I appreciate the legal distinction. But it still leaves creditors with moral, and some legal, power over him.

As below, your assertion that "before the GDPR people would have to ask in person" is utter bullshit - remote requests were just fine under the Data Protection Act in the UK. They would have been just as vulnerable to companies not having proper procedures as now, because it's the same companies fielding the requests.

Where are you getting that bullshit from? Pre GDPR in the UK you could do a Subject Access Request without physically going anywhere to show an ID under the Data Protections Act, so your (repeated) assertion of that in these comments is complete bollocks.

The failure here is the companies failing to put a proper process in place and following it, not anything introduced by the GDPR.

This would have happened pre-GDPR, the GDPR didn't cause this.

Except in the 1960s they were still conservative. The radicals didn't have much power until Reagan.

if {my_opponent} = true then set {criminal} = true

I just keep a stockpile of dried kelp.

If there is a radiation leak, you just eat 2 meals of kelp per day and you get your iodine.

Don't wait until you need it, during Fukushima the local asian market sold out.

If you were hoping it would all go away, prepare for disappointment. The effects are only becoming more visible as time goes on.

As for believability, I suggest skipping past the breathless reporting on both sides, and going direct to the studies - at least the abstracts. The IPCC report in particular publishes excellent and thoroughly checked executive summaries with full citations of the thousands of studies they draw from.

Great addition, thank you. I actually made some attempt to not be overly verbose, thus many details were glossed over. Those that know the basic theory of NN know there can be no error backprop without a continuously differentiable function like the sigmoid (which perceptrons lacked)... but I was trying to emphasis the 'who did what' aspect of neural networks over the theory.

The short of it all is that Minsky was a very intelligent scoundrel, just like Epstein. It's no big surprise that they 'partied' together.

A report by Technology Review states, "Remarkably, while at Harvard in 1956, [Marvin Minsky] also invented the confocal scanning microscope, an instrument that is still widely used today in medical and scientific research."

Minsky was a genius.

Many people are shocked that Minsky was having sex with under-aged girls even though he had such a brilliant mind.

Too often, people associate moral behavior with high intelligence. This association is false. High intelligence does not necessarily produce moral behavior.

People blame those who they don't like. That's right, emotion trumps logic. And the goal of assholes of this world is to make everything nontransparent and muddy so that no logical argument can be applied and everyone talking becomes just another conspiracy theorist.

"Do you know who I am?!

I'm Ed Gruberman."

Those four together indicate a recession, but I'd disagree as to what's more important for showing the recovery. Notably, indicators that precede an event (like the yield curve in the article you linked) don't necessarily show when the event will end.

I tend to draw on my experience working in an investment company. When considering investments, we'd look mostly at current-state metrics for the most critical information, essentially asking "is this a good investment now?" rather than thinking about missed opportunities or past successes. Similarly, rather than asking "are we out of that recession?", I look for answers to the question "are we currently in a recession?".

For that answer, I look toward indicators like GDP per capita, unemployment, and CPI. Outside of the craziness of a recession, they'll follow pretty steady trends. That stability is what allows economic growth.

Who's the "pedoguy" now?

Not a huge surprise. Often a wild accusation stems from within one's own psyche.

AI is a field where we ASPIRE to build intelligence similar to human intelligence. Its a research field.

From it there have been great advances in computer vision, machine translation, speech recognition and other fields. If you had any exposure to early speech recognition systems you'd know just how far advanced modern systems like Siri, Alexa and others have become. Finally speech interfaces have become a reality. Just because its now ubiquitous, doesn't mean it isn't an amazing advancement in the field.

Neural Nets are NOT just a bunch of linear functions. A linear function is:

v * A

Where v is a vector, and A is some matrix. In its classical definition a logistic regression is defined as:

sigma(v*A)

Where sigma is a NON-LINEARITY. A "neural net" is a composition of the form:

sigma(sigma(v*A1)*A2)

These days they use a different non-linearity like relu and softmax. But these allow the NN to potentially learn functions of just about any shape, not just linearities. You may want to take another look at the math to better understand what is going on.

Deep learning has made computer vision leap ahead at least 30 years overnight. These aren't minor advances. They are quite huge.

Of course the aspirational goal of making a humanlike AI are still far away. But hey, that's what keeps the researchers going right?

Recent advances are well worth the investments in this field.

People could ask not to be in phone book.
Now random strangers can send an email saying they are a person and get back new data sets due to an EU law.

Welcome to the EU.

I tend not to sit passively in one place while listening, which I do 4-6 hours per day, more on weekends. As a result wires are always getting snagged on things and ripping my earphones off -- if not throwing my phone on the ground. I broke a couple of phones that way. Very inconvenient. When I'm using large power tools like my table saw, inconvenient becomes downright dangerous.

Wireless earbuds, on the other hand, are awesome. They never get caught on anything, they're comfortable and unobtrusive enough to wear all day long, they fit nicely under ear protection, inside my ski helmet, bike helmet, etc., don't get caught on clothing, don't restrict where I can put my phone. When I'm in situations where I might have to interact with people, I often take earbud out and keep it in my pocket, where I can use it as a remote control to stop and start playback. Bottom line, they're far better in every way but one.

That one, of course, is that they have to be charged. But that's really not much of a problem. I just buy two pairs. When I hear the low battery warning, once every three or four hours of listening, I swap. In practice most of my listening is in short 1-2 hour stints, so I rarely hear the warning.

Currently, I have two pairs of these. $30 each, so $60. More expensive than many wired headphones, but worth the price for the convenience they provide. I typically have one pair in my ears, the other pair in a charging case in my pocket and the other charging case in my laptop bag, charging from my laptop. Every day or two I swap the charging cases.

The other common complaint about wireless headphones is the audio quality. I'm sure some people care about that. I don't. I don't listen to music much, nearly all of my listening is voice -- audiobooks and podcasts. Also, I don't hear much difference in the audio quality anyway. Maybe that's because I'm old and my hearing isn't what it was. Or maybe there really isn't much difference. Dunno.

Without GDPR a person would have had to ask in person? To show they are the correct person and the person who is seeking the information.
Not an EU law and an email.

The EU "guidance" is in giving the information out.
Not on asking a person to walk in as a person with photo ID and then get the information in person.

As in, nearly once?

He's never bankrupted himself, just six of his businesses.

Its the EU. The laws say people can ask to see the info that's collected on "them".
Now random people can ask for the same info...
Re "the same would have happened"...
In the past a person would have to ask in person? Show photo ID in person to prove they could get information?
Not quote a new EU law and send an email with basic information....
The EU laws made the change to give out information on request law....

George Carlin

I cannot help but find it ironic that these scientist are using AI to find these, while most of us are using Bayesian filters to eliminate noise of UCE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Funny how all who talk big about responsibility are best ignored and their actions should be observed instead.

Disagree. Many people had so much more than bolt action .22s! Evidence? We have quite a lot of those things floating around NOW, and they're in demand among collectors today. Prior to 1968, and the resulting tide of changes revolving around Kennedy's assassination earlier in the decade, one could have pretty much anything sent straight to their door via US postal service. Frankly, you have no idea what your neighbors might have squirreled away. The big thing today is estate sales where some Grandma is kicking the bucket and the family has no idea to do with all of the stuff that Grandpa had stashed during the cold war. It's surprising, the quantity and quality of things I've seen hit auction houses lately.

Prior to 1934 even a child could order up military surplus ACTUAL FULL AUTO MACHINE GUNS used in WWI and prior--were they able to scrape up the few dollars required to do so. No, really, they were cheap even by depression era standards--before they became highly regulated items. If people weren't literally starving on the street, I can only imagine how many more there would have been. Evidence? The ATF says there's just under a half million legal, transferable ***machine guns*** running around out there. That doesn't even count the odd uncle out there who brought back something illegal from a war or illegally modified something, and stashed it away. Probably, there's just as many of those out there.

I'm suggesting it was common that a kiddo bought machine guns mail order--just that it was perfectly legal for a teenager to have a Browning machine gun sent to his house at one point in time--and many older people, at least, did just that.

There wasn't even a background check system until the early 90s. Dealers just made out a bill of sale, like a car dealer does.

There were plenty of M1 carbines out there. Actual weapons of war. Malcom X seemed to like his, and many a kid like me was introduced to deer hunting with one of those. The difference between that rifle and the much maligned AR or AK is entirely superficial, cosmetic. The same Grandpa who supplied that carbine for hunting shot military style matches with many other grandpas with an M1 Garand just like he used in the war; again no difference, except his was much louder and much *much* more powerful. Most of the homes around mine had Mini-14s (this one even uses the same bullet as the AR) to kill coyotes, which were honestly more of a threat to human safety than mass shooters.

If nobody had "semi-automatic assault rifles" back then, it was only because some asshat hadn't got around to inventing the terminology yet. And that's the thing--there's not a technical difference to be discerned here. There's a perception difference; just as you perceived that nobody had them, NOBODY had them!

P.S. Are you the cyclops in Homer's Odyssey?

I can agree with that at least, and even then with some caveats. Potassium iodide tablets contain large doses of iodine and so taking them should be done with the advice of a physician or other person with medical training. That Wikipedia article I linked to before stated the dangers from the very large dose found in a potassium iodide tablet. That Wikipedia article also stated that water purification tablets that contain iodine were shown to be effective in protection from radioactive iodine. I'm no chemist but it sounds like the water purification tablets contain a fraction of the iodine that is in the potassium iodide tablets.

I have a problem with the claim that thyroid cancer was the number one killer after Chernobyl. First is that there is little evidence that thyroid cancer rates increased after Chernobyl. Second, those that were diagnosed with thyroid cancer had a 98.8% survival rate.

Then again thyroid cancer may indeed have been "the number one killer from Chernobyl". If that's true then the number of people dead in total must be very low.

Outsource your slavery to China, and act indignant when they use slave-like conditions.

There is so little original data, gathered across such a distance of space and time for the "oldest" measurements, that I suggest it should be treated with suspicion. finely detailed measurements and extrapolations from such data should _especially_ be treated with suspicion.

Honest question.... isn't that like talking about what is north of the north pole?

While I was filling the gas tank of my SUV.