Almost no one is pro genocide, so why is it happening when most countries are more or less democracies? One theory is that the media and politician change the narrative whichever way it suits them. And imo one way to combat this is with polite measured conversations. As the alternative is easily distorted by the opposite side.
The letter “a” has a frequency of ~8%, and it would indead be anoying, but lets say the letter “q” is rendered incorrectly which has a frequency of ~0.1% then thats just some minor issue.
I think the article doesn’t provide enough arguments why this is even an issue.
For example what is the probability of such character being rendered incorectly in some standart tex? lets say a wikipedia article.
Even more so the argumet that people don’t report this because they are "not speakers of English!” is just an assumption. Not to mention that translation applications are more than good enough for such a task.
I don't know what model this specific application is based on, but you can get something similar wit StableDiffusion + ControlNet ie `control_v11p_sd15_scribble` in the ControlNet github repo.
When you have a sub 1% chance of getting an interview, asking for a cover letter or some kind of non trivial time comitment is just wrong.
IMHO a better approach would be to select lets say 10% of the candidates and ask only them.
I think the key difference is supervision, is there another party keeping an eye on what is tested and how. And maybe insuring no permanent damage is done at the end.
While the topic is intriguing, I dislike the use of "public services" for this type of research.
For instance, adding substances to a water reservoir to study their effects is unacceptable, without permission or supervision.
Similarly, conducting such research without Wikipedia's permission/supervision should not be accepted.
PASSIVE VOICE: Thomas Jefferson’s support of the new Constitution was documented in a letter to James Madison.
ACTIVE VOICE: Thomas Jefferson documented his support of the new Constitution in a letter to James Madison.
IMO the passive voice makes much more sence for this example.
I think the issue is not with genderization but the choice of using it instead her name or affiliation (University of Nottingham) or country of residence (United Kingdom). Suggesting that "She Turns Fluids Into ‘Black Holes’ and ‘Inflating Universes’” is more “news worthy” than “Dr. Weinfurtner Turns Fluids Into ‘Black Holes’ and ‘Inflating Universes’” which imho is at least a little bit patronizing.
Really nice idea,
the point I don’t get is why we need to crop the image? If the barcode numbers are in a specific format why can’t we just filter the OCR results?
IMO the author underestimates the positive effects of non combative debates between adults. For a long time before we could just google, debating was one of the main ways we used to check our ideas. Do you believe the sky is red? Try to debate someone and see if you can convince them. And while we now can just google most of the simpler things, that's not the case for complex ideas.
As the author notes by simply listening you will have a better view of the other persons arguments. But at the same time you deprive them from the opportunity of validating their ideas. Which is not a simple tradeoff.
Even worse most people will take silence as a form of agreement, which for a debate about C++ vs Rust is no big loss but is not true for a lot of other issues. And strangely enough the examples provided by the author are complex non trivial ideas no one should take for face value or agree by silence.