Would you seriously want a lawyer who has learned only from books ? Such a lawyer would have very little experience in representing clients, and would not have learned from experienced lawyers.
Law has tons of grand overarching principles, that are extremely unclear unless you learn how to think about them. Furthermore, I don't think anyone can learn how to interpret conflicting laws, and likely outcomes under complex circumstances in any way other than practicing it under guidance from an experienced judge.
Furthermore a lawyer should be a good negotiator, should know how to apply client privilege in practice, should know ...
And you might say, become an apprentice somewhere. Yes, but if we do that, we'll go back to lawyers being a protected profession : only family of existing lawyers can learn from good lawyers and become good themselves. That wouldn't be a 100% thing but this would make it impossible for 99% of the population to become a good lawyer.
You also don't want bad lawyers to exist at all, because of the damage they can do to clients. You must absolutely prevent lawyering from having a lemon law problem or the justice system will collapse into total randomness. The situation we have now, with the degrees, is a grand compromise that means anyone (with some small amount of money, and little connections) can become a respected lawyer. I wouldn't mess with it unless you're prepared to see massive unexpected consequences.
The paper talks about this. Answer: no it isn't, but it's a bit of a matter of definition. A reinforcement learning task will discount future actions, this won't. Also the training is what many people would call a supervised learning task :
It works by training 2 functions, and those functions are very similar to Deep-Q learning functions: f(s, c, a) s = start image (before grasp attempt, robot in zero position), c = current image, a = possible robot command, predicts the odds that a will lead to a successful grasp. And while f could work by itself (ie. 10k random commands, evaluate f, pick the one with the highest odds of success), it doesn't. There's also a g(c) which tries to predict which commands f will give the best odds.
You might wonder how it decides it's grasped something ? When doing nothing is >90% likely to result in a successful grasp it considers the grasp attempt finished (I assume there's also a time limit involved). There's also some method to trigger an abort.
What I find particularly weird (although very much like in the Deep-Q learning papers) is that g essentially tries to predict f, and is mostly an optimization. You couldn't easily train g directly without ridiculous amounts of supervision (you'd need example successful grasps, potentially a lot of them). But to train f, you only need a few successful grasps, which you can just make happen by having a dumb action that will work 1/1000 times. Evaluating f is a huge problem (to many inputs need to be tried), so you couldn't use that function without g. And training g is something that can happen quickly offline.
The brilliance is that this method takes a success signal, and generates supervised learning samples. Those are the easiest thing you could possibly train on, and so very useful.
Combining f and g (on presumably a decent GPU) they can get a 90% grasp success rate on what looks like a motley collection of cutlery, pencils, a stapler, a nightlight, a few pens and (?) some lipstick, a few small boxes. But this is an "online" method, it should get better at it over time by itself. (God help the rest of us if Google decided to release their data before training fully converged because it takes too long)
You also have things like horses, which are running about 30 minutes after birth at speeds about half of what they can do as adults. Before an hour is out they can jump without falling. Not sure how many training examples you can squeeze in there, but not many. Perhaps 1000 ? A horse will try to stand up less than 5 minutes after birth and will only fail to stand up 5-10 times.
CO2 production will stop. We are at or over the Hubbert peak, and nothing can stop co2 production from falling in the future. Therefore, no policies are necessary to make it happen, and anything you do do is counterproductive at best, sabotage at worst.
The ecosystem is bounded by co2 in the air. Proof : just see what happens to plants if you put them in a co2 rich environment. The ecosystem is expanding to eat the extra CO2, and it will win, guaranteed. Especially since we won't even try to stop it. The amounts of land area that are turning green in Africa and Asia are mind-bogglingly big.
Only if also levied on imports in a reasonable way, otherwise it will have the opposite effect. Why ? Because China and all of cheap Asia runs on coal, and that's not going to change quickly.
If it is not levied on imports, it is probably better to actually subsidize domestic CO2 production, because it is better and more useful (more useful work/more industrial production) than having that energy in China, and even China is better than the cheapest parts of Asia (Bangladesh, for example).
He does make a good point. Living conditions in the city being what they are, especially when concerning available space ... is it any wonder people aren't having kids ?
Of course that's the egocentric/egoistic/materialistic/economic argument. And of course nobody wants get caught that that's the main argument. Yes pretty much everyone I know that has enough money for a decent place, no matter how against kids they used to be, has kids. Turning 30 is illuminating. More sad is, that I also know quite a few that don't have a decent place.
Isn't that the same as is happening today with bonds ? The government is pushing bond prices down. So companies are using short-term loans to pay all their costs, while paying everything out to investors (clouding the issue is that a lot of this is happening through buybacks).
What happens when interest rates go up, even a little ? It seems to me obvious consequences would be:
1) monthly payments go up. Either directly (variable interest) or when you refinance (companies have running debt. Almost always taking out new loan when old one comes due). In that case, interest rates go up slower than the benchmark rate, but they still go up.
2) creditworthiness of all debtors goes down (same as with individuals: you are "approved" for a monthly payment, e.g. 100 dollars/month. At 0% interest that covers 12000 dollars for a 10-year loan. At 1% that covers 11400, or about 5% less. Next time you ask for a loan you're not going to be able to loan 12000, so you can't just roll over the debt. So your ability to get new loans is going to be worse)
Also, can someone explain to me why this doesn't result in moral hazard for management of large companies ? If you can loan at, say, 0.25% why wouldn't you just loan the next 60 year's profits now (investment time horizon "until the investors are expected to be dead"), pay it out to investors, and leave, content that you have done far better than you could have done by managing the firm well ?
Why are these parties allowed to make contracts like that without putting up collateral ?
I can pay a bum on the street 10 dollars to sign his name on a contract like that (that he'd take over these payments in the case of bankruptcy). He would not pay up if it does happen. Apparently the situation is the same with these banks. Isn't this fraud ?
They're signing insurance contracts they know they might not be able to pay up. Why don't we demand that they put the money into a locked account like every landlord on the planet does with tenants ? If you don't have that guarantee on a locked account, not used for anything else, then why is that contract accepted as hedged risk ?
Bloomberg had 2 large bank executives complaining very publicly on the low interest rates and advocating having the FED raise rates over the weekend. Here's one, I can't find the other:
Lots of pension funds have been destroyed (but the Fed doesn't care, and the ECB even less), and banks are not far behind. Soon the choice will be raise rates or face bank bankruptcies. My money's on that they'll raise rates and just let the many, many over-indebted companies refinance or go bankrupt.
We can, we're just unwilling to. Moving populations is a political problem, not a physical one. Correctly damming with proper overflow regions is a well-understood problem, and a few countries have dealt with it effectively. Most have simply refused to make the necessary investments.
I don't understand how your statements aren't a direct logical contradiction. One of two things is true:
1) we are able to predict the effect of external changes to earth's climate.
2) we are not.
In the first case, we can predict climate change and find an effect to change the climate to suit us. In the second case we can do neither. But the idea that we can predict climate change but are unable to predict the effect of deliberate changes doesn't fit in either situation.
So how can you hold this position ? It does not make sense ?
Furthermore, I seriously doubt preppers in Montana are a significant part of the climate change policy makers.
As someone who made the mistake in working for an international office, and caught the train out almost 10 years ago now, I agree. I escaped one set of layoffs and then kept thinking I'm next.
I was next.
Got fired at end of financial year, along with a couple thousand others. Had a new job before the day was out (another result of said anxiety).
Note that the protesters in that video are the "local youth". And that police force is there to prevent the situation from blowing up. There are about 5 anti-islam protestors who turned up and didn't immediately walk off. Local businesses destroyed, wounded with the police, ... the works.
But even that is a mere blip on the radar. I've heard about women without islamic headdress being routinely attacked in neighborhoods in at least 3 Belgian cities (Brussels, Antwerp and Mechelen), with constant stories from colleagues that Paris and French cities in general are worse. Constant violence perpetrated by muslims for mostly imagined offenses, things like a school accused of serving pork. The attacks, obviously. The demonstrations and attacks on the police whenever they go looking for terror suspects (I don't know how much more supportive of terror you can call these muslims. They are willing to use violence to defend jihadists, on TV. But of course it is still not acceptable to say there are large amounts of muslims in Europe that support these attacks, not even when a video of hundreds of them doing just that is readily available on youtube here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DlYB2qw3jI).
And of course the political correctness constantly hiding these facts. For instance, the video above is from a news report by the state TV, but it was never sent out like that, and even the shortened version was only displayed once, despite a very slow news day. All other news of the day made no mention of it, and it was gone from the website 30 minutes or so after it aired. This in an organisation that normally leaves those things online for years.
The blatantly obvious fact when walking around in those neighborhoods in Brussels is that the muslim population utterly and completely rejects western european values. Stories from people running away from Brussels because criminals focus down non-muslims, with one friend in medicine saying that their apartment was broken in 3 times in a single day and the police attacked when they came to check it out. A week later they moved, making a huge loss on the apartment they bought there. Female colleagues at the companies I go in Brussels complaining about harassment with people shouting "putin" (French for whore/prostitute) after them just for not wearing headscarves (these are colleagues working in companies in central Brussels, it's not everywhere, certain neighborhoods have this). None of this ever getting a single mention on TV. When something does get through (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKg2UsfnxHc in which a muslim convert matter-of-factly discusses his "right" and "moral duty" to kill everyone who isn't a muslim was completely and publicly suppressed from the state broadcasters website and never discussed again, with one message saying the journalist was told that if anything like that happened again, he'd be more than just fired (by his boss, a state employee, not by muslims).
Seems like this is what they were talking about. Of course reporting violence gets equated with committing violence, but that's how governments work.
Preventing violence is hard. So they don't. Especially not when preventing violence might gasp limit how easily big companies can abuse immigrant labour. We can't have that. Preventing people from finding out about the violence, however, that's much easier.
A better description of politics I could not have come up with.
"equitably"
Fortunately, no danger of that on either the left or the right.