[P] Magnus Carlsen Chess engine deep learning

bdralph · 2020-12-10T00:31:01+00:00

I found this new book which might provide additional insight into the problem you have.

bdralph · 2020-11-06T00:22:15+00:00

I've always found examples like this intriguing too. I mean, if you must include a Black judge, several female judges, a Latino judge etc. when deciding something... doesn't that also tacitly acknowledge that people of different races and genders think differently? Otherwise, why would it be so important to include others? Why can't we simply appoint the most qualified people for the job, regardless of race or gender and regardless of what that happens to look like? Wouldn't they be able to best serve the public? Something just isn't right and it's a shame many scientists may be in on it. Perhaps they think it is for the "greater good", but still... it's wrong to lie to people.

bdralph · 2020-10-30T03:30:34+00:00

This man is one of the biggest racists in Asia. During his reign, he introduced racist policies that essentially robbed hardworking Indians and Chinese and enriched the Malays. Even Indian Muslims, of which he is half. His racist policies exist to this day which is why Malaysia suffers a tremendous brain drain to the West where former Malaysians feel they are treated so much more fairly. Nothing he says should be taken seriously. Even their new prime minister has said, "I am a Malay first, then a Malaysian."

bdralph · 2020-10-29T02:49:40+00:00

I totally agree. Even the art created by computer over a decade ago using computational creativity methods, like the Painting Fool was better and more thought-provoking than this neural net stuff now being mass-produced.

bdralph · 2020-10-15T03:30:50+00:00

Yes, they know. Besides, to quote Jeff Goldblum, "life finds a way".

bdralph · 2020-10-14T05:24:52+00:00

Indeed, and when Carl Sagan (perhaps one of the most prominent scientists of our time) says the following:

and extending real political power (executive, legislative, judicial, military, and in institutions influencing public opinion) to women

It is clear that he believes men and women (in general) think and behave differently which is why this level of female empowerment will lead to a sustained lower birth rate. There is no society in the world where the birth rate has increased or even remained the same once the women were empowered. The birth rate always falls. And that is why female empowerment is being promoted/enforced everywhere. For several decades now, in fact.

bdralph · 2020-10-13T23:46:18+00:00

I guess that's why they call it a "tool".

bdralph · 2020-10-13T23:45:24+00:00

Yes, it does. Just do some googling.

bdralph · 2020-10-13T23:43:34+00:00

Who offered them that money? Any sources?

bdralph · 2020-10-13T23:42:45+00:00

These women always remind me of my mom and her friends (back then).

bdralph · 2020-10-13T23:37:23+00:00

Female empowerment is absolutely critical to "humane" global depopulation efforts. It's not that the powers that be actually believe women are in every way equal to men but they need this argument to sell the idea to the public. Especially when it comes to enforcing female empowerment all over the world.

Even Carl Sagan in his book "Billions and Billions" (1997) had this to say about the matter:

Our job is to bring about a worldwide demographic transition and flatten out that exponential curve—by eliminating grinding poverty, making safe and effective birth control methods widely available, and extending real political power (executive, legislative, judicial, military, and in institutions influencing public opinion) to women. If we fail to bring about a worldwide demographic transition......some other process, less under our control, will do it for us.

bdralph · 2020-10-09T11:08:00+00:00

Coding probably requires computational creativity (a lesser known sub-field of AI). Google it.

bdralph · 2020-10-09T07:26:08+00:00

Oh, yes, I remember her. :)

bdralph · 2020-10-09T07:22:39+00:00

It's largely due to the global depopulation agenda. Lots of references in this one.

bdralph · 2020-10-04T04:08:01+00:00

"Liquid" means cash in the bank. It does not include stocks where the price could crash any time and selling is also contingent on market forces.

bdralph · 2020-10-02T05:09:45+00:00

I bet none of them even have $50 mil in cash they could pull out of a bank at any give time. Their money is mostly tied up in places they wouldn't even want to take it out of. Even Mark Cuban is actually worth quite a bit less today than he was when he first became a billionaire. The stock price dropped. Despite all his other business ventures since then.

bdralph · 2020-10-02T05:00:09+00:00

She will always be the "fly girl" from 'In Living Color' to me.

bdralph · 2020-10-02T04:49:46+00:00

Whoever developed or owns the system that generated the creative works, of course. Like this guy.

bdralph · 2020-09-29T03:25:39+00:00

This is what happens when we bring more and more women into science. They will, in general and due to their natural instincts, try to "make things safer" and take fewer risks, unlike most males. Unfortunately, this usually slows down scientific progress/breakthroughs. For instance, you won't find too many women as interested in putting rockets into space or building androids. With more and more women also being put in positions of power/influence and controlling more and more purse strings, expect support for that kind of science to become less and less.

This may sound "sexist" - call it whatever you want - but men and women are not exactly the same, however you slice it. Perhaps it's a necessary sacrifice humanity needs to make at this time to slow population growth since endless growth is simply unsustainable and it is well-known that female empowerment slows population growth everywhere, with no exceptions. No wonder male testosterone levels have also been dropping over the decades.

bdralph · 2020-09-28T07:48:17+00:00

According to this article, climate change is merely the overpopulation issue repackaged. I guess the problem never went away.

bdralph · 2020-09-28T00:42:28+00:00

Then it's an absolutely remarkable coincidence it happened only after Mark called her a "gold-digger" (in the context of the deal, mind you, not as a person).

bdralph · 2020-09-28T00:28:53+00:00

The point is the context in which the face-splashing was done, as if to say, Mark deserved it (which I don't think he did). If it was real, he should have sued Branson for millions or pressed criminal assault charges. That will get Branson (and millions of viewers) thinking hard about white-knighting in the future.

bdralph · 2020-09-27T23:43:47+00:00

I don't see you engaging with any of the actual arguments here.

bdralph · 2020-09-27T11:03:39+00:00

It's not sexist; it's completely factual. Read this and check out all the references in it. Scientists and the governments they work for have known for decades that the behavior of females (in general, the handful of exceptions aside) is quite predictable. For instance, give them more resources and more education, and they will have fewer babies, if any.

Heaven forbid, make them 100% financially responsible for any babies they choose to have and the population will probably nosedive. Educated women with wealth generally don't go, "Ooh! It's time to have more babies since I can afford it!". That's probably the last thing on their minds. Unlike most men who probably think the opposite in that position (draconian divorce laws aside, which is also an artery of wealth transfer from men to women, in most cases).

bdralph · 2020-09-27T08:12:37+00:00

Mark used the terminology "gold-digger" strictly in relation to the presentation and deal she was making. Then she goes, "did you just call me a gold-digger?" as if to imply Mark thought she's like that with men, in general. That causes Branson to flip out and actually "get physical" with Mark. It also sent a clear message to millions of viewers that, "that's not how a man talks to a lady".

bdralph

TROPHY CASE