I know that. The preselection makes the study just even more meaningless. The problem is that the natural distribution into gay/straight is already very hard to determine and apparently varies between 3.5% gay and something like more than 20%, depending on study and definition. Definitions also vary widely, for example, some studies lump anybody bisexual in with gay. Trying to create an artificial mix just adds another, likely large, error on top of that and makes it basically impossible to predict how this method would do on a randomly selected sample.
The whole thing is a stunt, scientifically meaningless and potentially dangerous.
About 10% of all people are homosexual (very roughly). Hence a static classifier of value="hetero" has an accuracy rating of around 90%. Given that, the published numbers are not impressive at all.
Indeed. Also waiting for ransomware on devices like printers: "Pay $100, and you will get your original firmware back". On the plus side, research into setting devices on fire via software has lagged a bit in recent years. I think this will pick up again.
These are people with a "can do" attitude and the skills to back that up. Unfortunately, these are also young and inexperienced people that vastly overestimate their own skills and that think it could never happen to them. To make matters worse, they are living inside the Google filter-bubble.
This is a catastrophe in the making.
Incidentally, read a few "scientific" publications by Google people to find out how utterly clueless they are about reality, all while thinking they are the greatest engineers ans scientists ever. Most really good people have left Google (I know a few) and what is left has failed to realize they are the dross. And they then make demented decisions like this one.
Indeed. But now it can hack your USB devices without hacking your computer or browser first. The sheer stupidity and arrogance expressed in this is staggering.
Indeed. Money does not turn you magically into an expert on things. It unfortunately makes the press cite you though, regardless of how ridiculously clueless you are.
Well, people will deceive themselves about the nature of a thing they believe in. You just gave an excellent example of that. I like in particular "truths are non-obvious and not easily reconstructed from purely rational analysis", which nicely explains one of the lying-techniques used by religion: "You do not understand what we are doing, but we have truth!" used without proof. Anybody willing to fall for a lie this transparent is very easy to manipulate. Just strengthens my point.
Hollywood likes to whine and, of course, they want to rake in even more money. They can also not admit to making a profit, because then the whole "piracy" narrative becomes very obvious as the complete lie it is. People could notice they are scumbags.
And fail. High-exponent polynomials blow up similarly fast in practice, i.e. things become infeasible at very small sizes for worst-case scenarios. Incidentally, I know pretty much what I am talking about, including, for example, in crypto. The one-way function definition, for example, that stipulates P in one direction and NP for the reversal is simply broken and comes from theoreticians that have no insight into practice. It can be fixed (sort of), but you can do perfectly secure one-way functions using P only. Hence while you may have understood some of the math, you have failed to grasp what it means in reality.
Yes, but that is not a practical result. If it is P with, say, exponent > 20, then it has no practical consequences. P vs. NP is not about run-times for real-world cases.
It does matter, because of unexpected side-results. The question itself does not matter much, but other things implied by it may well matter a lot. In particular, it could show directions for further research. Of course, this being hardcore fundamental mathematical research, anything practical will at least be two steps removed. But without a few millennia of mathematical research, we would not have most of the advanced algorithms in use today.
Not really. Religion is dumb. Literally. However there are quite a few people that use Science as a surrogate for religion and that corrupts science and makes it religion. For science you need an open mind. A main aim of religion is to close minds so that they do not go run off to the competition.
Which makes religion subject to evolution (if the belief is stupid enough, its follower eventually die out) and science highly adaptive. Of course, you do only get concrete absolute truth in religion, (in Mathematics, you get absolute truth too, but it will be abstract and applicability to reality will never be absolute), and many people are looking for that, probably because they cannot deal with uncertainty. So the other thing about religion is that it uses its "truths" merely as mechanism to acquire and control its followers, truth is completely irrelevant (apart from the evolution angle).
Will be interesting to see whether Blum or somebody else can fix the proof. May take a while though.
Orbital mechanics is what keeps the ISS orbiting, not any control center on earth. And incidentally, it does not "fly", it "orbits". Fundamentally different.
Indeed. And it may well turn out that if Blum did not solve it after all, his work provides a critical stepping stone or has other important uses (may take centuries though, Math is hard). This is mathematics at its best and practiced by some truly impressive minds.
Chess is not finite. But since it is finite state, it must run into a state reached before eventually when playing it infinitely. Then you can sort-of say that the intermediary steps did not matter. However there is an infinite number of different chess games. All it takes for the proof is a state that you can go away from and go back to afterwards in two different ways. Then call one "0" and one "1" and encode all binary numbers in this. QED.
Actually, testing them (looking for a counterexample) is a quite standard technique when trying to evaluate the validity of a mathematical proof. This also one of the techniques used to understand it, and for stuff this advanced it can take months or years to get the gist.
Whenever one of the remaining really large mathematical questions gets a credible attempt at solving it, this is the standard procedure. The author publishes, some reputable people in this area do a sniff-test and say "this deserves real consideration" and then it takes a while (pften years) to figure it out. I would also like to point out that we have seen credible but faulty proofs for big questions in the past that then later actually could be fixed or serve as basis for a real proof. Hence this is an important step either way and even if it requires a few years to fix, there may be a shared Field-Medal or similar in it for Blum and the answer to the P/NP question for everybody else.
Probably the carbs talked about are mostly refined sugar. That one is a lot worse than fat. Rice and other grains behave differently. "No carb" is nonsense.
Slashdot Mirror
I know that. The preselection makes the study just even more meaningless. The problem is that the natural distribution into gay/straight is already very hard to determine and apparently varies between 3.5% gay and something like more than 20%, depending on study and definition. Definitions also vary widely, for example, some studies lump anybody bisexual in with gay. Trying to create an artificial mix just adds another, likely large, error on top of that and makes it basically impossible to predict how this method would do on a randomly selected sample.
The whole thing is a stunt, scientifically meaningless and potentially dangerous.
Meaningless statistic is meaningless. And the one posting it is stupid.
About 10% of all people are homosexual (very roughly). Hence a static classifier of value="hetero" has an accuracy rating of around 90%. Given that, the published numbers are not impressive at all.
Indeed. Also waiting for ransomware on devices like printers: "Pay $100, and you will get your original firmware back". On the plus side, research into setting devices on fire via software has lagged a bit in recent years. I think this will pick up again.
You think systemd will save you? If I were religious, my prayers would be with you....
These are people with a "can do" attitude and the skills to back that up. Unfortunately, these are also young and inexperienced people that vastly overestimate their own skills and that think it could never happen to them. To make matters worse, they are living inside the Google filter-bubble.
This is a catastrophe in the making.
Incidentally, read a few "scientific" publications by Google people to find out how utterly clueless they are about reality, all while thinking they are the greatest engineers ans scientists ever. Most really good people have left Google (I know a few) and what is left has failed to realize they are the dross. And they then make demented decisions like this one.
Indeed. But now it can hack your USB devices without hacking your computer or browser first. The sheer stupidity and arrogance expressed in this is staggering.
Not at all. Your obvious lie is obvious.
Indeed. Money does not turn you magically into an expert on things. It unfortunately makes the press cite you though, regardless of how ridiculously clueless you are.
Well, people will deceive themselves about the nature of a thing they believe in. You just gave an excellent example of that. I like in particular "truths are non-obvious and not easily reconstructed from purely rational analysis", which nicely explains one of the lying-techniques used by religion: "You do not understand what we are doing, but we have truth!" used without proof. Anybody willing to fall for a lie this transparent is very easy to manipulate. Just strengthens my point.
All of these films made back their budget.
Hollywood likes to whine and, of course, they want to rake in even more money. They can also not admit to making a profit, because then the whole "piracy" narrative becomes very obvious as the complete lie it is. People could notice they are scumbags.
Not every day or even every week. An occasional orbital correction is not "flying". Flying implies movement control at all times.
And fail. High-exponent polynomials blow up similarly fast in practice, i.e. things become infeasible at very small sizes for worst-case scenarios. Incidentally, I know pretty much what I am talking about, including, for example, in crypto. The one-way function definition, for example, that stipulates P in one direction and NP for the reversal is simply broken and comes from theoreticians that have no insight into practice. It can be fixed (sort of), but you can do perfectly secure one-way functions using P only. Hence while you may have understood some of the math, you have failed to grasp what it means in reality.
Yes, but that is not a practical result. If it is P with, say, exponent > 20, then it has no practical consequences. P vs. NP is not about run-times for real-world cases.
It does matter, because of unexpected side-results. The question itself does not matter much, but other things implied by it may well matter a lot. In particular, it could show directions for further research. Of course, this being hardcore fundamental mathematical research, anything practical will at least be two steps removed. But without a few millennia of mathematical research, we would not have most of the advanced algorithms in use today.
Not really. Religion is dumb. Literally. However there are quite a few people that use Science as a surrogate for religion and that corrupts science and makes it religion. For science you need an open mind. A main aim of religion is to close minds so that they do not go run off to the competition.
Which makes religion subject to evolution (if the belief is stupid enough, its follower eventually die out) and science highly adaptive. Of course, you do only get concrete absolute truth in religion, (in Mathematics, you get absolute truth too, but it will be abstract and applicability to reality will never be absolute), and many people are looking for that, probably because they cannot deal with uncertainty. So the other thing about religion is that it uses its "truths" merely as mechanism to acquire and control its followers, truth is completely irrelevant (apart from the evolution angle).
Will be interesting to see whether Blum or somebody else can fix the proof. May take a while though.
Orbital mechanics is what keeps the ISS orbiting, not any control center on earth. And incidentally, it does not "fly", it "orbits". Fundamentally different.
Ooops.....
Never post in haste here....
Well, I can agree to that and in particular, sugar is a real killer.
Indeed. And it may well turn out that if Blum did not solve it after all, his work provides a critical stepping stone or has other important uses (may take centuries though, Math is hard). This is mathematics at its best and practiced by some truly impressive minds.
Chess is not finite. But since it is finite state, it must run into a state reached before eventually when playing it infinitely. Then you can sort-of say that the intermediary steps did not matter. However there is an infinite number of different chess games. All it takes for the proof is a state that you can go away from and go back to afterwards in two different ways. Then call one "0" and one "1" and encode all binary numbers in this. QED.
Actually, testing them (looking for a counterexample) is a quite standard technique when trying to evaluate the validity of a mathematical proof. This also one of the techniques used to understand it, and for stuff this advanced it can take months or years to get the gist.
Whenever one of the remaining really large mathematical questions gets a credible attempt at solving it, this is the standard procedure. The author publishes, some reputable people in this area do a sniff-test and say "this deserves real consideration" and then it takes a while (pften years) to figure it out. I would also like to point out that we have seen credible but faulty proofs for big questions in the past that then later actually could be fixed or serve as basis for a real proof. Hence this is an important step either way and even if it requires a few years to fix, there may be a shared Field-Medal or similar in it for Blum and the answer to the P/NP question for everybody else.
Probably the carbs talked about are mostly refined sugar. That one is a lot worse than fat. Rice and other grains behave differently. "No carb" is nonsense.