This string of words you put together here, they're grammatically correct, but semantically meaningless. This is straight up "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" territory.
Yeah, but you've got to separate a public demonstration by European researchers at a small robotics company from the US federal government's secret plans. There has to be a line somewhere.
It's a framework for attempting at getting to one aspect of psychology. In that a lot of studies that use it are empirical, their conclusion can be falsifiable it is anything but pseudoscience(and a number of claims have been falsified). You'll notice that criticism section doesn't use that word, because it's not really applicable.
It's not: A. In primary usage among psychologists who have found other objective measures, that are equally if not more utilitarian B. More pop-psych than not C. A little vague D. Used in situations it shouldn't be(like hiring)
So, no, I'm not going to just throw it out as a means of communicating ideas to others because an AC tells me to, and links to part of wikipedia I've read before.
Hey, guess what? We're animals out here too. If we did a better job of treating prisoners for the conditions that led to them getting incarcerated, jails wouldn't be as bad to be in.
Everyone kind of intuitively knows the difference between "maximum security" and "minimum security" prisons isn't really about how likely you are to escape, but how harshly you're being punished, and how much violence you should expect to receive. We don't even pretend those descriptions are actually accurate.
I vs. E: Solve the problem yourself, find people and get them to help you solve it N vs S: figure out how to solve the problem vs try to spot a solution to the problem. T vs F: what you just said J vs P: solve the problem vs. begin to deal the problem as much as necessary.
Much as it's not intuitive to you and I, none of these approaches are inherently wrong, or even inferior.
I feel like on slashdot, a lot of people can't really come to terms with how incredibly nontechnical your average person is. The trackers have a range at which they can be detected, and a battery that can only keep them on so long, and you're tracking them across national borders.
Now, any slashdotter is immediately going to intuit that they're going to need them constantly on to keep track of where they are, and follow at safe distance, which they could do without using the technical solution. To other people it's like movies "turn on the tracker". The one person who understood the tech side of the operation face-palms and the whole thing explodes as a national boondoggle, with people in column A going "they were up to something!!!!" and people in column B facepalming their way through it.
Slashdot Mirror
This string of words you put together here, they're grammatically correct, but semantically meaningless. This is straight up "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" territory.
Oh no, better put the kibitz on scientific advancement.
Ideas can be publicized, studied in more detail, or put to good use, without being truly new.
But the horrible things the US does isn't the question I asked.
(Also you might want to check what's being done with the DoD's budget this year in particular when you raise the idea of it being "sacrosanct")
Yeah, but you've got to separate a public demonstration by European researchers at a small robotics company from the US federal government's secret plans. There has to be a line somewhere.
Ow, I'm suing you from the pain and suffering from just how far back in my head my eyes rolled.
"STRICTLY AMBIGUOUS REASONS THAT ARE TOTALLY CLEAR TO THOSE PAYING ATTENTION!!!! (Also my dementia seems to be the early onset variety)"
How can incremental research into simple AI algorithms be so mired in conspiracy in your mind?
Just people who are trying to assert something as true, and expecting those around them to believe them.
Idiots who want to hear themselves talk can do whatever they like.
I guess it'd be pedantic, oblivious to your point, and unhelpful to point out that that is way less than a thousand words.
But that's not your job. You're not developing the language. You're just asking it to do things. Submit a bug report and move on.
It's a framework for attempting at getting to one aspect of psychology. In that a lot of studies that use it are empirical, their conclusion can be falsifiable it is anything but pseudoscience(and a number of claims have been falsified). You'll notice that criticism section doesn't use that word, because it's not really applicable.
It's not:
A. In primary usage among psychologists who have found other objective measures, that are equally if not more utilitarian
B. More pop-psych than not
C. A little vague
D. Used in situations it shouldn't be(like hiring)
But none of that means it lacks predictive utility(it does, in fact). You can find a lot of information to that effect, just by searching scholarly publications.
So, no, I'm not going to just throw it out as a means of communicating ideas to others because an AC tells me to, and links to part of wikipedia I've read before.
I'm interested in a system that minimizes crime. If that makes people who want revenge less happy, so be it. If it doesn't that's also okay.
No, psychology is much more complicated than rocket science.
Nice hypothetical. Got any evidence that's what actually happens?
Hey, guess what? We're animals out here too. If we did a better job of treating prisoners for the conditions that led to them getting incarcerated, jails wouldn't be as bad to be in.
Everyone kind of intuitively knows the difference between "maximum security" and "minimum security" prisons isn't really about how likely you are to escape, but how harshly you're being punished, and how much violence you should expect to receive. We don't even pretend those descriptions are actually accurate.
No, let's go over the difference, okay:
I vs. E: Solve the problem yourself, find people and get them to help you solve it
N vs S: figure out how to solve the problem vs try to spot a solution to the problem.
T vs F: what you just said
J vs P: solve the problem vs. begin to deal the problem as much as necessary.
Much as it's not intuitive to you and I, none of these approaches are inherently wrong, or even inferior.
I'm not sure how to address this point, so I'm just going to say you're probably right.
It's not a minority in the place doing it, which surprise, surprise, isn't all of Canada.
Yeah, at some point it becomes an unsolvable tyranny of the majority, but you can always try just getting your story out.
And the trick, good soulskill, is that not everyone is an INTJ for whom this is the natural way to attack a problem.
I feel like on slashdot, a lot of people can't really come to terms with how incredibly nontechnical your average person is. The trackers have a range at which they can be detected, and a battery that can only keep them on so long, and you're tracking them across national borders.
Now, any slashdotter is immediately going to intuit that they're going to need them constantly on to keep track of where they are, and follow at safe distance, which they could do without using the technical solution. To other people it's like movies "turn on the tracker". The one person who understood the tech side of the operation face-palms and the whole thing explodes as a national boondoggle, with people in column A going "they were up to something!!!!" and people in column B facepalming their way through it.
In libertarian fantasy land, where changes in revenue are immediately understood and accurately acted on, sure.
The people who planned it didn't understand the technical implications of their plan. This isn't the same as violating peoples' rights.
And the point I was making is that the law is harmful. Christ. So dense.
Seriously? You think laws passed by humans are the same as laws like gravity?
"Hey, black dude, just hide from your master, a great work-around for slavery."
--tepples, c. 1730