their age since their capabilities are easily demonstrated and they likely have hundreds of past coworkers who would beg their company to hire them if they ever needed a job.
The other perhaps two thirds of workers never have their experience turn into the type of wisdom you refer to. They just get set in their ways, spend too much time in a niche role while the industry passes them by, and then never have the drive to catch up again. These are the older workers who complain about age discrimination, and end up transitioning into project or product managers or if they are lucky find a non-tech company with horrible IT hiring practices and stagnate there for a couple decades.
When I am interviewing older workers I am probably guilty of age discrimination because I expect to be more impressed by someone in their 40's than someone in their 20's. If I can determine they switched careers recently then this isn't a consideration, but otherwise if I am similarly impressed by a 25 and 45 year old candidate, the 25 year old is getting hired in a heart beat (unless the job requires management experience). I feel it is more likely the 25 year old is in the process of improving into a much better worker over the next few years than someone who hasn't done it in their last 20 years on the job.
That said I tend to prefer candidates in the 30-60 range since most of the time they do impress me more in interviews than 20 year olds. As you would probably expect because of their experience.
If this biome map is still accurate then a rise of 8C/14F is not going to mean the world is uninhabitable. The equatorial region might be too much but there's plenty of land with highest summer temperatures below 72F/22C so the increase won't make those areas too hot for humans.
Habitable land isn't the biggest problem. Arable and fertile land is. A drastic shift in global temperature would make a large portion of our fertile lands unable to grow crops. Existing unarable land would not magically become fertile. Billions of people would still die even though there may be plenty of habitable land left on the planet.
Anything with "AI" in it is bullshit. There is no AI, and likely never will be. All we have are parlor tricks and algorithms.
This comment is as insightful as sacrificing virgins to help with the next harvest. We know with nearly 100% certainty we will have AI at some point. We already know human-level intelligence is possible, so it is only a matter of time until it can be recreated artificially. The only thing stopping AI is the extinction of our species before we figure it out.
With enough time, pencils and paper, a human can do what a computer can do.
And given enough time, my toddler can do anything I can do. Doesn't mean I want to wait 20 years for that to happen. Doing things with speed and consistency is exactly what computers have always been able to do that humans cannot. By your logic I can do everything Usain Bolt can do; guess I should sign up for the Olympics.
They cannot even do what humans can do (this is weak AI, no actual intelligence present), how would they do things humans cannot do?
Computers have been capable of things humans cannot do since they were just basic adding machines. Why would we even be using computers if you were correct? Do you also think a pickup truck is incapable of doing things humans cannot do just because it doesn't use strong AI to do it?
These machines:
1) Do not learn - learning requires reasoning, and these machine do not reason.
2) Do not use AI - they are not intelligent or even artificially. Again no reasoning.
1) Learning does not require reasoning, unless you believe a single cell organism with no nervous system is capable of reasoning.
2) AI is a very broad field which since its inception has included some very basic approaches such as expert systems and heuristic models.
So please lets starting using correct terms.. We are techies. We sould get this basic fact right. .
Agreed. Techies should stop saying that anything short of Skynet isn't AI. It makes them sound pedantic, pretentious and stupid. Modern machine learning techniques are at the forefront of AI research and any claims to the contrary are simply ignorant.
Agreed. TV Viewers managed about five seasons with most major plot points available online and still enjoyed the show. They either read the spoilers if they were curious or kept away if they wanted to be surprised.
Any non-book readers who enjoyed the first five seasons will enjoy the seventh season even if it becomes spoiled on Reddit.
Damn it don't spoil it for me I am only in season 4.
I wouldn't read any articles about Game of Thrones then. Just get out of this thread all together.