See, that's you doing it backwards -- once the categories have been defined by the neural networks (and labeled after the fact by humans), you are now trying to take any given data point and fit it into one of the categories. That's not how it works. Imagine looking at a 2D image containing many dots; if you were asked to draw perimeters around any significant clusters, you could probably do so without difficulty -- but depending on the 2D image you are given, it is entirely possible (even probable) that not every dot is going to be part of a cluster. If you wanted to include every dot, you could instead subdivide the image into regions, but that is a different task.

To speak to the specific examples, if Runner has been defined as something akin to "someone who likes to achieve the game's goals in as short a period as possible, skipping past subgoals and rewards if they present significant risk or slowdown", then in that case "someone who just like to run straight into a crowd of enemies and immediately die repeatedly for hours on end" could not be defined as a Runner. Similarly, if a Pacifist is defined as "someone who attempts to accomplish the game's goals using the minimum amount of violence possible", and Solver is defined as "someone who attempts to accomplish every task presented in the most efficient way possible, even when such tasks are not necessary to progress in the game", then "someone who logs in and just sits there not moving for hours" could not be defined as a Solver or a Pacifist. If you want to assign one of the labels to any given player description, sure you can do that, but it doesn't mean that player is actually part of the data cluster which defines the category.

How about "parental controls" that don't require a password which is: annoying to enter, can be forgotten by the adult, blocks adult guests when you forget to tell them the password, and can be bypassed with a clever guess by a child? I'm not saying there aren't issues with this idea (hey, my life-size cardboard cutout of Han Solo is my chaperone!), but I'm willing to bet they're trying to find a way to make this work.

Just some idle curiosity here:

Is it some effect of smoking, or just of the nicotine? If the nicotine, is some other vector (gum, patch, etc) equally effective with less health risks? I assume there must be some reason a doctor would choose to specifically recommend smoking rather than some other form of nicotine. Or perhaps it is just cost -- do you get more nicotine per dollar from cigarettes? The summary above seems to focus on nicotine for schizophrenia, which is why I am curious as to whether it is the nicotine or the smoking that is the key for you.

Except that the brain is very complex, and sometimes one signal inhibits another. In other words, too many connections in one place may result in the same thing as too few connections in another, if the signals are mutually-inhibiting. For example, maybe it is a too-strong signal regarding how an action would affect the first person, which inhibits caring about how it would affect the other person. Your reasoning that psychopathy is the lack of something rather than the addition of something seems (to me) no more scientific than the theory of bodily humours.

It still seems entirely plausible to me that removal or reduction of certain connections could reduce psychopathy -- of course I'll wait for further studies and/or experiments before I form a real opinion one way or the other.

Wow, you must have lived in West Virginia... I've been asked that more times than I can count.

This highly depends on the cat. Just as there are dogs with more dominant personalities and dogs with less dominant personalities, there are cats on both extremes as well. A very dominant cat will be less tolerant of petting in general (and they will be less tolerant of being licked by other cats), though as you said if it is their idea they will tolerate more of it. On the other hand, a less dominant cat will tolerate petting most of the time even when it is your idea -- their level of enjoyment of petting has more to do with how affectionate they are, rather than how dominant. A dominant cat will rarely let themselves be picked up and held for long, as they don't like the loss of control (I've found they will usually tolerate it longer if I hold out my arm and allow them to stand on my arm and shoulder, as opposed to being held by me. A less dominant cat may not mind the loss of control, and so will tolerate being picked up and held; some less dominant cats that are especially affectionate even seem to appreciate being held (as evidenced by them relaxing into a comfortable position and purring).

Note that I didn't say that more dominant cats are less friendly, though it may seem so to some people who don't know cats very well. I have one cat who is extremely dominant (and two who are on the other extreme), and when she decides she wants to be affectionate, you just about can't stop her from rubbing against your feet and ankles. And before you say that she is just hungry -- we use a vacation feeder for our cats at all times, so they have access to food whenever they want it. (We are lucky that none of our cats tend to overeat.)

Actually, it depends on how you define "chicken egg", unless there is a universally accepted definition that I'm not aware of. The genes of the organism in the egg were those of a chicken, but the egg itself was developed based on the genes of the mother, which you have stated was a non-chicken. Perhaps it was the father's genes which contained the crucial mutation that resulted in a chicken hatching from the non-chicken's egg. In that case, did it become a chicken egg after it was fertilized? It doesn't seem to make any sense to say it was a chicken egg before it was fertilized. Such a discontinuity doesn't sit well with me -- I would prefer to say that the type of egg is defined by the organism that produces the egg, since that event occurs before the genetics of the organism inside the egg are fully determined. I could come up with a more extreme, but similar, scenario involving hybrid creatures.

I don't think I'd say "literally pennies" -- based on my calculations, it's dollars. Specifically, it looks like ~$2.155 per gallon is about the cheapest you can expect (based on the electricity costs in Wyoming), up to ~6.43 per gallon (based on the electricity costs in Connecticut). Compared to the current cost of gasoline per gallon, which is around $2.70 in my area, that has potential, but isn't as much a slam-dunk as you seem to think -- remember that we have to account for the fact that these numbers assume a 100% efficient storage of energy into gasoline, where in reality there will be some loss. Now, we could likely throw a few optimizations into the mix, so I'll believe it could work economically at some point (get cheaper electricity, only run the gasoline producing reaction during off-peak times when electricity is cheaper, take advantage of the fact (?) that some power plants have to produce a certain minimum load and thus waste some power, etc.), but we're not quite there yet.

My numbers were based on the fact that "a gallon of gasoline contains about 132x106 joules of energy, which is equivalent to 125,000 BTU or 36,650 watt-hours", and this electricity rate comparison by state. [Note: I excluded Hawaii, which actually has the highest cost per kilowatt-hour of any US state, on the assumption that gasoline is significantly more expensive there as well, and thus isn't a very good comparison.]:

Are you interested in a music teacher trying to change careers? Are you willing to consider telecommute-based employees? If you'd be so kind as to mention the company name or website (or provide some method for contact), I'm sure you could get many qualified applicants based on your above post alone, including the applicant I described.

He is a friend of many years who I would expect to get 4-5 of those correct, but since he has almost no technical experience (a portfolio with a handful of webpages he has written for himself and others and a program or two written for himself), and little formal technical education (some community college classes taken in the evenings after work), he won't even be considered by most potential employers. He has a BA in Music Education and almost 6 years of professional experience as an elementary school music teacher with references, so he has a proven strong work ethic and very strong organizational and interpersonal skills. He's used to a teacher's salary, and so would be a relatively cheap hire with lots of potential for professional growth, for whatever employer can recognize that.