1,602 karma · joined October 25, 2018
For everything else they'd have to create a market from nowhere. And people would have to be willing to donate their time and content to Genius to make it work.
Nobody is saying that's not important. But the field as a whole began before mechanical computers were invented or practical, and there are several subfields that are basically indistinguishable from mathematics.
But it's certainly not the study of what mechanical computers can do. Among other things, mechanical computers all have bounded resources unlike Turing machines.
Harold Abelson points out in one of his lectures [0] that computer science isn't about computers any more than biology is about microscopes.
From that perspective, it is clear that Turing found an existing discipline of computer science and made major contributions to it. But it doesn't really seem right to say that he invented or founded computer science.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-J_xL4IGhJA&list=PLE18841CAB...
My comment exactly addressed that claim.
Now you seem to be asking if you eliminate bargaining power, would supply and demand dominate? I guess so? In the same sense that if you eliminate higher terms then sin(x) is just the identity function.
But why even ask the question? It's not relevant to the discussion of whether the terms you eliminated are key.
This is explained in the same paragraph. Adam's theory is that the wealthy business owners collude against the workers while at the same time lobbying for laws that make it illegal for workers to combine. He says that these conflicts frequently play out violently and rarely end well for the workers.
This is explained in in Wealth of Nations in Chapter 8, "On The Wages of Labour."
More generally, Smith seems not to have been read by many economists, or at least his theory is rather different from what is ascribed to him by textbooks.
I think it's fair to criticize a study if you think the headline (or the popular writeup) oversells it. However, my reading here is that the abstract basically says
"It's possible that W, X, Y, and Z are different in our populations. However we can't conclude that because after doing the appropriate controls, we only find that Y and Z differ."
The existence of Y and Z differences is itself sufficient to justify the language in the headline. What the authors are pointing out is that there are some obvious other variables to check, and they checked them, but their measurements weren't precise enough to detect differences in all of them.
> Have 10 rastafarie influenced people in the group and sure you will notice difference in the speech pattern.
But obviously this is not what they did. Again, this fails the basic sniff test of whether your criticism uses concepts more difficult than day 1 of statistics 101.
Yes it is possible that the cannabis sample is biased in some way. But the point is it's not biased in any obvious way. The same is true of any scientific study. All of Newtonian physics was biased against objects moving near light speed. That doesn't make it absurd or bad, it just means you had to keep measuring things until you found out what the bias was.
> And difference does not necessarily mean "worse".
Sure, but in this case it does. Intensity was decreased and the speech was more effortful.
> And of course, how much the "recreational use" of the person involved was.
"the researchers recruited people who reported low-to-moderate cannabis use" according to https://www.psypost.org/2021/09/cannabis-use-linked-to-subtl....
This is exactly like I said. In fact nothing you say contradicts anything I've said, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
Adding more participants would measure the same subtle difference with increasing precision, but it's unclear what the point of that would be.*
The next logical step is to look further into voice effects, since the voice effect (along with the similar motor effects) are just easily measurable proxies for other changes going on in the brain.
Generally, if one's criticism of a study uses only concepts you learn about in the first day of intro to statistics (e.g. "correlation does not imply causation" or "there are only N participants"), then chances are pretty low that one has discovered a serious flaw that was missed by the authors and reviewers.
*We can get into a wider discussion about power here, but that tends to be pretty subtle and nothing at all about the power of the study merits it being called absurd.
The study used participants without a history of other drug use.
And having the effect appear with only 31 randomly sampled users means the effect is easy to detect. This is a normal number of participants for this sort of study.
You see this sort of motivated reaction to a study every time there is one that triggers a population.
That is not how science works.
And a study isn't absurd just because you don't like its conclusions.
"It's okay honey, that man needed a psychological safety blanket.'
It doesn't include other things described in the paragraph that the IRA did, like organizing Trump rallies and running troll farms where they posed as Americans on social media.
It also doesn't cover things like paying for the operation to infiltrate the NRA etc.
And then of course there could be stuff we don't know about
Yes it does. The dictionaries have added the second figurative meaning:
why not bash and curl?
On the other hand, token bucket implementations are hard to understand and hard to debug. And an ambiguous variable name can cause trouble because some devs might think it "obviously" refers to enough budget for some other slice of requests.
I think my preferred solution here is to extract the condition into a boolean function with a long name like HasBudgetForAllRequests. This solves the long variable name issue and also gives you a useful place to add to your budget computation logic if you need to.
I do disagree with you tactically, though. The percentage of the adults in my country (the US) who have received one dose is closer to 2/3. That leaves about 1/3 of eligible people unvaccinated. This is roughly the same 1/3 of people who don't believe in evolution, and the same 1/3 that believe that Covid is a hoax, or that you can beat it by taking horse dewormer.
Trying to fight this by winning over hearts and minds is like when serious scientists try to debate evolution with creationists. It's a waste of everyone's time. The only way to get the vaccine numbers up is to make vaccines mandatory for school, employment, travel, etc like other vaccines are.
The abusive husband has a reasonable fear of being abandoned. The white supremacist has a reasonable fear of losing their jobs to competition. Etc etc
Being able to give a casual explanation for the behavior doesn't justify it. At some point people have an obligation to not harm others.
Mocking their deaths won't convince them to become reasonable, but you can't blame people for feeling schadenfreude.
The target audience for telemarketers is more than likely thankful for them. There is a lot out there, it is good to be told about the bits of it that make life better.
For most of history, when a society gets richer, the rich enslave more people and consolidate power, and then ultimately try to be worshiped as gods until the masses push back enough, and then become content with simply having absolute earthly power.
Maybe this trend is over, but given the amount of effort into putting out "God Emperor" memes in the US, my guess is that some people are at least willing to still try at it.
At any rate, I'm not sure a graph from the US starting at 1950 is sufficient for establishing historical trends.
I'm not sure there's any real empirical evidence for this in the absolute way you stated it.
There are plenty of highly productive creative people who do 4 hours of highly focused work a day and then spend the rest of their time walking around a garden. If your goal is to produce great lasting work that seems to be a formula that works a lot.
Working up to your limit is useful for other scenarios, like where you want to crank out much more routine work. If you want to get promoted in a structured environment like a big tech company, then this strategy works well.
There are definitely cultures that value working long hours. You see it both in business and in academia, and I'm not aware of any evidence that it's better than the system where you empower workers to focus on as they need to and then take the time they need to recharge.
Except it's not one button, it's 12 of them and they all use different UI elements with different names and syntax, and you can't change one of them because doing so would break some unrelated business critical class.
EDIT: I figured it out. I needed to install speech-dispatcher.
On Ubuntu
> sudo apt install speech-dispatcher
I really have no idea. I also don't know whether rebranding is the right choice.
But they have the code, the infrastructure, the marketing department, and all the revenue from their adult services days. So that seems like a pretty big head start over just a clone of their web UI.