I can kind of see regulations coming that make neurally compressed image or video data are require to have a little Ⓝ on-screen graphic in one of the corners, in addition to (not necessarily perceivable) watermarks that can make even small crops of the image identifiable as neurally generated. And that is probably the best case.
In the worst case (and more likely?), we are going to ban computational substrates large enough to perfectly forge important data altogether because it will be too easy to misuse. We‘d essentially go back to ~1960s electronics to have at least halfway functioning mechanisms of creating social trust, namely high-bandwidth personal interactions where every thought and every action has a high chance of leaving a trace in the real world and thus contributing to someone’s reputation. No blockchain and no other technology can create nearly as much trust as that without being highly prone to misuse.
Stolen personal information which is later exposed in a data leak can certainly kill someone. In expectation it is less likely than food poisoning, but it still seems ridiculous to downplay the gravity of all of it.
That has got to be the most fucked up thing about capitalism: Correction signals are painfully slow, delayed and weak. You can mostly only penalize a company by boycotting their products (unless they seriously break a law), but for the individual, there is often more utility in continuing buying their products than in sending a corrective signal, so the overall signal mostly vanishes except for a small, intellectual minority that can afford extremely high moral standards.
No, this isn’t a fucked up thing about capitalism. If the state monopoly on computer production did this, you wouldn’t even be able to personally opt out. You’re not going to swing the votes of an electoral majority over a niche and technocratic issue.
As @written says, there is a huge limitation on the microSD card reader on the Pi itself; but also, in my testing on a UHS-II USB 3.0 card reader on my MacBook Pro, most of the cards can't sustain more than 30-40 MB/s write even if the specs say they can.
Large block read speeds are usually pretty accurate, but manufacturers take quite a bit of liberty with their performance claims. And random I/O is pretty terrible in almost every case.
Remember that these types of cards are _usually_ optimized for large file I/O since they're used in dashcams, GoPros, and the like—use cases that are vastly different from a general computing device running Linux!
If I'm remembering correctly, the Pi's SD reader runs at 50MHz, doing 4-bit transfers, and not using any of the UHS signaling methods, because those use 1.8V signals that the Pi isn't set up to use for SD.
> kind of makes the tests useless if you want to figure out which cards are faster
But...which card is faster in a USB3 UHS-III transfer isn't useful information for a Raspberry Pi benchmark. It would certainly tell you which cards are faster, but the info wouldn't be directly applicable to what the tests are trying to measure.
The fastest cards in these tests were also fastest when writing the entire image on my USB 3.0 UHS-II card reader on my Mac. Large file writes are where most of these cards shine, and some can do 40+ MB/s when writing larger blocks of data.
The liberation of women has basically caused a diffusion of responsibility of communal tasks...Yeah, so maybe it was actually a bad idea.
Well, heck, you could say the same thing for Capitalism, which has also benefited billions materially. Liberation is bound to cause social disruption. The problem isn't the liberation. It's how society needs to (re)organize itself around change. It's ossification in how society views itself, which may exist in the older, traditional part, as well as in newer conceptions. The problem is ideological rigidity, which can be found in both the religious right and the secular left. You shouldn't be rigid when it's time to adjust.
I think this is right. The problem is people being forced or coerced to do things that don't actually make them happy. An ideological rigidity about expectations. But this tribalism is what makes human beings human. We're not going to get rid of that anytime soon, at least not without fundamentally changing the nature of the human animal. The best we can do is tell people "Prefer doing things that make you happy" and hope they don't commit their lives, careers, families, etc. to things that don't make them happy. And make "happiness discovery" much easier by changing the way we educate our young. Perhaps also it would help to give people an easy way out of things they don't enjoy doing? Kinda hard if those "things" are marriages or children, so I'm not sure how feasible it is.
It's perfectly reasonable to construct a tribalism which aids in discovering the truth. Science itself is an example.
The best we can do is tell people "Prefer doing things that make you happy" and hope they don't commit their lives, careers, families, etc. to things that don't make them happy.
One of the best things we can do, is to have many non-exceptional role models, on which younger generations can make incremental improvements. What's needed isn't a whole-cloth re-imagining of the entire social reality. We need a kind of progressive traditionalism, where people can try and evolve towards a better society without dropping complex cultural systems which create value and human well-being.
Perhaps also it would help to give people an easy way out of things they don't enjoy doing? Kinda hard if those "things" are marriages or children, so I'm not sure how feasible it is.
I think it's far better to make people aware of the "price" up front, so such deep commitments are made by people who are ready.
I think people underestimate the inherent conflict that arises from the complex cultural systems you're talking about. I mean, obviously there is conflict, but I think it's way more intrinsic to our species than most people believe. And the conflict reinforces existing belief structures, stereotypes about outgroup members, and is then used to justify proliferating or escalating the conflict further. I agree with you that tribal constructs like science are a positive social development. And for example Stoicism and Taoism seem to be aimed squarely at reducing the inherent conflict of tribalism. I like the idea of making the costs more visible up front, and would definitely make that a part of the "happiness discovery" process of education.
With respect to creating positive and beneficial social systems, however, I'm personally of the opinion that the basics of social development are already nearly fully enumerated, and I think we're not going to stumble across something new which would do a better job than the things that we already know about. I'd love to be wrong, though. And so if what I'm saying is true, then it would seem to point back to education.
I also have a personal saying that "shared hardship is the key to utopia" but certainly it would seem that education is equally key. Like Will Durant said: "Education is the transmission of civilization". That being said, "One test is worth a thousand expert opinions" and nothing is better at teaching the lesson that war is hell and should not be undertaken lightly than a good old fashioned war (e.g. the Long Peace). Ah, but now here is the main reason I think a human hivemind would truly bring us into a kind of shining Star Trek utopia: I could just share my wartime memories and combat experiences with people that haven't been to war. That would certainly work to turn people off of it. I really kinda went off on a tangent here, sorry!
However, I'm personally of the opinion that the basics of social development are already nearly fully enumerated, and I think we're not going to stumble across something new which would do a better job than the things that we already know about.
Why would you say that? Other than broad outlines, there are not so many constants in ways of life across history and around the world. Or, are you talking about broad outlines?
I also have a personal saying that "shared hardship is the key to utopia" but certainly it would seem that education is equally key.
My take is that Utopia == Neverland. It's like infinity. It's a useful concept, but you'll never have it physically realized within your grasp.
So, I'm not going to get too much into semantics because it's not interesting, and we could grind on it forever. But the essence of social interaction and group dynamics has hundreds of thousands of years of permutation behind it, and I'm pretty confident that human beings aren't going to come up with a new way of reducing friction at the interfaces of its tribalism without changing the definition of human being. The definition which includes what it means to be a human individual or a group, or what it means to communicate between human individuals and groups.
I'm pretty confident that human beings aren't going to come up with a new way of reducing friction at the interfaces of its tribalism without changing the definition of human being.
This is manifestly false. We went from murdering all out-group, to cultures of hospitality to strangers. We went from killing all members of defeated groups to enslaving them, then eventually went on to abolish slavery. We went from unfettered squabbles and mob violence to having the guilty hold bars of iron to prove their innocence before a deity to due process and trials.
History has clear examples of human beings "reducing friction at the interfaces of its tribalism." Human beings have, in fact, done this by changing the philosophical understanding of what constitutes a human being, so not far off from, "changing the definition of human being." This conception used to just mean a body. Then it came to incorporate a "soul." In many cultures, the person was equivalent with their "honor," which kind of amounted to their public image and reputation. (It was so in the early days of the USA, in fact.) Now we have a much more sophisticated notion of humanity and the self, which is evolving still.
The definition which includes what it means to be a human individual or a group, or what it means to communicate between human individuals and groups.
Clearly this is changing and evolving. Much of the time, it appears to be getting closer to some kind of objective truth.
Oh, you're one of those people that thinks we're exceptional from our historical counterparts. Or exceptional as Americans from the rest of the world. You would do well to read some of that history you're supposed to be pulling clear examples from. And you should really take a look at what our "much more sophisticated notion of humanity and the self" does every day in unfortunate shithole countries around the world. Or even what we do in nice countries.
What you think is an illusion. Add a layer of abstraction to get rid of implementation details, and we're the same animals the Romans were.
"John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Oh, you're one of those people that thinks we're exceptional from our historical counterparts. Or exceptional as Americans from the rest of the world.
Neither of those follows from the gp comment. (Careful, your biases are showing!)
And you should really take a look at what our "much more sophisticated notion of humanity and the self" does every day in unfortunate shithole countries around the world. Or even what we do in nice countries.
You make some good points. However, I didn't say we were done; Just that we've made undeniable progress.
Another reason you cannot revert is that many women will fight you as much as they can to not revert to 1960 era. The idea is scary, I would much rather have you lonely then me being women in 1960.
Sacrificing confidence, feeling like I am actually capable, social status, ability to be independent and all that in exchange to emptiness of lonely largely pointless household work and forced dependence sounds like bad deal.
The world in 1950 was very different to today. Find it amazing someone is brave enough to claim gender equality was the sole cause for half the population being subjectively sadder as recorded by a wide array of surveys conducted to various standards.
Why not blame modern marketing techniques, the rise of human interaction replacing technology or leaded petrol while we're at it.
The correalations are all there and just as valid.
It is basically the prisoner's dilemma. The free publication platforms do not yet have prestige because few prestigious researchers publish there; but only few prestigious researchers publish on free publication platforms because they are not prestigious enough.
The only way to overcome a prisoner's dilemma is education and trust.
The difference is in the MO for publishing in a given field...not the conscious venue selection so much. From what I know, computer scientists have a high publication rate, rank conference publications as pretty important and sometimes write papers that are about something they built.
Compare this to economists. For economists, it's all about hitting a home run a couple times...publishing a few career-making papers in the best possible journals. Economists will publish only a couple times per year, and their papers are sometimes very long. The review process is crazy: the time between first draft of the paper and final publication can be like five years.
I think what determines this is the difficulty of ascertaining the quality of a piece of work. In CS or math or math physics, I think anyone in a certain subfield is capable of ascertaining how good a paper is. It doesn't need to be extremely long or flashy, and chances are it will make an incremental improvement. By contrast, let's say an economist publishes a paper called "do red light cameras encourage speeding?" The intended audience (economists) doesn't really know anything about red light cameras or driver behavior. They don't have the time to do all the data analyses themselves, and until recently would never even have access to the data. So they look for a bunch of other markers of quality: writing style, citations, length, venue, etc.
It takes a lot of education. Computer science was actually very slow in moving to the arXiv. The "open" way that people in the field used to use was to link to pdfs on their homepages. An utter disaster for discoverability and archivability. Researchers move around all the time. But this was the standard! It took years for a critical mass to develop such that publishing to the arXiv became the expected standard.
arxiv is great, but for getting your PhD and a future career in academia, publishing there doesn't count nearly as much as publishing in peer reviewed journals does.
> without a good scrub with some soap in all "enclosed hairy regions" you will most certainly have quite strong body odor.
This is not true in general. Maybe there are outliers.
The mechanism by which washing kills bacteria is by simply pushing them off your body down the drain. Soap's only purpose is to remove oil, which water does not rinse off by itself.
As a general rule, try rinsing first; if it still smells bad, then use soap. I exercise daily and sweat a lot pre-shower. A rinse eliminates all body odor.
Yeah, that's what I thought too, but it does indeed look like they've changed it. The change is subtle, but results in not much changing for people that ultimately are just looking to grab a quick image for non-commercial purposes.
Oops, thanks. I've always had struggle remembering these terms because they are so confusing. "Specific" means that something only relates to one particular element X in a set of more than one thing. Given that meaning, one would expect specificity to mean "how good is the test at correctly reporting the thing it is designed to report X rather than confusing a different thing (an element from the complement of X) for X", but that is sensitivity. Instead, specificity means that with respect to the complement: "how good is the test at correctly reporting all the other elements in the set ¬X as negative rather than confusing an element from ¬X for X".
"Sensitive" has a clearer intuition: For example when you want to detect a weak signal, then if your antenna is more sensitive, you can better pick up the signal, thus you are better at telling whether the signal is really there (you have a better true positive rate).
I cannot think of a better name for TNR, though, other than simply sticking with TNR and TPR.
In the worst case (and more likely?), we are going to ban computational substrates large enough to perfectly forge important data altogether because it will be too easy to misuse. We‘d essentially go back to ~1960s electronics to have at least halfway functioning mechanisms of creating social trust, namely high-bandwidth personal interactions where every thought and every action has a high chance of leaving a trace in the real world and thus contributing to someone’s reputation. No blockchain and no other technology can create nearly as much trust as that without being highly prone to misuse.