Re: "you may not like the authors of works you like"
Philip Larkin wrote some sublime poetry but was a bit of a dick IRL; Wagner wasn't that great either.
3577 publicly visible posts • joined 14 Nov 2007
Maybe you'd like to read the article and say what you think is wrong with the science.
I agree 'might' is preferable, but I don't think it is quite as clear cut as to make the use of 'may' a 'horrible solecism.'
It is possible he is deliberately using 'may' to suggest a higher degree of probability than might be inferred by the use of 'might'
With all due respect to Dr Kingston and other experts in the field of artificial intelligence, it seems to me that perhaps it wouldn't hurt to co-author some of these papers with experts in law (e.g. see comments above arguing whether or not the vendor is always responsible) and philosophy.
I don't know about now but I always felt, when I was involved in biology, that some of my peers made the same mistake: doing detailed research into ethics and law surrounding emerging biological science whilst somehow managing to forget the fact that their very own institutions had whole departments devoted to the study of these subjects.
tl;dr: interdisciplinary research ideally involves collaboration of people from different disciplines.
This Washington Post article makes interesting reading, suggesting the 2A is much more about militias than arms...
"How about a robot-sex-doll with the same voice as your wife?"
I don't know, I just associate SWIMBO's dulcet tones with various other types of demands: principally the making, without delay, of various caffeinated and alcoholic beverages... and being constantly told to put object x (shoes, gadgets, wires) away.
Maybe the EPA and other state testers should think about supplementing the normal rolling road test with an occasional, additional, drive-it-round-the-block-for-real test.
I'm sure it is not beyond the current state of the art in engineering technology to create an exhaust emissions analyzer that could collect the results of, say, 20 km of real driving after an initial random drive of, maybe, 20 to 80 km.
Naturally such results will be less reproducible but if they are a million miles off the rolling road results, further investigation can be performed.
"Some pieces such as rosewood are becoming increasing rare and increasingly valuable. If I had a table worth 3 or 4 grand I would be seriously disgruntled that an overpriced speaker had ruined it."
--->
"Rosewoods are pricey
And increasingly few
If they'd ruined mine
I'd be mad too"
"climate changes ALL of the time, like ice ages and warming periods"
How do you know? You take it on trust from the very same scientists who are mostly convinced that we are now seeing an anthropogenic effect. If expertise is only of use to you when it agrees with your per-conceived notions, I suggest you get a job in politics.
Even if you are right, and they are wrong, the idea that they are clueless, or that AGW is 'ludicrous' is untenable. [As is the idea that there is a giant conspiracy theory (if you've met any academics you'd know they couldn't possibly disagree in private and put on a united front in public).]
It may, of course, possibly be the case that they have all largely convinced themselves of something that is not really correct, and that you and the minority of skeptics are right. But even if you are right, you are not *obviously* right and your belief that it is all very straightforward, and only an idiot would think otherwise, undermines your credibility rather than reinforcing it.
I think it is also rather telling that you are cheering the demise of the few programmes that could pretty much prove that AGW is false ...
"Prosopagnosia. I've met several people with that in my previous work." -- TRT
Me too, but mine is so severe that I'm not sure how many times I've met them.
On one occasion (apologies if you've heard me mention it before) I didn't even recognize my Dad when he paid a surprise visit. I also mistook (ditto) Zoe Wannamaker for a mature student of mine because her face was so familiar.
There's another alternative, that politicians could actually listen to technical experts and either develop enough knowledge to understand what they're saying or to take it on trust.
The real 'sneering' is what politicians do to experts by disregarding everything they have got to say that doesn't match their (the politicians) already held beliefs. Nobody is calling Rudd an idiot for not understanding encryption - they are calling her it for being sure that she's right even though (a) she has admitted she doesn't understand it and (b) all the experts are telling her she's wrong.
The point I was making is that karyotype can never "betray one's presentation" ... an XY who self-identifies as female or non-binary cannot be told "ah, but you're really male" and that be justified on the basis of their DNA, even a complete sequence. Not now, and probably not ever.
The authoritative tone of your comment suggests you are a medic or biosciences PhD, but the content is a bit dubious tbh, at the very least you are being careless with some of these terms. As it is, I'm not sure whether you are disagreeing with me or not.
As for the computer implementation there's been four recognised genders (0MFX) for decades (ISO5218) , although the amount of software, even in the healthcare arena, written by people who don't seem to know this is absolutely staggering.
IS2R from working in motor insurance that women do indeed have more accidents per mile. That may reflect inexperience. Men, OTHO, cause more £damage and injuries. That may just be because they are more likely to be driving on fast and/or busy roads.
In any case, there are so many confounding factors that I find most claims that driving ability is *directly* correlated with sex to be insufficiently justified.
Facebook insists that I am in Wolfhamcote, even warning me "it'll be raining in Wolfhamcote tonight!"
It's not a million miles out, in terms of latitude and longitude, but Wolfhamcote has been abandoned for hundreds of years and now comprises little more than a few ruins and a deconsecrated church.
Absolutely agree that the motorcyclist made a mistake... However: as far as UK insurance goes, which I would also consider to be fairly sensible rules, making a mistake does not always make you the one at fault. If you are driving along the road and you brake for a cat and the person (too close) behind hits you, yes you made a mistake: according to the Highway Code you should not brake for an animal without checking your rear view mirror ... but they will nearly always be found at fault: to do otherwise they would usually have to prove you deliberately attempted to cause a collision (because, e.g. you were annoyed at them tailgaiting you).
If the biker had hit the back of the car, this would be clear cut, his fault. But when a vehicle sideswipes another during a manouvre, the vehicle making the lateral movement will usually be considered at fault. Whether that manouvre is an 'undo' of an aborted manouvre is usually irrelevant, as whether the other vehicle should have been there or not: good luck avoiding being found at fault for hitting an illegally parked car solely on the basis it was illegally (not dangerously) parked.
If you drive out of a parking space, but realize you are about to impede another driver, and you reverse back injuring a pedestrian who thought you were committed to driving out, who is at fault? You don't get to say "oh, the space should be empty because I was in it, I drove out and then I had a reason to 'undo' my drive out." Well, you could say it, but I doubt it would carry much weight.
The vehicle is at fault IMHO because (a) it is the heavier entity and must always bear the greater responsibility, (b) because it was the one making a manouvre and possibly (c) because it shouldn't even have commenced making a manouvre that would have to be aborted for anything other than emergency reasons. (If, unlike me, you consider what happened "emergency reasons" I think the correct result would have been a low speed rear-end of the car in front rather than a sideswipe of a motorbike to the side, regardless of whether that vehicle was breaking any rules.
TL;DR: "That shouldn't have been there" is never considered a good reason for a collision in the UK. Trust me, I drove my Audi into a police car at a road block.
"Britain wasn't available when Sir Francis Bacon was alive."
Glad I'm not the only one who thinks this way. I was skeptical of someone who said St George was Turkish for the same reason. To explain it I asked them if they thought Caesar would be best described as "Italian" --- but they did ("of course"), so that strategy went precisely nowhere.
"The original chart clearly has some time at zero CPU therefore - if the workload hasn't changed - there should be some zero CPU post patch. There isn't any, which leads to the conclusion that there is something else wrong."
Sorry, but having been a performance engineer for some time I'd have to say that although you might be right that there is something else wrong here, it is simply not the case that a workload which has some zero % CPU should still show some idle time when a performance-impacting patch has been applied: simplest case, the patch could be causing enough impact for the processor queue to never be empty.
"In a safe world, there is a trade off between privacy and ability to recover digital tracks by law enforcement." -- naive
No trade off is possible. That is what anyone with a clue keeps trying to explain: the only settings are "effectively broken crypto" and "satisfactory crypto." These are binary states - there is no spectrum between the two where you can decide where to place your "trade off" --- you can only choose one or the other.