Sleep through the first 3 days. Chew on ice cubes for the first couple of weeks. After that clear.
The real problem isn't the "addiction" (which is so mild as to be laughable); its the sudden influx of time you have, and the fact that smoking, favors a sedentary lifestyle (typically associated with high stress jobs).
Typical spreads are; 1-3 days discomfort, 7-day relapse, 14-21 day relapse, 6 week relapse. after that, unless you hang out with smokers...
They strike anyone with a brain or domain-level knowledge (until they run out of strikes).
You never see the totality of the evidence; just what the judge "allows in" (that isn't prejudicial to the prosecutors case).
You don't know what the punishments are; half the time you aren't instructed on lesser offences; and most of the time you never even get to see the actual laws, or more importantly, case law.
if you think sitting on a jury (as it stands today) qualifies you to render any sort of judgement on the "evidence", you are woefully mistaken.
You are a puppet. A fop. Anything but "the last bulwark against state tyranny".
The appearance of justice, is the only thing Courts give a shit about. You are part of that appearance. A show, for the uneducated to think they still have a functioning legal system.
I often make this point (if you don't have a grad-level understanding..). And people get pissy. Same with statistics ("if you don't have a PHD in stats; you don't understand stats").
--
I had someone contact me for a "consulting" position, to replace their rule-based insurance claim denial system, with "ML". Contract-work, nobody in-house to review its performance, no insight to the problems of the domain and they wanted to throw ML at it to "solve their problem".
When I refused, and pointed out that it would be highly irresponsible, to "contract-out" this type of work, particularly given its life-or-death implications; the CEO got angry. Told me; its "post-claims processing" and it isn't life or death. To which I told him bullshit; your denial of claims is going to directly influence how doctors practice their treatment. There is a direct feedback cycle. The fact that you don't see it, makes it even more dangerous.
They simply, didn't understand, how HIGHLY inappropriate it was to just throw random ML at a problem, particularly as a one-off consulting project (and no in-house expertise).
^ thats real-world.
Personally I don't think you should be allowed anywhere near ML, UNLESS you have that PHD in computer science. I don't even think you should be allowed to HIRE people for ML until you fully understand the hazards with letting a computer control critical decisions.
So yeah, with respect to your distinction of "ML research" and "applied ML".
> Personally I don't think you should be allowed anywhere near ML, UNLESS you have that PHD in computer science
A lot of ML research is done by PhDs in other fields. I did research that focused on developing compact group invariant features (for neural networks) for predicting local atomic energies in materials science, and a few mathematicians I follow did work on developing convolutional neural networks that utilize Clebsch–Gordan coefficients to generalize the translational invariance to other symmetries.
On the contrary, a lot of CS machine learning research is heavily application focused (generate such-and-such new thing using a GAN). If anything, mathematicians are the ones who understand machine learning at the very deepest level of theory. This isn't to say there aren't many theory-focused CS presentations/publications; I'm just refuting your point that highly theoretical machine learning research is purely the domain of CS PhDs.
This seems like it misses the point. Obviously there are professional numerical analysts, statisticians, mathematical physicists, etc. who have sufficient background and interest to keep up with cutting edge research and do solid work in machine learning. The argument is not that everyone needs a CS degree per se, but rather that you shouldn’t have your excel guy who just went through a machine learning MOOC but has no further training or deeper understanding try to apply machine learning to life-or-death problems.
shouldn’t have your excel guy who just went through a machine learning MOOC but has no further training or deeper understanding try to apply machine learning to life-or-death problems.
Sure, but most problems aren't life-or-death. They're mundane problems related to improving a business process for a widget manufacturer, etc.
> Personally I don't think you should be allowed anywhere near ML, UNLESS you have that PHD in computer science.
I rather have people have a PhD in logic or ethics, so they hopefully wont make for example racist programs without even thinking about it. Unfortunately, so far i dont have a lot of faith in computer science as a field when it comes to ethics, as it's all about the technical challenge. That something can be build does not mean it should be build.
So yeah, with respect to your distinction of "ML research" and "applied ML". "NO."
Interesting. I don't see anything in the story above that supports that position. There's nothing about the scenario you described that would be affected by having, or not having, a Phd in CS. If anything, as somebody else pointed out, this is more of question of philosophy or ethics.
It's also a pretty niche example, which is not representative of the kinds of things that ML can be used for. If you want somebody who work on pricing optimization or a recommender system for your e-commerce site, you really don't need somebody who's doing cutting edge ML research.
You just need collusion between law firms i.e. to write a program, and then agree, that whatever it interprets, is the way it will be semantically enforced in court.
To be clear: the study of law is bullshit; so why not take advantage of it, and simply agree, that computer generated bullshit, is what determines it...
... of course while still retaining high rates and billable hours for "attorney review" (for billable hours/padding).
You think hanging them up from yardarms would deter them?
You want to ensure proper behavior; you have to take away the tools that let them aggregate power in the first place; and prevent it from re-occurring.
There is no "higher" standard. There is only one standard; functional, competent, accountable, just.
If you don't have a legal system that can accomplish those. Then you need to scrap your legal system. Not "hold them to a higher standard", which often is just an escape clause for preferential treatment ("Chevron deference").
Wouldn't help with perpetual corporations owning most of the assets. Globalism was just an extension of capitalism, to escape to other jurisdictions.
It is not an accident that the GINI coefficient, is so drastically out of whack in the US.
The mortgage system, was meant to break the original land grants (which had to be honored under British-American common law).
The corporation both a shield for the rich; and a sword against the middle-classes as it disenfranchises citizens from the bill of rights.
Intellectual property is just a more extreme form of corporations. The notion that idea can be owned for decades, with the cost of enforcement out-sourced to the public, and private profits insourced.
Same with the public schooling system (ready workers). Etc.
Just about every Western institution ("improvement") you'ld care to name, has an ulterior motive moving us one step further along to what amounts to perpetual slavery.
I think if you sent back a person from this era, 120+ years ago, to try and "improve" the American system, they'ld have burned him alive. Such is the level of degradation inherent in todays "modern" governance.
Lawyers, are incompetent. If you haven't come to that realization yet; its because you haven't dealt with enough of them. It is -extremely- rare, even at the higher levels of pay, to get a lawyer, who actually knows the specifics of your case.
In a very real way, its all ad-hoc expertise. A series of one-off's you try, to get a compromise your client can accept.
I've yet to meet anyone militantly anti-religion here in the UK despite pretty much everyone I know being life long atheist or formerly religious. What would that even look like? I see no anti church demos, marches or anything. Just the odd individual going off on one on some Facebook post or other net forum from time to time. Just as some believers can.
The only thing I have seen is a wish to have bureaucracy and officialdom recognise "no belief in god" as an equally valid box to tick as CofE. For decades half of those ticking CofE or any of the non-conformist options were a vote for atheism. There's no box, tick what my family grandparents would have.
If I had to summarise UK views, most simply don't seem to care, or see the point of a supernatural being, a god, or some ancient human rules that restrict what you can eat or if you may control your reproduction. If you need tobacco or some deity to get through life have at it.
Humanism, some sort of earth centred belief, or Buddhism thanks to its philosophy and lack of creator have all risen as religion has become increasingly irrelevant for most.
yeah its different here in the US. :) Everything is more polarized/political. Everything.
> Just the odd individual going off on one on some Facebook post or other net forum from time to time.
I discuss theology on a fairly regular basis ;) and philosophy. ;) lets just say there's a fair amount of "ex-Christians" who are looking for something new to latch on. Same old shit (hate/misanthropy), just wrapped in new cloth.
> "no belief in god" as an equally valid box to tick as CofE
Just leave it blank. What to your mind, is the purpose of having an explicit box? I'm curious.
> Humanism, some sort of earth centred belief, or Buddhism thanks to its philosophy and lack of creator have all risen as religion has become increasingly irrelevant for most.
Eh. I know Buddhist philosophy well. Few people get it. My friend who is an atheist (in the truest sense) is a humanist. So am I. Thats why we're friends. :) But he respects my choice to follow a religion; same as I respect his choice, to follow none.
> lets just say there's a fair amount of "ex-Christians" who are looking for something new to latch on
OK, that makes some sense. I don't think many have "committed" to religion and church in the UK for a century or more, compared to the enthusiasm that appears to exist in the US. Even many of those who openly believed rarely actually went regularly.
One formerly quite religious friend who lost faith in his mid or late 40s seemed quite apathetic for a while after. From my perspective looking on that was more that he lost the community, and group activities that he once regularly attended. Perhaps joining a new group or replacing the missing sense family would appeal. Thankfully atheist evangelists and militancy aren't a thing here outside of Dawkins. :)
> What to your mind, is the purpose of having an explicit box? I'm curious.
Hospitals might want to dispose of me in an appropriate manner if the risky operation fails. Passport applications insist on it (I think. It's been 8 years or so since my last). The clerk filling in the screen doesn't get much choice if it's a mandatory field they can't skip. It's sometimes gathered to try and ensure a lack of discrimination across large organisations.
> But he respects my choice to follow a religion; same as I respect his choice, to follow none.
This seems to nail it. Religion, belief, spirituality and atheism has become a personal thing separate and unrelated to organised religions in the UK.
> One formerly quite religious friend who lost faith in his mid or late 40s seemed quite apathetic for a while after.
runs deeper than that. people who are religious, usually are religious because it made sense. but the corruption in organized religion in the west, is difficult to reconcile with the actual tenets of a faith. so when they abandon their church; they still have the same needs that drew them - but now their is no path forward for fulfillment. Religion (in the purest sense), does have a purpose.
> Thankfully atheist evangelists and militancy aren't a thing here outside of Dawkins. :)
Indeed, you are somewhat blessed in this respect. I've always preferred a good conversation.
> Passport applications insist on it (I think. It's been 8 years or so since my last)
that would seem to be the thing to rectify. Unless your legal system is based on religious code; mandatory religious disclosure would seem to be a bit "impolitic".
> This seems to nail it.
He's a good person. So am I. Good people, prefer the company, of good people. Thus, has it always been.
> Religion, belief, spirituality and atheism has become a personal thing separate and unrelated to organised religions in the UK.
You guys have had a rough time of it. Speaking from a historical/religious perspective.
I'm not surprised by Western Christians jettisoning their "faiths". But it would be nice if they didn't impute the Western failures, say on Eastern or Middle-Eastern Christianity (which are vastly different creatures).
It distorts the mind, to project local problems, on all of humanity. Each culture is different; each takes a different path.
> and I think it boils down to her not believing that someone can be "moral"
its interesting to note, that the concept of morality, is in fact, moored as a consensual hallucination as to what is good.
therefore, as an atheist, you might mimic a "cultural" sense of goodness; but since the intent is not from the same source -- you may not pretend to share it. Logically, you are immoral simply because you do not share the same inspiration. This is a direct consequence of "assuredness".
if you want it in mathematical format ;)
you have to look deeper than the act. Which is what, you are missing. It is not enough to be 'good' (as if some objective standard can be said to exist!); it is also important to be able to enunciate the impulse to 'goodness'; and further to assure the reliability of that impulse.
This is why atheism, is and always will be, a minority religion. You lack the one characteristic, that all other religions share. A framework.
That is not to say, btw, that organized religion is "better". As with everything, the intent and education/erudition of the practitioner, makes the difference in real effect.
> so his acts are based on an inner sense of morality.
> its interesting to note, that the concept of morality, is in fact, moored as a consensual hallucination as to what is good.
Says who? You?
> therefore, as an atheist, you might mimic a "cultural" sense of goodness; but since the intent is not from the same source -- you may not pretend to share it. Logically, you are immoral simply because you do not share the same inspiration. This is a direct consequence of "assuredness".
if you want it in mathematical format ;)
Again, your entire argument here is hinged on the assumption that all morality originates from religion and everyone else is just faking it. What you believe is right and everyone else is, by definition, wrong. Give me a break with this "mathematical format" nonsense and condescending smiley faces.
Yup. Your idea of good, is not my idea of good. That we can reach an agreement (compromise), the consensual portion.
That good, is often a matter of perspective, and subject to change in hindsight (i.e. a value judgement distorted heavily by the sensorium/ego) is where it is a hallucination.
> Again, your entire argument here is hinged on the assumption that all morality originates from religion
no, it doesn't. in point of fact, religion arises as a consequence, of the argument. So do gangs/police/armies/nations. Welcome to the morass, of humanity. :)
;)
or if you prefer "the road to hell, is paved with "good" intentions".
or more succinctly, "hell is other people".
> Give me a break with this "mathematical format" nonsense
Not a fan of logic?
> and condescending smiley faces.
condescending? not really. simply commenting on an alternate pathway to arrive at the conclusion, as a consequence rather than a posit. as I am not privy to your actual conversation with said "religious" person, I chose to demonstrate the line of reasoning.
But by all means, continue to stick your head up your ass and think its "religion is the only source of goodness" statement, rather than a logical argument, predicated on human psychology and its biases.
The real problem isn't the "addiction" (which is so mild as to be laughable); its the sudden influx of time you have, and the fact that smoking, favors a sedentary lifestyle (typically associated with high stress jobs).
Typical spreads are; 1-3 days discomfort, 7-day relapse, 14-21 day relapse, 6 week relapse. after that, unless you hang out with smokers...