WhyOhWhyQ

I thought I was immune to the dance video trend, but then I encountered the slick back slide and lost my job, my wife, and my kids

Why is it fluff? I know nothing about Prince other than that he changed his name to a symbol (and that is because Eminem told me). Knowing that he used symbols in other ways could add context to his choice to change his name to a symbol.

"Tomino also lamented that he had noticed a fundamental change in his own creation over time. In the case of Gundam, however, the creator says it’s been driven by audience taste rather than shifting production techniques."

The Wind Rises makes me cry every time. It resonates with me in specific personal ways, however.

Why do you think this is post-scarcity?

I like the AskHistorians subreddit, but I haven't found much else. I think AskHistorians and Stack Exchange have a somewhat high "barrier to entry" for actually answering questions, which might be part of it. (I mean this in the sense that you're going to get down-voted to hell if you don't really know what you're doing on Stack Exchange, and I think you actually have to be a historian to answer on AskHistorians.)

HN is more of a bad habit for me than anything else, unfortunately. I end up lurking comment sections just to disagree with everyone and turn it off.

What's wrong with Stack Exchange? I'm a Math Stack Exchange user and I think it's absolutely amazing for the knowledge seeker. It's a repository of high quality questions and answers that you're not going to answer yourself. You can instantly access hundreds of the smartest people in the world. You can spend a week thinking about something difficult and frequently get it answered in under an hour, sometimes 10 minutes. It's truly amazing.

I'm also an academic, if that matters for some reason, and I think it doesn't matter how many people didn't understand something. They must have been confusing themselves by seeking answers in the wrong direction. What matters is that the resolution I've given truly is simple. You have a 1/3 chance of being in a situation where changing doors is unfavorable, you have a 2/3 chance of being in a situation where changing doors is favorable. If you picked the door with the car, which happens with 1/3 probability, at the next stage switching is a bad option. If you picked a door with the goat, which happens with 2/3 probability, at the next stage switching is a good option. This is objectively simple, regardless of what a large number of people might think.

I also don't think changing the problem to an analogous one is as helpful as this direct and simple solution. Using 100 doors could mean multiple things. Maybe it means at the next stage you have 99 doors left. Maybe it means at the next stage you have 2 doors left. Why should I think either is the correct analog? You can just see the simple answer I've stated and be done with it.

The Monty Hall problem has a simple resolution. At the beginning you had a 1/3 chance of picking the good door, and 2/3 chance of picking a bad door, meaning you probably picked a bad door at the start, so you should switch.

Can it be proved that any work generated with one of these models (i.e., music generation, visual art generation, writing generation) isn't blatantly stealing from something in the dataset? If the dataset is large enough, how can you know that you're not going to be sued at a later date for publishing work generated with one of these models?

Second this. Even if you don't remove the other features, removing the comments alone is a godsend.

People should be arrested for "Thoughtcrime" if their thought crime is the assertion that they are about to kill people.

"People are not their ideas."

I disagree with this. If people are not their ideas, then why arrest people who join terrorist groups or write manifestos saying they want to harm people? If people are not their ideas, then why give people prizes for good ideas?

"Never." Will you criticize a mass shooter? Or a person who wants to see animals harmed for their entertainment? Certain ideas are so dangerous and terrible that simply reasoning with the people holding them is not protection enough.

How "far" from the training art is the resulting generated art? Do the generated cards have features which are recognizably lifted from the training data?

'Bells' are pretty un-specific as far as specialization goes. The average person actually knows what a bell is. The PhD theses in mathematics are likely far less applicable and far more specific. Check out the titles on arxiv and let me know if you think any of these are less specific than 'bells'.

https://arxiv.org/list/math/new

"Whether it's a waste of time or not, I don't think it really impedes the serious math learners."

I thought about this for a bit. Suppose we kept the number of teachers (or courses) fixed, but eliminated the gen-ed math requirement. You would end up with a better teacher : student ratio, and I believe this would benefit the serious math learners. And so by not doing this, I believe we may be implicitly impeding them.

My guess is there are lots of ways wasted resources (and I do believe any class which could be perceived as "rocks for jocks"-type is wasted resources, and may actually be a damaging use of resources - I say this as a TA for the pre-major courses*, where the students are constantly and overwhelmingly negative about the whole thing) are implicitly impeding the serious students.

(And, as a positive note, I think the students not characterized as "serious students" for the above discussion could have a chance at meaningful and valuable contribution elsewhere, if we weren't putting so much effort into wasting their time.)

Edit: Changed "lower level courses" to "pre-major courses"

I was really thinking about the lack of 1-2 years of general education classes before a major can be declared, at university, with that particular remark. I know this to be the case in several European countries, and India; in India you choose a specialization at the "11th-12th" grade level I believe. I did assume that to be the case in China, though it looks like Chinese universities may actually spend a lot of time on gen-ed classes. I'll have to ask my Chinese friends about their experience. I think you declare a major in the first year of university in South Korea, but I could be mistaken. If anybody wants to shed light on this by sharing when the major/specialization is declared in their country, please do.

I do know there are countries which allow specialization at the high school level (India, Italy, Romania I believe).

I found this interesting list, which is more complete than I can be on this. I don't think it proves that countries with great mathematical cultures always allow specialization in high school, but it does have some examples of this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_secondary_education_sy...

What did I say which was ideological?

I am. I'm still curious about what I've said that you think is ideological.

There were several mistakes, at least in your writing, which are well-outlined in my post history.

I'd be interested in trying out the following idea: How about we don't mandate mathematics and science courses in high school, and especially in early college? The benefits of this are two-fold. The people who want to pursue other interests are freer to do so. And, more importantly to me as a mathematics graduate student, the people who are interested in math and science can go much much faster, and attain a higher level earlier on. As far as I can tell, most other countries with successful mathematics cultures operate more like this. In my math PhD program, the foreign students almost universally arrived better prepared (more knowledgeable and skilled) than the Americans. I believe the gen-ed requirements and general lack of specialization in American education may have a role in this.

"Both who are ideologically opposed to my arguments."

I assume you're talking about me. I am curious about this. Which of your arguments have I expressed ideological opposition towards? The only ideology I've expressed, I believe, is that overrepresentation is not an acceptable justification for discrimination. Otherwise I've pointed out mistakes in your thinking and writing.

"And if you read that one sentence in the context of the sentences that precede it, it is quite clear that the sentence means exactly what was written."

I disagree, but who really cares anyways. Have a nice one!

Edit: "This is a general statement. It isn't limited to higher education."

Alright, that's cool.

I want to point out that scare quotes connote doubt or disdain or sarcasm, so it seems like a mischaracterization to say they "literally wrote that", as if you two are in agreement.

You're sort of subtly evolving your argument here, but earlier you reduced Asian discrimination to the Harvard problem, as you say, so for this reason I assumed higher education was the focus.

Forgive me for continuing this thread, but the original poster does not seem to imply that overrepresentation is the reason we don't focus on Asians. They actually use scare quotes when using the word 'overrepresented'. You also disregarded the part of their answer which doesn't seem to include doubt. The full quote is: "Because Asians are "overrepresented" and serve as a counterexample to the narrative that systemic discrimination can't be overcome with hard work."

And if their use of scare quotes is to express doubt that "overrepresentation" is a good justification for discrimination, then I agree.

I also don't believe gay people are underrepresented in higher education, relative to their overall population in the United States, so I don't find that part of your argument compelling. I've found this quote with a brief Google search,

"The three surveys of American adults consistently indicated that gay men are far more likely than straight men to have graduated from high school or college, with just over half of gay men having earned a college degree, compared with about 35 percent of straight men. Some 6 percent of gay men have a Ph.D., J.D. or M.D. — a rate 50 percent higher than that of straight men."

From this article: https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/straight-men-face-e...

As much as wokeness is about inclusivity, it is also about redefining out-groups and, usually implicitly but often explicitly, justifying prejudice against them. I'd personally be appreciative of less of that negative activity.

The person you're responded to stated: "There is no discussion on the Chinese Exclusion Act and Japanese concentration camps of WWII." You're making their point by disregarding that bit.