• 0 Posts
  • 52 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 27th, 2023

help-circle
  • It’s certainly not as bad as the problems generative AI tend to have, but it’s still difficult to avoid strange and/or subtle biases.

    Very promising technology, but likely to be good at diagnosing problems in Californian students and very hit-and-miss with demographics which don’t tend to sign up for studies in silicon valley


  • I think the trick is to make an effort to cover as many possibilities as can be dealt with by a reasonable effort (definition of “reasonable” varies significantly by context) when setting up something which you expect the general public to interact with. Not so much assuming that any given person has some disability you can’t see, but that any large group of people will have at least a few.

    Interactions with a specific person are another matter entirely, as you point out. There, I think the best you can do is roll with it if someone tells you that they’re unable to do something without subjecting them to interrogation or scepticism


  • Sure, but there are far more things which will kill the entire person at the same dose they’ll kill the cancer than things which can be carefully controlled by choosing the right dose.

    These studies which claim to kill cancer in a petri dish usually turn out to be the former, because not killing the host is the difficult part







  • X^0 and 0! aren’t actually special cases though, you can reach them logically from things which are obvious.

    For X^0: you can get from X^(n) to X^(n-1) by dividing by X. That works for all n, so we can say for example that 2³ is 2⁴/2, which is 16/2 which is 8. Similarly, 2¹/2 is 2⁰, but it’s also obviously 1.

    The argument for 0! is basically the same. 3! is 1x2x3, and to go to 2! you divide it by 3. You can go from 1! to 0! by dividing 1 by 1.

    In both cases the only thing which is special about 1 is that any number divided by itself is 1, just like any number subtracted from itself is 0









  • MartianSands@sh.itjust.workstoComic Strips@lemmy.world"Politics"
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    149
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    It was pointed out to me a while back that the paradox of tolerance is only a paradox if you consider tolerance to be a philosophical position.

    In fact, we don’t treat it like that. We treat it as a social contract, in which context it is no paradox at all to say that if you aren’t tolerant then other people aren’t obliged to tolerate you in turn



  • For once, I don’t think that particular charge is entirely inconsistent with the dictionary definition.

    He’s accused of killing a member of the public in the hope of frightening everyone else in that person’s position into taking some kind of action.

    I think the law says something about killing for a “political purpose”, with the goal of changing some kind of public policy or behaviour. That’s not an unreasonable interpretation of what happened, I think.

    Unfortunately that means they get to use the laws which were written to deal with mass murder and bombing public spaces, which I don’t think is particularly appropriate but doesn’t seem out of line with the law