Note to the site author: Using Chrome's translate tool seems to break your UI. Upon first visit, I was prompted to translate from Portuguese to English and accepted. Subsequent visits required I click the "Translate this page" button on the right side of the URL bar. (Edit: Chrome 1490.7827.201 on Windows 10).
When translated, clicking the Solver drop-down (default 3x3x3) displays:
Unexpected error
Something went wrong.
The current screen broke unexpectedly. Please try again or switch routes to reload it.
That was an incredible example and I'm frankly more impressed each time I read it at how well constructed it is. You really capture how sensitive the analogy section is to cultural or domain knowledge, and why the College Board eliminated the question type.
Perhaps. I do remember the discussion about whether the SSC consumed so much basic research funding that other areas would have their funding significantly constrained.
Basic research has such a long time horizon it's interesting to think of the fundamental grants that might have been affected. Quantum computing? CRISPR? mRNA?
I wonder whether the cancellation of the superconducting supercollider was a net positive or negative for science.
If it continued to completion, it would have had almost 3x the beam energy of even the upgraded LHC in 2030 (20TeV vs. 7TeV). But the questions are fundamentally political, not scientific: Would SSC operations and funding have continued through the US economic challenges of 2001, 2008, and 2020?
I could see a timeline in which the SSC got built and discovered the Higgs boson before LHC came online, causing the LHC to be canceled, delayed, and/or starved of funding -- only for the SSC to be shuttered during the "great recession" of 2008 or during any other US Gov't belt tightening exercise. Today we would have neither the SSC nor the LHC.
Or, perhaps SSC would have accelerated other discoveries by 10 to 15 years (SSC go-live was to be in the late-1990's versus LHC's Higgs discovery in 2012).
The days of a scrappy newspaper or local market newscast are over. Reframe your statement from "People in cities tend to be on the left. Journalism majors tend to be on the left" to "People who own media firms tend to be on the right. People who set journalistic standards for their outlet tend to be on the right."
For what it's worth, the most effective propaganda is that which reinforces latent biases.
Humans en masse are selfish, self-serving, and tribal, so it's incredibly easy to believe that there is massive abuse of social services like SNAP/EBT, those delivering services are incompetent, and that we should investment more in fraud reduction.
However, the reality is that the US spends $3.75 for each $1 of fraud discovered. And, "fraud" includes clerical errors made by the government, so the actual ROI of enforcement is even lower.
So much of the propaganda -- "immigrants steal benefits paid for by hardworking US taxpayers, so we should ramp up enforcement spending to make more room for [white] citizens" is designed to simply reinforce our biases because it's just so darned believable to a cynical and tribal people.
In reality, spending more on benefits enforcement just loses taxpayers more money while cutting more US citizens off from benefits they both need and are eligible for. It results in the opposite of its stated goal and this is well known to any policymaker.
So if saving taxpayer money, and punishing those guilty of fraud, isn't the actual objective of all this toxic propaganda, you have to ask yourself what is.
Because there is a law against people impeding or trying to influence people within 150 meters of an abortion clinic. Her admitted goal was trying to influence people entering. Will her defense be that she does not believe prayer has an influence on the world?
Most would agree that 150 people standing in front of the abortion clinic would obviously an attempt to impede or influence people. What if someone stands there "praying" but really noting faces and license plates for future harassment? Where does the law draw that line?
The ADF is a discriminatory, corrosive organization that has done real harm to millions by rolling back civil rights in the US, and now they have taken their agenda internationally.
The hypocrisy of calling this a "thought crime" is stunning. ADF is the same organization that brought a case against a Colorado law that banned discrimination against LGBTQ businesses, because a baker was worried she may have to bake a cake for a gay wedding - which she was never asked to do. So some thoughts are legally protected (prayer) while others (concern) are justifications to roll back civil rights. But the thoughts of others (terror and shame while entering an abortion clinic, feelings when discriminated against, love for a same sex partner) are irrelevant and not worthy of protection.
Their stated purpose is "advancing every person’s God-given right to live and speak the truth" - but only "live" and speak the "truth" that they deem to be correct, based on their evangelical and politically-charged interpretation of Christianity. And they want that legislated.
Reading the comments, this is both a "nothing burger" and a reason to geoblock California.
It does too much, and too little. The costs are too high, and too low. It's an example of corruption, but also a good first start at regulations. It will drive AI companies out of California, but also attract more companies with a lower bar for edge innovation.
Can anyone link to an actual informed and nuanced discussion of this bill? Because if it exists here, I haven't found it.
Same can be said for search. And your statement is provably correct, depending on the definition of "good tool."
But it's not only money's influence on the company, it's also money's influence on the /data/ underlying the platform that undermines the tool.
Once financial incentives are in place, what will be the AI equivalent of review bombing, SEO, linkjacking, google bombing, and similar bad behaviors that undermine the quality of the source data?
This refers to a joke made by Stephen Colbert (while portraying his satirical persona of right-wing host Stephen Colbert) that "reality has a well-known liberal bias"[1].
It is generally used to point out that many of the stories pointed to by conservative media as exhibiting liberal bias are often simply reporting on facts that are incompatible with conservative talking points.
Examples include: relative sizes of inauguration crowds, whether China or US importers pay for tariffs, the contents of the Mueller report, crime statistics on undocumented immigrants, crime statistics on Muslim communities, merits of single-payer healthcare in other first-world countries, various statistics on gun crime, impact of republican vs. democratic presidents on government deficits, benefits (or lack thereof) of trickle-down economics/cutting corporate taxes, and the causes and mitigations of the US Great Recession that began in 2007/2008.
When translated, clicking the Solver drop-down (default 3x3x3) displays:
Unexpected error
Something went wrong. The current screen broke unexpectedly. Please try again or switch routes to reload it.