Of course I can understand that. But are you able to understand that a computer with that capability might cost you more in the future because it will no longer be mass produced as most people will not want such a computer.
The Tesla can do 300 miles on a single charge today, and with the improvements in battery technology, 600 miles is not infeasible in the near future.
The battery on an electric vehicle can be swapped for a fully charged one, and I can see one day a network of battery swap stations. All that is needed is for some standardisation of the batteries and "recharging" will be quicker than refuelling. One could change their battery in a minute and be off.
The distribution of fuel would essentially be done by power lines to the battery swap stations, which would be more efficient than moving billions of litres of oil from Saudi Arabia, Canada and Venezuela to the US every year, and then moving them around the country to where they are needed.
This is just another case of Stallman's ideological purity doing more harm to his cause than good.
How so? I would argue that this drives home the point for Stallman that GCC needs to be better.
Except that the ideology does get in the way. Stallman (or whoever is responsible for GCC) decided that they wouldn't make GCC to be modular to force people to use it in the way they wanted them to. Then they changed the license to make it harder for Apple (and others) to make it do what Apple needed it to do.
So Apple didn't sulk. They went and invested in LLVM, and Stallman's gambit failed. Now LLVM is starting to beat GCC in many important ways, and is getting the kind of traction that having companies like Apple on board can allow it to have. Even companies such as Google are contributing significantly to LLVM/Clang. At some point, LLVM will surpass GCC, and GCC will stagnate because all those people currently paid to work on GCC will no longer be paid to work on it. And make no mistake, GCC developed as much as it did because companies paid brilliant developers lot of money to make it work as well as it now does.
I have only driven 400 miles in one day about 4 times in my life. Would my life be demonstrably worse if I had to take the train to the nearest station to my destination and hired a car for use while I was there.
This is the equivalent of a computer geek demanding that their computer come with the ability to install their favourite operating system. If the mass market shifts to electric cars, you will just have to pay top dollar for a car that does 400 miles, and at that point you will ask yourself if the extra $10,000 it costs (for example) is worth getting the 400 mile range that you only really use once or twice a year.
And if 99% of people decide that gasoline cars are yesterday's news, the situation could easily be reversed, i.e. there will be fewer places to refuel, and you will find it hard to fill up virtually anywhere, unlike electric, which you will be able to recharge everywhere. Of course, this future is a long way away, but there is no reason to imagine it can't happen.
There is no electric motor that can be provide enough power to match a diesel engine in an 18 wheeler truck that is so critical to national trade in every country.
You clearly haven't heard of diesel electrics then.
Many large ships are actually diesel electric - i.e. the diesel engines turn some generators that produce electricity that powers motors that in turn moves the ship.
This isn't to say that it will be easy to replace diesel for cargo, but it probably isn't as hard as you imagine once we get battery technology competitive with fossil fuels.
I like the fact that if I buy something online, and the merchant turns out to be a thieving crook, I am able to charge them back and get my money back. Bitcoin purposely makes it impossible to do this without the cooperation of the merchant.
In addition to the other issues with bitcoin, this makes bitcoin unappealing for many people who actually don't have any idealogical issue with the usual fiat currency.
No one has a right to have their business model succeed, but neither does anyone have a right to get content free without either paying for it or putting up with ads
People who don't see your ads will not click on them, and they will not generate money for you. Therefore, losing them does not hurt the bottom line. This isn't TV, where you can't distinguish between those who use ad breaks as loo time and those who will sit in front of their TV and watch every ad, and where companies are happy to pay for exposure to all viewers. This is the internet, where you are depending on a browser to display the ad. If the customer has configured their browser not ti display ads, then they can't make you any money, and advertisers won't pay for the page views of those customers. So losing people with ad block does hurt the company's bottom line at all.
if you imagine a random draw in which you had 99 realisations of the number "1" and 1 realisation of the number "101". The mean would equal 2 while the (population) standard deviation would equal sqrt(1/100*(99+99^2)) (which is a fairly large number).
If you removed the one observation of "101" from the sample, you would have zero standard deviation. So one additional outlier will cause the standard deviation to go from zero to 10 without changing the mean by nearly as much (or the median at all).
The issue of underweighting tail events is really a separate issue, and that is usually because a distribution such as the normal distribution has very thin tails, so basically anything outside about 4 standard deviations would be predicted to be extremely unlikely by the normal distribution.
Other distributions do better, but they tend to be rather less friendly from an analytical perspective. However, with the kind of computing power available nowadays, this is less of an issue now as it would have been when people first started using the normal distribution for the purposes for which it has been always known (and some not so clever bankers have recently found) to be inadequate.
I should add that it is still a bit of an issue where speed is concerned though, because you can do your calculations involving the normal distribution much faster than you can many of the other more esoteric and likely more realistic distributions.
Actually, if that is the whole population of interest, then that is the standard deviation. If that is only a sample, then as an estimator, and it is biased. That's when you need to use the unbiased estimator to estimate the standard deviation for the population.
As your sample becomes larger, it begins to matter less anyway (the difference between dividing my n and dividing by n-1 becomes tiny the larger n gets).
I tend to have less hangups about using either to be honest if all I am looking for is a measure of the dispersion in the population. Of course, if I want to score full marks in a test, I use the right one.
Well, it's not the cloning itself that is dangerous. It is what happens when this become the preferred method of producing all of our pigs. There are many strains of banana that are no longer available today because they all became infected with the same bug and well, we couldn't produce banana's that were very nearly like them, but a little different.
Human being are very adept at creating monocultures, and this is one of the reasons that many parts of the world are now very famine prone. (Famine, not drought). We have already extinguished whole species - it's not a stretch to imagine us having exactly 20 pigs all of which we clone to produce exact copies. If disease strikes, all of those will be vulnerable in exactly the same way, and could be devastating to food production.
We are already doing quite badly at biodiversity without the ultimate "doomsday" technology. I, for one, hope this doesn't become something widespread.
Oh, and we think Monsanto is bad now. Wait until one company owns the patents to all the pigs in the world.
I like how people think that Africans only disobey the Pope when it comes to condom use, but not when it comes to the actual having of sex.
Seriously! The reason that condoms are not used as much in Africa have to do with the fact that the people are so poor they generally can't afford them. That, and Africa is nominally a very conservative place (when it comes to sex) which means people are just not too likely to go buying them, especially if they are very poor and live in communities where all the shopkeepers know them, and word can get around if a boy is a bit of a dog (for lack of a better word) and the shame (and physical danger) that might result.
Oh, and they lack education.
What is the excuse in America? (And in the UK I might ask too, which has the highest teen pregnancy rate in western Europe)
I think the bigger problem is that while in the past, the new jobs were often created nearby where the people already were, these days, those jobs can be displaced halfway across the world in China. The reason Obama had to save Detroit was that all those autoworkers couldn't just up sticks and move to China, or Japan or wherever the new jobs were popping up. In the past, if one car company went under, they would either be snapped up by another company in the same area, or new companies would pop up in the same place to take advantage of the local skills. Now cars arrive from Europe, Japan and China in kits, and can be assembled anywhere, probably somewhere coastal.
Back in the day, industries declined slowly, so while the number of jobs fell, this was manageable because you just stopped replacing the people who retired or quit. Now, entire industries can disappear overnight.
Additionally, the speed with which industries grow and then shrivel and die is now quite mind blowing. PC repair shops were a big thing in the late 90s and early 2000s, but are largely disappearing as it has become cheaper to replace rather than repair.
Also, for decades previously, all manner of goods would have been repaired, and those repair jobs would have been local. When you repair something, you pay someone in your town. When you replace (via Amazon), its to the benefit of a company in China (or Japan, or Europe somewhere).
Their problem is what Steve Jobs once talked about when discussing how Apple was happy to cannibalise its own products.
Apple made the iPod nano knowing full well that some people, who might have spent on the original iPod would opt for the nano. They just reasoned that someone was going to do it anyway, and they might as well lose a big sale and gain a small sale, rather than lose a big sale and get nothing.
As I understand it, it is not possible to integrate GCC into Xcode in the same way as LLVM is without having to license Xcode as GPLv3 or some other compatible license. For example, Xcode uses (if I am not mistaken) the LLVM/CLang API. I don't think GCC has one, and if it had one, I don't think Apple could use it without having to change their Xcode license.
Blimey, someone needs to get rid of the twist in their knickers.
Rhythm is merely the absence of harmony and melody.
What sort of crazy rubbish is that? High sounding nonsense that is.
As with any art form, there are good practitioners and bad practitioners of the art, and the lyrics to rap range from the downright awful to the absolutely brilliant. And the skill of the delivery ranges from the clumsy to the sublime. As with anything else in life.
And when it comes to harmony, there is plenty of it in rap come to think of it. Basically, when rappers ride the beat, they are rapping in harmony to the "music".
A currency is both a medium of exchange and a store of value. The two things go hand in hand. A currency is what allows you to work work today, be paid in a month and spend your money a year later. If the currency can't store its value reliably, then people will not accept it, and it loses its ability to function as a currency.
Storing its value allows a currency to perform the inter-temporal transfer of wealth function.
Money supply is number of units in circulation x value per unit. You are just used to the left hand term varying, but mathematically the right hand term can do the varying while the left one stays fixed.
Basically, in your "equation", if I understood correctly, you are saying that the number of units stays fixed while the value varies. I am saying you want both to be fairly stable. You want the amount of currency in circulation to be fairly stable and linked to the amount of economic activity and thus increase as the value of economic activity increases, and you want the value to be fairly stable to allow holders to store their wealth in it.
If the value cannot be stable, then you can't keep your "money" in Bitcoin. If you can't keep your wealth in Bitcoin, then why would you accept Bitcoin in the first place? Why not just demand dollars and avoid having to transact into and out of Bitcoin?
How would the miners benefit? If there are no proper transactions (buying and selling stuff) then the action of mining will actually reduce the value of Bitcoin, and this would be to the detriment of the miners. Remember that until you exchange Bitcoin for something else of value (not other Bitcoin), then you do not affect its value.
I hate missing the trailers. As far as I am concerned, it is part of the movie watching experience. Heck, I used to not fast forward through the trailers on VHS. Admittedly, that was before the internet and that was the only way to find out about other movies I might want to watch another time.
So yeah, it's probably more for nostalgic reasons than anything else.
One of the reasons that gold stopped being useful as a currency as that the amount of gold in circulation had no direct (or indirect) link to the amount of economic activity. The value of gold fluctuates too much compared to the value of the commodities that you would want ot buy with the gold. If you don't believe it, just look at what the price of gold has been doing over the last 10 years.
Bitcoin would be even worse since it is designed with very specific finite limits. Yes gold is also finite, but we have been mining the stuff for millenia, and we are still producing a fair amount of it.
A currency ideally need to be linked to the amount of economic activity to prevent wild swings in its value. So if the economy grows by 2%, you would want at least 2% growth in the amount of currency available. Bitcoin is unable to do that indefinitely. I would add that ideally, the amount of Bitcoin needed to increase to reflect the amount of transactions being undertaken in Bitcoin. Bitcoin does not do this.
Secondly, a currency needs a little bit of inflation. Bitcoin, at least at the moment, has the opposite of that. Because the value of Bitcoin has been rising, people are encouraged to hoard Bitcoin (you become wealthier just by holding on to them). You want the opposite. You want people to become a little poorer if they just hold on to their currency to encourage them to either spend of invest their money. This may be a little controversial, but there is no good reason why the intertemporal transfer of wealth should be costless.
Because of these flaws Bitcoin cannot be a currency. At best, it will be another commodity (like gold, or oil or copper), whose value swings wildly depending on the mood and the outlook.
But you benefit today from the actions of the white oppressors in the past, some of whom may have been your ancestors.
You probably had the privilege of a certain amount of wealth that allowed you to go a good school, whether by virtue of the location you could live in, or by virtue of the wealth of your parents, and that allowed you certain advantages over black people. Yes, some black people are wealthier than you (I am sure there are no (or very few) billionaires lurking around on slashdot, but on the whole, you are better off than many black people and mostly by virtue of the fact that you are white.
So protest all you want, but that racism in the past continues to ensure that you are very likely to be better off than black people _today_, whether or not you harbour any racist views.
Unless you believe black people to be fundamentally more criminal and law breaking than white people, how else do you explain the fact that black men make up 40% of the male prison population while being only 13% of the total male population in the USA.
The odds are stacked in your favour as a white person, for historical reasons, and largely to do with race. That is a fact.
The fact that it isn't of your doing does not mean that it is not something to be addressed. You can think of it as being in possession of stolen goods, and yet being allowed to keep them. That is what white privilege is.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course I can understand that. But are you able to understand that a computer with that capability might cost you more in the future because it will no longer be mass produced as most people will not want such a computer.
The Tesla can do 300 miles on a single charge today, and with the improvements in battery technology, 600 miles is not infeasible in the near future.
The battery on an electric vehicle can be swapped for a fully charged one, and I can see one day a network of battery swap stations. All that is needed is for some standardisation of the batteries and "recharging" will be quicker than refuelling. One could change their battery in a minute and be off.
The distribution of fuel would essentially be done by power lines to the battery swap stations, which would be more efficient than moving billions of litres of oil from Saudi Arabia, Canada and Venezuela to the US every year, and then moving them around the country to where they are needed.
Argument from apathy?
How so? I would argue that this drives home the point for Stallman that GCC needs to be better.
Except that the ideology does get in the way. Stallman (or whoever is responsible for GCC) decided that they wouldn't make GCC to be modular to force people to use it in the way they wanted them to. Then they changed the license to make it harder for Apple (and others) to make it do what Apple needed it to do.
So Apple didn't sulk. They went and invested in LLVM, and Stallman's gambit failed. Now LLVM is starting to beat GCC in many important ways, and is getting the kind of traction that having companies like Apple on board can allow it to have. Even companies such as Google are contributing significantly to LLVM/Clang. At some point, LLVM will surpass GCC, and GCC will stagnate because all those people currently paid to work on GCC will no longer be paid to work on it. And make no mistake, GCC developed as much as it did because companies paid brilliant developers lot of money to make it work as well as it now does.
I have only driven 400 miles in one day about 4 times in my life. Would my life be demonstrably worse if I had to take the train to the nearest station to my destination and hired a car for use while I was there.
This is the equivalent of a computer geek demanding that their computer come with the ability to install their favourite operating system. If the mass market shifts to electric cars, you will just have to pay top dollar for a car that does 400 miles, and at that point you will ask yourself if the extra $10,000 it costs (for example) is worth getting the 400 mile range that you only really use once or twice a year.
And if 99% of people decide that gasoline cars are yesterday's news, the situation could easily be reversed, i.e. there will be fewer places to refuel, and you will find it hard to fill up virtually anywhere, unlike electric, which you will be able to recharge everywhere. Of course, this future is a long way away, but there is no reason to imagine it can't happen.
There is no electric motor that can be provide enough power to match a diesel engine in an 18 wheeler truck that is so critical to national trade in every country.
You clearly haven't heard of diesel electrics then.
Many large ships are actually diesel electric - i.e. the diesel engines turn some generators that produce electricity that powers motors that in turn moves the ship.
This isn't to say that it will be easy to replace diesel for cargo, but it probably isn't as hard as you imagine once we get battery technology competitive with fossil fuels.
I like the fact that if I buy something online, and the merchant turns out to be a thieving crook, I am able to charge them back and get my money back. Bitcoin purposely makes it impossible to do this without the cooperation of the merchant.
In addition to the other issues with bitcoin, this makes bitcoin unappealing for many people who actually don't have any idealogical issue with the usual fiat currency.
No one has a right to have their business model succeed, but neither does anyone have a right to get content free without either paying for it or putting up with ads
Or it could be that people who buy cheaper appliances tend not to complain as frequently as those who buy expensive stuff.
Replying to my own post here.
Last sentence should be "So losing people with ad block doesn't hurt the company's bottom line at all."
People who don't see your ads will not click on them, and they will not generate money for you. Therefore, losing them does not hurt the bottom line. This isn't TV, where you can't distinguish between those who use ad breaks as loo time and those who will sit in front of their TV and watch every ad, and where companies are happy to pay for exposure to all viewers. This is the internet, where you are depending on a browser to display the ad. If the customer has configured their browser not ti display ads, then they can't make you any money, and advertisers won't pay for the page views of those customers. So losing people with ad block does hurt the company's bottom line at all.
Um, yes it does.
if you imagine a random draw in which you had 99 realisations of the number "1" and 1 realisation of the number "101". The mean would equal 2 while the (population) standard deviation would equal sqrt(1/100*(99+99^2)) (which is a fairly large number).
If you removed the one observation of "101" from the sample, you would have zero standard deviation. So one additional outlier will cause the standard deviation to go from zero to 10 without changing the mean by nearly as much (or the median at all).
The issue of underweighting tail events is really a separate issue, and that is usually because a distribution such as the normal distribution has very thin tails, so basically anything outside about 4 standard deviations would be predicted to be extremely unlikely by the normal distribution.
Other distributions do better, but they tend to be rather less friendly from an analytical perspective. However, with the kind of computing power available nowadays, this is less of an issue now as it would have been when people first started using the normal distribution for the purposes for which it has been always known (and some not so clever bankers have recently found) to be inadequate.
I should add that it is still a bit of an issue where speed is concerned though, because you can do your calculations involving the normal distribution much faster than you can many of the other more esoteric and likely more realistic distributions.
Actually, if that is the whole population of interest, then that is the standard deviation. If that is only a sample, then as an estimator, and it is biased. That's when you need to use the unbiased estimator to estimate the standard deviation for the population.
As your sample becomes larger, it begins to matter less anyway (the difference between dividing my n and dividing by n-1 becomes tiny the larger n gets).
I tend to have less hangups about using either to be honest if all I am looking for is a measure of the dispersion in the population. Of course, if I want to score full marks in a test, I use the right one.
Well, it's not the cloning itself that is dangerous. It is what happens when this become the preferred method of producing all of our pigs. There are many strains of banana that are no longer available today because they all became infected with the same bug and well, we couldn't produce banana's that were very nearly like them, but a little different.
Human being are very adept at creating monocultures, and this is one of the reasons that many parts of the world are now very famine prone. (Famine, not drought). We have already extinguished whole species - it's not a stretch to imagine us having exactly 20 pigs all of which we clone to produce exact copies. If disease strikes, all of those will be vulnerable in exactly the same way, and could be devastating to food production.
We are already doing quite badly at biodiversity without the ultimate "doomsday" technology. I, for one, hope this doesn't become something widespread.
Oh, and we think Monsanto is bad now. Wait until one company owns the patents to all the pigs in the world.
I like how people think that Africans only disobey the Pope when it comes to condom use, but not when it comes to the actual having of sex.
Seriously! The reason that condoms are not used as much in Africa have to do with the fact that the people are so poor they generally can't afford them. That, and Africa is nominally a very conservative place (when it comes to sex) which means people are just not too likely to go buying them, especially if they are very poor and live in communities where all the shopkeepers know them, and word can get around if a boy is a bit of a dog (for lack of a better word) and the shame (and physical danger) that might result.
Oh, and they lack education.
What is the excuse in America? (And in the UK I might ask too, which has the highest teen pregnancy rate in western Europe)
Why not just reset the password on the account, close the account, and reregister.
Someone using your email address anywhere on the internet is the equivalent of a denial of service.
I think the bigger problem is that while in the past, the new jobs were often created nearby where the people already were, these days, those jobs can be displaced halfway across the world in China. The reason Obama had to save Detroit was that all those autoworkers couldn't just up sticks and move to China, or Japan or wherever the new jobs were popping up. In the past, if one car company went under, they would either be snapped up by another company in the same area, or new companies would pop up in the same place to take advantage of the local skills. Now cars arrive from Europe, Japan and China in kits, and can be assembled anywhere, probably somewhere coastal.
Back in the day, industries declined slowly, so while the number of jobs fell, this was manageable because you just stopped replacing the people who retired or quit. Now, entire industries can disappear overnight.
Additionally, the speed with which industries grow and then shrivel and die is now quite mind blowing. PC repair shops were a big thing in the late 90s and early 2000s, but are largely disappearing as it has become cheaper to replace rather than repair.
Also, for decades previously, all manner of goods would have been repaired, and those repair jobs would have been local. When you repair something, you pay someone in your town. When you replace (via Amazon), its to the benefit of a company in China (or Japan, or Europe somewhere).
Their problem is what Steve Jobs once talked about when discussing how Apple was happy to cannibalise its own products.
Apple made the iPod nano knowing full well that some people, who might have spent on the original iPod would opt for the nano. They just reasoned that someone was going to do it anyway, and they might as well lose a big sale and gain a small sale, rather than lose a big sale and get nothing.
Disrupt yourself, or be disrupted by others!
As I understand it, it is not possible to integrate GCC into Xcode in the same way as LLVM is without having to license Xcode as GPLv3 or some other compatible license. For example, Xcode uses (if I am not mistaken) the LLVM/CLang API. I don't think GCC has one, and if it had one, I don't think Apple could use it without having to change their Xcode license.
Blimey, someone needs to get rid of the twist in their knickers.
Rhythm is merely the absence of harmony and melody.
What sort of crazy rubbish is that? High sounding nonsense that is.
As with any art form, there are good practitioners and bad practitioners of the art, and the lyrics to rap range from the downright awful to the absolutely brilliant. And the skill of the delivery ranges from the clumsy to the sublime. As with anything else in life.
And when it comes to harmony, there is plenty of it in rap come to think of it. Basically, when rappers ride the beat, they are rapping in harmony to the "music".
I don't know why I am replying to this.
Rap music is not so much about harmony as it is about rhythm and rhyme. Basically, rap is about poetry.
You wouldn't know that because you are an idiot.
A currency is both a medium of exchange and a store of value. The two things go hand in hand. A currency is what allows you to work work today, be paid in a month and spend your money a year later. If the currency can't store its value reliably, then people will not accept it, and it loses its ability to function as a currency.
Storing its value allows a currency to perform the inter-temporal transfer of wealth function.
Money supply is number of units in circulation x value per unit. You are just used to the left hand term varying, but mathematically the right hand term can do the varying while the left one stays fixed.
Basically, in your "equation", if I understood correctly, you are saying that the number of units stays fixed while the value varies. I am saying you want both to be fairly stable. You want the amount of currency in circulation to be fairly stable and linked to the amount of economic activity and thus increase as the value of economic activity increases, and you want the value to be fairly stable to allow holders to store their wealth in it.
If the value cannot be stable, then you can't keep your "money" in Bitcoin. If you can't keep your wealth in Bitcoin, then why would you accept Bitcoin in the first place? Why not just demand dollars and avoid having to transact into and out of Bitcoin?
How would the miners benefit? If there are no proper transactions (buying and selling stuff) then the action of mining will actually reduce the value of Bitcoin, and this would be to the detriment of the miners. Remember that until you exchange Bitcoin for something else of value (not other Bitcoin), then you do not affect its value.
I hate missing the trailers. As far as I am concerned, it is part of the movie watching experience. Heck, I used to not fast forward through the trailers on VHS. Admittedly, that was before the internet and that was the only way to find out about other movies I might want to watch another time.
So yeah, it's probably more for nostalgic reasons than anything else.
One of the reasons that gold stopped being useful as a currency as that the amount of gold in circulation had no direct (or indirect) link to the amount of economic activity. The value of gold fluctuates too much compared to the value of the commodities that you would want ot buy with the gold. If you don't believe it, just look at what the price of gold has been doing over the last 10 years.
Bitcoin would be even worse since it is designed with very specific finite limits. Yes gold is also finite, but we have been mining the stuff for millenia, and we are still producing a fair amount of it.
A currency ideally need to be linked to the amount of economic activity to prevent wild swings in its value. So if the economy grows by 2%, you would want at least 2% growth in the amount of currency available. Bitcoin is unable to do that indefinitely. I would add that ideally, the amount of Bitcoin needed to increase to reflect the amount of transactions being undertaken in Bitcoin. Bitcoin does not do this.
Secondly, a currency needs a little bit of inflation. Bitcoin, at least at the moment, has the opposite of that. Because the value of Bitcoin has been rising, people are encouraged to hoard Bitcoin (you become wealthier just by holding on to them). You want the opposite. You want people to become a little poorer if they just hold on to their currency to encourage them to either spend of invest their money. This may be a little controversial, but there is no good reason why the intertemporal transfer of wealth should be costless.
Because of these flaws Bitcoin cannot be a currency. At best, it will be another commodity (like gold, or oil or copper), whose value swings wildly depending on the mood and the outlook.
But you benefit today from the actions of the white oppressors in the past, some of whom may have been your ancestors.
You probably had the privilege of a certain amount of wealth that allowed you to go a good school, whether by virtue of the location you could live in, or by virtue of the wealth of your parents, and that allowed you certain advantages over black people. Yes, some black people are wealthier than you (I am sure there are no (or very few) billionaires lurking around on slashdot, but on the whole, you are better off than many black people and mostly by virtue of the fact that you are white.
So protest all you want, but that racism in the past continues to ensure that you are very likely to be better off than black people _today_, whether or not you harbour any racist views.
Unless you believe black people to be fundamentally more criminal and law breaking than white people, how else do you explain the fact that black men make up 40% of the male prison population while being only 13% of the total male population in the USA.
The odds are stacked in your favour as a white person, for historical reasons, and largely to do with race. That is a fact.
The fact that it isn't of your doing does not mean that it is not something to be addressed. You can think of it as being in possession of stolen goods, and yet being allowed to keep them. That is what white privilege is.