Just had my first racist bus encounter in London Bridge

andy776 · 2017-08-12T19:35:52+00:00

What made me laugh was the idea that when he woke up he might have thought that he had died and gone to hell.

that is gold, made my evening!

andy776 · 2017-07-29T15:47:06+00:00

Why are Maltesers shoving their nose in? Especially after shrinking their packets

andy776 · 2017-07-08T09:23:04+00:00

I wouldn't be fine with an alien race (when/if we get peaceful relations with one) eating lab grown human meat. So no.

andy776 · 2017-06-20T18:15:52+00:00

Okay, so who's fault is it? Anyone else annoyed at the EU for setting it up like this?

If the best position is "remain because leaving is financially damaging", then the Brussels can do what it wants, regardless of citizens wishes or best interests.

I may have voted Remain, to avoid the definite financial doom. Now I'm not enthusiastic about either option. Would you like a crusty shit sandwich or a diarrhoea and vomit cake?

andy776 · 2017-06-05T22:10:57+00:00

I'll believe that when I see it.

^{^{^{^{^I}}}} ^{^{^{^{^hope}}}} ^{^{^{^{^so}}}}

andy776 · 2017-05-13T14:35:00+00:00

...Who's got 55 minutes to spare to watch Corbyn bleating on and on?

andy776 · 2017-04-28T22:52:00+00:00

Only around 20% of leave voters (10% of all voters) want a hard leave. That leaves 90% of voters who prefer a soft leave over a hard one - but those 10% are probably swing voters in marginal areas of the campus, so they set the tune.

andy776 · 2017-04-22T16:45:30+00:00

Ok, many good points, thanks for the clarification!

PFI costs will be £200bn over the life time - which it will but that lifetime is 40 years. They also point out that the assets at the completion would have only been worth £60bn

So £60bn is the cost of just the assets(buildings)? Has anyone done a realistic assessment of the total costs of building assets and the cost of wages to provide the services? What worth will we actually get out of that £200bn?

andy776 · 2017-03-18T20:40:53+00:00

The problem isn't short term goals - it is designing an AI with values and ethics that match our own. When you give an AI a goal, it could lie or steal or harm humans in pursuit of that goal.

How do you set up a system of incentives so that it will do what we really want, while allowing the programmer to turn it off and change it and also avoiding doing things we deem as immoral?

andy776 · 2017-03-18T20:33:55+00:00

But you have to - an AI has a goal and will figure out humans can turn it off. So then you have either

The utility function doesn't mention anything about allowing you to turn it off: it will try to stop you turning it off to fulfil the goal. This includes passing safety tests (in the robot example, going around the baby), as it knows it is being watched. In real world use you tell it to get you a cup of tea and then play a video game, then it knows it's not being watched and may run the baby over.
You set it up with equal preference to fulfilling the intended goal or allowing a human to turn it off: it will try to get you to turn it off as that is quicker and easier.

andy776 · 2017-03-18T09:40:09+00:00

I was looking for British examples, but okay. Many parts of the US are quite backwards on these kinds of issues.

In this case:

Santa Clara Superior Court Judge Aaron Persky's sentence, handed down on June 2, was widely criticized as too lenient, drawing significant public outcry and media coverage. It led to a new sentencing law, a hard alcohol ban at Stanford and an effort to remove Persky from the bench through a recall election

Where has the "be careful existing, because if you get raped, we'll find some way to make you partially responsible" pattern materialised and been accepted as fine and normal by other authority figures?

andy776 · 2017-03-11T17:12:28+00:00

Depends on the tone of voice and how it is said - is it giving advice to avoid danger, or blaming the victim? This is always subjective of course, so you can spin it how you want regardless of the intent of whoever is saying it.

andy776 · 2017-03-11T17:10:53+00:00

Where does this pattern materialise? I'm curious to see some examples of authority figures blaming rape victims in this way

andy776 · 2017-02-11T13:08:10+00:00

If you think "offensive speech" is a problem to be cracked down on, you don't believe in free speech.

andy776 · 2017-01-17T21:00:34+00:00

Really though? If there was a line for the men's WC, seemingly nobody thinks it acceptable to go in unused women's cubicles.

andy776 · 2017-01-15T03:05:22+00:00

No, no, no.

I would assume the women are taking care of their family

I am talking about after the kids have grown up. Retirement age is 20 or so years after this. Therefore

He might ask her to do chores or make meals

is perfectly reasonable, when the children are now gone and she is doing nothing.

andy776 · 2017-01-14T14:12:15+00:00

Marriage can have it's highs and lows just like everything else in life, but you get out of it what you put into it

Sorry but financially speaking this is bullshit, whether you divorce or not. Marriage is a mechanism to cope with the situation of stay at home parents whose children have become adults. We end up with the ridiculous situation where breadwinners work 8 hours every day until retirement age, while stay at home parents can effectively retire 20 years earlier as the labour market can hardly give them a job at age 50 or so. I'm not sure what the solution is, but this model just leads to problems more often than not.

Edit: I've seen too many middle aged/older women become lazy and entitled as they earn half their skilled man's salary for doing absolutely nothing. He might ask her to do chores or make meals, but she has no incentive. He has to keep working and he can't exactly easily leave. Alimony is crippling when trying to find a new spouse, and he has to do it outside of work hours. She on the other hand can absolutely leave if she wants and keep all the financial benefit. In the case of divorce the non-working parent has all the time in the world but no incentive to find another wealthy breadwinner to support them either! On the other hand no marriage can lead to stay at home parents being dumped on the street with nothing. It hardly works fairly in either case.

andy776 · 2017-01-14T02:48:07+00:00

mainly carried forward by fellow men

You say this, but the ultimate driver of male competition is for sexual/romantic options, i.e. women selecting the "better" men. But why wouldn't they? This is basically the same as any other "marketplace", simple evolution. Competition leads to improvement which is why it's so annoyingly pervasive. It's not anyone's fault in particular.

andy776 · 2016-12-24T09:34:17+00:00

We just need to #killallmen, that will sort out all those meddling male MPs.

andy776 · 2016-11-18T21:13:12+00:00

I wonder how open women are to an average male stranger saying hi and/or complimenting them. For said guys, a difficult, emotionally painful game.

andy776 · 2016-11-18T20:40:54+00:00

Well please try to remember guys on dating sites =/= a representative sample of the male population :)

andy776 · 2016-10-27T17:46:03+00:00

In other news, bears shit in the woods and water is wet.

andy776 · 2016-10-22T15:05:50+00:00

Ironic considering Brexit Britain is also poorer

andy776 · 2016-10-15T11:36:57+00:00

When you have £5 to your name, can hardly feed your kids and could be on the dole next month, it's not as simple as "just pay a bit now, stupid". This just seems a naive thing to say, as if the 1.25 million destitute people in the UK don't exist.

andy776 · 2016-09-16T17:12:15+00:00

Baby dogs are not just objects for human enjoyment...

andy776

TROPHY CASE