Yes, machine learning *is* unpredictable. But the point is that the existing dataset is so dominated by class division, you've gotta predict that there's a reasonable chance the machine will generate a model that reinforces the old class divisions, even if it has to make tenuous links.
Hiring should be *mostly* based on merit, but we also have a chance to improve the future by taking a conscious hand in deviating from the pure numbers. Ie, the human factor.
The difference is that events A and B *did* actually have an objective ordering, it was simply that the observer's measurements (which relied on photons reflected off the event) has distortion. But you're partially right about subjectivity of the observer.
The waveform collapse *doesn't care* about whether you're "microscopic" or "macroscopic" or "two different people" but it does care if 2 particles interact and become entangled, in which case, they have to be consistent.
When two physicists, Alice and Bob compare results of the same quantum experiment, *every particle that interacts in their bodies and environments* will collapse its waveform, resulting in one consistent history for the whole room without paradox. The waveform collapse will propagate through every quantum element it interacts with (via light bounces, strong or weak forces, any interaction). The "waveform collapse" just defines which reality for particle A is connected to which reality for particle B if they're going to interact.
Until Alice and Bob affect each other, for each Alice, there's an infinite Bobs (even impossible Bobs), and vice versa. But when any particles from Bob interact with particles from Alice, those particles become entangled, and the waveform collapses (for that particle). The waveform collapse propagates to any other particle affected by the original particle. So all the particles that affect each other are in the same, consistent universe.
Now if Charlie has Alice and Bob in a box, then for Charlie, there are STILL infinite sets of entangled "Alice and Bob" pairs in superposition. Charlie won't know which Alice and Bob he's connected to until *he* measures them.
Also notice, this is the same conclusion the layman can make about subjective reality. A person can't know what's inside a lead-lined box. There's no objective different between saying "I can't know what's in the box until I look" and "All infinite possibilities are in the box, and when I open it, I will find 1 of those realities."
The fan boys are just that... boys. NMS is for men and women who love the idea of space exploration.
As an adult (35 year-old) AAA developer who has worked on some of the best rated space games of all time... Let me tell you, No Man's Sky is a treasure. It's a game-making achievement. I am a game dev, and I studied NMS deeply. These tools and tricks have existed for only about 15 years and never in the same product before to such a high quality.
There's not very much that hits my quality bar, but I put at least 40 hours in. That means, it's an immense accomplishment for Hello games.
The juvenile can cry all day about 'promises'. It doesn't make a difference. What was delivered is pure gold.
The canonical example would be, an unnoticed speed change. The driver who does not intend to speed gets a large ticket in your system for making a mistake.
Your statement might be true (I have no stats in support or defence) but I'd argue that's a low-quality solution. You end up with a system designed to punish some people some of the time in order to get compliance. It encourages a system of traps for citizens. It encourages police to set up radar traps instead of using more or better signage. I'm really not interested in that sort of law enforcement.
There are tonnes of reasons it's pscyhologically negative. Particularly, young men like to push the boundaries of the world, so we end up with a system that doesn't consistently enforce the boundaries, but levies large penalties. This is the sort of trick you might want to use in prison, but on the roads?
Persistent enforcement with moderate penalties is really far better.
This article is really bad. The Super Tucano is *not* a WWII-era plane, and it could never, ever fill the role of supersonic interceptor. The Super Tucano is a great airplane, although not modern at all. You wouldn't send your race-car driver to the race in an out of date car. It would be just as stupid to send pilots into war in a Super Tucano.
When I was young, my parents encouraged me to love and play video games, but they limited my play time, and they didn't buy many games. I probably got a new game an average once every 3 years.
They did however let me spend almost unlimited time programming my own games. And when I asked for new games, they would say "games are so expensive. Why don't you program your own?"
My programming skills definitely benefited from this. Many of my friends had more, newer, and cooler games than me. But hey, I'm happier now.
What you're complaining about is that the growth isn't linear. But all of the improvements you're pointed out have seemed "smaller" than the last. Imagine if we could get the kind of improvement SNES had over NES again. But that sort of thing just isn't possible in modern games; the required complexity of the art grows way faster than the required complexity of the hardware.
The lies listed in this article are all focused on doing unnecessary cleanup. Real life isn't full of down-time where we can polish everything perfectly. Anywhere you go where there are experienced programmers, you will see they avoid issues by not over-extending themselves. Don't tell yourself your code will be clean if you want it to be fast, or you want to develop it quickly. Don't tell yourself you'll fix it later if you honestly don't NEED to fix it later.
I get annoyed by programmers who get stuck in the weeds. Solve it, and move on.
If you are depending on serious precision, floating point was not the way to go in the first place. Floating point implementations are not guaranteed to be exactly the same, nor exactly correct.
The group was 47/31 female to men, so guessing "female" would be a 59% success strategy, so blind guess does not have 50% chance of being right, however you're still right on the main point, I think. To rephrase their finding, something like 30% of twitter posts are markedly masculine or feminine. I can't think of any way to use that information practically.
The world has a plethora of people with skills. I can hire 50 coders before lunch who are skilled enough to work on my enterprise app, but not to design it. I'm sure MBA's are the same.
In my opinion, the most intelligent people I know are those that have successfully mastered multiple skills at professional levels, who concern themselves with knowledge at all levels from the big picture to the small details. These are the type of people who are constantly ahead of everyone else. These are the people that understand statistical bias, sample size, leading questions, Rayleigh scattering, and are confident and interesting speakers. This is where (I think) you'll find the best CEOs.
I guess I'm saying, there are lots of people smart enough to get degrees... less who can run huge companies well.
I also really like the term "myopia" you've used to describe the current state of business.
Producing goods and improving life are cooperative tasks, that are best served with long term planning for global maxima. Modern corporations make that approach impossible because they actively compete. The rationale for a competing agent is totally different from a cooperative one. Competing agents need to think more carefully about the near future, and less carefully about the long term future. Competing agents have incentive to chase local maxima instead of global maxima. Etc.
I do think that movie had a good solid scientific background, except for the part where the paradoxes started to affect the character's health. I don't see any evidence to the contrary, but its kind of an odd leap to make.
Yes, its valuable to research the hard, practical stuff. But come on, do you really want to live in a world where no one explores the interesting possibilities?
This post strikes me as narcissistic and pessimistic. Reminds me of those wise words, "If man was meant to fly, God would have given him wings."
I started taking a medication years ago that made my dreams more vivid, and for the last 4 or 5 years I have lucid dreams almost every morning right before I wake up. I find them very interesting, and I have often wondered about dreams and if their evolutionary purpose is to train us for potential threat situations.
So yes, I am interested in hearing more research on this topic.
I remember reading a previous slashdot story about dreams being "threat simulators" and a lot of people were quite skeptical that dreams could actually serve this purpose. Anecdotally, most people recounted dreams that seemed pointless and unrealistic. I would argue that those dreams could have actually been training them in many ways that those people don't realize.
Any time your dream changes in a way that is totally unrealistic, you learn to expect the unexpected. And if that's true, then dreaming really is an important area of human study.
As a computer programmer at a Bioware, I can tell you that video game design degrees/diplomas are respected here. I do know several people who came in with a game design diploma. Most of the game designers I know came in with a Comp Sci degree though.
I also know people who came in as QA or got lucky and were hired with no experience when the company was starting.
I do not, however, know anyone who was hired after developing an indie game, without a degree or diploma.
4 or 5 years ago, it was basically comparable to Unreal 3. The motion blur was probably the best feature I saw. Fine graphics, but nothing really mind blowing. Having said that, I have not seen what they've done since Intel bought them, but I'm guessing its basically support for Intel's research projects.
As a developer of modern console and PC games, My Professional Opinion is that there's nothing new to see here.
If you're still following this, I meant a "greedy" solution as in algorithms, in other words a solution that is aimed at the local maximum instead of the global maximum. Not necessarily a moral judgment.
However I don't mind your characterization of the issue.
I find those links incredibly interesting, so thank you!
I meant that if activity is popular, then it helps show that the law is unfair. I did not mean that all laws are fair if they govern unpopular activities.
It probably is a harder problem but I'm suggesting solving the privacy problem first might be a "greedy" solution - not the optimal solution.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, machine learning *is* unpredictable. But the point is that the existing dataset is so dominated by class division, you've gotta predict that there's a reasonable chance the machine will generate a model that reinforces the old class divisions, even if it has to make tenuous links.
Hiring should be *mostly* based on merit, but we also have a chance to improve the future by taking a conscious hand in deviating from the pure numbers. Ie, the human factor.
The difference is that events A and B *did* actually have an objective ordering, it was simply that the observer's measurements (which relied on photons reflected off the event) has distortion. But you're partially right about subjectivity of the observer.
The waveform collapse *doesn't care* about whether you're "microscopic" or "macroscopic" or "two different people" but it does care if 2 particles interact and become entangled, in which case, they have to be consistent.
When two physicists, Alice and Bob compare results of the same quantum experiment, *every particle that interacts in their bodies and environments* will collapse its waveform, resulting in one consistent history for the whole room without paradox. The waveform collapse will propagate through every quantum element it interacts with (via light bounces, strong or weak forces, any interaction). The "waveform collapse" just defines which reality for particle A is connected to which reality for particle B if they're going to interact.
Until Alice and Bob affect each other, for each Alice, there's an infinite Bobs (even impossible Bobs), and vice versa. But when any particles from Bob interact with particles from Alice, those particles become entangled, and the waveform collapses (for that particle). The waveform collapse propagates to any other particle affected by the original particle. So all the particles that affect each other are in the same, consistent universe.
Now if Charlie has Alice and Bob in a box, then for Charlie, there are STILL infinite sets of entangled "Alice and Bob" pairs in superposition. Charlie won't know which Alice and Bob he's connected to until *he* measures them.
Also notice, this is the same conclusion the layman can make about subjective reality. A person can't know what's inside a lead-lined box. There's no objective different between saying "I can't know what's in the box until I look" and "All infinite possibilities are in the box, and when I open it, I will find 1 of those realities."
The fan boys are just that... boys. NMS is for men and women who love the idea of space exploration.
As an adult (35 year-old) AAA developer who has worked on some of the best rated space games of all time... Let me tell you, No Man's Sky is a treasure. It's a game-making achievement. I am a game dev, and I studied NMS deeply. These tools and tricks have existed for only about 15 years and never in the same product before to such a high quality.
There's not very much that hits my quality bar, but I put at least 40 hours in. That means, it's an immense accomplishment for Hello games.
The juvenile can cry all day about 'promises'. It doesn't make a difference. What was delivered is pure gold.
BASIC seemed to work just fine when I was 6 years old, I didn't need it dumbed down.
I used a book called "Usborne Guide to Computer Games" to get going, got it from the library: https://2warpstoneptune.files....
The canonical example would be, an unnoticed speed change. The driver who does not intend to speed gets a large ticket in your system for making a mistake.
I'm saying that's a bad user experience.
No thanks.
Your statement might be true (I have no stats in support or defence) but I'd argue that's a low-quality solution. You end up with a system designed to punish some people some of the time in order to get compliance. It encourages a system of traps for citizens. It encourages police to set up radar traps instead of using more or better signage. I'm really not interested in that sort of law enforcement.
There are tonnes of reasons it's pscyhologically negative. Particularly, young men like to push the boundaries of the world, so we end up with a system that doesn't consistently enforce the boundaries, but levies large penalties. This is the sort of trick you might want to use in prison, but on the roads?
Persistent enforcement with moderate penalties is really far better.
This article is really bad. The Super Tucano is *not* a WWII-era plane, and it could never, ever fill the role of supersonic interceptor. The Super Tucano is a great airplane, although not modern at all. You wouldn't send your race-car driver to the race in an out of date car. It would be just as stupid to send pilots into war in a Super Tucano.
I am a programmer for a AAA video game studio.
When I was young, my parents encouraged me to love and play video games, but they limited my play time, and they didn't buy many games. I probably got a new game an average once every 3 years.
They did however let me spend almost unlimited time programming my own games. And when I asked for new games, they would say "games are so expensive. Why don't you program your own?"
My programming skills definitely benefited from this. Many of my friends had more, newer, and cooler games than me. But hey, I'm happier now.
What you're complaining about is that the growth isn't linear. But all of the improvements you're pointed out have seemed "smaller" than the last. Imagine if we could get the kind of improvement SNES had over NES again. But that sort of thing just isn't possible in modern games; the required complexity of the art grows way faster than the required complexity of the hardware.
Science and democracy have killed many, many people too. Your argument is invalid.
The lies listed in this article are all focused on doing unnecessary cleanup. Real life isn't full of down-time where we can polish everything perfectly. Anywhere you go where there are experienced programmers, you will see they avoid issues by not over-extending themselves. Don't tell yourself your code will be clean if you want it to be fast, or you want to develop it quickly. Don't tell yourself you'll fix it later if you honestly don't NEED to fix it later.
I get annoyed by programmers who get stuck in the weeds. Solve it, and move on.
A good drum programmer always includes lots of dynamics in the velocity, filtering and timing. :)
If you are depending on serious precision, floating point was not the way to go in the first place. Floating point implementations are not guaranteed to be exactly the same, nor exactly correct.
Don't pity us. Like, yeah, its hard work, but it's creative and flexible and fun. Its better than any other job I could imagine.
The group was 47/31 female to men, so guessing "female" would be a 59% success strategy, so blind guess does not have 50% chance of being right, however you're still right on the main point, I think. To rephrase their finding, something like 30% of twitter posts are markedly masculine or feminine. I can't think of any way to use that information practically.
Agreed.
The world has a plethora of people with skills. I can hire 50 coders before lunch who are skilled enough to work on my enterprise app, but not to design it. I'm sure MBA's are the same.
In my opinion, the most intelligent people I know are those that have successfully mastered multiple skills at professional levels, who concern themselves with knowledge at all levels from the big picture to the small details. These are the type of people who are constantly ahead of everyone else. These are the people that understand statistical bias, sample size, leading questions, Rayleigh scattering, and are confident and interesting speakers. This is where (I think) you'll find the best CEOs.
I guess I'm saying, there are lots of people smart enough to get degrees... less who can run huge companies well.
I also really like the term "myopia" you've used to describe the current state of business.
Producing goods and improving life are cooperative tasks, that are best served with long term planning for global maxima. Modern corporations make that approach impossible because they actively compete. The rationale for a competing agent is totally different from a cooperative one. Competing agents need to think more carefully about the near future, and less carefully about the long term future. Competing agents have incentive to chase local maxima instead of global maxima. Etc.
I do think that movie had a good solid scientific background, except for the part where the paradoxes started to affect the character's health. I don't see any evidence to the contrary, but its kind of an odd leap to make.
Yes, its valuable to research the hard, practical stuff. But come on, do you really want to live in a world where no one explores the interesting possibilities?
This post strikes me as narcissistic and pessimistic. Reminds me of those wise words, "If man was meant to fly, God would have given him wings."
I started taking a medication years ago that made my dreams more vivid, and for the last 4 or 5 years I have lucid dreams almost every morning right before I wake up. I find them very interesting, and I have often wondered about dreams and if their evolutionary purpose is to train us for potential threat situations.
So yes, I am interested in hearing more research on this topic.
I remember reading a previous slashdot story about dreams being "threat simulators" and a lot of people were quite skeptical that dreams could actually serve this purpose. Anecdotally, most people recounted dreams that seemed pointless and unrealistic. I would argue that those dreams could have actually been training them in many ways that those people don't realize.
Any time your dream changes in a way that is totally unrealistic, you learn to expect the unexpected. And if that's true, then dreaming really is an important area of human study.
As a computer programmer at a Bioware, I can tell you that video game design degrees/diplomas are respected here. I do know several people who came in with a game design diploma. Most of the game designers I know came in with a Comp Sci degree though.
I also know people who came in as QA or got lucky and were hired with no experience when the company was starting.
I do not, however, know anyone who was hired after developing an indie game, without a degree or diploma.
4 or 5 years ago, it was basically comparable to Unreal 3. The motion blur was probably the best feature I saw. Fine graphics, but nothing really mind blowing. Having said that, I have not seen what they've done since Intel bought them, but I'm guessing its basically support for Intel's research projects.
As a developer of modern console and PC games, My Professional Opinion is that there's nothing new to see here.
So... you're saying punish the parents.
You shouldn't punish people for following their basic herd instincts as righteous and moral as it might make you feel.
Disagree.
If you're still following this, I meant a "greedy" solution as in algorithms, in other words a solution that is aimed at the local maximum instead of the global maximum. Not necessarily a moral judgment.
However I don't mind your characterization of the issue.
I find those links incredibly interesting, so thank you!
I should have been clearer.
I meant that if activity is popular, then it helps show that the law is unfair. I did not mean that all laws are fair if they govern unpopular activities.
It probably is a harder problem but I'm suggesting solving the privacy problem first might be a "greedy" solution - not the optimal solution.