kylevedder

8 ms·

31.
by kylevedder 4y ago
How are ad funded websites "anti competitive"? Start by defining "anti competitive", as I suspect you're using a non standard definition.
32.
by kylevedder 4y ago
>There isn’t a missing logical leap in the middle. The tracking is self-evidently anti-democratic. If you can't mount a coherent argument that doesn't assume the conclusion, you should consider the possibility that the conclusi
33.
by kylevedder 4y ago
>Yeah, I'll get right on voting for the candidate that has "limit the tracking of data by internet companies" Again, your list of complaints revolved about the government getting their hands on all this data and using it f
34.
by kylevedder 4y ago
"if you know you know" isn't an argument. This is just empty rhetoric -- dogmatically asserting that tracking ads damage society and that I'm being controlled by it is a pretty strong claim, and a claim that requires e
35.
by kylevedder 4y ago
So truuuuu, tech companies are imprisoning people or killing them, not governments.
36.
by kylevedder 4y ago
At an object level, "not having XYZ actions occur from the government" is a problem with the government, not any tech company. You almost certainly live in a western style democracy, and so you possess mechanisms to modify the gov
37.
by kylevedder 4y ago
It's valid to point out to children that platforms have an incentive to suck them in and keep them on there, but this has nothing to do with ads. Netflix is a paid subscription service that does not show you ads, yet they have just as
38.
by kylevedder 4y ago
This a bit orthogonal so I put it in a separate comment, but let me be even more aggressive and do a bit of offense: I've read a lot of the "pro privacy/anti tracking" arguments over the years, and (outside of a few exce
39.
by kylevedder 4y ago
>they do not see how it is affecting them I'm an adult who understands tracking tech and in particular Google's level of tracking quite well (I used to work on AdWords), and I'm one of these people -- tracking doesn't
40.
by kylevedder 4y ago
Probably the most interesting trick from the paper is using the head as a soft supervisor for earlier layers of the network, with the intuition being that if the earlier layers learn to imitate the higher capacity later layers, it frees up
41.
by kylevedder 5y ago
Given the nebulous notion of a set of high quality talent (assume quality is a scalar and they're the people above a given threshold), it's pretty clear that: len(set(high quality talent) - set(ever employed at facebook)) < len
42.
by kylevedder 5y ago
All I've said is that your ideological prejudices will cause you to have more difficulty finding good quality candidates (you are selecting against things correlated with quality) and you'll be paying more for equal quality candid
43.
by kylevedder 5y ago
Being unable to find the best candidates because you have racial prejudices or prejudices towards anyone with prior employment at the F in FAANG are both bad for business. You have a massive systematic blind spot that will make your company
44.
by kylevedder 5y ago
Good luck explaining to your boss that you can't fill the hiring rec because, even though you found qualified candidates, you disliked the fact that they had the audacity to be employed by a tech company you don't like and so they
45.
by kylevedder 5y ago
At the end of the day, saying "it's just electrical signals" is a crude way of saying "it's using a model of computation that we understand and can replicate". The first claim may not be strictly true, but it s
46.
by kylevedder 5y ago
Are you saying neurotransmitter modulation and glial cells cannot be represented by electrical signals? Honestly, the root of all this is whether you were trying to claim that the brain is doing super-Turing computation or not. Either 1) it
47.
by kylevedder 5y ago
>Consciousness What makes something conscious? Follow up: is that answer well-defined (it's not using other nebulous concepts to avoid having to rigorously define it), and does it accept all of the things you think should be called
48.
by kylevedder 5y ago
>philosophy has stricter standards "Stricter" in what sense? There's plenty of philosophy that is absolutely crankery built atop absurd premises, but it sounds like you're "no true Scotsman"ing that away.
49.
by kylevedder 5y ago
That's a pretty bad faith reply. I'm not paid by Google to astroturf (feel free to look at my account) and I agree with magicalist: I want to see primary sources before drawing any significant conclusions.
50.
by kylevedder 5y ago
You should look at Frankle's work on The Lottery Ticket Hypothesis [1]; it turns out that in most cases you can remove 80+% of the network's weights and still get very similar output quality. The hypothesized reason is that region