It could be an attempt to be more reality based*. (If you know the names of processes models are produced by, you can start to learn about them. Predictive models could start out more simply, and the course could have sophisticated pre-requisites.) But perhaps models coming from somewhere is a start, not an end.
*Like calculus problem that “involve” physics.
What are your thoughts on infinitely small quantities?
natural language processing [NLP] (presumably analyzing any text which is overlaid in the video),
Audio → text programs do exist, so it seems possible they could be doing NLP on the output of such a program, though even Youtube’s audio to text program can be really bad.
TD-style update
?
The rotors move after each typed character, but the way they move is independent of which character it is?
Since whether or not something “is” a ‘central’ example is defined relative to an ontology, I am asking “what is your ontology”, in particular that the OP’s remarks serve as a ‘non-central’ usage?
You made a jump from:
asserting Y, when we know Y to be false
to
Asserting Y when it is common knowledge that Y is false
The difference between the two may be relevant to the contents of the OP.
are you talking about the URL?
Yes.
I said a descriptor could be misleading.
What descriptors do you find to be misleading?
I don’t fully understand why this doesn’t work for some functions which are infinitely differentiable (like logx), but apparently this becomes clearer after some complex analysis.
Because the derivative isn’t zero? (x^2 is infinitely differentiable but ends up at zero fast. (x^2, 2x, 2, 0, 0, 0...))
Style:
gabitual behavior
habitual behavior
Summary:
Change/create contexts by:
Armed with the insights above, I added two desks to my room; 1 for work, 1 for leisure. Two days later, my desire for gaming during work was completely gone.
Commentary:
This post seems both useful (testable) and left me with questions. What factors contribute/give rise to ‘contexts’, and how can they be combined with habits?
3. Crypto.
The Germans another create
create another
For example, if the daily code is SEC and the message code is MES then the Germans will use the daily code SEC to encode MESMES. This might result in the ciphertext XFYZQM. Only these first 6 letters are encrypted with SEC. The rest of the message is encrypted with MES. The next message (on the same day) might have a message code COD. In this case, the daily code SEC is used to encode CODCOD which might result in the ciphertext IWVUBB.
Let’s imagine the daily code the machine is set it with is AAA.
Would this turn the plaintext “X” into the ‘ciphertext’ “X”?
But not “XX” to “XX”, because typing changes the configuration?
but why not describe it as a source of wonder / beauty / power / progress instead?
Tell someone they can fly, and they may be excited to learn how. Tell someone they can’t and they may be reluctant to believe you.
If we accept only what we want to believe* how will we:
Find the truth
Obtain the power/knowledge/etc. necessary to make things better?**
*This can go either way. If we want to be able to do things, then things being possible is great. If we want to do nothing, then things being impossible is great. (Or to make a better case: we may not want to believe
people are capable of doing terrible things, etc.
It is ‘possible’ to do terrible things (consider nukes, biorisk, etc. - AI risk may include the claim that ‘agency’ is not required to ‘do evil’.))
ETA:
**And what if some things can’t be improved?
For example, I recently saw a discussion of necessity on a ‘rationalist’ forum where someone pointed out that it was impossible to fly unassisted.
If you don’t consider a device like a bike assistance, I think it is possible.
And here I thought the reason was going to be that Bayesianism doesn’t appear to include the cost of computation. (Thus, the usual dutch book arguments should be adjusted so that “optimal betting” does not leave one worse off for having payed, say, an oracle, too much for computation.)
I disagree with the OP. That being said, logic is logic. (Obviously when there is insufficient action more action may be called for, and just the opposite when there is ‘too much’.)
At the worst extremes we have people throwing up their hands and saying, “well we’re screwed, white people will never do what they’re told, unlike those obedient Asians — and it’s not like we can make them, right?”. That attitude is completely crazy. It’s not true, and it’s part of the general atmosphere of extremely mixed messages that have made the crisis so bad.
“Oh no,” say the pessimists,” there is nothing to be done, we are all going to die.” A pathetic excuse for inaction.
1. Tell people what they need to do. If you can do nothing else, then do what you can.
People who are tested or presumed positive will obey quarantine if they understand that they might go to prison if they don’t. This is in no way an extreme or authoritarian response. It’s completely consistent with civil liberties. Any individual freedom is always constrained by reasonable expectations of harm. None of us have a general-purpose freedom to act however we want regardless of the risks to other people. The specifics of the coronavirus pandemic are unusual, but the general principle isn’t.
Is giving people money to quarantine a violation of civil liberties?
2. Whatever you think of a given plan, there are both ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ incentives.
Take the most extreme case: someone has tested positive and been instructed to self-isolate, but the person ignores the instruction and infects someone else, who later dies of the infection. This is an act of extreme and callous negligence. The person who left quarantine was informed of a specific risk, they ignored that information, and they have caused someone else’s death for a frivolous purpose. It is not unreasonable to imprison that person for many years in order to deter that sort of negligence.
Assuming causality is easily established… (Outside of a hypothetical, things can get way more complicated, especially preventative measures.)
3. Why should the sentence occur, after the fact? If someone is infected and therefore they are a danger to others (until X amount of time has passed), then there exists, if anything a ‘natural’ sentence—until they can’t infect others. (Sanitation, etc. at the end of quarantine may help with keeping that sentence short.) But if we don’t want them in prison, hospital, or a special quarantine facility, all that is needed is much lighter version of house arrest. The arguments for prison are flimsy by comparison—are the risks to others increased or decreased as a result of such a sentence? In the case of quarantine, it seems as though a more solid proof could not be asked for, by comparison.
(What crime is punishable by such a short sentence?)
Our society is built on both individual freedom and individual responsibility.
A powerful statement. Perhaps there is some disagreement about what that means, and today we are seeing the price of a lack of clarity.
1. I am not familiar with any empirical work on the subject.
2. Some textbooks give advice in the beginning, esp. about how ideas are organized. (Which can be helpful if you don’t want to read the whole thing—it can explain dependencies between chapters, like 5 requires 1-3, but not 4, etc.)
3. Speculative:
Every subject has basic ‘building blocks’. If a subject builds on an earlier subject, those remain important. Example: For polynomials there’s: 1, x, x^2, x^3, etc. (All the other polynomials can be assembled out of those.) In calculus, there are functions that basically map between them (give or take multiplying/dividing by a constant factor), that are important.
you know times/addition tables? That’s a great format for two dimensional functions that take positive integers as input. (Though f(1-10, 1-10) might not all be necessary if there’s symmetry, and depending on the function, other constants might be more useful to know, like 1, 0, −1, e, pi, the primes, etc. For 3d, you might want to involve color or variables for associations or distinctions.)
These answers are all about how you study a math textbook. Answers based around other people might capture low hanging fruit, for one reason or another.
Yes. (Content-wise, the linked essay is also the post.**)
What part of the essay do you find to be misleading (explicitly or implicitly*)?
*Connotation
**The linked essay is at the address, but doesn’t include the address, so actually the post includes more than the linked essay.
What are these ‘misleading connotations’?
statistical learning theory
Those of you interested in the historical literature on this sort of thing may be interested in cyberneticist’s Rosenblueth, Weiner, and Bigelow’s 1943 paper”Behavior, Purpose and Teleology”,
Thanks for the references, though the link doesn’t work (and is missing a space after it). I think it should point here.
EDIT: This post is old, so the link was probably broken in the move to LW 2.0.
Upon seeing the title, I guessed this piece was going to argue that people are often right without evidence. Instead the OP argued against believing something without evidence.
But is the doctor worse or better for it (even assuming that this story, second hand or third hand or more is accurate)? And how do we know?