Even if there are, wouldn't the process of finding them effectively mirror moral relativism?..
Assuming that slavery was always immoral, we culturally discovered that fact at some point which appears the same as if it were a culturally relativistic value
You think we discovered that slavery was always immoral? If we "discover" things which were wrong to be now right, then you are making the case for moral relativism. I would argue slavery is absolutely wrong and has always been, despite cultural acceptance.
How will you feel when you "discover" other things are wrong that you currently believe are right? How will you feel when others discover such things and you haven't caught up yet? How can you best avoid holding back the pace of such discovery?
It is a useful exercise to attempt to iterate some of those "discovery" processes to their logical conclusions, rather than repeatedly making "discoveries" of the same sort that all fundamentally rhyme with each other and have common underlying principles.
> If they're easily solvable then why do you need planning?
Easily solvable problems still need coordination. Do you want to go to one store and have your change rounded up then go to another and have it rounded down?
Sure, who cares? This could already be happening today with rounding fractional pennies. I have no clue if stores round up, or down, or split at .5, or what. But obviously they're doing something, since there aren't physical fractional pennies and my card statements never show more than two decimal digits, so it's not a new problem. This would make the problem five times worse, but five times insignificant is still not something I'm going to worry about.
No. Math and especially numbers are not just symbol manipulation. Geometry is a counter-example. So is multiplication, for that matter.
Maybe you could say that algebra is just symbol manipulation.
And in any case - "set of rules" is exactly what transformers aren't good at. Transformers are good at capturing the essence of what you meant and responding in a sensible, but not rule-bound way. This works well for language problems.
Perhaps you could argue that transformers are just a set of rules (weights/parameters) being applied, and you might similarly argue that numbers reduce to logical symbols like S(0), S(S(0)), but then I'd argue that you're missing the point.
Also look at the production quality that a single person can achieve today.
Go to Amazon and drop a few grand on mics, lights, cameras and lenses. The result is production quality beating any 90s talk show, which would have taken a whole team to do.
If this is not sufficient (It includes statements from an ICE spokesperson), then please do mention what type of evidence it is that you're looking for.
> For all we know, the US was coordinating extradition or release into their home country.
The evidence that we have does not indicate that, and in fact, indicates that these Jasmine Mooney was unnecessarily held for 6 days across two different locations, then unnecessarily transferred to Arizona for an additional period of time.
It seems like a very faulty thought process to pretend that there exists evidence to contradict what the current evidence suggests, rather than to simply base your judgement on available evidence.
> A person attempting to illegally crossing the border (such as the two in the article) have committed a crime and could be held on that alone
Jasmine Mooney - a Canadian citizen, was crossing the boarder, with the paperwork for a work visa, in order to turn them into the US consulate to apply for the visa. This isn't even required by the way under NAFTA: https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary....
It specifically notes that Canadian citizens need not apply at the U.S. consulate, contrary to the information provided by the customs agent.
How reasonable is it to you, that a person would attempt to follow the correct procedure to apply for a work visa according to the U.S. government's own website, then be detained and transferred several times, one of them being literally to a detention facility 209 miles away simply because her visa was denied at the border of Mexico (Before she even entered the U.S. by the way)
> Seems like a pretty good ending for them, unless you are advocating they should be charged and imprisoned here for longer?
How is it a good ending to be detained and transferred hundreds of miles because paperwork at the boarder isn't correct? Isn't the whole point that they shouldn't be in the U.S. at all? So why is it then that we waste so many resources to send them all over the U.S. instead of just denying entry?.. How does this make any sense to you?
> We understand how we brought them about via setting up an optimization problem in a specific way, that isn't the same at all as knowing how they work.
You're mistaking "knowing how they work" with "understanding all of the emergent behaviors of them"
If I build a physics simulation, then I know how it works. But that's a separate question from whether I can mentally model and explain the precise way that a ball will bounce given a set of initial conditions within the physics simulation which is what you seem to be talking about.
> You're mistaking "knowing how they work" with "understanding all of the emergent behaviors of them"
By knowing how they work I specifically mean understanding the emergent capabilities and behaviors, but I don't see how it is a mistake. If you understood physics but knew nothing about cars, you can't claim to understand how a car works "simple, it's just atoms interacting according to the laws of physics." That would not let you, e.g. explain its engineering principles or capabilities and limitations in any meaningful way.
The consistency that they're referring to specifically is to do with consistency in the way that certain features or functionality is implemented.
To make your example match, it would be more so that there are two teams A and B, Team A already created a framework and integration for logging across the entire application. Team B comes along and doesn't realize that this framework exists, and also invents their own framework and integration for logging.
This is the type of consistency that the author points to, because Team B could have looked at other code already referencing and depending on the logging framework from Team A and they would have avoided the need to create their own.
Even if there are, wouldn't the process of finding them effectively mirror moral relativism?..
Assuming that slavery was always immoral, we culturally discovered that fact at some point which appears the same as if it were a culturally relativistic value
reply