For most people, even with shitty parents, your still parents sacrificed for you and raised you. A loyal human would not abandon them without great reason. Cutting contact should be a last resort, even if that means slightly worse mental health for yourself. Yes, you do owe them some minimum of respect and kindness if they showed you the same in raising you. That leads to better outcomes for society.
I’m up voting because I want to hear this side of the argument. I guess your point is that most people’s experience isn’t that bad, and they owe their parents.
Sure, so it can just be a matter of balancing how they treat you and your family vs basic decency and the benefit of merely maintaining contact and having them around as grandparents for your kids. Everyone’s experience and tolerance is different.
I don’t think we necessarily owe our parents. They made the conscious decision to have us and raise us, that ought to be a reward in it self.
I certainly will the best I can for my kids, but I don’t want them to think they owe me anything. This is especially true if I am (unknowingly or unconsciously) treating them or their family very badly.
It’s replies like this that show a total ignorance for mental health and human dignity. You truly have no idea what some people experience inside their own homes and as a result, in their minds. Please do not listen to this person if you are experiencing problems with family. Get help and educate yourself.
Your highest duty is to your own self and the people you care about. That may or may not include the people who raised you. You can define and be loyal to family that you choose.
I think the main issue is that most mental illnesses are vaguely defined clusters of problems - if you represented a diagnosis as a vector where each index corresponded to severity of a particular symptom, the diagnosis space would not properly aligned with the actual disease basis. This introduces ambiguity - a single disease tends to fall into multiple clusters when your representational domain is misaligned with the actual data axes.
The solution is ML. Neural networks with appropriate architectures effectively perform a change of basis, mapping the data basis to an output coordinate system. When properly trained they can automagically orient their internal representation with the true data bases.
I agree with your first paragraph. However, a NN can't explain its reasoning. You start with a set of symptoms, and you end with a vector, and they're two representations of exactly the same thing. The problem is that NNs are representational, not explanatory, so they won't help a doctor get to a root cause any more than just thinking about the collection of symptoms and what they're associated with.
Yes: but what was implicit in mine is that that output vector is no more or less informative than the current method of associating strong symptoms with specific diagnoses which have known drug dosages. Same idea, different representation.
The difference is whether the process can be automated, and that is where the problem of the black box comes in. With the current system, we know why the drug was prescribed. With an ML system, we would have no clue.
I don't doubt that Google pre IPO probably believed in their motto. It's the investor influence that has gradually steered Google into lucrative but ethically questionable domains.
The overwhelming majority isn't great when you're talking risk of death.
Someone survives playing Russian Roulette the overwhelming majority of the time too. 5 out of 6 times, nothing bad happens at all. 1 out of 6 times, you die. Is that also not something you would consider a "life threatening situation?"
It's actually an interesting question. At what point does the risk of dying in a situation make it "life threatening"? I believe something like 1 in 291 police interactions end up with someone in the hospital or dead.
1/6 is literally 2 orders of magnitude smaller than 1/291. Nonsensical comparison.
More importantly, how many of those hospitalizations/deaths are justified? You realize that police are typically responding to crimes and dealing with criminals who tend to be a little more violent than the average person, right?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a bootlicker by any means, and I acknowledge there are serious policing problems in the US. But seriously questioning whether you're going to survive a traffic stop if you act reasonably is irrational paranoia.
I do formal risk assessments as a part of my job, in a context where people are often risking their lives. Both 1:6 and 1:291 as the chance of of severe injury or death are both firmly in the highest risk category under most calculations, meaning that for decision making, you should assume that it will result in death. Yes, they are two orders of magnitude different. But the comparison is not nonsensical.
Well then you are no doubt aware that these statistics skew overwhelmingly toward those who are noncompliant, combative, and/or felons, correct? Such that the actual rate for "average" people (including minorities, although their rate may be higher) is probably miniscule.
The implication of OPs post was that this was a frequent enough occurrence to legitimately fear interactions with police.
My point is that this is excessive, and partly a result of the eagerness that the media to latch onto and sensationalize stories of blacks being killed by police.
It is relevant to the discussion.
Edit: all of this particularly when negative interactions are going to very heavily skew towards people who are combative and/or noncompliant. This is total paranoia.
> all of this particularly when negative interactions are going to very heavily skew towards people who are combative and/or noncompliant. This is total paranoia.
But also in multiple times a year with people who are non combative and compliant.
What is the acceptable loss rate _you_ are willing to accept on others behalf?
Multiple times per year in a country with 300MM people and what, tens to hundreds of thousands, if not millions of police interactions yearly?
Obviously in the ideal case it would be 0 but that's not realistic and, again, the current rate is far lower than the original poster implied. That's my entire argument. A couple times a year in the news does not justify worrying about being killed during a traffic stop or some other typical, mundane interaction.
If it's that rare, then shouldn't police be stripped of immunity completely?
Let's follow your logic. You claim that police abuse of power is exceedingly rare. In that case, to earn the public trust, and to punish the few rare cases that police do abuse their power, shouldn't the people be as free as possible to pursue justice in those cases?
If police abuse is rare, that argues for even more strict laws against police abuse, less legal protection, and more empowerment of the citizenry to address those few rare cases.
>You claim that police abuse of power is exceedingly rare
I made no such claim. I said that being hurt or killed by an officer is an unlikely occurance for a typical person. That's all I'm arguing and there shouldn't be anything controversial about it.
Well "trash" is a matter of opinion, but profitability isn't. If a community is left unmoderated, it gets so toxic and extreme that advertisers won't go near it with a 10 foot pole.
Also herd immunity is neither guaranteed nor is it necessarily preferable to lockdown. We don't know how long immunity lasts on average post infection.
>they universally believe that immunity is real and at least moderately long-lasting
I haven't seen a single publication to this effect and there's no way to no for sure until enough time has elapsed to verify. Viral immunity varies widely and though it is in the coronavirus family it is still a novel pathogen.
There's no way to know anything for sure, but it's been experimentally confirmed that animal analogues can't be reinfected and that the antibodies people produce are effective against the virus. Remember that this is an emergency situation; we can't just wait and see, we have to work as fast as possible towards addressing the problem.
We’re living in fear. Either herd immunity works or it doesn’t. If it does, end lockdown, take our lumps, and move forward. If it doesn’t, and lockdown, take our lumps, and move forward. Otherwise we’re living a half life where we slowly die from lack of resources.
Sure, we cant shutdown forever, but I dont understand the rush to sacrifice.
Covid will be with us forever now, and in just a few months we already understand a lot more about it than we did at the start.
The longer we can delay mass infection, the more effective our treatment of the disease will be, and the more likely we will have vaccines.
Lets delay for a while, figure out the best treatment methods, and then let it through.
Sure it has to work out fiscally. But America is spending hugely on public assistance now (housing included). One scenario is to cease those programs and turn to the UBI. It adds up very similarly.
At some point, digging into the details, you find the single largest obstacle to a UBI is entrenched ideas and naysayers. Call them Republican or whatever you like, but they're the ones being naive and counterproductive.
Call me old school but after watching numerous people try and fail to learn online with courses and especially YouTube videos, I'm pretty convinced that to learn ideally people need to read textbooks.
This isn't a question of learning styles - and I do believe that online courses and videos are valuable supplementary materials. But none of them compare in richness and direction to a well written and organized book.
Was there anything to recover? Sure they beat everyone to space but the economy wasn't exactly roaring. My family tells me you didn't really have any kind of choice when you lined up to "shop" for groceries, and you had to know someone from the store to get anything good (better meat, rare sweets like jam) before stocks ran out.
That's arguably something else to consider in this comparison. Yes we may have a further distance to go to recover to the US historic norm, but even under a collapse we may be closer to ensuring basic survival and even comfort than immediately post collapse Russia.
"even under a collapse we may be closer to ensuring basic survival and even comfort than immediately post collapse Russia"
One of Orlov's points though is that there is a difference in tolerance levels (i.e. Russians were more accustomed to hardships). Thus the question ought to be, even with an assured higher level of comfort compared to the USSR collapse, will people handle well enough a hypothetical US collapse?
For most people, even with shitty parents, your still parents sacrificed for you and raised you. A loyal human would not abandon them without great reason. Cutting contact should be a last resort, even if that means slightly worse mental health for yourself. Yes, you do owe them some minimum of respect and kindness if they showed you the same in raising you. That leads to better outcomes for society.