If you post one dumb question or unpopular opinion, you are essentially banned from the site for a year.
They should have a ranking system similar to Slashdot. If it's a bad question or statement, then let the rankings effectively hide it. If one wants to see low-ranked content, they can change their filter settings.
Just put a message for EU ip addresses that reads something like:
"Due to EU Committee X takedown notice 123456 claiming this site had "terrorist content", we have blocked this content for EU readers. Our internal review of the site found it did NOT qualify for a take-down, but to avoid legal hassles, we decided to block it for now. You can donate to our legal defense fund at [url here]. We apologize for the inconvenience."
Further, publish a list on the Internet Archive site of all take-down requests, including a note marking the dubious requests. The Streisand Effect will then kick in and the EU review committee will end up embarrassed as those who can read the blocked content overseas can know about their poor decision.
Is anyone besides the CEOs themselves surprised that the corporate-types vastly underestimated the complexity of a problem they didn't truly understand in the first place?
It's really hard to estimate future progress of this type of thing. If anyone were good at it, they'd be rich as Warren Buffett on their tech stock picks. (Warren tends to avoid tech stocks.)
Progress was being made rather quickly. If one extrapolated the progress curve based on the past early pace, it's not unreasonable to conclude that practical products/service was just around the corner. If you want to estimate future progress, extrapolating the past but recent progress pace curve is a rational course of action, perhaps with some mild dampening to provide a margin of error.
The final obstacles just happened to turn out to be the trickier than estimated. The progress just curve started flattening out of the blue.
For example, I know some spots in town with very confusing and/or faded lines painted on the road. If they confuse humans, they'd likely trip up bots at least as much.
But I also reasoned that at first the routes would be pre-vetted so that there would be no such surprises because the tricky spots would be already mapped and given human-produced guidance coordinates*. This would limit routes and choices, but at least it could start the ball rolling in some areas. You don't need the optimal route, just at least one working route between two points to get somewhere. Therefore, human-like intelligence wouldn't necessarily be needed to launch the service.
But, this is apparently not a good enough work-around.
* If the bot detected that road markings changed significantly from the vetted version, such as new paint, then the car could take the easiest turn, or a human remote driver could take over.
Damn, there goes my Nobel Prize! Back to Muggleville for me. Hex on your family for 1.9 generations.
What would be an example of the kind of output flaw that could be created by using say 1.1 as the exponent, assuming a Gaussian distribution? Use an exaggerated example or data points if necessary.
Anyhow, thanks for the response. I appreciate it, and may just cancel the hex.
Well, at least such could be helpful to the next person who asks for "Natalie Portman to moan romantically about a Beowulf cluster of hot grits." It does get better each time... my friend asks for it.
Your statement makes no sense to me whatsoever. Is it just me, or is it poorly written? I've found a way to parse/interpret it 3 different ways, and none of those 3 make any real-world sense.
My best guess is that it's saying that if enough whacky celebrities moved to Canada, then Canadian judges would stop making bad decisions, but not enough have. Would flooding Canada with whacky celebrities result in enough of them becoming judges (changing careers) and thus create a saner judge pool? But I thought they were whacky people? If so, they'd create whacky judges also, no?
That particular judge has their own interpretation of "holding". That's what judges do: interpret the law. That doesn't mean their interpretation is common or typical. Some rulings will deviate from how an average person or judge would interpret it. I would hope the ruling would be vetted by at least one other judge such that a really odd opinion would get a second chance.
I have a "math issue" that has stumped most of my professors and online math forums. Linear regression typically uses the "least squares" algorithm. However, the power of 2 seems arbitrary to me, and possibly over-emphasizes outliers.
One professor at first said that the power of 2 makes the "best fit" in an objective sense, but later admitted that he doesn't really know, and couldn't find an answer before the end of the semester.
While it is true that the power of 2 may simplify the computation process*, that doesn't necessarily means it produces a better result in terms of line or curve fitting. Now that we have computers to do the number crunching, perhaps it's time to embrace arbitrary or different powers (superscripts).
(Disclaimer, I'm not a math expert.)
* In other words, power-of-2 produces the simplest known algorithm. But my question revolves around best data fit, not computational resources nor algorithm or formula brevity. Note that when using other powers, one may have to add an absolute value function because power-of-2 automatically provides the equivalent. I actually did a simulation that tested different powers; "blurring" known datasets and seeing which power best matched the original. I couldn't find any significant difference, but probably didn't try enough samples. I tested with fractional powers also, such as 1.5, 2.5, etc.
Didn't HAL 9000 assassinate the astronauts to save humanity? Problems with doing Violence X to prevent Violence Y get sticky, putting bots into making large moral tradeoffs. Dictators we call "cruel" were allegedly doing just that. "I have to punish a large group to send a message so that another group doesn't rise up, creating even more violence."
There's 5 decades of pop music if one really wants variety for variety's sake. Most new music is purchased for status reasons (to be "in"), and thus variety is a secondary issue.
If you don't care about "new" or fashion, there are tens of millions of older tracks to select from. Current music producers can't compete with the existing library on variety and quality, but they can compete on trends and fashion, since it's the only weak point of the vast current catalog.
It's easy to attack and criticize. But he offers no solution.
It's easy to get political points by bashing the current state of things. Offering realistic alternatives is rarely a full requirement by voters. The ACA ("Obamacare") is almost a perfect example of that. The GOP made huge gains in 2014 largely by emphasizing the heavy fees of ACA.
But, GOP never offered clear alternatives, just a bunch of vague or gimmicky talking points. That didn't matter, Democrats got bigly slaughtered in the election. Ugly politics "works". Logic and math be damned.
If you look at polls of what voters actually want in terms of healthcare, it's pretty contradictory: great but cheap service. But, voters on average did and do want some kind of gov't managed healthcare insurance; they are just confused about what the practical trade-offs are. Democrats did a poor job of discussing the trade-offs, instead choosing to deflect the topic, hoping voters would focus on something else. Wrong strategy. (Dems also flubbed the handling of Trump, focusing on his personality rather than policy. People already knew his personality because of the heavy news coverage he got.)
Slashdot Mirror
Worst Software Site: Stackoverflow
If you post one dumb question or unpopular opinion, you are essentially banned from the site for a year.
They should have a ranking system similar to Slashdot. If it's a bad question or statement, then let the rankings effectively hide it. If one wants to see low-ranked content, they can change their filter settings.
Where's the "X. Profit!" step? You're fired!
Global Mooning is real!
Rocket science is easier than getting fscking Bootstrap to format as intended.
More like in the moon.
Just put a message for EU ip addresses that reads something like:
"Due to EU Committee X takedown notice 123456 claiming this site had "terrorist content", we have blocked this content for EU readers. Our internal review of the site found it did NOT qualify for a take-down, but to avoid legal hassles, we decided to block it for now. You can donate to our legal defense fund at [url here]. We apologize for the inconvenience."
Further, publish a list on the Internet Archive site of all take-down requests, including a note marking the dubious requests. The Streisand Effect will then kick in and the EU review committee will end up embarrassed as those who can read the blocked content overseas can know about their poor decision.
Reworked paragraph:
The final obstacles just happened to turn out to be trickier than estimated. The progress curve just started flattening out of the blue.
(A robot fouled it up, not me :-)
It's really hard to estimate future progress of this type of thing. If anyone were good at it, they'd be rich as Warren Buffett on their tech stock picks. (Warren tends to avoid tech stocks.)
Progress was being made rather quickly. If one extrapolated the progress curve based on the past early pace, it's not unreasonable to conclude that practical products/service was just around the corner. If you want to estimate future progress, extrapolating the past but recent progress pace curve is a rational course of action, perhaps with some mild dampening to provide a margin of error.
The final obstacles just happened to turn out to be the trickier than estimated. The progress just curve started flattening out of the blue.
For example, I know some spots in town with very confusing and/or faded lines painted on the road. If they confuse humans, they'd likely trip up bots at least as much.
But I also reasoned that at first the routes would be pre-vetted so that there would be no such surprises because the tricky spots would be already mapped and given human-produced guidance coordinates*. This would limit routes and choices, but at least it could start the ball rolling in some areas. You don't need the optimal route, just at least one working route between two points to get somewhere. Therefore, human-like intelligence wouldn't necessarily be needed to launch the service.
But, this is apparently not a good enough work-around.
* If the bot detected that road markings changed significantly from the vetted version, such as new paint, then the car could take the easiest turn, or a human remote driver could take over.
The rumor is Oracle has more lawyers than technicians.
It redirected me to Bing.
Damn, there goes my Nobel Prize! Back to Muggleville for me. Hex on your family for 1.9 generations.
What would be an example of the kind of output flaw that could be created by using say 1.1 as the exponent, assuming a Gaussian distribution? Use an exaggerated example or data points if necessary.
Anyhow, thanks for the response. I appreciate it, and may just cancel the hex.
Cockroach lawyers & politicians? So not really any change.
It's probably censored in China. They won't learn from sci-fi, and may even be working on a HAL 9000.
(Actually, they like "lucky" numbers, so it's probably HAL 8888.)
Well, at least such could be helpful to the next person who asks for "Natalie Portman to moan romantically about a Beowulf cluster of hot grits." It does get better each time ... my friend asks for it.
No wonder Chinese tanks are better at identifying cats.
Chairman of the FCC? Heck no, don't give him any more power.
Your statement makes no sense to me whatsoever. Is it just me, or is it poorly written? I've found a way to parse/interpret it 3 different ways, and none of those 3 make any real-world sense.
My best guess is that it's saying that if enough whacky celebrities moved to Canada, then Canadian judges would stop making bad decisions, but not enough have. Would flooding Canada with whacky celebrities result in enough of them becoming judges (changing careers) and thus create a saner judge pool? But I thought they were whacky people? If so, they'd create whacky judges also, no?
That particular judge has their own interpretation of "holding". That's what judges do: interpret the law. That doesn't mean their interpretation is common or typical. Some rulings will deviate from how an average person or judge would interpret it. I would hope the ruling would be vetted by at least one other judge such that a really odd opinion would get a second chance.
I have a "math issue" that has stumped most of my professors and online math forums. Linear regression typically uses the "least squares" algorithm. However, the power of 2 seems arbitrary to me, and possibly over-emphasizes outliers.
One professor at first said that the power of 2 makes the "best fit" in an objective sense, but later admitted that he doesn't really know, and couldn't find an answer before the end of the semester.
While it is true that the power of 2 may simplify the computation process*, that doesn't necessarily means it produces a better result in terms of line or curve fitting. Now that we have computers to do the number crunching, perhaps it's time to embrace arbitrary or different powers (superscripts).
(Disclaimer, I'm not a math expert.)
* In other words, power-of-2 produces the simplest known algorithm. But my question revolves around best data fit, not computational resources nor algorithm or formula brevity. Note that when using other powers, one may have to add an absolute value function because power-of-2 automatically provides the equivalent. I actually did a simulation that tested different powers; "blurring" known datasets and seeing which power best matched the original. I couldn't find any significant difference, but probably didn't try enough samples. I tested with fractional powers also, such as 1.5, 2.5, etc.
I remember seeing a simulated prediction of what they expected a couple of years ago, and it pretty much matches.
Here's one such article with illustrated predictions, although it's not the same article I remember.
Didn't HAL 9000 assassinate the astronauts to save humanity? Problems with doing Violence X to prevent Violence Y get sticky, putting bots into making large moral tradeoffs. Dictators we call "cruel" were allegedly doing just that. "I have to punish a large group to send a message so that another group doesn't rise up, creating even more violence."
...So, what's the next "in" font? Wingdings? Groovey!
I have to admit I do find many of the hits from the mentioned Swedish team "catchy". Whatever the heck they did, it friggen worked. Kudos.
There's 5 decades of pop music if one really wants variety for variety's sake. Most new music is purchased for status reasons (to be "in"), and thus variety is a secondary issue.
If you don't care about "new" or fashion, there are tens of millions of older tracks to select from. Current music producers can't compete with the existing library on variety and quality, but they can compete on trends and fashion, since it's the only weak point of the vast current catalog.
It's easy to get political points by bashing the current state of things. Offering realistic alternatives is rarely a full requirement by voters. The ACA ("Obamacare") is almost a perfect example of that. The GOP made huge gains in 2014 largely by emphasizing the heavy fees of ACA.
But, GOP never offered clear alternatives, just a bunch of vague or gimmicky talking points. That didn't matter, Democrats got bigly slaughtered in the election. Ugly politics "works". Logic and math be damned.
If you look at polls of what voters actually want in terms of healthcare, it's pretty contradictory: great but cheap service. But, voters on average did and do want some kind of gov't managed healthcare insurance; they are just confused about what the practical trade-offs are. Democrats did a poor job of discussing the trade-offs, instead choosing to deflect the topic, hoping voters would focus on something else. Wrong strategy. (Dems also flubbed the handling of Trump, focusing on his personality rather than policy. People already knew his personality because of the heavy news coverage he got.)