On the rare occasion that a human is right and the AI wrong, the AI will learn from its mistake.
On the rare occasion that a human is right and the AI wrong, the AI will learn from its mistake.
I wonder if a possible explanation is just sloppy coding by app programmers, cutting and pasting huge swaths of code, libraries, etc, that they don't understand to get one function.
Even the *programmer* doesn't know what ports they're cut-and-pasted code is opening.
So in a way, the whole shouting match is because the non-racists are afraid to face an uncomfortable fact or two that might shake their simplified world-view.
I think this is a larger part of the dynamic you described than anyone talks about. It's kind of obvious that 85% of what a garden variety "racist" believes is false or unfair, but 15% is closer to true than not true, which makes the 85% seem *possibly* true and believable.
The anti-racists won't discuss, debate or even acknowledge the 15% and go into full-on denial, name-calling, etc, which reinforces the 15% in the minds of "racists", which in turn reinforces the other 85% as likely true as well, further dividing them.
Like many issues, most people are more in agreement than disagreement but the refusal to even discuss the sliver of things they disagree on widens the gulf.
I agree that a well-structured kind of placement/vocational exam would be a good idea, especially if coupled with heavy subsidies for people who choose an education path that aligns with their test results. We want to encourage and make it easy for people to get into fields (academic or vocational) they're compatible with in some objective way.
I would worry that it would slightly ingrain a caste system, though, where people who could afford it would send their kids to more academic programs anyway even if they didn't test into them, thus insuring the rich maintained a lock on the best paying jobs. You might be able to fix this with just more intensive academic standards in school -- so even if daddy buys you a slot in college, you're still at risk of failing out because you're not good enough.
I think the other thing you need to do is somehow alter wage distribution to make "vocational" fields higher paid with improved working conditions (ie, less of the hostile labor/management style division found even in highly skilled vocations).
So what's the copyright on this tool? Can I embed it in the reports I write to spot if my competitors steal them? (they're not using LibreOffice or anything, if they were smart enough for basic security, they wouldn't have to steal my stuff...)
We'll see adaptations of this everywhere in the near future. I know a dozen consulting companies immediately who are afraid that their stuff is stolen by competitors.
Note to French people: America had nothing to do with Waterloo. That was the British.
You should see how they are to the British.
Interestingly, on the other hand in porn and swinger societies, black men seem to be quite popular. There's probably a mix of the exotic and forbidden at work, as well as the fact that it's generally a safe environment with other people present.
Thanks for the link. I always find it fascinating how complex and full of different aspects a topic becomes once you move beneath the surface and dissect causality.
Once you use a listing service that opens it to the public then there are all sorts of rules and laws that follow.
Why? You just state that like it's an obvious fact, but compared to "the sky is blue" it does not immediately follow.
Want to keep your rules? Don't use a listing service.
Why? That I need to follow the rules of the listing service, fine. That's part of signing the EULA when you register with it. But why do these rules have to be/contain specific rules? Why can the listing service not make up whatever rules it wants? It doesn't follow.
Rent to whomever you want, but don't advertise it to people you have no intention of renting to. That is what is illegal.
Ok, so add a filter to the listing service that allows the landlord to say "no men and no asian people" if they want, or "only single mothers of african decent" if that's their preference. What's wrong with that? If you find that nobody wants to rent to group X - go and figure out what's the reason for that and put your energy into fixing that. At the same time, there's suddenly a business opportunity for people to rent specifically to that group. The more they are discriminated against, the less competition and the more interesting it is to rent specifically to them.
Suppressing prejudices doesn't work. They don't go away just because you can't say it. Addressing them in an intelligent way is a much better approach.
Oh I love it when Ignoramus Anonymous trouts of free market nonsense.
When is the last time you saw an actual free market? You know, the one with an infinite number of buyers and sellers, perfect transparency, zero handling costs and no barriers of entry?
That's right, the whole free market thing is a purely theoretical model. It is not a real economical theory. It's the economists equivalent to the physicist saying "let's ignore friction and assume a perfect sphere in a vacuum..."
You need to adapt it to the real world or you are in for a hell of a lot surprises.
Because we live in a post-political-correctness world, where you are shouted down as racist, sexist, nazi or whatever if you have a not-approved-by-the-mainstream-police uncomfortable opinion. Some of those opinions actually are some or all of those things, but once people realised that it's an easy way to shut someone up, the labels expanded dramatically. You are now labeled a rape-culture sexist if you point out that "equal rights" also means men have rights. You are labeled a slave-holder racist if you point out that there are cases where discrimination goes against white people. And god forbid you say anything positive about a heterosexual white male.
Sadly, people didn't understand that the reason sexism and racism and political extremism are making a comeback tour is exactly that their proponents are being shouted down, giving them this "rebel" feeling that tends to make people stick more strongly to their opinion instead of changing theirs mind.
We should engage racists and reveal - to their and our eyes - what's behind their thoughts. Most often, it turns out it's a simple mix of stereotypes and fear, and once revealed it can be healed. We don't do it because we are also afraid - that if you seriously engage the topic, you have to face some uncomfortable facts for yourself. For example that certain demographic groups actually are more prone to violence, or more likely to commit certain crimes, or other such things. Dissecting that into the parts that are inherent to whatever the trait is and those that are self-fullfilling prophecies (if everyone thinks group A is full of criminals, they are less likely to be given good jobs, leaving many of them no other option than to become criminals). So in a way, the whole shouting match is because the non-racists are afraid to face an uncomfortable fact or two that might shake their simplified world-view.
For the record: I'm a racist. My Bengal cat is different from other cat races and I won't let anyone tell me that she's the same as any street cat.
For humans, even the term is silly as there is only one human race. We extinguished the other ones (Neanderthals and such) tens of thousands of years ago.
Wow, that's going to clash.
On the one hand, yes racism is stupid and backwater countryside last-century silly.
But on the other hand, this isn't some hotel room, this is, for many people, theirs home (or holiday home, or whatever). They should be able to decide who to let in, based on whatever criteria they want, including racism, sexism and I-don't-like-people-in-suits.
We will see these kind of things happening more and more as the "gig economy" blurs the line between the private and the business world.
The problem is, nobody earns any serious saving money in their 20s. My savings were for shit until I was in my 30s and quite often drained with stupid shit like car repairs, apartment moves or other life situation stuff. I felt like I was doing well not running around with $5k in credit card debt.
Plus today's 20-somethings are not just managing those expenses, but juggling $500 student loan payments.
I just think it's weird how society shits on people who are otherwise responsible parents. Where do they think human beings come from, a store?
You would think that supporting family life and the resulting mostly normal, well-adjusted contributors-to-society it generally produces would be a broadly accepted social value. Instead we seem to have greedy assholes who gripe about people taking care of their kids -- when they're not bitching about problems that result from the shitty family lives they enable by making it tough to raise a family.
This was the headline there:
Lawsuit: Fox News group hacked, surveilled, and stalked ex-host Andrea Tantaros
And the headline for the story right next to it:
Ars Technica Live: Why it’s important to defend hackers, even the not nice ones
As a senior engineer I'm expected to keep an eye out for technology that may be useful for the company. I set time aside to poke around, see what's out there, and play with new stuff. Some of this may end up being only of personal interest, while some of it may end up being useful for the company. Until I have a look at it, I won't know.
I'll spend half a day on something on my own responsibility, a morning or an afternoon, before I seek buy-in from my boss to proceed further.
"Look! There! Evil!.. pure and simple, total evil from the Eighth Dimension!" -- Buckaroo Banzai