He has one: monitoring IPv6 compatibility.
If you reported to Google that it classified you as a Yeti, I'd be shocked if they didn't apologize, even if you told them you thought it was hilarious.
People apologize when they, or the things they sell, make mistakes. Even if it was unforeseeable.
No, we're asking the humans, who understand the nuances of human culture, to prioritize fixing those aspects of the algorithm that are both wrong and hurtful, over those that are just wrong but not particularly hurtful.
A lot of people seem to be overreacting to this. A guy said "you fucked up" on Twitter, and then questioned the initial sampling data -- which is a *perfectly legitimate technical question in this context*, because an insufficient variety of pictures of black women and/or of gorillas is a potential cause for this problem, and if it was, an easy solution is to make sure that people in the future train their neural nets with a wider variety of such.
You need to read up on "unconscious bias".
Everybody has it. There's no shame in that. The only shame is in insisting that you don't, and others don't, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Watching somebody type is worthless.
Watching somebody's thought process as they write code is maybe helpful, maybe worthless.
Watching somebody code while they natter about random things could be entertaining, depending on how entertaining the coder is.
Watching somebody debug their code is by far the best way to learn advanced debugging techniques that I've ever seen. That goes way beyond facile examples.
I haven't watched any of these streams. I don't know what they do. But I can't discard it as idiocy without thinking it through.
I believe that homosexuality is a behavior that is learned and changeable, instead of inborn.
Setting aside whether this is true, why does this matter? How does it have the least bit of relevance?
Something that is without a doubt best for children are a mom and a dad.
Plenty of reason to doubt this. For instance, "child abuse".
But aside from that, what relevance is that? Do you think that banning gay marriage will cause a child to live in two-parent male/female households? I suspect that, absent another rule that is completely separate from gay marriage, you'll get exactly as many pairs of gay parents whether or not they are married.
If you don't think this makes a difference look at all the statistics - from physical, physiological and mental health and including the heightened probabilities of drug use, suicide, school drop out rates, wedlock births and crime - if you just take the father out of the equation
Do you have any statistics that compare to female parents to a male and female parent? Because comparing a male and female parent, to a single female parent, is not isolating sexual diversity as what improves parenting. The number of parents is clearly relevant.
...you are opposed to wedlock births????
Having two women trying to raise a child mimics correctly the absence of a father
No. Come on. That's obviously BS. It's pretty obvious why two parents would be better than one.
So I decided to look up the statistics on this, since you mentioned that they existed, and what I found completely contradicts you. It shows that *only* the number of parents really matter, and their gender is irrelevant: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
It may even be that three live-in parents are better than two, but it's much harder to find statistics on that.
If this is really your reasoning, you should push for laws that remove children from single-parent and same-sex-parent households, and redistribute them in mixed-sex households (perhaps some polyamorous households, maybe some non-romantically-involved roommates?). Gay marriage doesn't matter to you, it's single-sex parenting, and you don't really help that by opposing gay marriage.
Then ask the people who sell non-GMO products to label themselves non-GMO.
The whole label law controversy was about forcing GMO products to label themselves GMO. But that's totally backwards! Even for the people who want to avoid GMO! Because you don't want to have to look for the absence of a label, you want to look for a label, because things are easier to find than unthings.
If they don't label they must not consider it to be important, OR, they aren't confident that they aren't GMO, one or the other. Tell them you think it's important.
Look, I agree with you on GMO food, but the answer to your question is blindingly obvious.
We are on a website that literally prompts people to discuss subjects. The subject this time is GMO food.
What I'm more curious about is what prompted you to talk about organic foods. At time of writing, you are the only result in ctrl+f for organic on this page.
That doesn't make sense, unless you're saying there are more A people than C people.
Otherwise, having B people in charge, who would be happy to hire C people, should make hiring *easier*.
That's an interesting point, but it's not necessarily true. We can take bigger risks on a dead world, or even perform actions that poison in one way and improve it in another, and worry about cleaning up the poisoning later. The current world must not go through an intermediate "dead world" state.
The risks can even help us prove concepts for the earth.
Also, the timescale for terraforming Mars is surely much longer than the timescale for improving Earth. It's an interesting idea at least.
Most communal showers I've seen don't even have doors (instead, the entrance winds around so you can't see inside without going in). This is at public pools and the like.
I don't get how we can talk about a plan for 35 years out and call that "literally overnight".
Why are 6 billion people likely to starve due to a 35-year plan to remove fossil fuels? That sounds like a grossly unrealistic consequence at first brush.
What's the timeline you consider realistic?
Honestly 35 years to get rid of fossils doesn't seem insane to me. Except I don't have an obvious replacement in mind for airplane fuel, but that's sort of trivial in the grand scheme of things.
Do you leftists have a death wish?
You can't control climate.
We aren't talking about controlling climate. We are talking about arresting a sudden impetus for rapid climate change.
There is no viable substitute for petroleum.
Then we are doomed because petroleum is not limitless. The cost will creep ever further from the average person's reach, then even from the rich's reach.
Unless we can manufacture more petroleum. The only way to do that, is with an energy source greater than the energy of the petroleum we're making...
(even other fossils can replace petroleum)
Get over it.
No. I'm not going to submit to a life of misery.
Nuclear power + renewables can relatively easily replace petroleum in just about everything except our flying machines (helicopters, airplanes, space launch vehicles) and emergency backup generators. Improved battery technology can help replace backup generators.