to detect bias in algorithms, be used in an attempt to insert bias into algorithms, without detection?
Sure, but that's doing things on hard mode. Getting unbiased results out of machine learning is very ver hard as is because machine learning is awfully good at picking out on causative correlations. Unless your data is very good it's easy to get out utter junk.
Now try finding a dataset about humans which doesn't have all sorts of non causative correlations in it.
Correctly read as: "Microsoft is developing a tool to help developers detect wrong bias in their algorithms."
No that's bullshit, you're a fool for saying it and it's fools who modded you up.
Unless you're claiming that all the input data is perfect then either you lack the knowledge to comment on the topic or you have an ulterior motive for adopting the attitiude you have.
I have had more exposure to SAP installs/systems than I ever cared to, and in each and every case the whole thing was a tremendous clusterfuck from start to...well, I would say "finish", but a SAP project is never finished. NEVER. It's never completed and so the money flows steadily out the door like a river...forever.
The company I work for switched to "concur" by SAP for travel stuff. It's sort of like they decided to combine the worst bits of paper forms with the worst bits of computer based forms, then dizzle a fine layer of dog poo over the top.
I'm currently writing a site visit counter called hitler.
My stat tool for Linux is going to be called StaLin. I don't see a problem with that. I think I'll make it defaule to "joe" for editing the config too.
To be fair, I am engaging in metacommentary, based on other people's comments who have read the article, because reading the article requires javascript so fuck them.
I'm browsing using links-2 which I can assure you doesn't have javascript and I can see the article just fine. On the other hand it doesn't support CSS either so it's entirely possible the have hidden the text with CSS and require javascript to view it. I woldn't know.
Actually on a whim, I flipped over to firefox. It renders fine with all of the scripts blocked (my default setting).
and then pulled some retarded nonsequitur out of your ass.
Nope, if your post leads trivially to absurd conclusions, then the fault isn't mine for nderstanding that, the fault is yours for writing something so patently absurd.
But sure cry and whine that you are adopting a position that leads to absurd conclusions. I'm sure that wil fix *everything*.
For the majority of human nomadism, they didn't have writing (which developed from counting systems used by people who had turned agrarian and had stuff to count) so they didn't record history.
That's an exceptionally pedantic (and not correct, because the word "history" has multiple related definitions) reading of it and only illustrates the fallacy of the original.
If there's about writing that made humans magicaly more suited to non nomadic lifestyles then there's equally something about technology that makes humans suited to early 21st century capitalism.
It's easier than that. Stop voting for only Democrat or Republican.
It's not as easy as that. From Douglas Adams:
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why don't people get rid of the lizards?" "It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want." "You mean they actually vote for the lizards?" "Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course." "But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?" "Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in
People did try that a bit this time and guess what: the wrong lizard did indeed get in.
Your "easy" oslution only works if enough people do it. If too few do then the party with the most partisan hacks wins. Classic prisoner's dilemma.
Can you cite any actual real evidence that this is true? Both parents are more likely to work today than in the past, so kids are often left home alone. This means less supervision, the opposite of what you claim.
Anecdotally, I rarely see free range kids out and about. I spent a lot of time out riding bikes with the neighbouring kids when I was a kid (junior school age).
Usually when people talk about how the world is going to hell, and things aren't like "the good ole days", it is just a load of bullcrap unsupported by data.
Things changing doesn't mean "everything is going to hell". Many things have changed for the better, this one hasn't.
The anomaly to me is house appreciation. I was telling a friend, who recently bought a house, how I thought it was weird that everyone [in the US] considers houses to be things that gain value [within reason].
[...]
I specified the US, because I know in Japan that most people view houses and condos as places with depreciating value, and its not uncommon for people to simply knock an old house down and rebuild on the land.
That's the thing there: at a minimum the land is the thing that appreciates in value because outside a very few locations (e.g. Hawaii) they don't make any more of it.
It's often a question of whether the houst itself is losing value slowe rthan the land is gaining value. In a lot of cases that's just the internals and a refit brings it up to "as good as new" to live in. For a half way decently built house (victorian builders were just as bad cowboys as mdern ones if not worse) the shell will lsat a very long time, easily.
For most of human history families stayed together over the course of the centuries, farming the same land over and over again.
No, that's for a few thousand years of human history. For the majority of human history there was no farming.
All of the world's problems stem from the fact that human nature hasn't changed while 20th century Western Civilization tried to shoehorn it into what best suited Capitalism.
There were plenty of problems before the 20th century.
Uhh.. You're comparing someone in a charged situation with adrenaline running high to someone who manipulates a situation into being like that coldly and with malice aforethought?
Yep.
It's worse in fact. The job of the police is to protect people from criminals, not gun down an unarmed innocent while safely hunkered down behind a good obstacle.
The root cause of this is the ones that called the SWATting.
No the root cause is that gung-ho cops with a god complex make swatting possible in the first place.
Best analogy I can think of for your stance is a state leader ordering the army in to invade another country, then lay the blame on the soldiers for going there, and "maybe the leader had something to do with it" if people got shot.
That's a completely bogus analogy. The cops aren't collowing orders from some rando on the internet.
So, if YOU called 911 to report that there was someone in your house trying to kill you, you'd want the cops to hold off
Given that the alternative is more likely to get me killed than by the cops than the original person yes, I would very much rather then didn't just bustin and start spraying bullets indiscriminantly.
That depends. Did the cop act on orders and according to procedure? Then you can't really fault him
Yes you fucking can.
"I vas just following orders" has not ever been an excuse. Likewise the whole "cops don't kill people people kill people" thing doesn't work because the cop can never be considered a mere tool with no agency. The cop is a person.
But all that doesn't get the caller or the one who hired him off the hook.
Agreed, the caller, knowing the possible outcome of his actions is equally guilts. That does not make the cop in question any less so. There is plenty of blame to go around.
Andrew Smith, the author of the article Slashdot is reviewing, seems to have no deep knowledge of technology, and no serious interest in learning.
Learning to program in middle age (where the attitide seems to be if you didn't code by the time your were 3 you're inadequate and you'll be unemployed by 25 anyhow) from scratch is "no serious interest in learning"?
WTF? The only evidence you have is that he sat down and actually learned something.
And he's getting silly answers because he's asking the wrong question.
Yeah that's part of the leaening process. You went through that too in the dim and distant past.
Asking 'what is the best way to learn to program?' is like asking 'what is the best way of learning to write well?'. Do you want to learn to write news articles, opinion, marketing copy, novels, technical manuals?
Which is precisely how no one learns to write ever. Yeah sure long after you've learned the basics of writing and are looking for a career, that's a question to ask. But not right at the beginning.
If you start with the problem that you want to solve
Not everyone does things merely to solve a problem. Some people learn things for the sake of learning.
I liked TFA. Figuring the world runs on code and it's worth nuderstanding then going out and learning---that's exactly the sort of thing which it's great if people do.
It was sad that he gave up on coding a website because there were too many braces in JavaScript. I guess that with practice the braces fall away and the underlying logic shines through.
Eventually, but for beginers, nothing just falls away so everything becomes a barrier. I've been writing in curly brace languages for over 20 years so they don't bother me. For beginners you have to take in a whole chunk in one go before you can really do anything at all.
he wants to get really shook up, he should check out LISP, the ultimate symbolic language. The parentheses will either break him or make him experience true programming bliss.
I've poked at LISP a few times. I know the principles but I never really came to like it. I kind of found that providing basically nothing by flexibility it wasn't really anything except something to implement a language in---and there are already plenty of those and some pretty nice ones. Plus I like infix notation.
About the best takeaway though was if someone starts telling you "code is data and data is code" then best response is to look confused for a moment then say "oh you mean like machine code?".
Slashdot Mirror
to detect bias in algorithms, be used in an attempt to insert bias into algorithms, without detection?
Sure, but that's doing things on hard mode. Getting unbiased results out of machine learning is very ver hard as is because machine learning is awfully good at picking out on causative correlations. Unless your data is very good it's easy to get out utter junk.
Now try finding a dataset about humans which doesn't have all sorts of non causative correlations in it.
Correctly read as: "Microsoft is developing a tool to help developers detect wrong bias in their algorithms."
No that's bullshit, you're a fool for saying it and it's fools who modded you up.
Unless you're claiming that all the input data is perfect then either you lack the knowledge to comment on the topic or you have an ulterior motive for adopting the attitiude you have.
I have had more exposure to SAP installs/systems than I ever cared to, and in each and every case the whole thing was a tremendous clusterfuck from start to...well, I would say "finish", but a SAP project is never finished. NEVER. It's never completed and so the money flows steadily out the door like a river...forever.
The company I work for switched to "concur" by SAP for travel stuff. It's sort of like they decided to combine the worst bits of paper forms with the worst bits of computer based forms, then dizzle a fine layer of dog poo over the top.
The thing is, any idiot can say that about any statement
Indeed, any idiot can see it! It takes a special kind of idiot to no be able to. Well, hey, at least you're special.
I'm currently writing a site visit counter called hitler.
My stat tool for Linux is going to be called StaLin. I don't see a problem with that. I think I'll make it defaule to "joe" for editing the config too.
Perhaps you are not blocking as many scripts as you think,
Given that it works with links2: no. Javascript support was removed from it over a decade ago.
or maybe they are explicitly refusing me to serve content based on my browser string.
Possibly? Pretty obnoxious if they are.
Writing makes life better for everyone who has access to it. Capitalism makes life better for a handful of people, and worse for everyone else.
When did the global literacy rate cross 50%?
To be fair, I am engaging in metacommentary, based on other people's comments who have read the article, because reading the article requires javascript so fuck them.
I'm browsing using links-2 which I can assure you doesn't have javascript and I can see the article just fine. On the other hand it doesn't support CSS either so it's entirely possible the have hidden the text with CSS and require javascript to view it. I woldn't know.
Actually on a whim, I flipped over to firefox. It renders fine with all of the scripts blocked (my default setting).
So, basically, you read my comment,
Yes.
and then pulled some retarded nonsequitur out of your ass.
Nope, if your post leads trivially to absurd conclusions, then the fault isn't mine for nderstanding that, the fault is yours for writing something so patently absurd.
But sure cry and whine that you are adopting a position that leads to absurd conclusions. I'm sure that wil fix *everything*.
For the majority of human nomadism, they didn't have writing (which developed from counting systems used by people who had turned agrarian and had stuff to count) so they didn't record history.
That's an exceptionally pedantic (and not correct, because the word "history" has multiple related definitions) reading of it and only illustrates the fallacy of the original.
If there's about writing that made humans magicaly more suited to non nomadic lifestyles then there's equally something about technology that makes humans suited to early 21st century capitalism.
You must be good at nonsequiteurs.
Then you should volunteer to be a cop, and put your desire into action.
So basically if you don't want to be murdered by a cop you should volunteer to be one.
Bullshit!
How about taking a leaf out of the book of other countries where the cops aren't trigger happy goons.
I remember the Boomers in the sixties and seventies and they were spoiled children then.
If they were spoiled children isn't that the fault of the upposedly wonderful prior generation?
It's easier than that. Stop voting for only Democrat or Republican.
It's not as easy as that. From Douglas Adams:
People did try that a bit this time and guess what: the wrong lizard did indeed get in.
Your "easy" oslution only works if enough people do it. If too few do then the party with the most partisan hacks wins. Classic prisoner's dilemma.
Can you cite any actual real evidence that this is true? Both parents are more likely to work today than in the past, so kids are often left home alone. This means less supervision, the opposite of what you claim.
Anecdotally, I rarely see free range kids out and about. I spent a lot of time out riding bikes with the neighbouring kids when I was a kid (junior school age).
Usually when people talk about how the world is going to hell, and things aren't like "the good ole days", it is just a load of bullcrap unsupported by data.
Things changing doesn't mean "everything is going to hell". Many things have changed for the better, this one hasn't.
The anomaly to me is house appreciation. I was telling a friend, who recently bought a house, how I thought it was weird that everyone [in the US] considers houses to be things that gain value [within reason].
[...]
I specified the US, because I know in Japan that most people view houses and condos as places with depreciating value, and its not uncommon for people to simply knock an old house down and rebuild on the land.
That's the thing there: at a minimum the land is the thing that appreciates in value because outside a very few locations (e.g. Hawaii) they don't make any more of it.
It's often a question of whether the houst itself is losing value slowe rthan the land is gaining value. In a lot of cases that's just the internals and a refit brings it up to "as good as new" to live in. For a half way decently built house (victorian builders were just as bad cowboys as mdern ones if not worse) the shell will lsat a very long time, easily.
For most of human history families stayed together over the course of the centuries, farming the same land over and over again.
No, that's for a few thousand years of human history. For the majority of human history there was no farming.
All of the world's problems stem from the fact that human nature hasn't changed while 20th century Western Civilization tried to shoehorn it into what best suited Capitalism.
There were plenty of problems before the 20th century.
Uhh.. You're comparing someone in a charged situation with adrenaline running high to someone who manipulates a situation into being like that coldly and with malice aforethought?
Yep.
It's worse in fact. The job of the police is to protect people from criminals, not gun down an unarmed innocent while safely hunkered down behind a good obstacle.
The root cause of this is the ones that called the SWATting.
No the root cause is that gung-ho cops with a god complex make swatting possible in the first place.
Best analogy I can think of for your stance is a state leader ordering the army in to invade another country, then lay the blame on the soldiers for going there, and "maybe the leader had something to do with it" if people got shot.
That's a completely bogus analogy. The cops aren't collowing orders from some rando on the internet.
So, if YOU called 911 to report that there was someone in your house trying to kill you, you'd want the cops to hold off
Given that the alternative is more likely to get me killed than by the cops than the original person yes, I would very much rather then didn't just bustin and start spraying bullets indiscriminantly.
I thik we disagree on a lot but not this. There's plenty of blame to go around and there should be plenty of convictions to go around.
That depends. Did the cop act on orders and according to procedure? Then you can't really fault him
Yes you fucking can.
"I vas just following orders" has not ever been an excuse. Likewise the whole "cops don't kill people people kill people" thing doesn't work because the cop can never be considered a mere tool with no agency. The cop is a person.
But all that doesn't get the caller or the one who hired him off the hook.
Agreed, the caller, knowing the possible outcome of his actions is equally guilts. That does not make the cop in question any less so. There is plenty of blame to go around.
Andrew Smith, the author of the article Slashdot is reviewing, seems to have no deep knowledge of technology, and no serious interest in learning.
Learning to program in middle age (where the attitide seems to be if you didn't code by the time your were 3 you're inadequate and you'll be unemployed by 25 anyhow) from scratch is "no serious interest in learning"?
WTF? The only evidence you have is that he sat down and actually learned something.
And he's getting silly answers because he's asking the wrong question.
Yeah that's part of the leaening process. You went through that too in the dim and distant past.
Asking 'what is the best way to learn to program?' is like asking 'what is the best way of learning to write well?'. Do you want to learn to write news articles, opinion, marketing copy, novels, technical manuals?
Which is precisely how no one learns to write ever. Yeah sure long after you've learned the basics of writing and are looking for a career, that's a question to ask. But not right at the beginning.
If you start with the problem that you want to solve
Not everyone does things merely to solve a problem. Some people learn things for the sake of learning.
I liked TFA. Figuring the world runs on code and it's worth nuderstanding then going out and learning---that's exactly the sort of thing which it's great if people do.
It was sad that he gave up on coding a website because there were too many braces in JavaScript. I guess that with practice the braces fall away and the underlying logic shines through.
Eventually, but for beginers, nothing just falls away so everything becomes a barrier. I've been writing in curly brace languages for over 20 years so they don't bother me. For beginners you have to take in a whole chunk in one go before you can really do anything at all.
he wants to get really shook up, he should check out LISP, the ultimate symbolic language. The parentheses will either break him or make him experience true programming bliss.
I've poked at LISP a few times. I know the principles but I never really came to like it. I kind of found that providing basically nothing by flexibility it wasn't really anything except something to implement a language in---and there are already plenty of those and some pretty nice ones. Plus I like infix notation.
About the best takeaway though was if someone starts telling you "code is data and data is code" then best response is to look confused for a moment then say "oh you mean like machine code?".
Don't comment if you didn't read it
You must be new here. The point of slashdot it to read the headline then angrily shit on the people in TFA.
whining about jargon
Where the hell is he whining about jargon? The word "jargon" doesn't appear in the article.