HN user
My understanding:
1 = "do all of you have a ride (perhaps shared)?"
2 = "do each of you have your own ride?"
So if Bob, Jim, and Jane are all riding in Bob's car then "y'all have a ride". But if all three of them have their own car, then "all y'all have a ride".
ymmv.
maximizing prediction accuracy is inherently unbiased
This assumes that you're actually maximizing prediction accuracy, rather than taking the easiest route toward sufficiently high predictive power.
Not-so-hypothetical: you can invest $N and create a profitable model that (unfairly and inaccurately) discriminates directly based upon race, or you can invest $N*M and create a profitable model that does not discriminate on race (regardless of whether its results are racially equitable). Given the choice, a lot of people will choose the $N approach.
I'm not sure that neural network based AI can do that though.
Generating human-readable explanations from a machine learning algorithm or NN is probably an impossible problem to solve in full generality.
However, for many particular systems, doing so should be feasible.
Definitely.
Misaligned incentives combined with poor oversight/training?
I can't imagine this is actually a recruiting pitch that's enshrined in company policy.
WRT CS, my comment was meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive. FWIW I agree with you, but what I said is largely true of CS curriculum in the US.
I'm not sure whether I agree with you regarding math. I think pre-requisites should reflect required knowledge accurately, and should leave required maturation to the student and his/her instructor. Requiring the calculus sequence prior to courses that contain no calculus strikes me as a silly historical accident, for example.
That largely depends on the depth of the engagement.
Reading Das Kapital should be an exercise in critical thinking, regardless of one's political persuasion. For example, where in the software industry is the labor theory of value a reasonable model? Where is it not reasonable? Why? Answering these questions requires what any reasonable person would call critical thinking.
Conversely, hearing a bunch of passionate lectures about worker's rights movements is considerably less enlightening...
Economics is also the source and home of some of the most bullshit-prone theories and explanations. That's why I ultimately dropped my Economics major. It's full of people that got into the field precisely due to their passion for of their highly politicized opinions. Those people generate elaborate theories, data sets, and models to justify their almost always a priori beliefs -- always under the guise of supposedly rational debate.
I would argue -- as a non-physicist and non-biologist and non-chemist -- that physics or biology or chemistry should take the crown. All explain historical phenomena via models and also extend those models to the present day and even the future, allowing eminently testable predictions. Additionally, the questions these fields pose are typically but not always far less likely to ground out in political preference and are therefore less susceptible (though not invincible) to bullshit.
Scientists may lack resources and proper incentives, but it's pretty bold to claim that they lack the ability to propose new testable/semi-testable theories...
It's really useful to distinguish technical fields from engineering and especially natural sciences fields once you get past K12. STEM is not actually a very coherent grouping.
Almost all CS programs are relatively flat, but many science programs have longer chains of linear or parallel pre-reqs.
Math programs differ from both because long chains of pre-reqs in Math often correspond to required maturation rather than required knowledge (e.g. the Calc sequence as a pre-req for algebra courses).
On the contrary, the answer to such a question perfectly illustrates the sort of critical thinking that is taught in a history degree program but not necessarily in a technicaly degree program.
After reading enough about the history of mathematics, it is nearly impossible to arrive at the conclusion that today's mathematicians do not have their own set of ideological beliefs. However, obtaining high scores in a mathematics degree program is easily achievable without seeing these beliefs as ideological ("that's just how it's done" is a profoundly common and profoundly ideological answer to questions of the form "but why not do things this other way" -- especially in upper-level undergraduate mathematics).
Technical fields -- especially those closer to technology than to natural science -- can also be extraordinarily ideological. Both in curriculum and (especially!) in culture.
For a perfect example of true ideology in action, look no further than these comments -- from members of a field renowned for epic religiousity over such comparatively inconsequential topics as programming languages, text editors, and software license preferences -- decrying the proneness of other fiends to ideological attachments!
I find this true today as well.
It has literally always been true, since the very beginning of the country.
"brilliant computer scientist" or "will cure cancer,"
These are already covered by eb-2 anyways.
No, because as a nation we are actively investing in each funded Ph.D. we train.
If we have too many PhD's then we should decrease the number of PhD's the federal government funds. But as my original parent observed, paying hundreds of thousands to train someone just to kick them out of the country is silly.
(Also, I think downward pressure on PhD salaries has very little to do with over-supply, but that's for another article.)
In many thousands of cases, you are also wrong about buying the degree: research grants to universities fund those students' tuition and stipends, in exchange for good work.
I think your parent was primarily referring to masters programs, not phd programs.
FWIW I am pro-immigration in general, but I do worry about expensive diploma mill masters programs becoming a way for wealthy immigrants to buy preferential treatment. It's a legitimate concern with any "masters == green card" scheme.
That said, anyone who opposes such a scheme for Ph.D. students or for highly quality masters programs is insane.
So?
So, the point of these programs isn't citizen enrichment. The point is job training.
Consider: philosophy is also intellectually demanding, but I don't see "Philosophy for All" educational initiatives.
I think a lot of people who oppose CS Ed investments are self-interested, but that doesn't mean there aren't genuine problems with government policies that tie themselves too closely to today's labor market.
If we're not careful, "learn to code and you'll have a job" will be tomorrow's equivalent of "get a college degree and you'll have a job".
Most important reason: a lot of potential reviewers wouldn't like that model for a variety of reasons.
Reviewing, generally, isn't prestigious or well-rewarded. So potential reviewers need to be kept as happy as possible. Internet forums have a lot of frustrating problems that IRL conversations don't have, especially for people who wouldn't otherwise use an internet forum.
You have to remember that the people who enjoy participating in written conversations online -- even young people who grew up on the internet -- is still a small fragment of the population.
There's a difference between losing engineering talent and not being able to get engineering talent.
we should fine Boeing because their planes aided in 7/11
Those gas station corn dogs are a crime against humanity but a fine seems excessive.
If you discount all the hypothetical environmental costs that at best guess are just that, guesses
That VW's behavior caused some environmental impact is not a guess. The guess is only to the extent of the damage.
it would have been cheaper for VW if they would have been killing the consumers of their cars.
That is ridiculous. The death toll would be many times 9/11.
USG would've seized by force every asset inside its borders and a lot (or all) outside of its borders. Not only of VW but of any contractor that might've may had something to do with it. For starters.
Uber is constantly praised for skirting or directly violating state or local government laws
And also constantly criticized, and sometimes shut down.
But more to the point, violating different government regulations (by extension, different laws) has different outcomes. Why is that surprising/concerning, again? Federal environmental regulations SHOULD be treated more seriously than local taxi rules.
This is the government's heavy hand making an example of VW and it's violation of regulation.
On only his can we agree. The message is clear: fines for willfully ignoring environmental regulation are not a cost of business.
Meh.
Terms of art will always borrow and re-define colloquial language. Do programmers aspire to 1984 because they re-appropriate the word functional?
Defining an explicit list of "terrorist organization"s may or may not seek to redefine the term terrorist, but it is not tantamount to willful restatement of established historical fact (a la "always been at war").
No one would seriously would assert that the term-of-art definition of terrorist == the dictionary denotation of terrorist. That is the meaningful line in the sand between mere rhetorical ploy and outright democratic totalitarianism.
Ostensibly facial ticks or whatever.
Actually country of origin and maybe skin color / attire.
That's the function of pseudo-science bullshit -- you can ignore civil liberties and pretend you're not.
The term "terrorist" doesn't have a single fixed meaning. It's context-dependent. Pretending it's not context-dependent willfully misinterprets the speaker.
A lot of words function like this. E.g., "believer".
When a christian asks me if I'm a believer I might say yes.
But then I'd probably say no if a wiccan asked me the same question.
Obviously, that doesn't mean that everyone (or no one) is a believer once you fix some additional context.
So in summary, according to the sense in which the USFG is using the term, you're simply not a terrorist.
Everything else about your post is just a slippery slope argument, which may or may not be valid, but certainly isn't well-substantiated.
Could you link to something that verifies your claim? I don't know German well enough to find something on my own (sorry).
That's an excellent example of a technical truth.
prefer Dominos
IDK. I order Dominos a lot because I sometimes work weird hours and literally nothing else that delivers is open. That doesn't mean I prefer Dominos. I definitely don't. But it delivers to a large geographic region almost 24/7.
But the stickiness of geography for finance and autos are very different. Replicating a segment of London's financial sector in Frankfurt is easier than replicating BMW/VW to UK.
Exactly! Britain vehemently protested the US invasion of Iraq while France and other EU countries egged them on. \s
My argument isn't that "professors are paid too much."
Well, okay.
It's that we have too much higher education.
This seems well-covered in other threads. I'll just say two things:
1. A secondary education from a typical US high school is woefully insufficient for most well-paying jobs in the USA, and this is only likely to become more true over time.
2. Employers are on balance unwilling to invest in educating and training workers.
The argument about what to do is one we should perhaps have, and has been had in other threads, but it is most important to realize the need for something beyond high school.