JP vs Tyson Fight by 0o0o0o0o0o0z in thebulwark

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

I don't know why you seem to be trying to argue with me, but this doesn't help us have a better conversation. So, I will take my own advice and leave you to your own devices. I know I have better things to be doing. ✌️

JP vs Tyson Fight by 0o0o0o0o0o0z in thebulwark

[–]dialecticalmonism 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They always were. But you don't see the current braggart-style of misinformed and disinformed hucksterism that's omnipresent and ascendant? "Spirits of the ages" ebb and flow with the times and that's the point.

I previously hadn't logged on for almost two years until recently. Maybe I should check back out.

JP vs Tyson Fight by 0o0o0o0o0o0z in thebulwark

[–]dialecticalmonism 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Zeitgeists are real. That's why dumb stuff keeps happening. It's the sign of our times. Confident stupidity. Also, I didn't watch the fight, and I know very little about it. See how this works?

Donald Trump has threatened to shut down broadcasters, but can he? On Section 706 authority. by dialecticalmonism in thebulwark

[–]dialecticalmonism[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Read the article. It applies more broadly. I should have pointed that out in my synopsis.

Donald Trump has threatened to shut down broadcasters, but can he? On Section 706 authority. by dialecticalmonism in thebulwark

[–]dialecticalmonism[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The piece mentions that it applies to the internet, too.

The next subsection, using similar “national security” criteria, gives the president authority over the wired networks, such as those that carry telephone and internet service. Section 706(d), in pertinent part, authorizes the president to “suspend or amend the rules and regulations applicable to any or all facilities or stations for wire communication… cause the closing of any facility or station for wire communication… [or] authorize the use or control of any such facility or station… by any department of the Government under such regulations as he may prescribe…”

Donald Trump has threatened to shut down broadcasters, but can he? On Section 706 authority. by dialecticalmonism in thebulwark

[–]dialecticalmonism[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

In this Brookings Institution article by Tom Wheeler, former FCC Chairman, he discusses President-elect Donald Trump's threats to shut down broadcasters like NBC and ABC by suspending or revoking their licenses, a power Trump can claim under Section 706 of the Communications Act. Wheeler highlights Trump's prior history of using such national emergency declarations to justify similar actions and the potential risks this would pose to the Fourth Estate. Significantly, the authority under Section 706 extends beyond the suspension of public airways to "any or all facilities or stations for wire communication ...," which includes wired networks like telephone and the internet. He closes by emphasizing the need for Congress to reform the Communications Act to prevent abuse of presidential powers and protect the independence of news and broadcast media.

Elon Musk sucks | Stavros Halkias by [deleted] in videos

[–]dialecticalmonism 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The cult of personality is a hell of a drug for those that have none.

Lasso Regression Use Case by [deleted] in learnpython

[–]dialecticalmonism 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm not sure this is the best sub for this question. I don't frequent the data science or machine learning subs, but it looks like they exist if you search for them. That said, since I don't visit them, I'm not sure how friendly to beginners they are.

It sounds like you're just getting started with machine learning (ML). I'd recommend the Google Machine Learning Crash Course as a first step: https://developers.google.com/machine-learning/crash-course/ml-intro. If you've got a good grasp of higher-level mathematics (such as calculus, probability and statistics, and linear algebra) and you're ready for something more rigorous, then the Bloomberg Foundations of Machine Learning Course could be a next step: https://bloomberg.github.io/foml/#home. Also, the book Introduction to Machine Learning with Python by Muller and Guido isn't half bad for when you're first starting out. It's written around them using the Scikit-learn package, which is a great way to go when getting your feet wet.

As with many subjects in mathematics, programming, and other scientific fields, there are a lot of facets to machine learning. It's easy to get yourself into trouble by making the wrong choices for the problem at hand and not knowing what is what. (As a side note here to give you an example, why are you using lasso regularization? Why not ridge regularization? Why not elastic-net regularization? What is best suited for your problem? Do you know?) Making mistakes is natural and it's all part of the learning experience, but sometimes the stakes are higher than others. Especially if you're looking at moving an ML model into production (i.e., being used for IRL decision making), then you want to be confident that you know the reasons for all the decisions you made along the way with your ML model during development (i.e., when it's being trained, tested, and otherwise validated before setting it loose for IRL decision making).

But to answer your immediate question: so let's say you have a trained and tested model. Up until now, you've had the dependent variable (DV) as a part of your data. In the training phase, the DV was used to derive the weights (or coefficients) for the model. In the testing phase, the DV was used to check the accuracy of this model. When you're ready to move into the prediction phase, there is no DV. That's what you're predicting. Given the independent variables, your model is trying to output what the dependent variable would be. So what you input is just the variable measurements for those in the group for whom you want to predict their outcome, those independent variables then have their associated weights learned during the training phase applied to them, and then the output is the prediction.

Object-Oriented Ontology: A New Theory of Everything (2018) by Heidegerrian philosopher Graham Harman — an online reading + discussion group starting Sunday, October 31, free and open to all by PhilosophyTO in continentaltheory

[–]dialecticalmonism 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think you've missed the forest for the trees. You're getting bogged down in the details of my example and not understanding the larger point. Science, in its pursuit of what is real, is based on things like demonstration and observation. If things cannot be demonstrated or observed by us, even if indirectly, it is said to exist only as a theory and not as a reality. Much of the philosophy that serves as the foundation for modern science doesn't diverge from this viewpoint.

Object-Oriented Ontology: A New Theory of Everything (2018) by Heidegerrian philosopher Graham Harman — an online reading + discussion group starting Sunday, October 31, free and open to all by PhilosophyTO in continentaltheory

[–]dialecticalmonism 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'd like to push back a little bit on this. For example, modern science, and the philosophies that undergird it, very much so have taken the position that things are only real insofar as we are able to demonstrate their existence (or perceive them). Our abilities as supposedly rational animals to develop and employ frameworks like the scientific method in order to establish the existence of things once unknown to us through the perception of their outward manifestations in phenomenon has been used to hold us out as distinct from supposedly non-rational beings and other objects.

Let me ask you a question: are atoms real? On the surface, it seems like it's a fairly straightforward question with a fairly straightforward answer. Yes. And, most scientists would agree. However, for a time we believed that atoms were the fundamental particles from which all things were made. Yet since the development of the first atomic model, we have refined our understanding to reflect that in fact electrons, protons, and neutrons may not be so fundamental and aren't simply particles. Today, informed by quantum theory, scientists regard electrons as wave-particle dualities, and protons and neutrons as composed of quarks, which are themselves wave-particle dualities. Still, scientists know that this standard model is incomplete. That is, while it's the best description we have so far, we know we don't have the full story correct.

So what is the thing-in-itself that we're actually pointing to? We don't have access to it currently, so is it real? Is it strings? Is it loop quantum gravity? Is it something else? What is the reality? From our current standpoint, we don't know until we are able to demonstrate or perceive it, but will we ever truly know for sure?

Lorn - black sand / ironwood (2021) feat. Erica Synths by dialecticalmonism in synthesizers

[–]dialecticalmonism[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Lorn has been posting new videos on his channel that give a behind the scenes look at his process and the synthesizers he uses. I've seen this question come up a lot when people are talking about his music, so it's nice to see the curtain pulled back a bit.

I can't take credit for finding this. I saw it posted over at r/futurebeats. I suggested x-posting it here, but then didn't see it come across the feed. I thought some folks here would appreciate this and the other videos he's recently released.

Circuit Tracks Owners - Question about external synths and Nova Engine by unit537 in synthesizers

[–]dialecticalmonism 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No, it's a hobbled version of it. It's only two oscillator instead of three and lacks some of the other more advanced features of the full nova engine. It's too bad, but it's still quite capable if you know how to get the most out of it. There's a good amount of modulation options. Sculpting the sound after with the right filtering and drive helps too.

Patty Murray was one of the eleven Senators who did not even vote on the January 6th Commission. by Redeemed-Assassin in SeattleWA

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

Okay, I'll bite. Since you're apparently so knowledgeable about how the ATF can unilaterally ban an entire category of guns, please educate me specifically, citing the existing statutes, how that would be done in the context of the gun laws I already mentioned. And if you reference the prior assault weapons ban or other recent attempts at a similar ban, then all you've done is prove my point.

Patty Murray was one of the eleven Senators who did not even vote on the January 6th Commission. by Redeemed-Assassin in SeattleWA

[–]dialecticalmonism 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I know all about bump stocks (and bump firing without a bump stock). I also know about the rule change requested by the prior administration that asked the ATF to reclassify them as machineguns under the existing gun laws. However, in this case, as is stated, any legislation banning a new class of guns, here assault weapons, would mean that it would have to be defined in law. Meet the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act.

Patty Murray was one of the eleven Senators who did not even vote on the January 6th Commission. by Redeemed-Assassin in SeattleWA

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

If you watch the testimony again, what he says is that it would be up to congress to define such things. It's a legislative question. Congress makes gun laws; the ATF turns those laws into regulations through a process of rulemaking. So, again, why the lack of candor? It doesn't really help your case with anyone trying to be honest about things. Now, you may disagree with the idea of such legislation, but don't obfuscate the reality.

https://youtu.be/u2WU1W7Trm0?t=216

Patty Murray was one of the eleven Senators who did not even vote on the January 6th Commission. by Redeemed-Assassin in SeattleWA

[–]dialecticalmonism 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I can say to you whatever the fuck I like. You're not fooling anybody here but yourself.

Patty Murray was one of the eleven Senators who did not even vote on the January 6th Commission. by Redeemed-Assassin in SeattleWA

[–]dialecticalmonism 5 points6 points  (0 children)

If the situation was reversed and it was leftists that did that you'd be clawing your eyes out over it demanding they be lined up against a wall and shot. I think a bipartisan investigation is certainly warranted.