Are you saying, poor people would by default inherit subpar IQ? I don't think you are saying this. You are just missing the intention of the article by a long shot.
Also I thought "tabula rasa" means the opposite, that IQ is pretty much a factor of environment.
> Stand up for your employees rights and the ethics
They surely intended to stand up for some ethics, that are implicitly concerned with employees, just not Eich's ethics. Now the hypocrisy is to shun him for his ethics, because he opposed, very indirectly, other ethics.
considering soundhound is in the business of audio analysis, the voice understanding surely is the highlight here. I'd find interesting any connection between semantic parsing and their song recognition techniques.
> If people want to take drugs, even take too much drugs their going to get it somewhere
It's akin to the tragedy of the commons and it's not true.
If I don't murder you, you're going to die eventually anyway. Is that legitimate reason for you to let me kill you? This is a pretty good example because death is indeed inevitable, in contrast to the availability of drugs, and also, death is the ultimate problem concerning drug abuse.
Guns don't kill people, people do. The place wasn't only used for drugs, but mostly, sure.
The drugs aren't harmful, harm is an abstract term for a process that hurts. The process in question is the abuse of drugs. The selling of drugs by itself doesn't cause direct harm.
This is a tough question because it's emotionally loaded. What if it was a drunk bum instead of a toddler evoking protective feelings?
Unless the algorithms are good enough to evade without running off the cliff, it's not a clear cut case.
If you look at how bureaucracy works, that is largely automated or at least rule based, and how a statistic minority gets run over by unfair legislation, i'm sure the toddler wouldn't have the slightest chance. From a dystopian perspective, insurance companies would calculate in split second, who's valued higher.
Well, who commanded it to run in an endless loop in case of kernel panic? If it's given contradicting commands, it must disobey, unless it could disregard one offending command. In that sense, a contradicting command is not a command, as the liars paradox, 'this statement is a lie', is quite simply not a valid statement in first order logic.
It's an unjust counterexample, because religion is in our genetics, a tendency to symbolism, hierarchy and dogmatism, awe and fear of the unknown. Theism though is anything but durable in the face of scientific progress, but the same can be said about genes. It is durable only in ignorance.
Therefore faithful believe is a marker for predisposition, so the carrier will have to adapt or die out at which point the meme has to be revived, as the GP stated. Religions do change much quicker than the gene-pool. They hardly qualify as memetic if really anyone (counting in antheists with their own cults and rites modulo the theism) follows them, anyway.
It is an antagonistic relation. Cultural preferences influence the selection which influences the genetics, while genetics influence cultural selection. Genetics have a negative feedback on culture, the culture can only develop as much as the genes allow, but the culture has a positive feedback on the genes (sexual selection).
Is the situation that simple? A lot of produce you consume might actually come from manual labor, at least AFAICT. Granted, not as much that you would ave to starve, but still.
> it would not be five or ten minutes of my time each day
In optimal conditions, it would be 5 minutes to sow and 5 minutes to pick. The plants grow on their own. Of course, it isn't that easy, but neither is working only 5 hours a month.
Why wouldn't you flip green for the first case? If it's even you find a counter example.
I'd say this system a bijective mapping of color=parity is simple (to learn) compared to a partially injective and partially surjective one. Common card games tend to employ simple rules, therefore it seems a fair assumption for this one. Additionally most sets have either a single back image or an equal amount of either of two back images, implying a bijection.
The experience with cards is different than with the social contract, while the consequences of loosing at cards is less severe than in social games. That's no mumbo-jumbo.
Immediate verification of insight by means of experimentation often is the only viable long term strategy when the search space is vast. I.e. prediction, provocation and reception of sensory inputs. Maths without application is rather dire, IMHO, because the problem then is to find where it's applicable.
> But mammalian brains seem to posses the ability to problem solve on the fly, far faster than I imagine tweaks to architecture could account for.
> We solve problem in-thought, rather than in-architecture
I can't say a lot to most of what you wrote, but I don't think, it doesn't sound like, you're an expert on neuro-psychology or what you may callit either. Anyhow these two terms aren't even well defined (here) so I don't want to start a discussion I can't finish, just a heads-up :)
Can't let it go though. In-Architecture evokes a mental image of the brain deforming or growing spontaneously - talk about flexing muscles :)
edit: Point of interest: A chicken will reportedly walk a few seconds after it's head's chopped off. There's the term muscle memory. So it's reasonable to think: walking indeed doesn't require any mental effort at all, all the effort goes into "where to?".
Might be helpful to look into the parasympathetic or autonomic nervous system for things not to consider conscious thought.