a driver can easily override Autopilot at any time by using the steering wheel or brakes and should always be prepared to do so
You're not in control, but you have to be constantly ready to take control. You don't have insight into its mental processes so you never know what it's about to do, but you have to be constantly ready to react to what it just did.
And people find driving with Autopilot to be less stressful than driving without it? I guess I'm different from most people.
$6.9 billion in profits divided by 30,000 employees working on safety and security = $230,000 in profit per person in that division.
That math may be incorrect if contract content moderators aren't included in the 30,000 employees, and I'd be happy to have more accurate numbers. Still, it's clear where the profits are coming from: Investors are making money off of the fact that there are people desperate enough for a job that they're willing to do this job for shit wages.
When I was a kid who no-one had yet realized needed glasses, this is how I identified people from a distance.
Of course, I was living in a town with 100 people in it, so the challenge wasn't on the same scale.
What I found amusing about this whole thing was that the authors said - in a radio interview that I listened to, at least - that they were doing this to promote empiricism over ideology... but they didn't do the experiments.
It reminds me of Simeon Poisson's infamous thought experiment which "proved" that the wave theory of light was incorrect.
What if someone does these experiments - what if someone goes to the dog park and watches a thousand dogs humping other dogs - and finds that the real data matches the made-up data? As empiricists - if they are, in fact, empiricists - wouldn't that force them to accept that there might be something to the theories that they're ridiculing? That'd be embarrassing, I'd think.
Perhaps there shouldn't be any punishment as such. Perhaps the researchers should just be made to do the experiments which they claimed to do. That seems like it would be the most useful path forward for everyone involved. They say that their goal is to replace ideology with empiricism, so let's do that.
Sears struggled for multiple obvious reasons - online competition, the hollowing out of the middle class, etc. - but Eddie Lampert sucked a lot of juice out of the body while Sears was still alive. And he stands to gain even more from its bankruptcy:
"As of now, Lampert’s ESL and a related fund called JPP own roughly $2.66 billion in Sears debt. The cash flow just on the interest on these notes is between $200 million and $225 million per year.
"This figure continues to grow—ESL announced on Monday another $300 million debtor-in-possession loan to support operations through the end of the year.
"Presumably, this debt would be significantly curtailed in bankruptcy. However, a fair bit of the debt is secured by Sears’s real-estate assets. For example, real-estate collateral on 46 Sears properties backs a $500 million loan ESL made in January 2017; the bankruptcy could lead to Lampert’s fund simply obtaining those property rights. In all, Lampert’s interests own around $1.5 billion in secured debt backed by real estate."
Note the irony: Slashdot is gamified discussion. It's one of the pioneers in getting people to provide value in exchange for meaningless-ish points on the Internet, in fact.
Bring in mutualisms, relationships in which species contribute directly to each other's survival, and things can really fly off the handle. Pairs of organisms that live off each other sometimes do so well in the mathematical simulations -- thriving exponentially in extreme cases
This immediately makes me think of humans and the species we have domesticated. It's not just humans who are thriving exponentially and driving thousands of other species to extinction. It's humans plus wheat, rice, cows, pigs, and a handful of other species. Millions of square miles of the most productive land in the world have been taken over by us and our mutualists. The group of us seem like the perfect example of what they've found in their simulations.
Sounds like a good tool for trolls. Send harassing message; delete; repeat. I'm waiting for the story where someone sends 10,378 messages to their ex over the course of a day, deleting them all, forgetting that there's such a thing as screenshots.
This reminds me of terra preta, which involved Amazonian farmers using charcoal to improve Amazonian soil. Were you aware of/inspired by this precedent?
Soldiers had taken telephones from the tourists who were undergoing examination near us and had begun to install a special app called JingWang Weishi that is used in Xinjiang for surveillance of the Muslim population. JingWang sends the police an identification number for the device, its model, and the telephone number of its owner before monitoring all the information that passes through the telephone, warning the user when it finds content that the government deems dangerous....
Three years ago, the Chinese government announced that private and state-owned CCTV surveillance systems that use facial recognition would be unified into a shared database that would encompass the entire population by 2020.
Xinjiang, which had also been the site of the first Chinese nuclear weapons tests, was once again chosen as the site of a pilot experiment. This is where the majority of the 20 million CCTV cameras at work in the country are located.... Now, Chinese police can find and arrest any suspect in a crowd whose facial features correspond with existing data in the country’s grandiose central database in the course of seven minutes or less....
CCTV cameras are everywhere: on the roofs of houses, on brackets attached to the walls of buildings, on street lamps, and on metal racks installed specially over the streets for the express purpose of housing cameras. The city is split into square regions, and in order to cross from one quarter into another, every Uyghur must display a plastic ID, hand over any bags or purses to be searched, undergo a pupil scan, and, in some cases, surrender a mobile phone for inspection. The same procedure awaits them at the bank, in the hospital, at the supermarket, and at underground crosswalks....
The loyalty point system, which is officially called a “social credit system,” was announced in China four years ago. No one knows exactly how the system works, but it is known that people’s ratings are calculated using the entire mass of information that the government gathers about its citizens. Financial debt, traffic tickets, reprehensible behavior online (including “harmful shopping”), and smoking in public can all affect a person’s score. One can earn points by donating blood, volunteering, or writing an ode to the Communist Party. But they are also easy to lose — playing too many video games or visiting the mosque too often is enough. Visits to unstable regions are also taken into account, as are conversations with less desirable people that are recorded on surveillance video....
In Xinjiang, where every resident is almost constantly under surveillance, this futuristic nightmare quickly took on the qualities of a bloody dystopia. The artificial intelligence system that analyzes personal data about people divides society into “safe,” “average,” and “dangerous” citizens. Age, religion, previous convictions, and contact with foreigners are all taken into account. It is very likely that samples of DNA might affect residents’ scores in the near future, as well, if they are not part of the system already.
In September 2016, the first open calls were issued online for genotyping kits to be produced for police use in China, and just two months later, Human Rights Watch announced that DNA sampling had become mandatory in Xinjiang for all those receiving a new passport. Samples are gathered in schools and workplaces, and police officers can also enter people’s homes to take them.
So? Linux has likely become successful exactly because of the behaviour of the developers.
I'd suggest that Linux has become successful because 98% of the time, Linus criticizes the code, and that attracts high-quality code and high-quality contributors. 2% of the time, he uses juvenile personal insults that make high-quality contributors wonder if it's worth it. Don't give credit for the high quality of Linux to the insults. Give credit where it's due, to Linus' incisive code criticism.
I thought the whole thing with Linus was that he never attacks the person, only the code and the attitude behind.
Small but important distinction.
Linus does that 98% of the time, and it makes Linux better.
2% of the time, Linus uses personal insults, and it makes Linux worse. The problem is that a bunch of people seem to think that it's the 2% of juvenile insults that are giving Linux its high quality. Linus' good practises are getting good results, but his bad practises are getting the credit.
Linus created a kernel development process which was massively social. He has been managing contributions from thousands of people for over three decades. He's not someone who has no interest in working with other people. He invited people in. In the late '90s, the common wisdom was that Linux succeeded where FreeBSD failed in part because Linus was welcoming.
Nobody is saying, "Linus is a jerk because he doesn't talk to anybody."
Still, there's an older and more general idea that if you want to play in the big leagues, you need to grow a thick skin.
You're not playing in the "big leagues" if you can't handle criticism of your code - I agree with you there. But you're also not playing in the "big leagues" if you're throwing around junior-high insults and pretending that it makes your code better. 98% of the time, Linus criticizes code in a way that raises standards and attracts high quality code and high quality contributors. 2% of the time, Linus throws around juvenile personal insults that make those high-quality contributors wonder if it's worth it. Don't make the mistake of giving credit for the high quality of Linux to the personal insults.
But he gets it wrong from time to time and unloads a bunch of garbage that should really have been copied to/dev/null.
If you chase people away who won't put up with criticism of their code, your code quality will go up.
If you chase people away who won't put up with personal insults, your code quality will go down. You'll be left with people who are better at giving and taking insults than they are at coding.
98% of the time, Linus does the first thing - he criticizes code, demands high standards, and attracts code and people who operate at a high level.
2% of the time he resorts to counterproductive assholery.
But... his personal insults get positive attention at places like Slashdot, and the 2% of counterproductive assholery is given the credit for the high quality of Linux. The credit for the high quality of Linux should instead go to the 98% of the time when Linus gives incisive code criticism and skips the personal insults.
P53 is well-studied - if not completely understood - and the "checksum" comparison is a very loose metaphor. You might also usefully compare it to a 9-1-1 dispatcher: It receives reports of things gone wrong from many different sources, and passes the message along to many different emergency responders.
It's interesting that sex differences in play would be so much larger in monkeys than in humans, especially when it's human toys involved. For example, in this classic (n=102) study which "clearly demonstrate[s] that sex differences are in part biological in origin":
...boys looked at the face 46 percent of the time; girls, 49 percent; boys looked at the mobile for 52 percent of the time; girls, 41 percent, which is not much of a difference when compared to the differences in the monkey study you linked. And a better-controlled later (n=48) study:
...which must've had a really awesome tea set, because the boys played with it 53% of the time and the girls played with it 48% of the time. But thank god for the train, which rescued the testosterone-driven hypothesis in this n=42 study. This n=156 toy study must've had an awesome train:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25267577
...because the girls played with it 80% of the time. (The boys still played with it more, so don't worry.:-) )
It's interesting, too, that innate toy preferences seem to have changed over the course of a few decades:
"Additionally, an effect of the length of time since study publication was found: girls played more with femaletyped toys in earlier studies than in later studies ( =.70, p Evolution is still happening, I guess.;-)
I've little doubt that my attraction to women is a heritable trait that has something to do with my Y chromosome - no doubt something downstream from the SRY gene - but it seems suspicious that I'd have specific hard-coded genetic preferences which would just happen to be perfectly suited for half of the girls I was surrounded by when I hit puberty. Maybe imprinting has something to do with it?
...although, as with most of the science on all sides of the "which behaviour differences between the sexes are driven by biological effects of the Y chromosome" debate, the science in that study isn't very strong. Or maybe it's matching, and I was attracted to girls who were similar to me?
I have no idea how strong McClintock's science is. One thing that makes me suspicious of all of these studies - on all sides - is how often researchers confirm what they already believe and how rarely they convince each other with their data. (...and how often people on the Internet fixate on studies which support the conclusions they've already come to.)
One thing that we've learned from animal studies is that a lot of the proxies we've used for evolutionary success - attraction, frequency of mating, social status - don't necessarily map to actual evolutionary success as recorded in DNA. Given the sorry state of social psychology and the parts of evolutionary psychology that share its techniques, I think we're a long way from figuring all this out in humans.
FWIW, I spend a lot of time interacting with feminists, and I've never seen/heard one say that sexual attraction is entirely a social construct. Many of them do say that the precise form it takes is socially influenced. This makes some sense to me; why else would porn from the '70s do nothing for me, even though the women are just as young and healthy and big-eyed and pretty as the girls/women I grew up with?
Slashdot Mirror
If he's willing to rewards the employees who work just as hard as he did by making them a billionaire just like him, I'm all for it!
Wait, what, you're telling me that he's not?? I'm shocked, truly shocked.
This is surely not the same as diverting people convicted of dealing drugs into pharma sales jobs. But why is it not the same?
You're not in control, but you have to be constantly ready to take control. You don't have insight into its mental processes so you never know what it's about to do, but you have to be constantly ready to react to what it just did.
And people find driving with Autopilot to be less stressful than driving without it? I guess I'm different from most people.
$6.9 billion in profits divided by 30,000 employees working on safety and security = $230,000 in profit per person in that division.
That math may be incorrect if contract content moderators aren't included in the 30,000 employees, and I'd be happy to have more accurate numbers. Still, it's clear where the profits are coming from: Investors are making money off of the fact that there are people desperate enough for a job that they're willing to do this job for shit wages.
When I was a kid who no-one had yet realized needed glasses, this is how I identified people from a distance. Of course, I was living in a town with 100 people in it, so the challenge wasn't on the same scale.
Income taxes are about 50% of New York State's budget, so that means the top 1% are paying about 23% of the budget via their state income taxes.
Or a minimal payout, whichever one is most profitable.
They don't even hurt when you re-use them four or five times.
What I found amusing about this whole thing was that the authors said - in a radio interview that I listened to, at least - that they were doing this to promote empiricism over ideology... but they didn't do the experiments.
It reminds me of Simeon Poisson's infamous thought experiment which "proved" that the wave theory of light was incorrect.
What if someone does these experiments - what if someone goes to the dog park and watches a thousand dogs humping other dogs - and finds that the real data matches the made-up data? As empiricists - if they are, in fact, empiricists - wouldn't that force them to accept that there might be something to the theories that they're ridiculing? That'd be embarrassing, I'd think.
Perhaps there shouldn't be any punishment as such. Perhaps the researchers should just be made to do the experiments which they claimed to do. That seems like it would be the most useful path forward for everyone involved. They say that their goal is to replace ideology with empiricism, so let's do that.
Sears struggled for multiple obvious reasons - online competition, the hollowing out of the middle class, etc. - but Eddie Lampert sucked a lot of juice out of the body while Sears was still alive. And he stands to gain even more from its bankruptcy:
"As of now, Lampert’s ESL and a related fund called JPP own roughly $2.66 billion in Sears debt. The cash flow just on the interest on these notes is between $200 million and $225 million per year.
"This figure continues to grow—ESL announced on Monday another $300 million debtor-in-possession loan to support operations through the end of the year.
"Presumably, this debt would be significantly curtailed in bankruptcy. However, a fair bit of the debt is secured by Sears’s real-estate assets. For example, real-estate collateral on 46 Sears properties backs a $500 million loan ESL made in January 2017; the bankruptcy could lead to Lampert’s fund simply obtaining those property rights. In all, Lampert’s interests own around $1.5 billion in secured debt backed by real estate."
Note the irony: Slashdot is gamified discussion. It's one of the pioneers in getting people to provide value in exchange for meaningless-ish points on the Internet, in fact.
Scale model sizes are always done this way. A 1:10 model is 1/10th the length, 1/10th the width, and 1/10th the height, or 1/1000th the volume.
This immediately makes me think of humans and the species we have domesticated. It's not just humans who are thriving exponentially and driving thousands of other species to extinction. It's humans plus wheat, rice, cows, pigs, and a handful of other species. Millions of square miles of the most productive land in the world have been taken over by us and our mutualists. The group of us seem like the perfect example of what they've found in their simulations.
It has been very weird to get multiple emails from Aliexpress unintentionally reminding me of the 100th anniversary of the end of World War I.
At least they didn't title them "Tomb of the Unknown Shopper", I guess.
You mean I was wrong? Dammit... delete comment! Delete comment!
Sounds like a good tool for trolls. Send harassing message; delete; repeat. I'm waiting for the story where someone sends 10,378 messages to their ex over the course of a day, deleting them all, forgetting that there's such a thing as screenshots.
This reminds me of terra preta, which involved Amazonian farmers using charcoal to improve Amazonian soil. Were you aware of/inspired by this precedent?
So? Linux has likely become successful exactly because of the behaviour of the developers.
I'd suggest that Linux has become successful because 98% of the time, Linus criticizes the code, and that attracts high-quality code and high-quality contributors. 2% of the time, he uses juvenile personal insults that make high-quality contributors wonder if it's worth it. Don't give credit for the high quality of Linux to the insults. Give credit where it's due, to Linus' incisive code criticism.
I thought the whole thing with Linus was that he never attacks the person, only the code and the attitude behind. Small but important distinction.
Linus does that 98% of the time, and it makes Linux better.
2% of the time, Linus uses personal insults, and it makes Linux worse. The problem is that a bunch of people seem to think that it's the 2% of juvenile insults that are giving Linux its high quality. Linus' good practises are getting good results, but his bad practises are getting the credit.
Linus created a kernel development process which was massively social. He has been managing contributions from thousands of people for over three decades. He's not someone who has no interest in working with other people. He invited people in. In the late '90s, the common wisdom was that Linux succeeded where FreeBSD failed in part because Linus was welcoming.
Nobody is saying, "Linus is a jerk because he doesn't talk to anybody."
You're not playing in the "big leagues" if you can't handle criticism of your code - I agree with you there. But you're also not playing in the "big leagues" if you're throwing around junior-high insults and pretending that it makes your code better. 98% of the time, Linus criticizes code in a way that raises standards and attracts high quality code and high quality contributors. 2% of the time, Linus throws around juvenile personal insults that make those high-quality contributors wonder if it's worth it. Don't make the mistake of giving credit for the high quality of Linux to the personal insults.
If you chase people away who won't put up with criticism of their code, your code quality will go up.
If you chase people away who won't put up with personal insults, your code quality will go down. You'll be left with people who are better at giving and taking insults than they are at coding.
98% of the time, Linus does the first thing - he criticizes code, demands high standards, and attracts code and people who operate at a high level.
2% of the time he resorts to counterproductive assholery.
But... his personal insults get positive attention at places like Slashdot, and the 2% of counterproductive assholery is given the credit for the high quality of Linux. The credit for the high quality of Linux should instead go to the 98% of the time when Linus gives incisive code criticism and skips the personal insults.
P53 is well-studied - if not completely understood - and the "checksum" comparison is a very loose metaphor. You might also usefully compare it to a 9-1-1 dispatcher: It receives reports of things gone wrong from many different sources, and passes the message along to many different emergency responders.
It's interesting that sex differences in play would be so much larger in monkeys than in humans, especially when it's human toys involved. For example, in this classic (n=102) study which "clearly demonstrate[s] that sex differences are in part biological in origin":
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163638300000321
...boys looked at the face 46 percent of the time; girls, 49 percent; boys looked at the mobile for 52 percent of the time; girls, 41 percent, which is not much of a difference when compared to the differences in the monkey study you linked. And a better-controlled later (n=48) study:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022096513001367
...didn't find a difference between boys and girls.
Or this toy study:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0018506X1200044X
...which must've had a really awesome tea set, because the boys played with it 53% of the time and the girls played with it 48% of the time. But thank god for the train, which rescued the testosterone-driven hypothesis in this n=42 study. This n=156 toy study must've had an awesome train:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25267577
...because the girls played with it 80% of the time. (The boys still played with it more, so don't worry. :-) )
It's interesting, too, that innate toy preferences seem to have changed over the course of a few decades:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/icd.2064
"Additionally, an effect of the length of time since study publication was found: girls played more with femaletyped toys in earlier studies than in later studies ( = .70, p Evolution is still happening, I guess. ;-)
I've little doubt that my attraction to women is a heritable trait that has something to do with my Y chromosome - no doubt something downstream from the SRY gene - but it seems suspicious that I'd have specific hard-coded genetic preferences which would just happen to be perfectly suited for half of the girls I was surrounded by when I hit puberty. Maybe imprinting has something to do with it?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1691703/
...although, as with most of the science on all sides of the "which behaviour differences between the sexes are driven by biological effects of the Y chromosome" debate, the science in that study isn't very strong. Or maybe it's matching, and I was attracted to girls who were similar to me?
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/07/the-myth-of-buying-beauty/374414/
I have no idea how strong McClintock's science is. One thing that makes me suspicious of all of these studies - on all sides - is how often researchers confirm what they already believe and how rarely they convince each other with their data. (...and how often people on the Internet fixate on studies which support the conclusions they've already come to.)
One thing that we've learned from animal studies is that a lot of the proxies we've used for evolutionary success - attraction, frequency of mating, social status - don't necessarily map to actual evolutionary success as recorded in DNA. Given the sorry state of social psychology and the parts of evolutionary psychology that share its techniques, I think we're a long way from figuring all this out in humans.
FWIW, I spend a lot of time interacting with feminists, and I've never seen/heard one say that sexual attraction is entirely a social construct. Many of them do say that the precise form it takes is socially influenced. This makes some sense to me; why else would porn from the '70s do nothing for me, even though the women are just as young and healthy and big-eyed and pretty as the girls/women I grew up with?