Kamala Harris is probably one of the few that could pull off a loss to Trump. I've described the problem before:
The Dems have learned nothing from losing to Trump and will find a way to do it again. Probably by trying to run Kamala Harris for instance. So they lose everyone not cool with 'equality is racism/sexism and white men are evil' and eliminating all due process for sex crimes (particularly on college campuses) to staying home or even going (R), then doubly alienate everyone concerned with civil rights (she's a "tough on crime" prosecutor notorious for shitting all over the 1st Amendment and trying to destroy Section 230 from the Backpage case- truly awash in misconduct; defending the conviction of a man based on a confession inserted into a transcript (and saying it wasn't prosecutorial misconduct to submit it when the prosecutor *knew* it was fraudulent), and fighting tooth and nail against improving prison conditions/reducing overcrowding when those were so bad it got ruled cruel and unusual punishment... I could go on).
Harris and a few of the other front runners are catering to two constituencies: the most conservative, hawkish Democrats, and the radical progressives obsessed with identity politics. A large block of liberals just can't bring themselves to vote for candidates like that, since they, ya know, go against normal liberal values, and will stay at home again as they did with Clinton. Especially after the progressives are done painting everyone in their own party who doesn't like Harris as a racist sexist; her being a minority woman will be the absolute only reason anyone could possibly have a problem with her, therefore anyone opposing her is an alt-right nazi.
The difference is, practical air transportation like this would require a whole new kind of propulsion system, because all the existing ones have one fundamental limitation or another that make them unsuited for dense, urban environments. Noise, wind, safety, takeoff distance. It's more like the people who said "Well we have cell phones and the internet now, strong AI must be right around the corner!" No, because that too requires a fundamental change in architecture that we have no idea how to even go about beginning to design. The best that can be hoped for is something practical in rural areas with lots of land, that could maybe connect to a terminal with other transit into the city for air vehicles... like airports and heliports, just incremental progress like RAM.
Modest income? What about all those performers that will be making hundreds per day because people *really* like their act where the observer gets a prize in exchange for their generous support of the arts, at different levels like Quality Opus, or Grande. Or 8th Balcony, the perfect seat to take in 3.5 performances? The corner boys gotta adapt too after all...
And you're still talking about something else entirely. What I'm talking about are the countless people who think the algorithm is racist because it predicts the recidivism rate for black is higher than it is for white. Whatever other aspect of the algorithm you want to talk about, that's another issue. What my post is about are the people who see black>white=racism, when that's reality. The recidivism *is* higher. Sorry, that's the level of understanding most SJWs have, and the complaint they're making. The intelligent people talking about the real problems are a minority. If they only ever talked about the problems you're describing, I wouldn't be complaining since it's an entirely valid point. But that's not reality, and you're falling into the same trap: You want your reality to exist, so just act as if it does regardless of fact.
It's ridiculous to manually adjust outcomes to distort reality by factoring in someone's race. Appeasing people who want to close their eyes and plug their ears and pretend reality isn't ugly instead of working to fix why it is will never be a good reason.
If people aren't comfortable with a gender imbalance in their chosen career, they're not going to be happy. And unless you think men avoid daycare jobs and women avoid trash collector jobs just because of bias, it's incorrect to assume that those biases are wrong when there's likely a legit preference.
So now I'm a racist because SJWs are complaining that black and white recidivism isn't equal, when they should instead be complaining about the error rate? And yet they wonder why more progress isn't being made...
I agree with your assessment of the algorithm, but that's the criticism serious people are making. SJWs are shrieking about the higher chance, and don't care about distinctions like yours.
More correctly read as: "Microsoft is developing a tool to help developers detect wrongthink bias in their algorithms."
The article makes this clear;
[...] data sets used to teach AI programs contain sexist semantic connections, for example considering the word "programmer" closer to the word "man" than "woman."
Whatever the reasons, men make up the large majority of programmers. They want to purposefully make algorithms less accurate wherever they reflect a reality SJWs think shouldn't exist, even though it clearly does.
SJWs simultaneously complain that black people are being arrested more, and that an algorithm that predicts higher recidivism for blacks is improperly biased and should return the same risk for whites.
Explain this to one, and you'll get a blank stare followed by an accusation that you're a racist.
The world is *much* safer now than it was then. Crimes against children have fallen dramatically. Now the retort is that this is because children are kept indoors, but all other categories of crime have declined as well, and there's no basis to conclude crimes against children wouldn't have had the same drop if not for limiting freedom.
I was talking about freedom to go out and play with other kids outside or away from adults, not to sit alone in their house or attend supervised structured activities. And yes, you can quite easily find tons of data to support this. http://www.slate.com/articles/... https://www.psychologytoday.co... https://www.psychologytoday.co...
Just to start. A few seconds on Google will back up every word in my post.
After Sandy, access to cash was a significant problem here. No power, floods. A lot of people with no cars, or unreachable cars, transit down. Stores were open quick, without power and if not flooded. It was days before there were ATMs in town, and those were driven in on special trucks with satellite coms, and I guarantee these trucks werent available to less wealthy areas. IIRC, $200 limit. National outages might be confined to days, but regional issues exist too.
Parents have been increasingly hovering and micromanaging, being extremely overprotective. Kids are denied the freedom that used to be normal. Mostly because of fears of that ultra rare stranger abduction, or some other low probability tragedy. They think well what's the downside, what if it did happen? Well this is the downside. Adult age children unprepared to deal with real life. Problems like here, and others like anxiety, are increasing in lock step with lockdown of kids. You trade the tiny tiny chance of kidnapping or something for a very good chance of stunted development and mental health issues.
And worse, it's practically required, because busybodies think any kid walking down the street alone is a police matter, and CPS misses kids being beaten and goes after parents who let their kid walk to the park. Support laws like Utah just passed, clarifying that the normal freedom most of us over 35 had isn't neglect.
I'd want them to get confirmation that was indeed the situation before kicking in the door and opening fire. Not doing that is exactly how innocent people get killed. Even if this was a real hostage situation, it could have just as easily been a hostage they killed.
Bullying might contribute, but the main problem, what all the shooters have in common, is being an outcast. Being socially excluded. They act 'weird' so don't make any friends. They don't really understand why, or what to do, so they resent the others, who don't talk to them or include them, because of the shyness, or saying weird things, having unusual body language. The resentment grows into hate; because they're not doing anything mean to people, so the others must just be cruel, bad people for for ignoring and excluding.
I'm not sure how you go about fixing problems like this. Teachers forcing working together just increases division. Only thing I can really see is identifying anti-social kids at a very young age (i.e. Pre-k or k) and helping them learn to interact normally.
The only measures that have majority support will do virtually nothing to stop school shootings. According to Gallup, banning "assault weapons" barely eeks out a majority at 56%, and that's with a *very* biased question. But even that wouldn't help, as it's a meaningless distinction, is overbroad, and ignores that handguns are no less lethal in the confined space of a school; all this assuming someone contemplating a shooting rampage would respect the law and not illegally acquire one of the millions and millions in circulation now.
I have to disagree that most "SJW values" are a good thing for the world.
-Cracking down on 'hate speech' is a limitation on free speech that apart from being inherently wrong, the laws they seek will absolutely be used to silence views that are not hateful. Take one of the popular targets that SJWs want shut down because "hate speech": Charles Murray. The complaint is that simply acknowledging racial IQ differences is hateful, which is absurd. Even if you disagree with some of his conclusions, it's a valid point for debate. Then you have the much bigger problem, what will Republicans consider hate speech when they wield the power of hate speech laws?
-SJWs believe that a meritocracy is a tool of white male supremacy. So their solution is to simply discriminate based on race in the opposite direction. Lessen the requirements for everyone except white men and Asians. The problems with this should be obvious to anyone still capable of critical thought; it could even wind up costing lives, for example FDNY not requiring women to meet the physical standards. We should address the underlying reasons for inequality where possible, but acknowledge that there are differences and it's ultimately not right to say "because of the color of your skin or whats between your legs, you're held to a different standard".
-SJWs believe political correctness is essential; that there's no room for jokes that offend a disadvantaged group, and that inadvertent 'microaggressions' are worthy of punishment. It's elevating the feelings of the most sensitive person above everyone elses. That's what's behind a lot of the YouTube et al. situations; those most easily offended determine what's acceptable.
-A core tenet of SJW belief is that due process is a tool of the patriarchy when it's applied to sexual matters, and should be discarded. Guilt is absolute upon accusation, and the accuser is not open to challenge. Factual inaccuracies in the story don't matter, and no statute of limitations should exist. Further, if a slightly buzzed woman and completely wasted man have sex, the man is responsible for his actions, the woman is not, and it was rape despite her initiating. Consent is something that can be withdrawn retroactively-- one college has even updated its rules to reflect this.
-In education, SJWs show little interest in boosting minorities, instead preferring to achieve equality by reducing the quality of education for high achievers, because they're disproportionately white and Asian.
Many SJW values are toxic and regressive. They're not about equality, they're about punishing the inequality of the past by transferring the groups who benefit from it. What's worse, they label people like me, who favor color-blind merit-based systems, extensive reform to the criminal justice and education policies that maintain inequality, even full trans bathroom and equal protection rights.. and spent this entire week on/. railing against the right and police abuse.. as no different than a nazi because I defend free speech, due process, and evidence-based group differences existing (though largely irrelevant)... and if SJWs know anything, it's that all those must be sacrificed.
What's good for the world is equality, where ones race doesn't matter, where ones sex/gender doesn't matter. Where we're all just people. Where everyone can voice their ideas, and everyone receives equal treatment under the law. SJWs don't want that.
Strengths as a President?? Maybe exposing just how foolish the electorate is and how little the Rep's actually value fiscal conservatism. There's some policies that I support... TPP withdrawal, 2nd Amendment rights, rescinding the Lhamon 'Dear Colleague' letter that caused universities to set up kangaroo courts, some of the regulatory rollback was ok (most not)... could probably name a few others. And Gorsuch was the best we could ever hope for from a Republican these days; he's not big on deference to government power. People are more engaged in the political process these days too. But I'm not sure any of these count as strengths. Though his ability to entertain other ignorant people might.
As a businessman, given that if he had invested his money into an index fund that just tracked the market, he'd be much wealthier now, it's hard to see him as better than average. I liked the first couple seasons of Apprentice; he's an ok game show host.
The best thing I can say is that he *used to* say some things that reflected intelligence; like recognizing that legalizing all drugs is the only way to win the drug war and reduce the harm. Then now he thinks the death penalty for trafficking is a good idea. Senility, dementia, whatever... but he used to be a lot more reasonable.
They said mean things. Trump wasn't happy that they weren't stroking his ego. It's clear from his statement that is really is that petty. But of course Trump supporters will still defend him, and not admit that the reason this blew up so easily is that Trump bumbled into it in the first place, and in fact wasn't the greatest diplomat of all time.
Hey now not all of us. I take pride in being modded troll for angering both the right and left for attacking their positions. Lean (L), but I think the last thing I said about them is they need to knock off their right-wing nutjob economic policies.
Some research has shown the US is in practice an oligarchy;
The central point that emerges from our research is
that economic elites and organized groups representing
business interests have substantial independent impacts
on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest
groups and average citizens have little or no independent
influence
Slashdot commenters, like everyone else, suspend their critical thinking process when it's a political issue. The only thought that occurs is 'how can I shape the facts to the benefit of my side'.
Everyone has an agenda, Vox ends the analysis when it fits their narrative. When you look further, it's less clear. When you account for threat level, one year showed bias against blacks, but the previous showed it against whites. See here
As I said talking about BLM the other day, we need to stop seeing police abuse through a racial lens and view it through a human lens. Focus on the fact that police seriously violate everyones rights, not whether it's slightly more common for one group or another.
Building the entire first section of the IRT line in Manhattan cost about $8 million; adjusted for inflation that's $230 million, a fraction of the cost to upgrade the signals. It took less time to build from City Hall to 145th St. (nearly the whole length N-S) then it will take to update the signals. This is *pathetic*. While I'm generally pro-union, that's a large part of why it's gotten so bad-- like the report that exposed things like a 2 person job having 5 more guys paid to just stand around, and out of control overtime. It absolutely is a giant sinkhole.
Slashdot Mirror
Kamala Harris is probably one of the few that could pull off a loss to Trump. I've described the problem before:
The Dems have learned nothing from losing to Trump and will find a way to do it again. Probably by trying to run Kamala Harris for instance. So they lose everyone not cool with 'equality is racism/sexism and white men are evil' and eliminating all due process for sex crimes (particularly on college campuses) to staying home or even going (R), then doubly alienate everyone concerned with civil rights (she's a "tough on crime" prosecutor notorious for shitting all over the 1st Amendment and trying to destroy Section 230 from the Backpage case- truly awash in misconduct; defending the conviction of a man based on a confession inserted into a transcript (and saying it wasn't prosecutorial misconduct to submit it when the prosecutor *knew* it was fraudulent), and fighting tooth and nail against improving prison conditions/reducing overcrowding when those were so bad it got ruled cruel and unusual punishment... I could go on).
Harris and a few of the other front runners are catering to two constituencies: the most conservative, hawkish Democrats, and the radical progressives obsessed with identity politics. A large block of liberals just can't bring themselves to vote for candidates like that, since they, ya know, go against normal liberal values, and will stay at home again as they did with Clinton. Especially after the progressives are done painting everyone in their own party who doesn't like Harris as a racist sexist; her being a minority woman will be the absolute only reason anyone could possibly have a problem with her, therefore anyone opposing her is an alt-right nazi.
So yeah, not a good idea.
The difference is, practical air transportation like this would require a whole new kind of propulsion system, because all the existing ones have one fundamental limitation or another that make them unsuited for dense, urban environments. Noise, wind, safety, takeoff distance. It's more like the people who said "Well we have cell phones and the internet now, strong AI must be right around the corner!" No, because that too requires a fundamental change in architecture that we have no idea how to even go about beginning to design. The best that can be hoped for is something practical in rural areas with lots of land, that could maybe connect to a terminal with other transit into the city for air vehicles... like airports and heliports, just incremental progress like RAM.
Modest income? What about all those performers that will be making hundreds per day because people *really* like their act where the observer gets a prize in exchange for their generous support of the arts, at different levels like Quality Opus, or Grande. Or 8th Balcony, the perfect seat to take in 3.5 performances? The corner boys gotta adapt too after all...
And you're still talking about something else entirely. What I'm talking about are the countless people who think the algorithm is racist because it predicts the recidivism rate for black is higher than it is for white. Whatever other aspect of the algorithm you want to talk about, that's another issue. What my post is about are the people who see black>white=racism, when that's reality. The recidivism *is* higher. Sorry, that's the level of understanding most SJWs have, and the complaint they're making. The intelligent people talking about the real problems are a minority. If they only ever talked about the problems you're describing, I wouldn't be complaining since it's an entirely valid point. But that's not reality, and you're falling into the same trap: You want your reality to exist, so just act as if it does regardless of fact.
It's ridiculous to manually adjust outcomes to distort reality by factoring in someone's race. Appeasing people who want to close their eyes and plug their ears and pretend reality isn't ugly instead of working to fix why it is will never be a good reason.
If people aren't comfortable with a gender imbalance in their chosen career, they're not going to be happy. And unless you think men avoid daycare jobs and women avoid trash collector jobs just because of bias, it's incorrect to assume that those biases are wrong when there's likely a legit preference.
So now I'm a racist because SJWs are complaining that black and white recidivism isn't equal, when they should instead be complaining about the error rate? And yet they wonder why more progress isn't being made...
I agree with your assessment of the algorithm, but that's the criticism serious people are making. SJWs are shrieking about the higher chance, and don't care about distinctions like yours.
The article makes this clear;
[...] data sets used to teach AI programs contain sexist semantic connections, for example considering the word "programmer" closer to the word "man" than "woman."
Whatever the reasons, men make up the large majority of programmers. They want to purposefully make algorithms less accurate wherever they reflect a reality SJWs think shouldn't exist, even though it clearly does.
SJWs simultaneously complain that black people are being arrested more, and that an algorithm that predicts higher recidivism for blacks is improperly biased and should return the same risk for whites.
Explain this to one, and you'll get a blank stare followed by an accusation that you're a racist.
The world is *much* safer now than it was then. Crimes against children have fallen dramatically. Now the retort is that this is because children are kept indoors, but all other categories of crime have declined as well, and there's no basis to conclude crimes against children wouldn't have had the same drop if not for limiting freedom.
I was talking about freedom to go out and play with other kids outside or away from adults, not to sit alone in their house or attend supervised structured activities. And yes, you can quite easily find tons of data to support this.
http://www.slate.com/articles/...
https://www.psychologytoday.co...
https://www.psychologytoday.co...
Just to start. A few seconds on Google will back up every word in my post.
After Sandy, access to cash was a significant problem here. No power, floods. A lot of people with no cars, or unreachable cars, transit down. Stores were open quick, without power and if not flooded. It was days before there were ATMs in town, and those were driven in on special trucks with satellite coms, and I guarantee these trucks werent available to less wealthy areas. IIRC, $200 limit. National outages might be confined to days, but regional issues exist too.
Parents have been increasingly hovering and micromanaging, being extremely overprotective. Kids are denied the freedom that used to be normal. Mostly because of fears of that ultra rare stranger abduction, or some other low probability tragedy. They think well what's the downside, what if it did happen? Well this is the downside. Adult age children unprepared to deal with real life. Problems like here, and others like anxiety, are increasing in lock step with lockdown of kids. You trade the tiny tiny chance of kidnapping or something for a very good chance of stunted development and mental health issues.
And worse, it's practically required, because busybodies think any kid walking down the street alone is a police matter, and CPS misses kids being beaten and goes after parents who let their kid walk to the park. Support laws like Utah just passed, clarifying that the normal freedom most of us over 35 had isn't neglect.
I'd want them to get confirmation that was indeed the situation before kicking in the door and opening fire. Not doing that is exactly how innocent people get killed. Even if this was a real hostage situation, it could have just as easily been a hostage they killed.
Bullying might contribute, but the main problem, what all the shooters have in common, is being an outcast. Being socially excluded. They act 'weird' so don't make any friends. They don't really understand why, or what to do, so they resent the others, who don't talk to them or include them, because of the shyness, or saying weird things, having unusual body language. The resentment grows into hate; because they're not doing anything mean to people, so the others must just be cruel, bad people for for ignoring and excluding.
I'm not sure how you go about fixing problems like this. Teachers forcing working together just increases division. Only thing I can really see is identifying anti-social kids at a very young age (i.e. Pre-k or k) and helping them learn to interact normally.
The only measures that have majority support will do virtually nothing to stop school shootings. According to Gallup, banning "assault weapons" barely eeks out a majority at 56%, and that's with a *very* biased question. But even that wouldn't help, as it's a meaningless distinction, is overbroad, and ignores that handguns are no less lethal in the confined space of a school; all this assuming someone contemplating a shooting rampage would respect the law and not illegally acquire one of the millions and millions in circulation now.
I have to disagree that most "SJW values" are a good thing for the world.
/. railing against the right and police abuse.. as no different than a nazi because I defend free speech, due process, and evidence-based group differences existing (though largely irrelevant)... and if SJWs know anything, it's that all those must be sacrificed.
-Cracking down on 'hate speech' is a limitation on free speech that apart from being inherently wrong, the laws they seek will absolutely be used to silence views that are not hateful. Take one of the popular targets that SJWs want shut down because "hate speech": Charles Murray. The complaint is that simply acknowledging racial IQ differences is hateful, which is absurd. Even if you disagree with some of his conclusions, it's a valid point for debate. Then you have the much bigger problem, what will Republicans consider hate speech when they wield the power of hate speech laws?
-SJWs believe that a meritocracy is a tool of white male supremacy. So their solution is to simply discriminate based on race in the opposite direction. Lessen the requirements for everyone except white men and Asians. The problems with this should be obvious to anyone still capable of critical thought; it could even wind up costing lives, for example FDNY not requiring women to meet the physical standards. We should address the underlying reasons for inequality where possible, but acknowledge that there are differences and it's ultimately not right to say "because of the color of your skin or whats between your legs, you're held to a different standard".
-SJWs believe political correctness is essential; that there's no room for jokes that offend a disadvantaged group, and that inadvertent 'microaggressions' are worthy of punishment. It's elevating the feelings of the most sensitive person above everyone elses. That's what's behind a lot of the YouTube et al. situations; those most easily offended determine what's acceptable.
-A core tenet of SJW belief is that due process is a tool of the patriarchy when it's applied to sexual matters, and should be discarded. Guilt is absolute upon accusation, and the accuser is not open to challenge. Factual inaccuracies in the story don't matter, and no statute of limitations should exist. Further, if a slightly buzzed woman and completely wasted man have sex, the man is responsible for his actions, the woman is not, and it was rape despite her initiating. Consent is something that can be withdrawn retroactively-- one college has even updated its rules to reflect this.
-In education, SJWs show little interest in boosting minorities, instead preferring to achieve equality by reducing the quality of education for high achievers, because they're disproportionately white and Asian.
Many SJW values are toxic and regressive. They're not about equality, they're about punishing the inequality of the past by transferring the groups who benefit from it. What's worse, they label people like me, who favor color-blind merit-based systems, extensive reform to the criminal justice and education policies that maintain inequality, even full trans bathroom and equal protection rights.. and spent this entire week on
What's good for the world is equality, where ones race doesn't matter, where ones sex/gender doesn't matter. Where we're all just people. Where everyone can voice their ideas, and everyone receives equal treatment under the law. SJWs don't want that.
Strengths as a President?? Maybe exposing just how foolish the electorate is and how little the Rep's actually value fiscal conservatism. There's some policies that I support... TPP withdrawal, 2nd Amendment rights, rescinding the Lhamon 'Dear Colleague' letter that caused universities to set up kangaroo courts, some of the regulatory rollback was ok (most not)... could probably name a few others. And Gorsuch was the best we could ever hope for from a Republican these days; he's not big on deference to government power. People are more engaged in the political process these days too. But I'm not sure any of these count as strengths. Though his ability to entertain other ignorant people might.
As a businessman, given that if he had invested his money into an index fund that just tracked the market, he'd be much wealthier now, it's hard to see him as better than average. I liked the first couple seasons of Apprentice; he's an ok game show host.
The best thing I can say is that he *used to* say some things that reflected intelligence; like recognizing that legalizing all drugs is the only way to win the drug war and reduce the harm. Then now he thinks the death penalty for trafficking is a good idea. Senility, dementia, whatever... but he used to be a lot more reasonable.
They said mean things. Trump wasn't happy that they weren't stroking his ego. It's clear from his statement that is really is that petty. But of course Trump supporters will still defend him, and not admit that the reason this blew up so easily is that Trump bumbled into it in the first place, and in fact wasn't the greatest diplomat of all time.
Trump isn't stupid enough to...
There's nothing you can end that sentence with that would be true.
Hey now not all of us. I take pride in being modded troll for angering both the right and left for attacking their positions. Lean (L), but I think the last thing I said about them is they need to knock off their right-wing nutjob economic policies.
Original paper
Slashdot commenters, like everyone else, suspend their critical thinking process when it's a political issue. The only thought that occurs is 'how can I shape the facts to the benefit of my side'.
Everyone has an agenda, Vox ends the analysis when it fits their narrative. When you look further, it's less clear. When you account for threat level, one year showed bias against blacks, but the previous showed it against whites. See here
As I said talking about BLM the other day, we need to stop seeing police abuse through a racial lens and view it through a human lens. Focus on the fact that police seriously violate everyones rights, not whether it's slightly more common for one group or another.
riding the subway in New York feels like you're in a 3rd world country
If only. Even the 3rd world has nicer subways than we do.
Building the entire first section of the IRT line in Manhattan cost about $8 million; adjusted for inflation that's $230 million, a fraction of the cost to upgrade the signals. It took less time to build from City Hall to 145th St. (nearly the whole length N-S) then it will take to update the signals. This is *pathetic*. While I'm generally pro-union, that's a large part of why it's gotten so bad-- like the report that exposed things like a 2 person job having 5 more guys paid to just stand around, and out of control overtime. It absolutely is a giant sinkhole.