Both valid points, but this failure-to-replicate does erode some confidence in the general notion of embodied cognition (and I believe deservedly so because these phenomena have always seemed rather incredible). Much of Kahneman's other work has a more solid empirical foundation.
The person Lessig would theoretically be Nadering, you do realize that as a Senator she voted on the wrong side of all of those bad things you're pointing out, right?
There are probably very few people on this thread who would pick Hillary Clinton as their dream candidate, but there's also very few people here who think that she wouldn't be a million times better than President Cruz.
Based on the actual voting record, on the most serious issues, she's about on par with the worst president of the modern era. Cruz and Trump would be worse, sure, but not by "a million times", more like 2x.
Four years of letting Republicans remind everyone how terrible they are at governing for a chance to be rid of Clinton for good and take back Congress and the White House in 2020? Maybe worth it.
You seem to be deeply confused. Hillary casting a pro forma vote for something does not equate in any way with initiating the thing in question.
Deep down, you know this, of course. You know it's blatantly silly for you to say that Hillary Clinton is "on par" with W. But somehow your filter just failed to kick in.
I agree that she is on par with Bush, honestly. She's been central to an administration that has conducted just as much war and added just as much debt as Bush's.
And I would also pick Trump over her, if only out of sheer morbid curiosity.
I threw $n at a shot to get an honest, articulate voice on stage at an early-primary-season debate, to hopefully influence the party/eventual candidate's agenda. It didn't work. Oh well.
I have a $500 iPad sitting on my coffee table gathering dust, too, which was the bigger waste?
Keys is an asshole, and low-level nonviolent drug offenders absolutely should not be treated as they are.
Both of these things are completely irrelevant to the fact that any jail time for defacing a website is completely insane, the result of a witch-hunt mentality surrounding computer-based crimes.
Why do people keep oversimplifying this to "defacing a website"? If you were running ops for a tech company and your website was defaced, would your costs stop at the point where you restore the original content to the website? Of course they wouldn't.
If a tagger defaces a wall of your building, there are several things you can do about it.
- ignore it
- paint over the graffito
- paint the entire wall
- sandblast the graffito off
- repaint the entire building
- demolish the building and construct a new one, then paint it
- abandon the building and move your business to a new city
Additionally, there are some things you can do to discourage future miscreants.
- nothing
- hire an artist, to make the original tagger feel inept and outclassed
- point cameras at your walls
- hire a guard to chase off taggers
- coat your walls with a substance that prevents paint from adhering
- build a wall around your walls, with razor wire
- buy sentry guns with an AI tagging-detection system
And there are several ways to calculate damages.
- declare that no damage occurred
- cost of one bucket of paint
- devaluation of the market value of the property
- loss of business from customers that might have been scared off
- loss of reputation among existing customers
- research costs for a device that will erase the memory of the graffito
from anyone that ever saw it
- lobbying costs for new federal laws and regulations regarding tagging
- cost of consultants capable of determining Banksy or not-Banksy
At some point, you step across the line where you can reasonably say that the expenditures were all due to one kid with a fat marker or spray-paint can.
Your costs might not stop at that line, but the amount you can claim as damages would.
You've lost me. Nothing a tagger does to your wall is going to cost you $20,000, and the tagger doesn't set out with the objective of totally destroying your wall, failing only because their accomplices refuse to do that.
You're 100% right. There are some costs to the company to clean up after what happened.
However, I think people are correctly wondering why we live in a society where a more or less victimless crime will result in years in prison, while bankers loot and destroy the entire economy, ruining countless peoples lives, and not even one exective spends a minute in jail.
There exists a two-tiered system, and this is yet another illustration of what happens when you're in the lower tier. If bankers aren't going to jail, this guy definitely shouldn't be.
When one compares it to other crimes that not only go unpunished, but rewarded, this particular crime is comparatively insignificant - thus the "more or less".
I trust in the aftermath of the 2008 meltdown, you were speaking out equally vigourosly in favor of jailing bank executives.
Even Ben Bernanke says we should have jailed banking executives after 2008.
In case you're not being purposefully obtuse, you can watch about how the reams of evidence of criminal behavior (you know, of actual written-down crimes) was ignored by the justice department (you know, the same agency that is pursuing this case), via PBS Frontline: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/untouchables/
Frontline, was able to find direct evidence of executive criminality with just a cursory investigation (with no power of subpoena). The excuses coming out of the justice department's mouthpiece were so laughable, that he resigned the day after the piece went to air.
There's a two-tier system in place here, and crimes like defacing a website causing a paltry amount of damage, although real, should be the crimes the justice department ignores if they're not able to apply justice to all crimes fairly and evenly.
Keys posted active credentials to a forum, and those credentials were used by others to deface a website. Do you regard that as a fair statement of what happened? Still completely insane to send someone to prison for that.
He posted active credentials to the (his words) secret chat room of a "group of renegade criminal" hackers, and pleaded with them to trash Tribune properties --- he was distraught when the people on that channel merely poked around and tried to maintain their access. Ultimately, Keys was disappointed --- again, his words --- with the minimal damage done to his former employer.
It does not seem at all insane to send someone for prison for that.
The actual damages that resulted from his actions were pretty small and purely financial.
Even if you prosecute on the basis of what could have happened (maybe we start charging everyone who runs a red light with manslaughter?), we're still not reaching the level of physical harm to anyone or (barring complete negligence on the part of the Tribune) a catastrophic material loss.
You really think society's need to avenge that wrong is worth spending $30k a year to hold him in federal prison, exposing him to possible violent harm, and depriving him of his future? Sorry, but that's insane. He should pay the actual damages, a punitive fine, and perform community service, tops.
I'm a big fan of this general idea but taken to the limit of being able to delegate all issue votes to any person goes too far, and I'd prefer a system that elected representatives who accrue a threshold number of votes. There are a few reasons for this, but I'll just talk about one here, privacy.
Privacy is addressed in the paper but I think the real issues with it are just glossed over. "You get to see how your delegate votes" is great and should absolutely be true, but there are two other sorts of privacy that matter: privacy from the electoral system itself, and privacy from closely related people.
In very Googley fashion, this paper seems to take for granted that of course you'd trust the system itself with the knowledge of your votes and delegates, and that its privacy-respecting duty is fulfilled by simply not broadcasting that knowledge to the unauthorized public. But that's a terrible way to run a government that at least partially relies on a secret ballot as a means of expressing dissent and effecting change in the government itself, for hopefully obvious reasons.
The other form of privacy that matters is on a much smaller scale. A delegate who can exercise the votes of an arbitrarily small number of people is also capable of ensuring they are exercising the votes of a specific set of people. An abusive husband/father/wife/mother/boss/etc can know simply from the count of votes they hold whether their victims are following through on their command, and via transitive delegation they can pool that power with collaborators.
There's all kinds of math on techniques for being able to audit the vote without exposing individual voting behaviour. It is possible to prove to yourself that your vote was counted without exposing what your vote was to others, and also providing assurances that the result represents the aggregate of everyone's "votes". I don't think there is much about the important aspects of this design that require there be massive privacy issues. There are some variants around "honest verifiers" that work even more simply. Most of the homomorphic encryption excitement stems from some of the more sophisticated variants of that approach.
Do you have any pointers to papers describing how vote auditing techniques extend to liquid democracy? The Google paper doesn't even acknowledge the problem, much less describe a solution, and most of the other papers I've read on the topic are either extremely handwavy on the technical details of privacy or make the same assumption as Google, that its good enough to hide votes from the participants but 'the system' still knows.
I'm not sure I understand how liquid democracy would change the fundamental problem context in a way that would change the problem for homomorphic encryption...
I'm bored of C++ apologists pretending like there's really such a thing as 'modern and idiomatic C++11/14' that any two C++ programmers actually agree on, or that you'd ever actually see practiced consistently in the wild.
You can no-true-Scotsman code that compiles, runs, and blows up in your face with any modern C++ compiler all you want, it doesn't change the fact that Rust eliminates entire classes of errors that are trivial to hit in C++.
I am looking forward to the day Rust is available out of the box in XCode, Visual Studio, Android, QtCreator.
Until then, it is going to be "Modern" C++ for the lower layers/common code, with the platform vendor languages for the upper layers, regardless how Rust improves over C++.
I am a big fan of the type safety of Pascal and ML language families, but eco-systems have more weight than just the language.
The main reason they build these on Stream rather than Iterable is b/c they wanted to include the `parallel()` method, which works via "spliterators" rather than plain old iterators.
In other words, in order to support a gimmick you can actually use in production in a maybe a handful of use cases, they complicated the api for the use cases you hit 99% of the time. Awesome.
actually this is not true, what you're not noticing is that the parallel() use is akin to Spark, basically these streams are just map functions and if you can put the closure onto multiple cores/machines you get much better performance without any additional programmer intelligence.
If you think that api is complicated then I don't think programming is for you, this is a very ordinary and usual construct in programming.
In the cases where your application can benefit from parallelizing simple operations over a large data set stored in a collection, `parallel()` is fine.
It's even fine in the case where you're pulling data from a file or other low-latency sequential data source, assuming that the cost of filling a spliterator buffer is less than your cost of processing.
But there's a list of gotchas all more dangerous than the "magic make it faster" button of .parallel() imply:
- For the sequential data source case, if the cost of filling the spliterator buffers is higher than the cost of processing, you're just wasting a ton of overhead trying to use parallel.
- You have to be aware that by default all uses of parallel() run on the same threadpool, which makes it a potential timebomb if someone uses it in the context of, say, a webserver where multiple requests might all individually process streams. This also means blocking operations during stream processing are very dangerous.
- Mutating an external variable goes from being fine for a sequential stream to a race condition for a parallel one.
- You can't hand out Streams that you intend to be executed sequentially, b/c your callers can just call parallel() whenever they want.
And, yes, all of these considerations make the api more complicated than one operating over plain old iterators.
Video cpms can be well over $10, a 40M-view video could easily make a few $100k (though, of course, only a % of that ends up in the creator's pocket). 500k views could be a few thousand. Spread your equipment costs out over a bunch of videos and you're making some nice money.
What do you mean by 'low-level extensions'? There's nothing in the language proper that can't run on bare metal, how much lower can you get?
If anything, it's the functional parts that feel bolted on: closures are crippled (though getting better soonish), the types that get spit out of iterator chains are hideous, no currying, no HKTs, functional data structures are much harder to write w/o a gc, etc.
