abraxas

abraxas , 4 months ago to politics in Fifty-nine percent of Americans think Biden and Trump too old for another term

You say "better options" but a clear majority of Democrats thought Biden was the better option. And all the other candidates that anyone took seriously are in the same age range as them. Nobody younger knocked on the door with a platform really worth backing. Buttigieg had no Federal chops whatsoever, Harris was a freaking prosecutor.

Or if you're just talking "better in general", then you're talking about the Progressives war. Bernie still hasn't realized he'll never win a Primary, and the way his campaign sabotaged and undercut Warren's with necessary voting demographics was a killshot. Grassroot movements to call her a secret Republican. They should be ashamed of themselves.

abraxas , 4 months ago to politics in Fifty-nine percent of Americans think Biden and Trump too old for another term

He has implied the only reason he's running for a second term is because he doesn't want Trump to be president again.

We can never know, but if Trump weren't running, he might not be either.

abraxas , 4 months ago to NonCredibleDefense in Who knew world peace would be so easy?

And don’t confuse things. We’re talking about intelligence here. Not learning

Are we? Alright. Can you describe a definition test for intelligence that we could agree upon that humans pass and no NN or other ML is capable of passing? I suspect you're confusing things. Not an intelligence,learning comparison, but an intelligence,consciousness confusion.

abraxas , 4 months ago to NonCredibleDefense in Who knew world peace would be so easy?

That's not really an accurate take of how machine learning typically works. Neural Networks (allegedly) learn in a way similar to how humans do, taking the data they are fed and building a weighted matrix of resolutions that seems most compatible. A historically interesting trait is that neural networks are often better pattern-discoverers than humans.

But note, the outcome of a neural network is NOT a "random combination of the information we feed them">

is pseudo-intuition (eventually) coupled with proper rationalization (the only part of intelligence computers can systematically do) enough to replace most tasks humans do?

I feel like this is a hard question to answer since it is based off controversial takes about ML. I am not a brain-is-a-computer hypothesis adherent, but we're talking about specific learning mechanisms that are absolutely comparable to human learning. Is "the learning humans do" enough to replace "the learning humans do"? I would say obviously yes.

abraxas , 4 months ago to NonCredibleDefense in Who knew world peace would be so easy?

MAD was always criticized, but that criticism becomes more and more valid each year. There's too many options and opportunities on the field. A Second Strike is not guaranteed in the modern world. There are countless examples where soldiers or others in the chain of command will not obey a "destroy the world" order.

I'm not saying any country should take the gamble, but there are enough ways to put your thumb on the scales that a nuclear solution against a nuclear power could become feasible (if genuinely terrifying) in many hypotheticals.

abraxas , 4 months ago to NonCredibleDefense in Who knew world peace would be so easy?

While you're right, let's not incorrectly imply that ML (especially Deep Learning) has never come up with new ideas.

Yes, it comes up with new ideas from old information, but some have argued that's what humans do. We all stand on the shoulders of giants, who themselves tood on the shoulders of nature.

abraxas , 4 months ago to NonCredibleDefense in Who knew world peace would be so easy?

The world of Go/Baduk might interest you on this topic. If you're not aware, Go is one of the oldest and most complicated board games in history. In 2016, after years of trying, an AI "did it", beat the world's best Go player. In the process, it invented many new strategies (especially openings) that are now being studied. It came up with original ideas that became the future of Go. Now, ameteur Go classes teach those same AI-invented Joseki (openings). In some cases, they were strategies discarded as mistakes, but the AI discovered hidden value in them. In other cases, they were simply never considered due to being "obviously bad".

Your last phrase is a deep misunderstanding for AI. "when it’s entirely trained to mimic us". In the modern practice of ML (which is a commonly used modern name for a supermajority of so-called "AI") is based around solving problems that are either much harder for computers than humans (facial recognition, etc), or unfathomably difficult on the face.

Chess has more possible positions than exist molecules in the universe. Go is more complicated than chess by several orders of magnituce. You can't even exhaustively solve for the 4-4 josekis without context, nevermind solve an entire game of Go. But ML can train itself knowing only the goal, and over millions of iterations invent stronger and stronger strategies. Until one of the first matches against a human, it plays at a level that nearly exceeds the best Go player that ever lived.

What I mean is... wargaming (as they call it) is absolutely something I would expect a Deep Learning system to become competent at.

abraxas , 4 months ago to politics in Maryland bill would force gun owners to get $300K liability insurance to wear or carry

I agree completely. That's a better use of time than passing a law that will have little to no positive effect on gun control and only hurts the poor.

Just because a bill says a certain phrase doesn't mean we need to support it. A Gun Control law that says "White people get to take black people's guns" is not a good law. A Gun Control law that says "Gun ownership is punishable by death" is not a good law.

A law that says "you have to buy this insurance prohibitive to poor people but not rich to people" is not a good law.

The only thing worse than "a lot more guns" is "a lot more guns in the hands of only certain classes of people who already have too many"

abraxas , 4 months ago to politics in Maryland bill would force gun owners to get $300K liability insurance to wear or carry

In your opinion, are poor people inferior to rich people as to whether they have the right to protest or protect their families? Do you cheer when a poor person's child dies?

I'm sorry, I'm just gonna block your alt-right ass now. I don't talk to monsters and idiots.

abraxas , 4 months ago to politics in Maryland bill would force gun owners to get $300K liability insurance to wear or carry

I agree that their interpretation would work that way, however, I don’t see how they can pretend their interpretation of the second amendment is anything like that of the first

Unfortunately, the highest law of the land disagrees with your interpretation at this time. They have this whole "plain meaning of words" mindset. The typical 3rd grader reading the 2nd Amendment would think "oh ok, I can have a gun". Therefore, that's what the 2nd Amendment means now.

They restrict time and place of first amendment rights constantly.

Yeah, that's covered by jurisprudence based around the needs of the country. And the law is right that the First Amendment doesn't say the freedom of speech is the freedom to disrupt (preventing people from going to their destination, vandalizing property, etc). But if you needed to buy Free Speech Insurance, that would get shot down as unconstitutional.

abraxas , 4 months ago to politics in Maryland bill would force gun owners to get $300K liability insurance to wear or carry

Then fucking come up with gun control that doesn't focus on the poor.

The Left says "we should do this because it's better for everyone". The Right says "Yeah, but ONLY do it to the poor! Thank you"

abraxas , 4 months ago to politics in Maryland bill would force gun owners to get $300K liability insurance to wear or carry

You're Right. The Second Amendment is only a right for rich white people. Just like the 4th and 5th Amendments.

abraxas , 4 months ago (edited 4 months ago) to politics in Maryland bill would force gun owners to get $300K liability insurance to wear or carry

There are some serious downsides. In this case, this should get progressive alarms going off.

But before we get to the bulk, I'm going to repeat my last line's question first. Why invent new ways to fuck the poor in the name of gun control when we have solutions that work?

1. It encourages transitioning gun ownership percentage to wealthy white people and less gun ownership to less-wealthy and non-white people (who, on average, make less money). This is the big one
2. People don't like to admit it, but gun ownership DOES have a deterrent effect in high crime areas. Home invaders regularly mention avoiding houses of armed people when interrogated. I don't want ANYONE robbed on my street, but I definitely don't want my family victimized. My road has a dramatically lower home invader rate (based on value of property) than surrounding areas. Why? Outspoken gun owners due to the hunting culture (we have too many deer)... Do we really want to pretend to justify all the upsides of gun ownership to going to rich white people?
3. Over 90% of gun crimes are committed with illegal weapons, a majority of which go back to legitimate owners and were stolen/given illegally. That means the liability insurance chain is already broken (or the rates go up, further alienating poor folks)

Simply tracing, background checks, and better regulation all-round would be more effective than a regressive tax on gun ownership. And those things are well-established and well-tested in society. Regulations WORK. So why invent new ways to fuck the poor in the name of gun control when we have solutions that work?

EDIT:

And some other thoughts that kinda go both ways at once. It looks like $300k is the quoted amount by most 2A firearm insurance companies. Almost like they lobbied for the bill. It makes me wonder if they would also lobby for weakening other regulations because "well gun owners are insured".

And part 2 as a flipside. It looks like the costs might not be terribly high. I'm seeing quotes as low as $30/mo. It's hard because they are all EXTREMELY shadey companies and (like other insurance companies) they like to hide their rates from potential buyers. As well as their fine print since the rates are so low from them avoiding paying out. By their fine print, it looks like they don't pay out if your action might have been criminal. So the insurance doesn't actually pay the victims of anything except accidental discharge.

But then, do we want to empower another questionably corrupt industry by mandating gun owners be their customers?

abraxas , 5 months ago to White People Twitter in Banks need it /s

I think it's closer to that way now. There was incentive to banks in the past to process it differently.

That said, my bank's "pay bills" function still takes your cash out before sending the check, despite the check NOT being a cashier's check when not linked to an e-account. They just refund you in 90 days (or so) if it isn't cashed.

abraxas , 5 months ago (edited 5 months ago) to White People Twitter in Banks need it /s

Again, different countries might have banks work differently. When a debit is being applied (money removed from the account) it has a lifetime. First it is pending, and then it "clears".

It clears when the bank approves that the money transfer is definitely happening, and that is the moment it is removed from your account. Importantly, the debit clearing from your account on a purchase does not mean the other party has fully received the money.

It used to be that a lot of charges would sit pending overnight and then all pending charges apply in the morning. Yes, even small purchases like a pack of gum bought at the corner store. All they did (and I think Wells Fargo in particular got caught and there were lawsuits about this) was decide the order of clearing pending charges with the intent of maximizing overdraft fees.

And how does that work? Let's say I have $1000 in my account but forgot my $900 rent is coming out. ALong with some other transactions, they could clear like:

They could $0.99 gum, $150 car payment, $150 groceries, $900 rent. Overdraft fees = 1

Or

$900 rent, $150 car payment, $150 groceries, $0.99 gum. Same transactions processed at the same moment. Overdraft fees = 3! When that stuff happened to me back around '04, overdraft fees were $35 per overdraft. So that example was a $70 difference. In reality, between billpay and small purchases, the difference might be $500+.

My true story was that I had a dick of a landlord. My Bank's autopay was running slow and despite the bank check already being in the mail and deducted from my account, my landlord insisted I pay immediately, and I was dumb enough to cave. So I cut him a check and asked him to hold it a day or two til the actual check was delivered; he cashed the same day. Double-rent for a 24 year older meant my account went into the red. I had 10 pending transactions (from gas to bill pays) for the next morning. All 10 (despite being already delivered and should've cleared first) waited to clear until the double-paid rent cleared. I was charged $350 in overdraft fees, almost as much as my $500 rent was (cheap back then lol). And despite agreeing the check getting to him late was their fault, my bank refused to refund more than $100 in overdraft fees because that's what their algorithm valued my business at. I got the first rent payment back, fortunately. But was still out $250.

If I recall, the canned defense for this in lawsuits is "we just coincidentally process all transactions large to small instead of old to new because it makes sense to the bank to do so". If I recall, some states (maybe fed?) ended up having to pass laws regulating overdraft fees a bit. It didn't go far, but from what I hear it stopped that particular behavior.