Not sure why Trump is still doing this, but the base support isn't going away so I guess it's fair to assume that his base likes this and they think that the risk of COVID is non existent or low (and with that, blown out of proportion by the media / the dems) I just don't understand how Woodward has this recording of Trump which anyone can go listen to which shows Trump KNOWS Covid is deadly. I just don't understand the rational behind still doing things like this. Are his advisors signing off on this sort of thing or like----?  ?? Confusion, big confusion. |
|
|
|
I'm just saying that we reach a point with ML where it is impossible for humans to understand how the conclusions were arrived at... and that once pure-ML (rather than human-devised) algorithms start to have a serious impact on human lives, then accountability becomes a huge issue, which the human programmers can convincingly sidestep.
I'm pretty sure we can still test and debug ML models, so deliberately not doing that and evading responsibility wouldn't be much different from screwing up human-written code. We CAN totally test and debug models, but for the example of education is it really worth it? I feel like they're trying to solve a 'problem' that isn't really a 'problem' Grading tests and rating performance isn't a large issue in education (at least in my own personal opinion, I guess researchers could disagree with me) I was trying to say (but not being very clear about it) that in this example, there was no machine-learning, the algorithm was devised entirely by humans, which meant that when people started to question the results, the algorithm was looked at and found to contain inbuilt bias (for info, the algorithm is below). But when, instead of this, we are using machine-devised algorithms and machine-learning, and there is no possibility of unpicking the algorithm (because we won't understand how the computer has reached its conclusions), then how do we determine unfairness or accountability? Machine-learning is black box reasoning, and impenetrable to humans. Whose fault is it when it outputs unfair results? And how do we prove that the results are unfair? Ah I see, this wasn't machine learning to begin with. Just an algorithm which was HEAVILY flawed from the beginning. But yes, I would agree with you -- things could get so complex when it comes to the usage of machine learning that people are literally unable to piece together why a particular decision was made and how they can 'mess with' data to fix it. It does make sense to use this for certain tasks, but education prediction of grades is not something I would think needs to be fixed. ' |
|
|
|
Funny how you always hear about these machine learning experiments going wrong, does anyone remember Microsoft's Tay bot on Twitter? How about all the stories like 'AI can't recognize black faces' or 'AI converts speech-to-text better when the speaker is white than when they're black', or Amazon's recruiter AI that didn't like women. I'm not really a fan of machine learning and AI. It isn't that it's not interesting or desirable, I just think it's sad that people think we've reached the limits of human ingenuity and we feel that we have to develop something to think for us. I'm not sure that people will ever be ready for a world where AI can make perfectly unbiased decisions, keep in mind most decisions result in winners and losers. When people make the decision, they can come to a compromise; when a machine designed to make a clear cut choice has to decide, by design it has to avoid letting the loser down easy, otherwise it would be biased in favour of the loser (in this case, the losers might be kids who 'deserve' [i.e are predicted] to fail their class). As a side note, assigning students scores based on machine learning predictions is just ridiculous. Whoever thought this would work should be shamed publicly. I'm assumining (and hoping) that they have been shamed publicly. You didn't even give people the chance to improve (if they had poor performance in class) and just simply handed off good grades to people who may not have performed as well when the big test came. But onto the part about AI and such. I don't think there is anything WRONG with using AI for certain things. Amazons recruiting AI could've truly been amazing, the problem is that they fed it 'bad data' which meant that it was skewed towards men. Here's the quote from the article: But by 2015, the company realized its new system was not rating candidates for software developer jobs and other technical posts in a gender-neutral way.
That is because Amazon’s computer models were trained to vet applicants by observing patterns in resumes submitted to the company over a 10-year period. Most came from men, a reflection of male dominance across the tech industry.
So yeah, garbage in is garbage out. They'll be able to improve on this if they feed the machine the resumes of 'successful' women in the industry to help balance out the problem. There can be some genuinely good uses of AI in the world. Imagine if a lawyer AI could help handle VERY SIMPLE legal documents that are typically very repetitive and mundane. These would be quickly looked over by a real lawyer and then sent on their way. Just one example though. |
|
|
|
|
Thought you were talking about the US until I saw the part where you said -- my country -- which I'm going to have to assume isn't the US.
But yes, other nations of the world (specifically the ones that are NOTORIOUS FOR CORRUPTION are the ones that have less capitalistic societiess and look more like an oligopoly as a government. You keep the rich and the military happy, and the corrupt government can continue to function.
Thankfully our system isn't like that in the US. You have the freedom to make any object or provide any service that you'd like (given that it isn't illegal) -- You may have to jump through some regulatory hoops, though I wouldn't compare that to exclusive access to make a product. Some regulations are good, others are bad and are lobbied for by people who are already in an industry to setup barriers to entry.
Rough though, mind if I ask what country you're from?
|
|
|
|
FWIW I have no desire for Trump and no stake in this election. I really just hate how the media will craft narratives to sway public opinion in their favor. He talked to the reporter because there was nothing sinister to hide. Information about the virus was widely available to anyone who sought it. Trump downplaying the virus was more about messaging and emphasis on the economy than about "hiding the truth".
Again, this is not about anything sinister, it's about the fact that he was talking to a hostile reporter. It would have been obvious to anyone that it's a bad idea but not obvious to Trump for some reason. And coronavirus is just one part of the whole sordid story. He blabbed about much more. Yup. This is really what I'm grilling more then what was said. If you're talking to a reporter and you know that they want blood, which the first hostile Woodward book would point to, then MAYBE you SHOULDN'T be meeting with them on the record. I'm assuming that Trump knew he was being recorded by Woodward as well, as secretly recording the President (or any higher level government official) is a way to make sure NO ONE EVER AGAIN SPEAKS TO YOU. If this was off the record and Woodward recorded, that burns his credibility with these people. But I assume it was on the record and Trump thought he could outwit him. Which ya know, didn't happen. Just had to stroke his ego and he was very happy to talk. Looking forward though I don't think this is going to be the catalyst that takes down Trump. |
|
|
|
No data or algorithm can be used to accurately determine the outcome of an examination that's yet to be written, imo, this should not be an option to grade students in schools. What data would either the teachers or the computer use to determine the grade: previous grades, social life of the student, level of intelligence, IQ level, background etc? I've seen good students go into an examination unprepared and fail, likewise bad students change their mindset, study hard and come out top to everyone's surprise.
If a student doesn't take an examination themself, then there's no algorithm or computer that can bring out a result that'll be accurate, the computer only predicts an outcome on the basis of the data fed in and how the coders programmed it to react on a standardized case by case basis, but there's no arbitrary standard for a student in every exam, they can be bad today and excellent tomorrow.
+1 to this. Not exactly sure why this was even allowed in any school setting, but I would LOVE to see a source on this. There's literally no way that parents / children were happy that this was being used. At first it sounds like a good idea, until you notice that the machine learning technology is HEAVILY reliant on teacher input / past performance to come to a conclusion. But yeah, I had tons of friends who were horrible at regular class and great test takers -- and I've also seen the opposite. Not sure why this would be used though. This WONT be the norm in education though, people aren't happy when you give them a bad grade and then you try to blame a computer.....lol |
|
|
|
Filling this forms has major flaws, there is no way to be sure people will fill their correct information (wrong phone numbers for example), since the workers at the restaurant can't cross-check it with the customers ID or something and I'm sure quite a lot of people would do that so they'll be able to eat at the restaurant they want to without having to worry about receiving a call from the 'government' that they've been exposed to the virus; what about people receiving wrong calls they were at a restaurant they have prolly not been to this year, i have to agree with you that this is somewhat silly.
Tbh, I don't see any pros in this mandate, they could simply set tables far apart from each other and that's enough (social distancing) imo.
While they do have major flaws, just telling people that you're going to be collecting their info and that if they don't follow protocols then they're going to be fined is typically enough to convince them to not mess around. Last thing you want is to end up with a (I'm using this number as an example) $1000 fine just because you didn't write your name on a piece of paper. Will some people lie? TOTALLY. Will most people lie? Probably not. I expect most people to be honest with giving up their info. It truly does help in the event that someone is sick, and you can contact the people they may have crossed paths with. The other way of contact tracing is relying on peoples memory or making them install an app (both extremes of either being really lax or really involved) that'll track them all the time. |
|
|
|
The society changes a lot every 20 years and with every 50 there's a giant generation gap. I'm in my 30s and I see young people wasting so much time playing stupid pay to win games on their phones. I really don't get how you can waste 8 hours a day on that tiny screen doing unproductive stuff. Later they meet up with friends and have nothing to talk about because they don't watch movies or read books, they can only tell their friends what their score in clash of clans or some other shit is and how much they had to drink last time.
Fat society? Sure, but I have a lot of fit friends who ride bicycles every week, eat well, do some rock climbing and so on. It all depends on where you live and who you surround yourself with. I can't think of any really fat person that I know right now. In the suburbs most people have to work in the garden and do stuff around the house, wash the car, so it's hard to find a really fat person.
Sigh, I've never liked this whole thing where the older generation rags on the younger one even though they too waste time. For this new generation, gaming (mobile, pc, and consoles), streaming (movies, shows), and watching videos online (Youtube) is leisure. For the older generations, they notoriously watch TV for hours on end. I think it's fair to say that there are some obvious overlaps in lesireu between the two generations -- though gaming is not one of them. But like, who cares? We're most likely spending the same amount of time in front of some sort of screen. I'd much rather play videogames / watch someone on Youtube rather then watch a soap opera all day, but to each their own. I really don't care what others do. |
|
|
|
'slaughtered on the streets'
usually the gangs that attack each other in certain cities were still killing each other when schools were open last year.
it doesnt matter of the school doors are open if the kids are too busy street hustling to even want to go to school
what needs to be done is put some of that treasury money into fixing the problems on the streets because gang murders are not a few thing to just spring/summer 2020
People forget that fixing this sort of problem isn't as simple as 'tossing money at the problem' you need real change from the ground up and real plans. Simply throwing money at school districts, mental health, and prisons isn't going to change anything. All throwing money at a problem does is increase the amount of money lost. We need to start developing plans to get people off the streets and to convince them that the teachers / administrators in their schools actually care about them and want them to succeed in life. We have to further incentive family values, and ensure that there is no reason for people not to get married. As your best chance of success revolves around being in a stable family, not doing drugs, going to school and then going to college. After real plans are in place that are shown to work, then you can start distributing money to these plans. |
|
|
|
Trump Organization under investigation for 'insurance and bank fraud,' filing suggests
Trump needs to accuse the investigators of some serious crime, to deflect against these unfounded charges. It will simply slow them down though. Trump will eventually go to jail.  Doubt. I highly doubt anyone in the Trump family will go to jail. I'd consider the corruption that they've engaged in is VERY TYPICAL for any other politician in Washington. If you start going after him for this stuff, then it just opens up a can of worm with every other person in Washington who is also corrupt. Plus I don't think his grip on the party is going to end right when he's done. I think it'll continue until he passes. He does STILL have VERY HIGH approval ratings from members of the Republican party and that means a lot. It'll obviously go down when he's not the president anymore, but he's still the only real influential republican at the moment. Everyone else is kinda nothing. |
|
|
|
America politics was not this bad until the recent Government, it looks crude to see the president and aspirants trading with ugly words on the media, this are old men at over 70. They are the crop of oldest men that has aspired for such position in America, has they lost their culture and dignity. Russia has disappointed the rest of the world with the vaccine, at the moment it has only been tested with few people and result had been outstanding. I think this should encourage other countries for early approach to control the disease.
American politics (and politics in general) is always pretty bad. People just remember history as much rosier then it actually was. Take this commencement speech from 1997 regarding that sort of thing, it's pretty interesting: Accept certain inalienable truths
Prices will rise, politicians will philander, you too, will get old
And when you do, you'll fantasize that when you were young
Prices were reasonable, politicians were noble
And children respected their elders While we are totally more partisan now, politics is ALWAYS ugly. Don't forget that. |
|
|
|
Vaccine production is at the hands of researchers, and only researchers with oversight from the FDA. Doesn't matter who's President, they won't over rule the FDA and speed up clinical trials. Everyone should have skepticism but I don't think the U.S. will have a problem with an early vaccine with how strict the guidelines are.
+1 to some of that. President can put pressure on the FDA, but that pressure can only go so far without setting off any whistle blower stuff. But even with that, the President can promise as much as they want but they can't speed up research and then later they can't just make logistics and distribution work out of thin air. Making the vaccine is tough, but effectively and efficiently distribution to hundreds of millions of people is VERY HARD as well. Across a place as big and diverse of the US is tough and not a joke at all. @Gyfts you’re absolutely correct as FDA chief too has also promised that he’ll stick to science only, and he has also assured the staff that they’ll not bow down to political pressure to speed up the delivery of the vaccine. Furthermore I feel that Trump made this claim only to appease the voters, because even he knows that it isn’t possible to speed up the delivery of the vaccine, and in the end when FDA doesn’t deliver the vaccine by October he’ll blame the FDA and Democrats for not caring about Americans. Lastly I wouldn’t be surprised if he uses the failed delivery of vaccine to target the Democrats in the run up to the elections, but I sincerely doubt that the voters would fall for his claims that the Democrats blocked the quick delivery of the vaccine. Sources: https://www.bloombergquint.com/politics/will-a-vaccine-be-politicized-fda-sets-up-safeguardshttps://time.com/5887254/trump-coronavirus-vaccine-political-bet/See the great thing about democracy is that we don't have to take the FDA chief/commissioner word at face value. WE HAVE OVERSIGHT IN THIS COUNTRY! Congress (from both the House and Senate) can call in the FDA chief and tons of other bureaucrats below him and request information on the approval process. Private citizens can send in Freedom of Information Act requests to get information about it to. Oversight is one of the great things about this country that keeps people honest. The sad thing is that not many people want to use it, because who wants to use oversight against their own party? Sounds like a sure fire way of not getting reelected when President Trump wont endorse you. By the way that's not me saying that Dems didn't do this with Obama, it's just a sad thing to see as oversight can be so powerful in ensuring that things stay honest, efficient, effective, etc. So yeah, I'm expecting there to be oversight hearings on the matter that'll help once this vaccine is announced. Could be soon, could be not so soon. We'll see though. |
|
|
|
but....free market capitalism?
Except it's not free because the largest entity (US govt) is prevented from negotiating so it's getting thoroughly fucked by corporations. Not to mention that we have figured out long time ago that certain infrastructure and service need to be funded by taxes. For some inexplicable reason, despite spending 1/6 of our GDP on healthcare, we still haven't figured out that it's in everyone's best interest to provide healthcare for all. I probably should've put '/s' at the end of my statement, lol. I was pretty much trying to say that lobbyists from big businesses have taken over, but we'll still hear that 'but its free market capitalism and all companies have an equal playing field' And while this is true in some industries, HEALTH CARE in AMERICA is totally not something I would call free market capitalism. Everyone just gets fucked, and health insurance companies and everyone in the health care sector makes tons and tons of money. My bad for not stating that. |
|
|
|
In reality, he never said it wasn't deadly, or contagious
He actually did say that it's under control, that the numbers will be down to zero quickly, etc, and now there's proof that he was lying and not merely being an idiot. But that's not quite the point and this is thread is not not about Pelosi or even about coronavirus (plenty of other threads about that). It's about Trumps amazing ability to undermine himself in so many different ways, like talking 18 times to a clearly hostile reporter. What did he expect to achieve with that? Best case scenario (if we interpret the situation the way you do) is zero net gain for him. Yep, anyone can go and watch the audio OVER AND OVER because of how horrible it is and is going to be for him. This is going to be what the Dems run with for the months to come, and it makes sense that they'd do so. It does directly AGAINST what Trump has been saying publicly for months, and it makes the people who were supporting his anti science covid campaign look VERY bad. Because it shows that he knew how bad it was, and was lying to ensure that the markets, and his reelection campaign was in a good spot. Was it all worth it? No. |
|
|
|
@squatz1 I agree with you that we should not discredit them at such an important stage of their testing, rather we all need to be patient and give them some more time to work on what went wrong in their testing. Also I can understand why people are freaking out, because they’re scared for their life’s, and their most common fear is what happens if they take the vaccine and suffer horrible side effects from it, and to be honest those fears are rational. However just because we’re scared we should not rule them out, because a proper vaccine is the need of the hour as no country’s economy can afford more lockdowns due to lack of covid vaccine. Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/06/03/coronavirus-vaccine-global-race/I mean it does totally make sense to be a bit nervous. But then again, this has only been around for less then a year and we shouldn't set such a high bar for when the vaccine is going to be finished. We shouldn't also try to rush anything out the door or, on the other end of things, discredit things EARLY for no reason. Also if you're scared about taking a vaccine, don't take it. I highly doubt this is going to be mandatory right off the bat, it's going to be available (after tons of testing) and then people can use it if they want. I can see it being mandatory after months of it working with no scares. Though the conspiracy theorist will take this one for a ride, lol. |
|
|
|
....
2nd amendment is one of those things that are VERY tough to debate about. You're totally right on it being a debate where both sides have some pretty good points. Though I do think the right has some of the better points when it comes to constitutionality and that sort of thing....
Time after time, pro-gun advocates demolish arguments of anti-gun. The reason is quite curious. As in this thread, anti-gun people are always quite ignorant of the very subject they pontificate on. They have never handled the pistols, hunting or military rifles, or antique guns of which they profess knowledge. Actually knowing and having experience does matter. I grew up with guns, was in the 4-H trap and skeet league in High School and still go shooting with my Dad and Uncle every time I visit. There are rational, valid arguments on both sides of the gun debate. There are also irrational, invalid arguments on both sides of the gun debate. Like the one you just made, for example. The 2nd amendment isn't about skeet, 4-H trap, or shooting with your Dad. It's about the right of a public to be sufficiently armed to overthrow a tyrannical government, if and when that need arises. This implies weapons of certain types. As for the wording of the 2nd amendment and other parts of the document being vague, maybe that's a feature not a bug. I think Twitchys response wasn't stating that those things that he does with his family are the ONLY reason for the 2nd amendment. He was responding to your claim, which stated the following: As in this thread, anti-gun people are always quite ignorant of the very subject they pontificate on. They have never handled the pistols, hunting or military rifles, or antique guns of which they profess knowledge.
So he was saying that he has operated firearms and is familiar with them. Up to you to believe if he's being honest or anything along those lines, but he was just responding to that. But yes the 2nd amendment is about government tyranny, as the founders were VERY VERY VERY careful to ensure that our rights would be protected and we wouldn't live under a King. But eh, look where executive power is at this point....! Executive power was not be taking a jab at Trump by the way. That's a general note on executive power. |
|
|
|
What's your proposed plan SuchMoon? Single Payer? Medicare for All? Government Option? etc?
Honestly I have no idea what Medicare for all actually is, because there have been too many different ideas under that name. Aside from that, any option that relies on people purchasing insurance (I guess that's what government option would be) is doomed. It needs to be a tax, it needs to replace all that insurance garbage that wastes 20-30% of our healthcare spending on beaurocracy, and it needs to cover absolutely everyone with no exceptions. Having small copays is ok if it can prevent wasteful use of healthcare resources but beyond that money should not enter healthcare decisions. And of course whatever entity would be managing this, it should be able to negotiate pricing with private providers and vendors unlike the current restrictions on Medicare/Medicaid where the government is paying some average market price or some shit like that... totally backwards, an incentive for drug companies etc to jack up their "market" prices. Yep, that's typically the argument that people have against public option. Insurance can't really be 'affordable for all' unless everyone (and I mean EVERYONE) is on the same plan at the same time. The most efficient insurance plan (in regards to health insurance) is one plan that a party with no profit incentive runs, and has every single American on it and paying into it (either directly, or indirectly through taxes) With that, this party running health insurance, typically the gov, can negotiate as they please and any medical provider has no choice but to accept whatever government says. I don't think we'll go to that instantly though. I see SLOW changes -- like the one you said about letting Medicare/Medicaid negotiate more effectively. You make some good points, but universal healthcare under a single payer system isn't a backwards system.
What I meant is that current Medicare/Medicaid pricing system is backwards since it relies on inflated and likely manipulated "market" prices. Some stupid law (pushed by lobbyists no doubt) hobbled the ability of the US federal government - the largest healthcare "customer" in the world - to actually negotiate prices. I can't even begin to convey how ridiculous that is. but....free market capitalism? |
|
|
|
Was he trying to outwit him or get a good piece out of him?
That's the only somewhat-plausible reason I could fathom. We know that Trump has a very high opinion of his own abilities so perhaps he thought he could paint a nice picture and make Woodward believe it. Like I think I'd partially understand the rational if this was BEFORE the first book. But this is literally after Woodward wrote a SCATHING book about the Trump admin in his 2018 book FEAR. I truly just don't get it at all. Before the first book this makes sense, but after it? You know the guy is out for blood and I don't see a reason to interact with him AT ALL. Just.... don't.... talk... to.... reporters |
|
|
|
|
So is the cool thing, from the media, for everyone to say that Trump is going to win? Guess the 2016 'Trump is TOTALLY going to lose' is something that backfired, and now makes everyone who said it seem dumb. So as a reverse of that, all of them are now trying to turn the tables on it and all come out and say that Trump is going to win.
Honestly -- if you want Biden to win, the best thing to tell Biden voters is that Trump is on course to win. That'll make them more exicted to vote. If you tell them that Biden is going to win, they're going to think (or typically they would) think it's a sure thing and that they don't need to do anything. I think the Dems learned their lesson in 2016 though with Clinton and taking things for granted. We'll see in 2020 if those people that sat at home are going to vote for Biden, or they're going to sit at home again.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
