The should be taught what it means for a DNA test to be 99% accurate or at least it shouldn't be out of order for a lawyer to explain that as is currently the case.
I don't quite understand the point concerning executable downloads and comparing hashes. Yes, comparing a hash found on a file downloaded from mozilla.com and a hash also on mozilla.com is stupid. However comparing a hash on mozilla.com and a download/torrent from an untrusted source seems to be valid and useful. The only attack vector in that case is at mozilla.com and not the download source.
As some have said above, things get awkward with gray areas. Would reddit be prevented from banning the many unethical but legal subreddits? I will bite that bullet, but many will not.
Turbulence seems to be very weird. This article talks about the birth and death rate of puffs. In a modified version of the Navier-Stokes equation Terrence Tao was able to construct logic gates and use those to create a self replicating eddy.
AIXItl though has the problem of self destruction. It is still modeled as an agent an so it would eventually destroy itself during its dovetailing. The agent model of AI is a bit too dualistic to be correct.
First two points are great, but why then we see this:
"Given the ratings I have, there is a 95% chance that the "real" fraction of positive ratings is at least what?"
What normal person thinks in terms of confidence intervals?
The obvious answer is people want the product with the highest "real" rating. That is the rating the product would get if it had arbitrary many ratings.
To get this you just find the mean of your posterior probability distribution. For just positive and negative reviews thats basically (positive+a)/(total+b) where a and b depend on your prior.
His proposal would mean that a product with zero reviews would be rated below a product with 1 positive review. This may deal with spam and vote manipulation since things with less information are penalized more but that is a separate issue.
What a crappy ruling. Yes the answer they got was right, but they never bothered to rule that sexual orientation is a (partial) suspect class. Now we have to wait for another ruling to get that resolved. Stupid lazy evaluation of courts.
BB(111) is not computable by "just computation". The issue is you have to prove that the programs that don't halt, don't halt. There is no general way to do this (Halting Problem). In fact once you get to a large enough n, BB(n) will be undecidable in whatever axioms you're using. We already have a simple proof of this by taking any known undecidable statement and turning it into a Turing machine halting problem.