gr3ml1n · HackerTrans

il y a 10 moisdiscuss

or what?

il y a 10 moisdiscuss

It's not a particularly big market, and given the regulatory hurdles: it's simply not worth doing business with the UK for most companies anymore.

gr3ml1n

il y a 10 moisdiscuss

> they risk sanctions/being arrested when abroad/etc.

That's the OP's question. Bluntly: if I'm here, and they're bloviating over there, what can they actually do about it?

gr3ml1n

il y a 10 moisdiscuss

Not really. It's more like Cloudflare is providing an ipset in your iptables config. It's not Cloudflare's decision: they're just making it easier for you to do it.

gr3ml1n

il y a 12 moisdiscuss

The counter-argument to this from the AI crowd would be that it's fundamentally impossible for _us_, with our goopy brains, to understand how to do it. Something that is factorial-orders-of-magnitude smarter and faster than us could figure it out.

Yes, it's a very hand-wavey argument.

gr3ml1n

il y a 12 moisdiscuss

Well, first, it would be so far beyond anything we can comprehend as intelligence that even asking that question is considered silly. An ant isn't asking us how we measure the acidity of the atmosphere. It would simply do it via some mechanism we can't implement or understand ourselves.

But, again with the caveats above: if we assume an AI that is infinitely more intelligent than us and capable of recursive self-improvement to where it's compute was made more powerful by factorial orders of magnitude, it could simply brute force (with a bit of derivation) everything it would need from the data currently available.

It could iteratively create trillions (or more) of simulations until it finds a model that matches all known observations.

gr3ml1n

il y a 12 moisdiscuss

It starts to veer into sci-fi and I don't personally believe this is practically possible on any relevant timescale, but:

The idea is a sufficiently advanced AI could simulate.. everything. You don't need to interact with the physical world if you have a perfect model of it.

> But, what other fields would it do this in? How can it makes strives in biology, it can't dissect animals ...

It doesn't need to dissect an animal if it has a perfect model of it that it can simulate. All potential genetic variations, all interactions between biological/chemical processes inside it, etc.

gr3ml1n

il y a 12 moisdiscuss

Isn't the entire EU essentially a panopticon of cameras?

gr3ml1n

il y a 12 moisdiscuss

Fwiw, Marek's technical corner still exists and still gets some activity.

gr3ml1n

l’année dernièrediscuss

That isn't true. Dedicated bodybuilders, starting more commonly ~5 years ago, decided that PCT wasn't worth it. Instead of typical 16-20 week cycles followed by 4-6 weeks of PCT, they adjust the dose between supraphysiological and (generally) top-of-normal, i.e.: blast and cruise.

It's not because they couldn't recover, it's because they don't want to or see the point.

gr3ml1n

l’année dernièrediscuss

Post-cycle therapy will take longer if you're taking exogenous testosterone for longer, but it's definitely not a 'for life'/'impossible' thing if you've been on TRT for a few years and decide to stop. It's just fearmongering.

gr3ml1n

l’année dernièrediscuss

What is there to cope about? It's not a big deal, and arguably a benefit.

gr3ml1n

l’année dernièrediscuss

Well, definitely don't phrase it exactly like that.

Most decisions that would be made in the context where this is a useful technique are irrelevant and/or obvious. They should be made by someone lower down the chain, but organizational dysfunction requires tricks like this to get anything done.

gr3ml1n

l’année dernièrediscuss

The suggestion is that negative reviews are suppressed. Communicating a negative review through a facially positive review would help avoid that.

gr3ml1n

l’année dernièrediscuss

Re-read the original link, posted again below. The claims you're making are specifically addressed and are wrong.

There are multiple critical reviews of this paper. It is well-known to be largely nonsense.

http://www.jsmp.dk/posts/2019-05-12-blindauditions/blindaudi...

gr3ml1n

l’année dernièrediscuss

How long does the checklist need to be? Can I check three boxes if I an interview a gay black jew or do I only get one?

gr3ml1n

l’année dernièrediscuss

No, it doesn't. This is a dramatic reach and complete misunderstanding of the stats. The data in table 5 is not statistically significant.

If you go down to table 6 (which is also incredibly weak), it shows the opposite: men are advancing at a higher rate than women in blind auditions.

Andrew Gelman reviewed the link as well and agreed:

https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2019/05/11/did-blind-...

gr3ml1n

l’année dernièrediscuss

Not really. Everything is downstream of the pressure on organizations to address disparate impact. Some examples:

When a company is under pressure to boost the number of X engineers, they quickly run into the 'pipeline problem'. There simply isn't enough X engineers on the market. So they address that by creating scholarship funds exclusively for race X.

When a school is under pressure to have the racial makeup of it's freshman class meet the right ratios, it has to adjust admission criteria. Deprioritize metrics that the wrong races score well on, prioritize those that the right races score well on. If we've got too many Y, and they have high standardized test scores? Start weighing that lower until we get the blend we're supposed to have.

The goal of the college is not to get the students with the strongest academic record: it's to satisfy the demand for the right ratios.

Repeat over and over in different ways at different institutions.

> Is there an example where colorblind hiring had a nil or opposite effect? In places I've seen, the opposite has happened. For example ...

The study underlying that post is a great example of another downstream effect of DEI efforts. That study did _not_ show what the headline or abstract claimed.

When you hide the gender of performers, it ends up either nil or slightly favoring men. That particular study has been cited thousands of times, and it's largely nonsense.

http://www.jsmp.dk/posts/2019-05-12-blindauditions/blindaudi...

gr3ml1n

l’année dernièrediscuss

> If anything’s really losing credibility right now, it’s the myth of a pure American meritocracy.

It only became a myth when we were forced to consider factors beyond merit in hiring.

gr3ml1n

l’année dernièrediscuss

I'll try to assume good faith, but this is the sort of framing often used in the waning days of unpopular ideas.

That's not what DEI ever was. It fundamentally came down to evaluating disparate impact and then setting targets based on it. The underlying idea is that if a given pool (in the US, generally national- or state-level statistics) has a racial breakdown like so:

  10% X
  30% Y
  60% Z

But your company or organization had a breakdown of:

  5% X
  25% Y
  70% Z

You are institutionally racist and need to pay money to various DEI firms in order to get the right ratios, where 'right' means matching (or exceeding) the population for certain ethnic minorities. The 'certain ethnic minorities' value changed over time depending on who you would ask.

The methods to get 'the right ratios' varied from things like colorblind hiring (which had a nil or opposite effect), to giving ATS-bypassing keywords to minority industry groups (what the FAA did here).

comments