noskynethere

Is soldier versus civilian really such a different thing? It seems more like a gradient, to me -- you support your country by building bombs / planes / etc., that's very different than just living peacefully on your own farm.

It's important to recall that every nation's entire economy was subsumed in the war effort. American "civilians" wanted to kill Japanese; Japanese "civlians" probably hated Americans (there was a lot of racial prejudice in that era, on both sides).

Civilians may not have been combatants, but they were very much a part of the war machinery, and as such became a strategic target.

Not if you seek objectivity. You have your own biases, which do not go away because you live/interact there.

It is common for people closest to a subject to have the biggest blind spots.

the wonderful nature of our own biases, perceptive and cognitive, is that it very difficult for us to see them.

Can you elaborate a bit more?

Could he not do other people's jobs, not do them as well?

If he was correct in his assessment, was the issue that it affected morale?

Right now, I feel I could do maybe 15 peoples jobs. Not as well, certainly unless I were full time, and so I cede control to them as long as they can explain their decisions.

But often I feel like that statement, even if true, bodes poorly for the company. Is that because of how employees respond to that attitude?

I may be misunderstanding your point, but you appear to suggest that union workers are at more of a risk than non-union. The link you provided (addressing only mining unions, not all unions) says exactly the opposite:

"Looking at these data, only in 2001 were there disproportionately more fatalities (39 percent) in union mines (unions represented 30 percent of coal miners that year) than in non-union mines. Recent figures are more typical. In 2006 through 2009 union mines accounted for 10, 6, 10 and 5 percent, respectively, of all coal mine deaths, but over that period unions represented 15 to 22 percent of coal miners. For those years unionized miners appear to have been one-fourth to one-half as likely to be killed in mine incidents as their non-union peers."

Worth mentioning, but this isn't exactly true for baseball players: "Baseball players (stars made middle-class salaries before the union)."

They got nothing like the millions in the game today, and ownership was taking 75% of the revenue (today it's closer to 55%).

Babe Ruth famously signed a contract that paid him more than the president ($80k in the early 1930s was a LOT of money). When asked about it, he said "Well, I had a better year than he did."

Not intended to diminish your point, I just wanted to share a funny store about one of the more interesting characters from the game's history.

What do the current users say they like about the app? What do they not like?

Communication stuff is an strongly viral scene, why isn't it spreading that way?

How are users using your app in a way you didn't expect? (This can indicate your core idea is good with just a little tweak to it... read about paypal's pivot in jessica livingston's book)

Would you recommend 4 hour body to someone who is generally put off by Ferriss' writing style and ego-centricity?

I'm outside my depth here, but isn't that what hierarchical learning is? (I think it's popularly called "deep learning", which I assume means the neural nets have depth?)

From what I've read, we aren't going more than a few dozens of levels deep. But it also sounds like this technique is very successful in image recognition.

Am I incorrect in my understanding?

I see a lot of responses that seem to reflect what I consider a misunderstanding of the real advantage of speed.

It's not to get the same amount of work done in a shorter time (the management fallacy referenced in some of the comments).

The point of speed is to increase the number of feedback opportunities. Each feedback datum allows for slight course corrections / confirmation of original hypothesis.

By analogy, think of it like sample size. If you accept time as a primary constraint, then faster iterations (even if you accomplish less!) tend to give you more samples. More samples mean less variance.

Making decisions on a better model (less variance) is very appealing to me.

They try, usually with simple probabilistic techniques and input element-wise transforms, to mimic some function that produces approximations for a given set of inputs and outputs

It's my understanding that this is basically how the brain works. My personal theory is that enough of these "dumb" inputs, wired correctly together, leads to emergent behavior that is consciousness.