manyoso

24 ms·

121.
by manyoso 9y ago
The primary cause of the gap is unknown and may very well not be sexism. And stating that does not make me sexist. If you believe it does, then you are not using reason to arrive at that conclusion. It is a logical fallacy.
122.
by manyoso 9y ago
Agreed. And I understand the impulse. The irony is that this is in many ways the same tendency that powers racism, sexism, stereotypes in general. This very human impulse to label and identify and place in groups of known friends and enemie
123.
by manyoso 9y ago
He's basically suggesting writing plugins for the compiler.
124.
by manyoso 9y ago
So you think the very people who unfairly have benefit from this partisan gerrymandering should be able to choose whether to continue it? Let me guess, you happen to politically side with the benefiting partisans?
125.
by manyoso 9y ago
My guess is Kennedy will punt and say there are two many models to choose from with no clear way to determine which one is best even though they are clearly better than what we have now.
126.
by manyoso 9y ago
The argument is that the measures being taken are like cutting off your nose to spite your face.
127.
by manyoso 9y ago
This is the argument that Trump voters knew he was likely a con, but at least he was paying lip service. This is belied by the continued support since when he has done the exact opposite of what he said. He's revealed himself to be tha
128.
by manyoso 9y ago
And when the hoi polloi start to catch on they just dangle some more red meat identity politics at them. "No, it isn't us, it is all the other people who are taking your American Dream away!" When you think about it, isn&#x
129.
by manyoso 9y ago
For me the real story here is that despite the ascendance of right wing populism the GOP in D.C. is doing the exact same thing it has always done : tax cuts for the rich while shrinking services for the rest. That and deregu
130.
by manyoso 9y ago
You could always read the articles and experts they cite.
131.
by manyoso 9y ago
Almost every study on early childhood development and later outcomes shows that how a child is raised has very little to do with outcomes compared to heredity. https://www.vox.com/2015/8/11/9127769/parent
132.
by manyoso 9y ago
The first one is directly addressed in this article. Others that hint at correlation are also discussed.
133.
by manyoso 9y ago
This involves speculating on a race between two other highly speculative technical research projects: 1) When AI is able to mimic humans in terms of creativity, passion, emotions, etc 2) When we are able to biologically integrate compute re
134.
by manyoso 9y ago
Deleted my facebook account in January. For me it is 100% great and do not miss it even a little.
135.
by manyoso 9y ago
In Penrose book that introduced his thoughts on this argument he devotes an entire chapter to his objective collapse theory and quantum gravity. You asked for a paper and I gave you many. You want to know more pick up his book.
136.
by manyoso 9y ago
You were the one who used the phrase "easy" with regard to Turing machines and feasibility of showing them.
137.
by manyoso 9y ago
It is incorrect. Penrose emphatically says the human brain is governed by physical law. To assert otherwise is just factually incorrect. Read his books or read his papers. If you disagree, please provide one quote that shows otherwise. I am
138.
by manyoso 9y ago
Scott is a friend of mine. I've talked with him face to face about this very subject. He disagrees with Penrose, but his objections are far more nuanced and respectful than anything I have seen here. He would be horrified to see Penros
139.
by manyoso 9y ago
Yes, quantum supremecy has not been demonstrated, but the question of whether non-quantum Turing machines can accurately model all physical laws has not. Of course, we don't even have a quantum theory of gravity for them to model at th
140.
by manyoso 9y ago
Yes, I will try to take the bile out.
141.
by manyoso 9y ago
Let's take the question of the human mind and whether it can be modeled by a non-quantum Turing machine out of the equation. Penrose's contention can be summed up without it. He basically thinks that gravity will be discovered to
142.
by manyoso 9y ago
Let's try this again... Yes, you can make a computer spit out nonsense, but this is a far cry from the computer actually behaving in an illogical way. A Turing machine's entire operation is logical. It is built with logic. It is a
143.
by manyoso 9y ago
Penrose' claim is much simpler. He thinks that gravity playing a role in wave function collapse will show that non-quantum computers are incapable of accurately modeling quantum gravity. IOW, he thinks gravity will end up showing the p
144.
by manyoso 9y ago
If gravity plays a role in wave function collapse that will pose serious questions for the Church-Turing hypothesis. It might very well make it impossible for non-Quantum computers to accurately model quantum gravity. Penrose does not argu
145.
by manyoso 9y ago
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02105068 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10701-013-9770-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_collapse_theory
146.
by manyoso 9y ago
I read that when it came out, but I don't see how that is relevant to this question. The link provides a program for a Turing machine that probes ZFC. So can you create a Turing machine that probes ZFC, but can't be proven not to
147.
by manyoso 9y ago
Show a Turing machine programmed with ZFC axioms that can do something that a Turing machine programmed with PE can not do. If a Turing machine programmed with PE can simulate the Turing machine with ZFC and thus give the same answer, then
148.
by manyoso 9y ago
That you disparage Penrose and cite his mental motivation is likely much more relevant to your own insecurities than anything else.
149.
by manyoso 9y ago
Fair enough, but that is a far cry from 'logically impossible' which the parent comment explicitly stated.
150.
by manyoso 9y ago
It is not quantum woo and it is not quantum magic. Objective collapse theories are the complete opposite of what you are disparaging. Objective collapse theories are more physical than what we currently have. Few people have made more con

More ›