And yes, I am aware of the irony of citing a news source.
MDMA is a gateway drug, and we shouldn't be risking addiction by patients who already have mental health issues.
While we thank the DEA for their view on this sensitive matter; And no doubt you have similar views on Morphine. Sadly your 'ain't gonna have no hippie scientists givin' kids drugs' attitude belies the fact you clearly have no concept of how utterly devastating a life crippled with PTSD can be.
You and your ilk are basically everything that's wrong with knee-jerk legislators across the western world.
'I don't understand science, but this could look bad in the news papers, therefore I must ban it...... speaking as a parent..... '
As well as the obvoius losses, it's arguable there are advantages there to be had with nearly free speech.
For example if someone slanders you in a newspaper, the story is legally presumed to be false unless proven otherwise; So if you took them to court and they failed to prove the truth of it, they are liable for damages. It's in some ways an extension of innocent until proven guilty.
I must stress I'm not implying this is better or worse, just expanding a little on the details.
You don't want a draconian surveillance state? Good. Now stand up for freedom of speech and thought and stop trying so hard to not offend.
There isn't free speech in the UK.
on whose soil shall information about interaction between Russian and German users be stored?
that would be the NSA's soil
And thus, the heart of the issue was reached.
When recording voiceovers, dialog, and narration, people would often like to change or insert a word or a few words due to either a mistake they made or simply because they would like to change part of the narrative...
When recording suspects, police would often like change or insert a word or a few words in order to manufacture evidence by changing part of the narrative.
heheh yeah the advertised use-case scenario is about as believable as private mode in browsers designed for shopping for gifts for your wife without her knowledge. But then again if your wife is regularly checking your internet history you probably have other issues to deal with.
Why did you not sue? This is ILLEGAL.
No idea actually of the legality of it. This was in the UK and I had a 4 week notice period to work. They made us spend that training up some Ukranians to use the framework we had built for cranking out similar projects. Severance pay was negligable as I had only been there two years but I couldn't afford to just up and walk. Besides I would also have had to give them a 4 weeks notice period.
Why would you then train him at all? You got your 4 weeks notice, go to work, throw them a manual and let them figure it out. If they complain, say "he doesn't understand me very well".
We were to build a series of similar projects with a turn around of about 5 months each. We built a framework as we went along keeping as much reusable as possible and knocked that time down to around 2 months. Company had a bad year and all the IT and software development was outsourced all over.
That said the guys who came in to replace us were pretty nice. I'm not the kinda guy to screw over others because some sociopath in management screwed me over. Just did the time and left and had to take a pay cut to jump fields (was a pretty specific field) but 3 years on I'm glad of it. If I had stayed it would have been a career dead end for me and things are pretty good now.
Sure it wasn't a great moment in my career but we all get to move on.
That is why you don't hear of these horror stories of "I had to train my replacement" in the UK - we simply don't have to do that.
You literally posted this in reply to one of those 'horror stories' in the UK. We had to work our 4 weeks notice, which was spent training up Ukrainians to do our jobs. Sure I could have walked but then would have been in breach of my own notice period and not everyone is frankly rich enough to do that. I certainly wasn't.
What if the system learns that left handed people in North America die a little earlier than right handed people. And specifically that they die with higher frequency in car accidents.
Honestly I feel that me at least, as a computer scientist is unqualified to answer this question. My scientifically orientated mind wants to yell that "It's not biased, it's just data." But I understand this is an awfully naive and simplistic answer.
I'd rather leave the decision and therefore the consequences of that decision to someone who studies something more relevant like social sciences.
By definition those things are without bias. You have no idea what you are talking about.
If your algorithm decides that women are less likely to repay loans and thus should be less likely to have one, or that men under the age of 30 should not be granted car insurance. It is not a success, it's a news story waiting to ruin your reputation. Irrespective of what the data says, it is a bias to any outward observer.
If entropy is increasing, where is it coming from?