I got a dirty look from Canadian border patrol when he asked my citizenship & I said "American". My Canadian friend explained there's North, South, and Central America, and the US does NOT own the name "American". The US isn't just in North America (Hawaii...); at best part of our country shares 'North America' with at least one other country. The correct term for me and those like me is "US citizen."
With all the stupid shit my country has been doing in the commons lately, I'm just glad that it's somebody else's turn to be "that guy"--even if it's for just a minute.
It's possible to be mathematically perfect...in fact, mathematically is pretty much the only way to be "completely" or "perfectly" anything.
The basic problem with mathematical proofs is that math is an abstraction (the model), and the perfect-and-complete nature of the proof can *only* ever apply to the abstraction. The degree of fidelity to which the model reproduces your particular real situation is another story. Mathematically proving your solution is perfect not meaningful by itself.
It's a huge red flag the the vendor in this ad is directing our attention to a meaningless mathematical proof of perfection in their product. This strongly suggests to me that there is no valid reason to trust their design.
Even if we stipulate a "perfect" set of cryptographic algorithms implemented in a mathematically "perfect" set of code, the solution is meaningless without proper implementation and user procedures.
For example: I've got a great VPN (it uses OpenVPN), but when it fails, all my traffic is suddenly exposed. So I adjust my firewall rules so the only traffic allowed besides that needed to establish the vpn link must go through through tun0. Or use wireguard instead. Until next week when I'm in a factory and I need to talk to some PLCs or I/O modules to configure them, then I turn off the firewall or use the "factory" instead of the "office" setting. Now I have to remember to turn it on again or I won't be protected. etc. etc. etc.
There are no "magic bullets", and somebody claiming to have one has just saved you the trouble of evaluating them any further.
You gave them something of value (your data, and the opportunity to grab your eyeballs). And they gave you the expectation that they would store your data for you.
The term you should be looking at is not "payment" but "consideration".
I'm sure some lawyer somewhere is trying to figure out how to file a class action suit.
Seriously, though--good on the researchers if they've found yet another antibiotic, but... Everyone here knows this just buys us a (little) time and doesn't address the fundamental issue, right?
My gut tells me when I'm being conned; I don't need to be an expert to know when I'm being lied to. Truth is simple; when the "experts" give you a complicated non-answer it's BS.
I'm fed up with "mathematicians" going on about irrational numbers; they can't even give an exact answer--just a string of digits that seems to keep going on forever.
At least, that's what they told me in religion class. Thus, those who call it blasphemy to show the Son of God taking a lesson from someone his Father created have told us that God wouldn't do that. Like us in all things but sin; unlike us in $act; therefore $act is sinful.
I see their unspoken position--taking a lesson from you means I'm less than you; to show God as "less than" would be blasphemy. For them, hubris is a virtue (they call it being "righteous")
In this case I can't fault them for hypocrisy; they are self-consistent here. I dispute their fundamental premise--that letting someone teach you something makes you "less than".
I have a friend who's pagan (first nations; not new age). When the evangalists come by his house to proselytize, he asks them "Why should I believe in your God? You don't." Their response is generally a good indicator of the sincerity of their faith.
Folks, this ain't science; if you measure it by that yardstick it will come up short.
To answer your question, it's because the popular narrative is that women are victims, passive, and must be protected while not-women are villains, aggressive, and must be punished. Of course, repeatedly recognizing that your sample set ' 778 women politicians and journalists with an active, non-protected Twitter account, with fewer than 1 million followers' is flawed doesn't make it any less so. The sample isn't chosen to test a hypothesis; the goal here is to tell a story.
Element AI has provided a sample of their work to Amnesty in exchange for some goodwill. Decorating their product in the style of a scientific study is similarly insincere.
As an ad for Element AI it's valid: We can generate buzz for your issue. As a political statement from Amnesty International, it's also valid: We need more civil and more enforcable social norms in social media.
As social science it's crap, but that's neither Element AI's or Amnesty Internal's job.
To quote the late great George Carlin, in english, fuck falls into many grammatical categories. "Hug", as a replacement for "Fuck" only makes sense if you think the particular meaning of "fuck" in that context is a reference to coitus. I really doubt that's what the code comments were trying to get across.
It seems that parents are no longer teaching their children how to behave in public. Obviously this didn't start last week, because a lot of the offenders have been out of the house for a long time. Lately it seems that it's become so prevalent that we need some (more) remedial education.
ESR's essay is instructive to people who want to participate in geek culture but don't yet know the social norms therein. It seems lately that the prerequisites for participating in any culture at all--starting with recognizing that dignity in others and in ones self are missing.
The grumpy old man in me suspects that society is crumbling and this is a doomed attempt to patch it. The hopeful old man in me knows we have been assholes to each other for a long time and enough of us are fed up that all of are starting to hear about it.
This kind of self-discipline by communities is a messy process, but it really does seem like it's worth a try.
Recruiters should just get used to the idea that if they reserve the right to ghost job applicants, give them the run-around or send them on bogus interviews, applicants are going to treat them the same way. Respect is a two way street.
Acting like a professional is not a matter of respecting your employer, client, or whoever; you do it because you respect yourself. And I'm not talking about some pretentious "I'm better than that" crap; I'm being very practical here: It's your own reputation you're trashing when you act spiteful.
I'm not saying you should be a doormat, and I enthusiastically agree that revenge fantasies are lots of fun! But, they make good movies, and terrible career advice.
"We're sorry but the position has already been filled" is NOT a foreign concept to an employer; that one flows both ways. Telling someone things they don't like is NOT unprofessional. Unless you're in a coma, No-Call / No-Show is unprofessional.
The folks I don't agree with are making convincing arguments--they're getting other folks to think they way they want those folks to think! That's not fair!
tl/dr--he misses the reason why a&h are good, which is "It can't be turtles all the way down."
Engineering solves a problem, does the useful task, accomplishes some goal. These are all good things. Engineering does this sort of thing in an engineering domain--that is, we (engineers) deal with stuff you can plan, design, execute, measure, control, and so forth. Objectively observable stuff. So, engineering is useful because it produces other things which are useful. Engineering is a means to an end (which is usually a means to another end, turtles, etc.)
Liberal arts, humanities, etc. can do that sort of thing as well, which seems to be the point Prof. Wadha is trying to make. That a&h can produce something that we can all measure and agree exists, so are useful in the same way as engineering. Social scientists can define and measure empathy; empathy makes better design; better design makes better products; therefore art is good. Means to an end.
Prof Wadha misses the larger point of a&h: You gotta have something that doesn't keep justifying itself by facilitating the next thing. Well, you don't *have* to, but if you don't, then you're just chasing your tail. At some point, you have to answer the question "What's it all for".
Arts and Humanities (the one at hand would be philosophy) aren't necessarily a means to an end; they *are* good in and of themselves. "Pure" science can be similarly good. The whole point of being a self-aware person (or "human", but the times, they are a-changin...) is that you do or experience, or be something that is axiomatically good--not good because of something outside of itself. Fulfillment doesn't come from doing something that gets you something that gets you something that... You can ride that train for a while, but eventually you figure out you've been running in circles. Something that has no purpose outside of itself, but is still good must therefore be innately good. Of course there are things that both have purpose and are good by themselves (friendship, perhaps?), but it's easier to identify those that stand alone. Art is a particularly good example of this kind of thing. "Pure Science" us a less strict example--these things *might* make you some money one day, but we do them because they are good. Knowledge of the universe is good because it is good. Whether we build something with that knowledge or not.
This is the point of engineering, agriculture, medicine, etc. To make it possible for us to be human and do and be those things that are in themselves good.
Disclaimer--I am an engineer.
As an aside, I take issue with the statement "You can teach artists how to use software and graphics tools; turning engineers into artists is hard." Engineering is a hell of a lot more than using software and graphics tools! And art is a hell of a lot more than slapping paint on canvas.
USDA is not trying to teach us what "Milk" means. They're trying to show FDA who's boss.
FDA already regulates the term "Milk". see 21cfr131.110
If you say "soy milk", people expect something white watery stuff that has soy and whatever other crap it says on the label. If "soy milk" is worth the cost of regulating it, then fine, do it. Same with "coconut milk", "cheezy poofs", and whatever other terms you can think of. Choose carefully, because it's simply not practical to regulate them all.
If the seller says "Milk", you know you're getting pasteurized cow milk with 3.25% milkfat (unless it says skim, reduce fat, etc.), and some other specifications you probably don't know in detail but have learned to recognize by drinking milk for many years.
I haven't heard that there's a significant number of people buying "soy milk" and expecting to get milk. But...if enough of us have become that stupid, sure, prohibit the use of the word "Milk" in the context of "soy..., rice..., coconut..., lizard...) as well. Or just use some of that Milk Advisory Board marketing money to tell people "Milk means milk; $whatever milk, does not mean milk you idiot".
But again, this is just a dick-measuring contest between federal agancies.
Oh, wait--this is not a deterrent. This is part of legitimate law enforcement and won't be abused. Certainly not an intimidation tactic to get the "undesirable" element off of Irvine Company's properties.
"Zero Tolerance", "More than my job's worth", " Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM." etc. etc.
It's easier to turn off analytical thought and plug-n-chug through the day. Make a decision is risky if it's wrong we'll catch hell; if we just follow procedure until five o'clock we get paid for another day.
Acting like a human is more rewarding. Acting like a machine is easier and safer.
Slashdot Mirror
I got a dirty look from Canadian border patrol when he asked my citizenship & I said "American".
My Canadian friend explained there's North, South, and Central America, and the US does NOT own the name "American". The US isn't just in North America (Hawaii...); at best part of our country shares 'North America' with at least one other country. The correct term for me and those like me is "US citizen."
You're missing the point. Google "reification fallacy".
With all the stupid shit my country has been doing in the commons lately, I'm just glad that it's somebody else's turn to be "that guy"--even if it's for just a minute.
Not posting AC. I'll own it. Not that it'll help.
It's possible to be mathematically perfect...in fact, mathematically is pretty much the only way to be "completely" or "perfectly" anything.
The basic problem with mathematical proofs is that math is an abstraction (the model), and the perfect-and-complete nature of the proof can *only* ever apply to the abstraction. The degree of fidelity to which the model reproduces your particular real situation is another story. Mathematically proving your solution is perfect not meaningful by itself.
It's a huge red flag the the vendor in this ad is directing our attention to a meaningless mathematical proof of perfection in their product. This strongly suggests to me that there is no valid reason to trust their design.
Even if we stipulate a "perfect" set of cryptographic algorithms implemented in a mathematically "perfect" set of code, the solution is meaningless without proper implementation and user procedures.
For example: I've got a great VPN (it uses OpenVPN), but when it fails, all my traffic is suddenly exposed. So I adjust my firewall rules so the only traffic allowed besides that needed to establish the vpn link must go through through tun0. Or use wireguard instead. Until next week when I'm in a factory and I need to talk to some PLCs or I/O modules to configure them, then I turn off the firewall or use the "factory" instead of the "office" setting. Now I have to remember to turn it on again or I won't be protected. etc. etc. etc.
There are no "magic bullets", and somebody claiming to have one has just saved you the trouble of evaluating them any further.
You gave them something of value (your data, and the opportunity to grab your eyeballs).
And they gave you the expectation that they would store your data for you.
The term you should be looking at is not "payment" but "consideration".
I'm sure some lawyer somewhere is trying to figure out how to file a class action suit.
Seriously, though--good on the researchers if they've found yet another antibiotic, but...
Everyone here knows this just buys us a (little) time and doesn't address the fundamental issue, right?
Poor doggie is sick; I has a sad.
My gut tells me when I'm being conned; I don't need to be an expert to know when I'm being lied to.
Truth is simple; when the "experts" give you a complicated non-answer it's BS.
I'm fed up with "mathematicians" going on about irrational numbers; they can't even give an exact answer--just a string of digits that seems to keep going on forever.
At least, that's what they told me in religion class.
Thus, those who call it blasphemy to show the Son of God taking a lesson from someone his Father created have told us that God wouldn't do that.
Like us in all things but sin; unlike us in $act; therefore $act is sinful.
I see their unspoken position--taking a lesson from you means I'm less than you; to show God as "less than" would be blasphemy.
For them, hubris is a virtue (they call it being "righteous")
In this case I can't fault them for hypocrisy; they are self-consistent here.
I dispute their fundamental premise--that letting someone teach you something makes you "less than".
yes, absolutely.
I have a friend who's pagan (first nations; not new age).
When the evangalists come by his house to proselytize, he asks them "Why should I believe in your God? You don't."
Their response is generally a good indicator of the sincerity of their faith.
When was the last time you had a feeling that turned out to be false?
Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!
Hi, there; it looks like you're trying to download programs to some industrial controllers...Would you like help with that?
Folks, this ain't science; if you measure it by that yardstick it will come up short.
To answer your question, it's because the popular narrative is that women are victims, passive, and must be protected while not-women are villains, aggressive, and must be punished. Of course, repeatedly recognizing that your sample set ' 778 women politicians and journalists with an active, non-protected Twitter account, with fewer than 1 million followers' is flawed doesn't make it any less so. The sample isn't chosen to test a hypothesis; the goal here is to tell a story.
Element AI has provided a sample of their work to Amnesty in exchange for some goodwill. Decorating their product in the style of a scientific study is similarly insincere.
As an ad for Element AI it's valid: We can generate buzz for your issue.
As a political statement from Amnesty International, it's also valid: We need more civil and more enforcable social norms in social media.
As social science it's crap, but that's neither Element AI's or Amnesty Internal's job.
To quote the late great George Carlin, in english, fuck falls into many grammatical categories.
"Hug", as a replacement for "Fuck" only makes sense if you think the particular meaning of "fuck" in that context is a reference to coitus.
I really doubt that's what the code comments were trying to get across.
(Windows ME) "I will remain forever champion as the Worst Microsoft Operating System!"
(Windows 10) "Hold my beer."
Microsoft BoB: "Pfft. Amateurs."
It seems that parents are no longer teaching their children how to behave in public.
Obviously this didn't start last week, because a lot of the offenders have been out of the house for a long time.
Lately it seems that it's become so prevalent that we need some (more) remedial education.
ESR's essay is instructive to people who want to participate in geek culture but don't yet know the social norms therein. It seems lately that the prerequisites for participating in any culture at all--starting with recognizing that dignity in others and in ones self are missing.
The grumpy old man in me suspects that society is crumbling and this is a doomed attempt to patch it.
The hopeful old man in me knows we have been assholes to each other for a long time and enough of us are fed up that all of are starting to hear about it.
This kind of self-discipline by communities is a messy process, but it really does seem like it's worth a try.
I guess it's time to re-read "The Fountains of Paradise".
Recruiters should just get used to the idea that if they reserve the right to ghost job applicants, give them the run-around or send them on bogus interviews, applicants are going to treat them the same way. Respect is a two way street.
Acting like a professional is not a matter of respecting your employer, client, or whoever; you do it because you respect yourself. And I'm not talking about some pretentious "I'm better than that" crap; I'm being very practical here: It's your own reputation you're trashing when you act spiteful.
I'm not saying you should be a doormat, and I enthusiastically agree that revenge fantasies are lots of fun!
But, they make good movies, and terrible career advice.
"We're sorry but the position has already been filled" is NOT a foreign concept to an employer; that one flows both ways.
Telling someone things they don't like is NOT unprofessional.
Unless you're in a coma, No-Call / No-Show is unprofessional.
The folks I don't agree with are making convincing arguments--they're getting other folks to think they way they want those folks to think!
That's not fair!
tl/dr--he misses the reason why a&h are good, which is "It can't be turtles all the way down."
Engineering solves a problem, does the useful task, accomplishes some goal. These are all good things. Engineering does this sort of thing in an engineering domain--that is, we (engineers) deal with stuff you can plan, design, execute, measure, control, and so forth. Objectively observable stuff. So, engineering is useful because it produces other things which are useful.
Engineering is a means to an end (which is usually a means to another end, turtles, etc.)
Liberal arts, humanities, etc. can do that sort of thing as well, which seems to be the point Prof. Wadha is trying to make. That a&h can produce something that we can all measure and agree exists, so are useful in the same way as engineering. Social scientists can define and measure empathy; empathy makes better design; better design makes better products; therefore art is good.
Means to an end.
Prof Wadha misses the larger point of a&h: You gotta have something that doesn't keep justifying itself by facilitating the next thing. Well, you don't *have* to, but if you don't, then you're just chasing your tail. At some point, you have to answer the question "What's it all for".
Arts and Humanities (the one at hand would be philosophy) aren't necessarily a means to an end; they *are* good in and of themselves. "Pure" science can be similarly good. The whole point of being a self-aware person (or "human", but the times, they are a-changin...) is that you do or experience, or be something that is axiomatically good--not good because of something outside of itself.
Fulfillment doesn't come from doing something that gets you something that gets you something that... You can ride that train for a while, but eventually you figure out you've been running in circles.
Something that has no purpose outside of itself, but is still good must therefore be innately good.
Of course there are things that both have purpose and are good by themselves (friendship, perhaps?), but it's easier to identify those that stand alone.
Art is a particularly good example of this kind of thing. "Pure Science" us a less strict example--these things *might* make you some money one day, but we do them because they are good. Knowledge of the universe is good because it is good. Whether we build something with that knowledge or not.
This is the point of engineering, agriculture, medicine, etc. To make it possible for us to be human and do and be those things that are in themselves good.
Disclaimer--I am an engineer.
As an aside, I take issue with the statement "You can teach artists how to use software and graphics tools; turning engineers into artists is hard." Engineering is a hell of a lot more than using software and graphics tools! And art is a hell of a lot more than slapping paint on canvas.
repeat for count=0..32
Your honor, those files contain only random bytes; there is nothing to decrypt.
USDA is not trying to teach us what "Milk" means. They're trying to show FDA who's boss.
FDA already regulates the term "Milk". see 21cfr131.110
If you say "soy milk", people expect something white watery stuff that has soy and whatever other crap it says on the label. If "soy milk" is worth the cost of regulating it, then fine, do it. Same with "coconut milk", "cheezy poofs", and whatever other terms you can think of. Choose carefully, because it's simply not practical to regulate them all.
If the seller says "Milk", you know you're getting pasteurized cow milk with 3.25% milkfat (unless it says skim, reduce fat, etc.), and some other specifications you probably don't know in detail but have learned to recognize by drinking milk for many years.
I haven't heard that there's a significant number of people buying "soy milk" and expecting to get milk. But...if enough of us have become that stupid, sure, prohibit the use of the word "Milk" in the context of "soy..., rice..., coconut..., lizard...) as well. Or just use some of that Milk Advisory Board marketing money to tell people "Milk means milk; $whatever milk, does not mean milk you idiot".
But again, this is just a dick-measuring contest between federal agancies.
Oh, wait--this is not a deterrent. This is part of legitimate law enforcement and won't be abused.
Certainly not an intimidation tactic to get the "undesirable" element off of Irvine Company's properties.
BTW, didja hear Trump's answer to the federal kidnapping program?
“Tell people not to come to our country illegally,” Trump told reporters. “That’s the solution.
But, again, it's not a deterrent. Believe me.
"Zero Tolerance", "More than my job's worth", " Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM." etc. etc.
It's easier to turn off analytical thought and plug-n-chug through the day.
Make a decision is risky if it's wrong we'll catch hell; if we just follow procedure until five o'clock we get paid for another day.
Acting like a human is more rewarding. Acting like a machine is easier and safer.
Completely different. Only one hemisphere is exposed; you can't grab it like the real thing.
Now, if you wanted to play missile command...