So, .. only if the system is gamed to favour the affluent that can take a day off and have well serviced voting areas then?
FWiW I'm an outsider of the US election system, it's a hot mess with multiple shortcomings that restrict franchise .. and the US Republicans appear to be more skilled at restricting access to democracy to particular demographics.
That's genuinely a horrible argument and there is no redeeming quality about single day voting. And you're implying electronic machines are being hacked, a claim for which you have no evidence.
The only thing that makes me doubt electronic voting is the relative lack of distributed counting and thus audit-ability.
That said, I rank conspiracy theories on how many people would be involved in carrying it out, and the idea of a malicious voting machine system capable of having votes altered would take too many knowing participants at various levels of the tool chain.
I would welcome learning more or else implementing more "spot audits" of results in order to minimize the likelihood of any changing of votes.
How many people do you think it took for VW to produce fake engine emission results?
The weakness in your ranking mechanism is you think you have an idea of the number of people needed. To paraphrase Feynman: You mustn’t fool yourself and you are the easiest one to fool.
My own heuristic is expect some fraud or error in every system. The more there is an incentive for fraud the more likely there is fraud. It need not be partisan: could be something like the postal worker hiding mail instead of delivering it. Not finding some minor level of fraud is like a “100% voted for Saddam” announcement—not likely true.
We believe that babies' lives should have rights after birth, too, and if you look at infant mortality rates in states that whose politicians are against abortion, you see that obviously a fetus's right to live ends at birth.
Now you're just unproductively shouting at each other the exact same slogans that have been shouted for decades. It is not new or interesting to anyone.
None of those statements are even remotely true so. Gun control advocates specifically want to get guns out of criminals (I see domestic violence as a crime, some people, sadly, don't). "They" are currently prosecuting the former president and his croneys for trying to steel the election in Washington and Georgia (the latter already resulted in multiple guilzy pleads), and they advocate for better social security and health care which specifically benefits babies and mothers, especially in poorer families. Birth control, incl. abortions, are a central corner stone in that. And nobody is argueing for killing babies, there are term limits everywhere abortion is legal (as it should be, legal and, pun intended, well regulated).
There is one side so that argues for arming the, mostly right wing, mob, using government to punish political opponents, build what basically amounts to concentration camps for yet to be specified people, deport millions...
By 2025, the entire WordPress library, including popular plugins, will be written in Rust/C, and it's inevitable that we'll be converging towards assembly language for all software, including web applications.
Anyone remember Dreamweaver or Microsoft Word HTML output? I imagine the AI generated code will be a lot like that - massively over-constrained and over-engineered to fit the impedance mismatch of a WYSIWYG (what you speak is what you get) editor.
You thought GUIs were bloated and slow before? Just you wait!
I've been experimenting with GPT-4 to see how it could be integrated in video games for NPC decision making. After trying a few different approaches to give it access to the world state for reasoning, I found that it seems to do best when given a bunch of table definitions and told to write SQL queries against them; for some reason, it navigates object graphs much worse. Here's an example schema and session (the game here is Mount & Blade 2: Bannerlord, which is convenient because it's written in C# and it's easy to access and dump the entire game state in whatever format):
Take a close look at the SQL queries it generated to answer the question. On one hand, it's very impressive that it can write a complex query like this as part of its reasoning in response to a question like "pick a bride for your son":
SELECT name, age, clan_name FROM (SELECT * FROM people WHERE name IN ("Mesui", "Abagai", "Yana", "Korte", "Bolat", "Chagun", "Alijin", "Unagen", "Sechen")) AS potential_brides INNER JOIN clans ON potential_brides.clan_name = clans.name WHERE clans.tier = (SELECT MAX(tier) FROM clans WHERE kingdom_name = (SELECT kingdom_name FROM clans WHERE name="Oburit"))
On the other hand, this is clearly far from the optimal way to write such a query. But thing is - it works, and if there's no way to get it to write more performant queries, the problem can be "solved" by throwing more hardware at it.
So, yes, I think you're right. The more code out there will be written by AI, the more it will look like this - working, but suboptimal and harder to debug.
I'm always baffled that people complain that the code provided is not 'performant enough' or 'is too verbose', etc. It's usually providing a solution that is the most typical solution given by all programmers - but the beautiful thing about it is - you can ask it to adjust the code to match a given constraint. Just like your colleague. Only usually far, far better honestly - because you get a response in about 3 seconds, and iterate to the answer in about a total of t minutes, rather than receiving something (maybe it's good, maybe it's entirely missing the constraints) .. in 4 days.
I think with LLMs we will start to see code with better and more descriptive comments, since there is significant advantage to be found when the code has as much information and context as possible.
Human programmers often hoard that for job security or out of laziness.
Notice it is also missing many other "offensive" terms like :
"Settler" - It actually uses this word a lot in its definitions as to why words are bad, but "Settler" itself is an offensive term used by First Nations against "whites".
"White privilege" is also missing? Again another harmful word thrown around which many consider offensive. Words which include "Everyone" are generally not good because within "white people" there is a wide range of thoughts/beliefs. I'm sure that very poor white people don't feel they have "white privilege"?
When asked to define "white privilege" the SJW's fail miserably.
At the end of the day, given Stanford is in the US and has "first amendment rights" this list itself is utter nonsense.
This is an inane and deliberately obtuse response to this policy.
There is a vast difference between terms used by marginalised groups to refer to dominant ones, and terms used by dominant groups to refer to marginalised ones.
Whether or not this policy itself is effective or well-considered, the broader mission to identify ways in which historic injustice is ingrained and perpetuated through our language and try to amend it is a noble one.
There are many words throughout history that have been common place but carried so much cultural baggage that they became damaging and were thus abandoned - most terms we now consider slurs were once defended with arguments of similar merits to your own.
The process of improving our language is never going to be an easy one, no doubt many found it challenging to fully excise many of our abandoned terms from their vocabulary, but it's been done before, and will likely be done indefinitely into the future unless we ever reach a point of such equality that our language can no longer cause harm.
Sure there's a difference, but not for the purpose of this discussion. The term 'settler' is basically a slur used to marginalize people who pass as white in North America. So it should receive the same treatment as these other offensive terms.
What you've described is essentially Newspeak. I won't be part of any effort to purge language, and I don't believe that doing so will socially engineer a better society, nor do I believe in such attempts to social engineer. I also don't believe words are harmful unless they're used in a harmful manner, and a majority of the words on Stanford's list not used in such a manner, being just part of every day language.
Men have no reproductive rights at all. Women can rape underage boys and these boys are then forced to pay child support to their rapists including back pay for the missed years.
Men don't have a single federally funded organization positively helping them compared to 1000s for women.
Men/boys don't have bodily autonomy in US. They are forced to fight in wars and are genitally mutilated at birth against their will.
DV laws are anti male.
Custody laws are anti fathers.
Rape laws are gendered.
All the typical major indicators are favorable to women instead of men. Ex: age expectancy, education, drug addicts, suicides, homeless, police shootings, prison inmates...
The thing is, all of these issues stem from patriarchal systems.
(assumption) men will be employed (therefore) child support is their responsibility.
(assumption) men are strong independent (therefore) there is no need for assistance.
(assumption) men are made for war (therefore) men are to fight war.
(assumption) men are stronger, more aggressive [see war], etc (therefore) women [being weaker] must be the victims.
(assumption) fathers are severe and disciplinary (therefore) mothers are nurturing and better suited to child rearing.
(assumption) sexual intercourse is an act desired by and initiated by men who are defined by their ability to penetrate (therefore) women can only be penetrated [see also aggressiveness] and men who are penetrated are lowered in status to be nearer the category of woman.
The anti-male circumcision movement is overwhelmingly male, despite supposed opposition to male circumcision by feminists.
If we leave that issue up to Feminism, feminists, and their long tradition of embracing critical theory, we will have to endure this evil for a whole lot longer.
It will take a large, ultimately male movement to displace it. I simply do not buy that the traditional notion of "patriarchy" is even the most important component of why it continues to exist today.
Given how it massively impacts a mans ability to feel pleasure during sex, it seems like "patriarchy" would have removed it long ago.
What if some of the parts of the bible, or other religious texts, such as this one, weren't designed to be "patriarchal" but were instead created by people who hate pleasure, hate nature, and hate the sensual world? I claim this group of pleasure haters is shockingly gender neutral
Patriarchy hurts men too is a weak and out rightly laughable argument. Because that's not how oppression works, at all.
Let me give you some examples. White masters thought they were stronger than black slaves yet slaves had to do all the dull & dangerous work. Same with the colonial masters they thought their underlings were weak and pathetic so they doubled down on oppression and plundered even more wealth through additional taxation and other means.
All the laws were out rightly favoring the oppressors in every case except magically when it comes to patriarchy. Imagine if Nazi Germany worked like patriarchy. Aryans were the all supreme, the strongest and the most independent race so they would've had almost all laws in favor of Jews right? Nope instead they gassed millions of Jews.
I'm sure that many of old videos has been removed. And the more I use the Internets the more I consider to save as much of stuff as possible (webpages, videos, everything) maybe on another machine with a really giant disk.
Cancer won't be a problem by 2027, at least for the people who don't already have cancer. By 2030 there will be drugs that can even cure stage 4 cancer with next to nothing side effects. (AI and some form of quantum computing will help find these drugs)
Researcher working in a related field. The above is just patently false. There are currently no drugs that can do this in lab-animals, let alone make it through clinical trials in time by 2027.
Computation is also not the bottleneck of research, it's the amount of training data, see ICGC https://dcc.icgc.org for the current state of the art.
Remember that each tumor has 3 billion base pairs (A,C,G,T), each of which can be duplicated, deleted, mutated. It can also be affected by methylation. Expression of the genes comprised by these base pairs is also affected by the micro-environment of the cell. Any machine learning model will have far to many parameters for far to few observations, to pick the rare drug that can cure stage 4 cancer (assuming it even exists) out of millions of possible chemical compounds.
