LockeWatts

Very very few things being claimed by the average person fall off immediately, almost all of them scale such that you are still netting an increase, even if that increase is less pronounced.

In fact, I can't think of a thing where this isn't the case. Can you provide an example?

Except that in the situation described, this wasn't "I am reinvesting in my business to turn a higher profit in the future" but rather a case of "I am buying something that will not improve my bottom line in order to avoid paying taxes."

Being intentionally obtuse about the use of the word "fair" in that context doesn't help you prove your point to anyone who disagrees with you.

That's great and all, but it's already been done by much more simplistic algorithms by abusing the mechanical nature of the game.

Some units are balanced by the fact that no human can manipulate them to their full potential. Once you remove that restriction, the AI can abuse the speed of execution, acting as a force multiplier that will cover any strategic lackings.

If they want DeepMind to really "play" Starcraft in the traditional sense, i.e. make it win based on decision making and reasoning about the game, then they'll need to artificially rate limit its APM.

I hope that in the interest of fair play they'll limit their AI to 300 APM or so. Make it win not on mechanical execution, but on decision making.

Starcraft in many ways is a much easier game for an AI to beat top pros at than Go.

So, if I'm reading this right, if you use more than 80% of what you pay for, they throttle you to 50% of what you pay for?

I don't have application demographics in front of me, but I'd wager that you're correct, most people without a degree don't apply to that position.

However, that doesn't actually speak to what I was saying. My claim refers to the population of non-formally educated developers as a whole.

You might fall into the small portion of the population where you do have the requisite knowledge and skill. However, I think you're missing key element to recruiting, that took me a long time myself to understand.

Recruiting is a numbers game. Finding good people is hard, but the best way to find them is A) have competitive compensation, and B) volume. If the signal to noise ratio of college educated applicants is 50:1 and the ratio for non-college educated applicants is 100:1, then as long as there isn't a shortage of college applicants, it improves the recruitment process to require a college degree.

For what they are doing, a very strong background in data structures and memory management is required, at least in so far as the code running on the rocket itself.

Very few people learn that on their own, and even fewer learn it to the proficiency level they need.

It sounds to me like he's challenging the conceptual idea of a generation, which to be fair is a kind of difficult line to draw. Instead, he's saying that if you're 20-25, regardless of generation, you'll see things one way. 25-35 another, etc.

Why wouldn't they? If they're being released in the west, they're optimizing for their largest target demographic.

No, you've just edited it to say "PPP-adjusted" since I posted the comment.

Suppose there are concrete negative consequences to having ppp-adjusted ppp-adjusted ppp-adjusted ppp-adjusted income below $14,500/year.

That doesn't need supposition. They exist.

What are those consequences?

Not having adequate supplies of nutritious food, potable water, shelter from elements\other people, and access to information.

Why don't middle class Bulgarians and upper middle class Indians suffer them?

Well, A) they do, and B) ppp adjusted, $14,500 isn't upper middle class India or middle class Bulgaria.

Incidentally, when I said "live on less than the average poor American", I meant in terms of material consumption. I have no car (75% of poor Americans do). I can't drink the water coming out of my tap. I have a small living space.

Americans believe everyone should have basic things like sanitation. Arguing that the poor somehow shouldn't just because India hasn't been as successful at infrastructure development isn't really a good argument.

How is an education purchased as a display of wealth? Education is the single most efficient way to raise your standard of living compared to that of your parents.

An important factor has been overlooked in this analysis: synergy. Individuals with low income live with other people.

You make the assumption that they should be required to live with other people.

When a group of people all start receiving a BI, their spending power will be more then the simple sum b/c they share and buy in bulk.

So do rich couples. This is a non-sensical argument. I'd rather not keep repeating how wrong you are, but suffice to say, nobody lives on $600/month in America. Your number is simply unintelligent.

Ideally, make this a state thing so regional differences can efficiently work.

The problem with this strategy is it creates massive disparities between states, as the burden of caring for the poor will be disproportionately shifted to the progressive states providing a basic income, while the conservative states don't need to pay for anything.

Furthermore, state governments don't have anywhere near the tax base or cash reserves to implement a basic income. This can only be done on the Federal level.

A UBI provides mobility to citizens by not trying their source of food to their location. If a UBI can't support you in San Francisco or New York, you have the ability to move to where it will.

There's no need to have this be a state thing, except to screw up the program.

Your comparison does not take into account the relative cost of living of those places.

Furthermore, why do you say "merely" a moral judgement? Is a moral judgement that optimizes for human happiness somehow worse than a logical one that optimizes for efficiency?

This isn't Reddit, stop whining.

I'm not saying in this specific instance it wasn't inappropriate.

I'm saying as a general concept, the very phrase "unwanted advance" has lots of implications of sexual misconduct, when it really can just be as simple as a guy asking a girl out, and her saying no. I don't see what's inappropriate there.

That's not a strawman, that's a direct implication.

No... this is the kind of response I find silly. That's not sexual harassment, it's being immature.

Which half?

I mean, while technically true, the interoperability between the gendered nouns isn't complete.

Man / Woman

Boy / Girl

Guy / ???

Some people would say ??? = Gal, but most would find that very informal, especially when writing. The usual female equivalent to guy is girl, which is not referring to a younger age but merely a less formal sex descriptor.

Secondly, I STILL don't see how that changes the point any. If the guy is talking about girls, it makes sense, if he's talking about about women, it doesn't? I'm still lost there.

Guessing could get a random employee at GitHub who is completely innocent targeted with a lot of hatemail he didn't deserve.

Just because someone says "I'm guessing", doesn't mean people wouldn't roll with it.

It's GitHub, of course there are logs of code commits ;)

I was trying to be measured in the language because I don't consider the TechCrunch article to be completely unbiased on the man, but yes, in general I agree. Intentionally sabotaging code should have you out the door on your ass.

Can I ask a question about phrasing for a minute? What's inherently wrong with an unwanted advance?

Advances have an unknown state until they're responded to. If she had accepted it, it would've been a welcomed advance. There's no way to know that until you walk up to a woman and say "Hey, I think you're pretty cool. Want to go get a drink sometime?"

If she says no, that's unwanted, but I don't see how it's inappropriate.

Wait, what does the noun change? You completely lost me.

The coworker should have been disciplined for mucking with the code out of anger, but as far as being super uncomfortable around her I feel like a healthy warning from his boss saying 'Hey, you're being inappropriate around her' would probably be better in the long run than firing him.