> "The idea that children could be out without a parent hovering was just completely unknown to them," Macklem recalls. "And the fact that the kids talked to someone who they obviously knew but who was not a parent."
I didn´t know the situation in the US was quite so dystopical that kids on their own was any surprise...
Well, the mountaineer reason of ”because it’s there”, which honestly is probably the more honest and moral of the two. To become a ”mulit-planet species” in a real sense we need more earthlike planets, else the iss in orbit around the moon would be enought to make the claim. Consider that we don’t cout ourselves as an underwater species just by virtue of submarines. Even if we made a self sustaining underwater base and condemneded people to live there forever it would just be those poor people living underwater, we aren’t suddenly a underwater species.
Right, so you haven't heard any of the noise over NK sending up rockets then? Nukes are not spy sattelites, they are extremely destructive and symbolic weapons and you say the russians will be fine with an overflight based on their faith in the current administration... because that is really the argument to be had in this scenario: is instrument error more or less likely than a trumpian sneak attack?
Uh, you remember how indyref was Cameron gambling the cohecion of his country for the opportunity to steal a policy issue from the opposition? The idea that indyref was allowed out of respect of popular will is utterly deluded, Cameron never cared for the scots as they are too left to vote for him.
Well, in the important case of finding something new and interesting you need proper MC to verify your understanding. In practice you are right that using the NN like it actually speaks about reality will be common and not too harmful, people do lots of dubious least squares fits and astronomy still survives!
I'm not saying a NN doesn't reproduce analytical expressions, rather that "take everything and mix it together a bunch of times using this recipe" is not the form that the laws of nature has.
I'm not sure what you think explicit construction proves, it is clearly a case of taking preexisting knowledge and expressing it in what is doubthlessly a more akward form.
I guess you train it on things you know and use it to tell if a new observation looks familiar or not. You can't use the NN for the final analysis because its just a pile of linear algebra shaped like a causal theory: there is no actual physics in it.
No, you can of course write some simple stretchy model that fits fast. The thing with NNs is that you don't have to domuch work to get a good fast model, you use cpu cores for that instead.
I didn´t know the situation in the US was quite so dystopical that kids on their own was any surprise...