NutriSugar

I think learning is more about losing neurons, not creating it. Or meatspace neural netowrks are less about changing weights and more about pruning connections.

Yes, the core problem is the law. But until the law is fixed, I'll take issue with something that extends the application of the law.

And I think it does get to the essence of it, because of just how we quantify something as illegal. The laws are very poorly written, where the worse images possible are treated just as no more illegal than images that are on the borderline of legal (not to mention that the border itself is very fluid, especially when considering artistic images that would be illegal if they weren't artistic but which is left up to a random jury to make a judgment call on).

I'm not as worried about techs planting the images because even among people willing to break the law to make money, this is an area often considered too immoral to touch and the consequences are massive if caught. I'm more worried about people over reporting images and people having lives ruined over the mere allegations and investigations. Photos of your own kids running around a water sprinkler on a hot summer day can be enough for some busy body to call inappropriate. Even fully clothed images fall on the copine (spelling?) scale. Or maybe there is some films of people who specialize in looking young, but who are of age (I remember a court case where a court expert testified than someone was clearly underage, until that person showed up and proved they were of age and were a professional in the industry; imagine what could've happened if she hadn't shown up).

What are the tax implications of owning your own coins when trading, compared to someone else owning the coins but giving you rights to it?

My concerns are the other issues.

What happens when children are stripped from families for normal images?

What happens when teens are caught for normal behavior?

What happens when people are put in prison over drawings?

All three of these have already happened.

And what happens when this gets automated and large entities like the RIAA/MPAA get other illegal content added to these searches?

Why would you tell them, until such a time that you need to tell them? They have strong deterrent value, but there is no need to let others know until such a time as the deterrent value is needed.

it seems fair to say that it's at least enough bullshit that it should probably never be used as evidentiary.

Doesn't this also apply to eyewitness testimony, if not many other forms of evidence?

So there is incentive for corruption with both public and private labs. The solution will require something far more drastic, which I'm not sure the population is willing to support given how many people don't like to use science when it disagrees with their emotional stances. As long as the population wants tough on crime stances, and are willing to dehumanize anyone charged (much less wrongly convicted), then the system is giving them what they want. So how can we change the voters so that they demand a more just legal system?

Certain industries have a much slimmer margin than others.

I don't see how this has any impact. Either the companies that exist will find a way to make the market work, or they will leave and a new company will.

Seems fine to me. When I make a loss for a year, I still have to pay income tax. And by making it apply to all local business regardless of where the company is located, they can't hide from it if they want to do business with the market in the area. And if they don't, someone else will.

Alternately, people who give advice likely experienced similar issues and overcame them.

Think about this like if someone was talking about fiscal matters. If you had someone who worked their way into the middle class telling poor people helpful tips to do the same, what is the chance they are overlooking factors in their success that aren't easily replicated for others or which was more based on luck?

I grew up in the middle of rural nowhere where most my old classmates hold minimum wage jobs if they have jobs. I worked hard to get ahead, but I was also assisted by things outside of my control. Natural talents and lucky opportunities being the two largest ones. Socially it's the opposite.

For example, contacting a stranger to ask for a ride can be as difficult for someone as learning a new programming language. Some can do it with no difficulty, others have a major block. What happens when someone tries a new hobby and realizes they are still isolated, even from the community of others engaged in the same hobby?

Underlying a lot of this, be it for making friends or finding a career, is the issue of learned helplessness.

Sorry if I sound rude...I don't intend it. It's just so hard to hear the same "just get a hobby" or "just make friends online" or "you must just be doing it wrong since it works for me" stuff repeatedly. If it were something that worked for me I'd be doing it because this life is pure misery for me from most all angles.

I have found it enlightening to try to view fiscal and relational matters with the lens of the other. Imagine if I made a post telling a poor individual that they should "just go learn some job skills", "learn to code", or "they must be doing it wrong because I've found it easy to get a decent job". Such a post would be viewed as profane. Being a libertarian on fiscal matters gets me labeled as heartless, yet I find libertarian is the best approximate description of the system everyone operates on with regards to relational matters. I've heard many people describe the libertarian approach to helping others as "I've got mine, F you", which is the way I feel treated as a 'socially poor' person. To even bring up the topic of relationship resources/needs being unequal has gotten me some very negative labels in other online communities.

Are we counting reviews by pushing the same narrative that was being pushed by the people he originally offended? What I've seen is a number of scientists (in the specific fields that are related to it) backing his work, others attacking it, and all agreeing it doesn't rise to the muster of a peer reviewed paper/meta-analysis (though that seems a pretty insane bar to begin with).

You can. Last I read, men who don't have children end up making less than men who do, and for young men in cities it has become less than women in the same demographic.

What happens if they are caught before they have a change of heart. Say a kid is caught 10 steps from school grounds with a weapon and intent to attack the school. Would you say they haven't committed a crime since there is still 10 more steps that they could've had a change of heart before they were on the school grounds?

Well, the same is done based on race,

While there are many parole officers who use race to make unfair judgments, this is considered wrong by the system and work is taken to stop it (one of the reasons systems like the one I mentioned was being adopted). Compare this to the system I was talking about where it was recognized official policy and considered good, right, and just. Imagine if some police department came out and openly admitting that their official policy is to use race to punish someone harsher for the exact same crime.

The systems also encode in existing discrimination.

For example, women are less likely to be investigated for a crime, charged with a crime, convicted of a crime, and receive lower sentences when convicted. In some cases (especially involving sex crimes) there is explicit sex based bias written into the law itself. This means a lot of data on who commits crimes has a strong sexist bias, so any automated algorithms have a strong possibility of reinforcing the existing bias. The same will happen for race, class, and many other factors.

There are also cases where society wants an incorrect bias put into place. For example, parole risk assessment software vastly underrates the threat of certain classes of criminals compared to what society and police think it should because there are major myths about rehabilitation and recidivism that are as popular as they are wrong.

Perhaps the worst part is a total lack of transparency in the existing algorithms that determine risk. With enough data you can reverse engineer it, but that doesn't give the same impact as seeing the rules themselves. For example, one parole group I developed software for had a risk rating that appeared to automatically rate women a risk level lower for the same crime. Imagine if the same was done based on race.

There is also the issue that often times preparing to commit one crime involves committing other crimes. It's something of a scale.

Consider the following cases:

Arresting the guy who kidnapped someone.

Arresting the guy in the act of trying to kidnap someone.

Arresting the guy who set out to kidnap someone.

Arresting the guy who is preparing his home to hold a kidnapped victim and is identifying a target.

Arresting the guy who researched how to kidnap someone.

Arresting the guy who has expressed strong interest in kidnapping someone.

Which of these is wrong? I think we would generally agree the last two are, but which of the middle ones do we draw a line at?

Having been the 'goto build guy', I've had to cut people off who were seeking me out for very self explanatory issues. For example, when the build threw an error because it couldn't find a file, pointing out where in the error to get the file, but the person seeking help didn't even try reading the error. Basically I limit my intervention to prevent enabling helplessness. The amount of help given also depends on the role of the person as well, junior devs get more hand holding then senior devs.

I don't understand why my health should be at risk for something I don't produce.

A modern society requires some amount of pollution to function. This has been reduced, and we should work to continue to reduce it, but generating/storing/transporting energy (as well as many other activities) generate some pollution. Some of it we directly benefit from (powering our homes, getting food on our tables), but others are indirect (pollution to produce/transport medical equipment when we aren't the ones using it). Given this, one can think of it as a tax on your health for the benefit of society.

Of course there are issues with ensuring people pay their fair share, that people aren't over burdened with the taxation, and that the revenue is being efficiently utilized.

Regardless of how the job market is currently, I see it as having a set amount of 'difficulty capital' that can be spent. The fewer openings, the less of this resource you have, but otherwise everything works the same.

Given there is a limited supply, regardless of size, one should try to spend it optimally. That means being difficult when it comes to pay and benefits, and spending some of this capital when trying to determine the work/life balance. Using it to be insulting or patronizing is effectively wasting it with no return.

It seems to me that a lot of government laws are created assuming people will continue to do what they have been regardless of how the rules changed. The idea that people will do something different in response to a law, like switching from few full time positions to lots of part time positions to avoid paying benefits, seems to be completely dismissed.

It reminds me of therapist mandated reporting of child abuse making it so those most at risk of committing child abuse no longer seeking therapy, leading to an overall increase in harm. Or the HIV laws in California that resulted in people refusing to get tested. And it makes me think that limiting ones ability to own a gun based on mental health will result in people being less likely to seek mental help. Why is there such dismissal of secondary effects of laws even after seeing them occur?

When people who are receiving help are those I remember in grade school ignoring school work to focus on bullying others (myself included), I definitely feel this way. There is no reallocation of social resources that I lack due to previously mentioned experiences, so I feel there shouldn't be reallocation of fiscal resources to help those that participated. (And I use 'feel' because I know this isn't a rational line of thought.)

Having a house to live in should be.

I think their is a confusion of rights and duties occurring here.

You have a right to own a house. What you are speaking about is others having a duty to provide you with a house. In particular, we need to be clear on exactly what the duty to provide housing is. For example, there is a significant difference between the government offering safe homeless shelters because society has a duty to provide some shelter, and legally being allowed to continue living in a rental unit that you stop paying for, because this constitutes a duty of the owner providing you with that particular house.

Sex is a common idea that helps establish the difference between a right and a duty. Banning gay individuals from having sex is wrong because it violates their right to sex. But no one has to have sex with another person because there is no duty to provide sex.

If it deters people from buying properties for renting to others by making it not as lucrative, it keeps the prices down and makes housing affordable for many.

There is also the possibility of regulatory capture. It prevents someone who happens to own two properties from being a competitor in providing rental services while companies that specialize in it and have many properties of the right value to be able to spread out the risk are not threatened by the laws.

As someone looking to buy a house, I've considered the ability to rent it should I seek to move verses having to sell it, and it seems that tenant rights where I live (which are much weaker than French law) increase my risk of renting far more than it increases the risk of a company specializing in renting. Its weird to be in a position where I rent but feel there isn't enough protection while at the same time there is so much protection that it strongly impacts the logic of if I should buy.

Microsoft tried really hard to push for single player online DRM too with the launch of the xbox 1.

Another issue with this push is that online DRM really hurts people who live in areas where internet connections are non-existent or extremely limited. Forced updates on dial-up or satellite internet with 2GB a month caps are not compatible. This move discriminates against those who live in these areas, and while for adults it is their choice to live where they do, for children it is not.

I see this in areas of life more important than gaming as well. These days kids get sent home with homework that requires an internet connection to complete, despite these rural areas being so far from any public access that there is no way for the child to do their work. This creates a situation of helplessness for the child, which has the potential to lead them into a situation of learned helplessness with school work because the school system assumes infrastructure that doesn't exist for all.

I feel like its the opposite approach. It's a true MVP, and the current iteration of the product is viable with only the current approaches against obsolescence. There really is a lot of stuff there that repairs us and tries to keep us alive, they just have some flaws that are being randomly worked out.