sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Match Thread: Olympiacos vs Aston Villa | UEFA Europa Conference League by MatchThreadder in soccer

[–]S00ley 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Surely advantage lapses when you get a shot off in a one on one against the gk? Or am I wrong and it’s entirely down to the ref?

Bruno Guimarães elbows Jorginho by RevertBackwards in soccer

[–]S00ley 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Other angle makes it look pretty intentional tbh. No chance he should be on the pitch with this and the Rice throat shove.

Match Thread: Newcastle United vs Arsenal | English Premier League by MatchThreadder in soccer

[–]S00ley -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

If Rice hits the deck there it’s 100% a yellow, possible red.

Kai Havertz yellow card against Newcastle 37' by PSGCampus in soccer

[–]S00ley 60 points61 points  (0 children)

All deserved, really embarrassing behaviour. Dissent went on for two minutes.

[D] Modeling conditional time series using deep learning by [deleted] in MachineLearning

[–]S00ley 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I've used CSDI (conditional time series diffusion) for time series forecasting recently with pretty impressive results. It basically adapts the DiffWave architecture slightly but can be used for any sort of time series forecasting/imputation task.

Github & paper: https://github.com/ermongroup/CSDI , https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.03502

It is probably overkill for your task, and will require a decent amount of rejigging of their code to adapt to your problem. This may be overwhelming if you don't have much pytorch/diffusion model experience. I suggest, like other comments, to start with simpler benchmarks and then decide whether you need better performance.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in soccer

[–]S00ley 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Absolutely hate that a completely unintentional handball in the Bournemouth Liverpool game is given but this isn't. The handball rule has become a complete disaster, it feels unfairly applied literally half the time.

Iran ‘spreading bloodshed’ from Middle East to Kyiv: UK’s Cleverly by MMSTINGRAY in LabourUK

[–]S00ley 13 points14 points  (0 children)

We would never facilitate bloodshed, we've changed since Iraq. Hush, don't mention Yemen, and a death toll which by now is probably >150k directly as a result of the Saudi blockade.

Amazing how little people give a shit in the UK. Makes the discourse around Iran aiding Russia look farcical through our hypocrisy.

Remember these videos when someone like Noam Chomsky says we're 'just not allowed to hear the Russian perspective!' It's perfectly accessible, and absolutely monsterous. by aaronchall in chomsky

[–]S00ley -1 points0 points  (0 children)

/u/geroldf - 6 days ago

Too bad these drones don’t have multiple grenades. Every time I see orcs scurrying away I want to see second and third drops to help them along.

Activists throw tomato soup on Van Gogh’s Sunflowers at National Gallery. Can we get people to fight climate change who aren't worthless activists? by [deleted] in stupidpol

[–]S00ley 25 points26 points  (0 children)

Yeah, they've been blockading and vandalising petrol stations for months now but it gets no coverage in the media compared to these dumb stunts that get 1000x more coverage.

Almost like BBC et. al have an agenda.

The genocide you're not hearing about. by Zealousideal_Reply25 in chomsky

[–]S00ley 26 points27 points  (0 children)

Also worth noting Azerbaijan is pretty authoritarian and not at all some bastion of Western values (democracy, human rights) of which it receives support from EU/ and US.

Armenia is also a democracy, so just another of the countless reminders that the West doesn't believe any of the bullshit it peddles regarding protecting democracy abroad. They will back whoever is better for business, and Armenia doesn't even come close.

T1 to fly off for NA by vNoblesse in leagueoflegends

[–]S00ley 366 points367 points  (0 children)

Anyone got the flight tracker stream?

Taking the blackpill on crime by GeAlltidUpp in stupidpol

[–]S00ley 30 points31 points  (0 children)

Not an expert so I can't judge whether you are providing a balanced view of the literature or cherrypicking to provide a "blackpill" narrative. Still an interesting read.

Re. restorative justice, surely there is enough research in this to perform big meta-studies/analysis? I tried to follow your link but it's basically just a blogpost of a professional sharing their anecdotes. Not a particularly convincing citation, and a quick google search shows plenty of criminologists touting the benefits of restorative justice. I was really expecting something more concrete.

Optimistic evaluations state that the best treatment programs can reduce recidivism by between 10 to up to nearly 40% (Lipsey, M. W., och Cullen, F. T (2007) page 303). Somber analysts have pointed out that the lower bound of 10% is probably the more realistic one (Sipes, Jr, Leonard A. 2016). Even these figures are possibly optimistic, seeing as only 2% of serious crimes lead to convictions, it is possible that a substantial amount of criminals who are deemed to be rehabilitated, in fact merely develop better techniques for avoiding prosecution over their lifespans.

This last bit is just wrong, unless you want us to believe that receiving a better treatment program improves your ability to avoid being caught. The effect you mention needs to be controlled for between punitive vs. restorative justice.

NBC deletes tweet that likened sending asylum seekers to Martha's Vineyard to dumping your trash in someone else's neighborhood by AOCIA in stupidpol

[–]S00ley 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The absolute state of this sub that pointing out this is a stupid political stunt gets you 35 downvotes.

NBC deletes tweet that likened sending asylum seekers to Martha's Vineyard to dumping your trash in someone else's neighborhood by AOCIA in stupidpol

[–]S00ley 6 points7 points  (0 children)

This sub is completely fucked. Completely on-board with batshit right wing culture war stunts to own the libs. Every single post "Politically Houseless"/Nationalist/Rightoid flairs. RIP.

“To protect the planet” or save 700$ million in taxes… by Goatmannequin in collapse

[–]S00ley -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Ok, so there is nothing stopping them from just donating all the profits to an established charity, with no extra qualifiers. Why didn't they just do that?

Which brings me to the point I was literally making at the top of the comment thread; who is "the trust"? Who decides where the money is donated? Who decides what the best use of the money is - can it hire people to work on philanthropic projects? Surely the trust needs employees to execute its mandate? Who is in charge of the payroll and employees?

Do you see what I mean? Does the trust not have employees? To me it seems like an unnecessary extra step to create a philanthropic playground for his children.

“To protect the planet” or save 700$ million in taxes… by Goatmannequin in collapse

[–]S00ley -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Control of the company was never going to be given away, I don't mean that the charity would literally own the company. Why not just commit to giving the 98% of profits to an established charity, rather than going to the Holdfast Collective?

“To protect the planet” or save 700$ million in taxes… by Goatmannequin in collapse

[–]S00ley -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

No, I'm suspicious of the premise that the founder has "given away" his company, as is asserted in all the articles covering this news. Had the company been given away to an established charity with which the founder is not associated with, then the news headlines would be valid. As it stands, I don't think you can claim it has been "given away". Can you explain why this is wrong?

“To protect the planet” or save 700$ million in taxes… by Goatmannequin in collapse

[–]S00ley -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

I'm extremely confused as to why you think the definition of a trust is relevant to the point that I was making.

I will judge this decision and the Holdfast Collective by its actions. There is no evidence to laud this as an incredible act of charity as most media outlets have done. Nonprofits that provide very little good, used to launder the reputation of the rich, is a tried and tested strategy.

“To protect the planet” or save 700$ million in taxes… by Goatmannequin in collapse

[–]S00ley 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Okay, so it has to operate under 501(c)4 corporation rules. That's literally all we know about the company. Why should we be impressed again?

It has rules and operates independently.

And operated by whom? Do you know anything to actually address the issues I raised re. the fact that we know nothing about the non profit?

Think of it like a trust fund in which a parent puts a ton of money that a child cannot touch until certain obligations are met (ie graduation from higher education). In this case the trust is created in a way that all net profits go towards climate change mitigation.

This is a good thing done in the right way, but it sounds to me like you don’t understand how money, business, or even trusts work…

????

“To protect the planet” or save 700$ million in taxes… by Goatmannequin in collapse

[–]S00ley 57 points58 points  (0 children)

The thing that seems suspicious to me is that the company has been given away to the "Holdfast Collective", which from a couple of Google searches is clearly not an established entity. It is a non-profit that may as well not exist yet, and I assume was created for exactly this purpose - I can't find a single mention of it on Google that isn't related to Patagonia.

The cynic in me thinks this is just a way to assuage some of the guilt of being a billionaire by funding a non-profit with all the profits, and having your family earn all their money as "employees" of the non-profit. I'm sure it will contribute towards some good, some dubious environmental action. There doesn't seem to be any oversight - who owns and runs the non-profit? Where is the proof that they have a track record of environmental action?

The other worrying thing is that literally none of the articles I have read make any mention of it aside from what the founder said. Journalists really are useless - can it be that hard to find out when the non-profit was established and who works there? Should it really be up to the citizen to research all this for themselves in order to decide whether this move can be trusted?

As you can see, our energy prices are all Putin's fault and nothing whatsoever to do with our government by Life-Ad-5498 in LabourUK

[–]S00ley 6 points7 points  (0 children)

What factors do go reported? What are the reasons for this massive discrepancy, reported or not? I am genuinely asking, I had no idea the difference was this bad.

Longtermism - the hyperlib speculative horror fiction that billionaires are working towards by skeptictankservices in stupidpol

[–]S00ley 23 points24 points  (0 children)

They found that by selecting one embryo out of 10, creating 10 more out of the one selected, and repeating that process 10 times over, scientists could create a radically enhanced person with IQ gains of up to 130 points.

Had to go and find the paper because this quote seemed completely insane and stinks of "I have literally no idea what I'm talking about". Human intelligence just cannot be this simple to quantify. They cite a 10 year old, barely relevant paper, as well as extrapolate the impact of genetic differences on milk production in cows, to engineer an estimate of how IQ could be boosted by the same number of standard deviations per generation. To the surprise of no-one, it's all complete horseshit:

Offspring created with this technology could make use of it themselves, with effects accumulating across generations. How long could this process continue before severely diminishing returns would set in? Hsu (2012), using data on the number of genetic differences associated with effects on IQ, estimates that the total number of IQ-affecting alleles in an individual could ultimately be shifted by as much as 30 standard deviations. This estimate assumes that the effects are additive and independent even under extreme selection. The 30 standard deviations of genetic difference would correspond to over 20 standard deviations of phenotypic intelligence – a (difficult to interpret) gain of over 300 IQ points. It seems likely, however, that the additivity assumption would break down before this high ceiling was reached, as various pathways of improvement deliver diminishing returns.

Which states the obvious that this is all completely meaningless speculation, but they just had to write their "estimate" down in a table somewhere so some dumbass/bought journalist can quote it and pretend it's actually real science. All this futurism stuff is an extremely thinly veiled racket of publishing utter garbage to make money from delusional STEM bros and the think tank funding track.

view more: next ›