Several people responded to the effect that there is no shortage of women's cargo pants available to buy, and you have effectively countered that argument.
Women don't prefer pants without pockets, men do. And women prefer (or in some cases feel the need to indulge) THAT.
Then they should buy different clothing. If women only bought clothes with large pockets, manufacturers would only make clothes with large pockets.
It's cute that nerds think the clothing industry works like an idealised free market.
Fact: Anyone who thinks this way has never had to buy clothes for a woman.
Also fact: The same people who say "women should just buy different clothes" are almost always the same ones who complain when women dress "inappropriately" in the workplace. That may not be you personally but it's a common theme.
Doesn't change our government(s) pushing for incredibly crazy high immigration rates AND not spending money on infrastructure.
The problem really is the combination of the two. Our high immigration rates wouldn't be an issue if we weren't trying to shove them all into capital cities. And it wouldn't make very much infrastructure investment in regional centres to make the problem basically go away.
In which case, why isn't this "trusted third party" in disguise?
The benefit of blockchain is supposed to be that it's tamper proof because everyone is constantly validating it in the open, something that can only happen if everyone has a chance of a reward for doing it.
The words "neural network" appear nowhere, which is just as well. Unlike neural networks, most machine learning algorithms can explain themselves to a statistician.
OTOH, almost all Object Oriented and Functional programming get their object semantics from the answers to Russell's Paradox.
I wouldn't say that most object oriented programming languages get their object semantics from there. The word "class" certainly comes from NBG set theory, but for any programming language which gets its object semantics from Simula, the link is tenuous at best.
Because it's a binary choice between privacy-destroying adware and fast food service.
Free clue: Both the computer revolution and fast food are products of the postwar era. Before either happened, nerds had jobs. It's only in the 1970s that we all (and I mean all; politicians, business people, and unions alike) collectively decided to stop giving a shit about people.
If you're John McCain or Michelle Bachmann or Rand Paul or the Wall Street Journal or The Economist you're in no danger of losing your platform on any of those platforms.
Can you think of any fields in technology where you might find value in the study of Linguistics? How about Logic?
Fun fact: Within my lifetime, Ontology moved from being mostly a humanities field to being mostly an engineering discipline. It was very interesting to watch it happen, as computer science researchers raided 2500 years of philosophy and start to build things out of it.
It gave me a new respect for the humanities, and philosophy in particular. Philosophy is, in a sense, the primordial soup from which new academic disciplines arise. And once they take form, they often jump faculties surprisingly quickly.
My point is that merely being human does not make you an expert in the study of humanity. That requires critical thinking, which itself doesn't seem to come naturally to people. (And I've lost track of the number of Internet commenters who seem to think that "critical thinking" means "let's play a game of spot the fallacy".)
The problem of the humanities is essentially the law of medium-sized numbers.
We can work out to a high degree of precision what's happening in an atom because we can calculate it, at least in principle. Yes, it might be a huge perturbation series, but it's still something we can effectively calculate.
We can work out to a high degree of precision what's happening in a star or a galaxy because we can use statistical techniques. Yes, there might be small-scale effects with large-scale consequences (see also quantum cosmology), but it's still something we can effectively calculate.
We don't have the tools for dealing with anything medium-sized, like a cell nucleus or a bird. And Hari Seldon notwithstanding, human culture is even harder.
The upshot is that sound methodology in the humanities is even more important. Our common sense is just as misleading in both the sciences and the humanities, but even in the soft sciences, you can run experiments. We can't rerun the French Revolution with some variables tweaked just to see what would have been different.
Humanity still escapes any significant scientific classification and to this date the actual location, mechanism, or source of "consciousness" is unknown.
We don't even know what "consciousness" actually is, but I don't think we should find this surprising, since we only have one obvious example. And it's not like the humanities are immune to this. Astronomy is one of the oldest sciences, and yet the scientific classification of "planet" was completely replaced just in my own lifetime.
Hell, almost everyone can remember an instance in their own life when a definition was challenged for them. It's often biological, like first learning that a penguin is a bird, or a whale is a mammal. (I learned this in the one humanities class that I did as an undergraduate. Linguistics, in case you're curious.)
Words such as "consciousness", or "life", or "planet", are not innate in the universe. The universe is what it is. These words are tools used by humans trying to understand the universe by organising it according to whatever definition seems to make the most sense at the time. But no matter what definition you use, it will be challenged at some point in the future as we discover more.
In the mean time, we can do better than the two extremes of a) saying nothing about it, or b) sheer speculation based only on gut instinct and no careful methodology. But it doesn't come naturally. It has to be learned and taught.
Slashdot Mirror
Bring back the pocket protector.
Several people responded to the effect that there is no shortage of women's cargo pants available to buy, and you have effectively countered that argument.
Women don't prefer pants without pockets, men do. And women prefer (or in some cases feel the need to indulge) THAT.
In those days, men wore fedoras, which is something that would be misinterpreted today.
Then they should buy different clothing. If women only bought clothes with large pockets, manufacturers would only make clothes with large pockets.
It's cute that nerds think the clothing industry works like an idealised free market.
Fact: Anyone who thinks this way has never had to buy clothes for a woman.
Also fact: The same people who say "women should just buy different clothes" are almost always the same ones who complain when women dress "inappropriately" in the workplace. That may not be you personally but it's a common theme.
I'm still waiting to see his legislative solution to the discrete logarithm problem.
Doesn't change our government(s) pushing for incredibly crazy high immigration rates AND not spending money on infrastructure.
The problem really is the combination of the two. Our high immigration rates wouldn't be an issue if we weren't trying to shove them all into capital cities. And it wouldn't make very much infrastructure investment in regional centres to make the problem basically go away.
Am I misunderstanding, or did you just say that mainstream programmers are using tensorflow as a linear algebra library?
If not: Phew.
If so: What the hell is wrong with people?
Julia isn't a replacement for Python. Julia is a replacement for Fortran.
Numpy is a poor replacement for Fortran.
If you don't think coroutines aren't a form of goto, [...]
Lambda: The Ultimate Goto
Yes Julia has things that are somewhat like shitty classes.
NBG set theory has classes. Java, C++, C#, and everything else descended from Simula has shitty things that are kind of like classes but not really.
Haskell typeclasses and C++ "concepts" (which aren't in the language yet) are much closer to mathematical classes.
I guess that makes sense. The organisations that need the trust do the work, and the blockchain is kept private among those organisations.
In which case, why isn't this "trusted third party" in disguise?
The benefit of blockchain is supposed to be that it's tamper proof because everyone is constantly validating it in the open, something that can only happen if everyone has a chance of a reward for doing it.
The Bermuda Triangle is one of the safest places on Earth to sail in.
The words "neural network" appear nowhere, which is just as well. Unlike neural networks, most machine learning algorithms can explain themselves to a statistician.
OTOH, almost all Object Oriented and Functional programming get their object semantics from the answers to Russell's Paradox.
I wouldn't say that most object oriented programming languages get their object semantics from there. The word "class" certainly comes from NBG set theory, but for any programming language which gets its object semantics from Simula, the link is tenuous at best.
My mathematical logic course as an undergrad was about half mathematicians and half philosophers. Very interesting mix.
See also: XKCD 386
Because it's a binary choice between privacy-destroying adware and fast food service.
Free clue: Both the computer revolution and fast food are products of the postwar era. Before either happened, nerds had jobs. It's only in the 1970s that we all (and I mean all; politicians, business people, and unions alike) collectively decided to stop giving a shit about people.
If you're John McCain or Michelle Bachmann or Rand Paul or the Wall Street Journal or The Economist you're in no danger of losing your platform on any of those platforms.
Nothing alone is the answer. That goes double for technology.
Technology is an enabler, no more and no less. It's up to us to decide how we use it.
If you don't like what's happening at Yale, you could always get a degree from Oral Roberts.
Can you think of any fields in technology where you might find value in the study of Linguistics? How about Logic?
Fun fact: Within my lifetime, Ontology moved from being mostly a humanities field to being mostly an engineering discipline. It was very interesting to watch it happen, as computer science researchers raided 2500 years of philosophy and start to build things out of it.
It gave me a new respect for the humanities, and philosophy in particular. Philosophy is, in a sense, the primordial soup from which new academic disciplines arise. And once they take form, they often jump faculties surprisingly quickly.
... uh ... still not entirely sure how you got that from what I said.
My point is that merely being human does not make you an expert in the study of humanity. That requires critical thinking, which itself doesn't seem to come naturally to people. (And I've lost track of the number of Internet commenters who seem to think that "critical thinking" means "let's play a game of spot the fallacy".)
The problem of the humanities is essentially the law of medium-sized numbers.
We can work out to a high degree of precision what's happening in an atom because we can calculate it, at least in principle. Yes, it might be a huge perturbation series, but it's still something we can effectively calculate.
We can work out to a high degree of precision what's happening in a star or a galaxy because we can use statistical techniques. Yes, there might be small-scale effects with large-scale consequences (see also quantum cosmology), but it's still something we can effectively calculate.
We don't have the tools for dealing with anything medium-sized, like a cell nucleus or a bird. And Hari Seldon notwithstanding, human culture is even harder.
The upshot is that sound methodology in the humanities is even more important. Our common sense is just as misleading in both the sciences and the humanities, but even in the soft sciences, you can run experiments. We can't rerun the French Revolution with some variables tweaked just to see what would have been different.
Humanity still escapes any significant scientific classification and to this date the actual location, mechanism, or source of "consciousness" is unknown.
We don't even know what "consciousness" actually is, but I don't think we should find this surprising, since we only have one obvious example. And it's not like the humanities are immune to this. Astronomy is one of the oldest sciences, and yet the scientific classification of "planet" was completely replaced just in my own lifetime.
Hell, almost everyone can remember an instance in their own life when a definition was challenged for them. It's often biological, like first learning that a penguin is a bird, or a whale is a mammal. (I learned this in the one humanities class that I did as an undergraduate. Linguistics, in case you're curious.)
Words such as "consciousness", or "life", or "planet", are not innate in the universe. The universe is what it is. These words are tools used by humans trying to understand the universe by organising it according to whatever definition seems to make the most sense at the time. But no matter what definition you use, it will be challenged at some point in the future as we discover more.
In the mean time, we can do better than the two extremes of a) saying nothing about it, or b) sheer speculation based only on gut instinct and no careful methodology. But it doesn't come naturally. It has to be learned and taught.
When was the last time that Tim Cook used his position to turn around and shutdown free speech?
I don't know about Tim Cook specifically, but please. The Apple Store does it all the time.