This is exactly right. It's like saying you solved chess because for each configuration of pieces on the board you can use machine learning to predict whether that position can be achieved with valid chess moves. With 90% accuracy.
Editing should be allowed for an hour or so in order to fix spelling mistakes, reformat text for easier flow, or even as a recovery after pressing "post" by accident. But long-term deleting and editing will hurt the content. This, for example, is visible on reddit where older threads sometimes have these big piles of deleted comments. Instead maybe I would try something new:
1) Ability to post anonymous comments
2) Instead of deleting a comment a user can choose to make it anonymous so that it is no longer associated with his/her account
To me it seems like you can have a state of mind, and use that state to predict the state of mind of others without being _aware_ of your state of mind at the same time - that is, without being conscious.
I fail to see why that would be true. I think there are different definitions of consciousness here that are being mixed up.
> Without consciousness you experience a single unified reality: your reality.
To me the word "experience" is what consciousness seems to be about. In that case without consciousness you can "step outside" and everything, but you would have no "internal experience" of any sort. i.e. be a "philosophical zombie" [1].
There are a few things intermingled in this election example.
1. The outcome of the election here is not a probability. It is the population value - the ratio of people voting for candidate X on the election date. It doesn't have to be repeated in the same way measurements of height for all people in United States would not have to be repeated, if instead of vote we were measuring heights.
2. Frequentist probability doesn't require to physically repeat things. It can reason about what would happen in the repeated sampling under certain conditions, and then draw inferences about those assumed conditions. With the election example: if you get a survey of 100 people with 70% voting for candidate "A" we don't need to repeat this survey in order to know the likelihood (frequency) of this result happening if the real proportion of people voting for candidate "A" across the US is 50%.
> Modern IDEs are magic. Why are so many coders still using Vim and Emacs?
The title answers the question to some extent - I prefer Vim over IDEs because I am allergic to "auto-magic". Also, unlike most IDEs, Vim will still be there after 5 years, 10 years, or 15 years.
One possible explanation would be to think what kind of pictures or photos would get labels with words "white woman" in them. If it was a single woman smiling it would probably be labelled "happy woman" or just "happiness". The word "white" is likely to appear when there are other people of different colors in the same picture. For example "Afro man and white woman happy at a pool" or something like that.
Same with European art. The prefix "European" would only be added when the author of the picture tries to contrast it with something else, or push some agenda about "European art". Otherwise it would just be under "art".
Case in point with another term: look at "American scientists" and "white American scientist". The second one will have more results of black people. This is again, in my opinion, because the addition of "white" is mainly added by those who concentrate and write about things related to race.
Another case in point - try looking for "thin woman" and observe how the proportion of pictures with obesity in them is bigger compared to searching for "woman" only.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.[0]
> But it's a particular research programme, embedded in a social context, that generates knowledge, not a single reproducible experiment.
Somewhat disagree. That particular research programme must still have reproducible experiment as a unit. A million irreproducible experiments will generate exactly zero knowledge.
I completely understand the position of the person you replied to. One video outlining it is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3XuFr7rw84 . Many people disagree with it but I think thats because they don't imagine being productive without auto-completion.
> If I were a boss of a company and saw one of my employees do this, I would seriously reconsider their employment. Purposely limiting yourself has no place in development.
If I was a boss of a company I would try to judge people based on some objective measure, rather than subjective opinions about how one should be doing things.
I created twitter about a month ago with the intention of using it like a multi-purpose RSS feed and reader. I decided to only tweet about updates and new content from my side. And then to find others that work in areas I care about and follow them. Trouble is - nobody else seems to use twitter like that. They post memes, retweet things, share their political opinions, ask questions, get into discussions, and I see all of that when I follow them. It's just too noisy, currently haven't deleted it but heavily considering the option.