am_i_down

The distinction often is more akin to "promising" and "not promising". Universities, employers, creditors, those looking for a spouse, etc. Everyone does it to some degree. Why can't a country?

Professional Tetris players and people who classify pictures of cats and dogs.

Machine learning is not a mature or robust field. Real world applications are brittle and extremely narrow in scope. The past few years has seen a burst funding and hype, as a result of deep learning advancements, but that will gradually wane as all the low hanging fruit is picked. Many applications that are promising (like self-drive cars and medical classification) will face major regulatory hurdles. It will take a much more radical (and, frankly, unexpected) breakthrough before most humans have to worry.

I love to hear an alternate viewpoint.

The poster is likely referring to track-trump.com.

> One can't disobey "conventions"

You are playing a semantics game. Replace disobey with ignore, and the intent is the same.

> you can't be disobeying if you're the boss and decide who gets tried and who doesn't

The United States is a constitutional democracy, not a fascist regime. In the past, presidents have indeed disobeyed, and one was consequently impeached.

What do you mean by "lack of intention"?

What is a criteria in which China is "better" ethically or "better" by some criteria you select?

I can think of none.

Neighborhoods are segregation. Let's all live in a big, happy neighborhood together because segregation is bad.

My point being that you cannot, by definition, eliminate segregation until everyone is made equal in all things. Attempting to do so is fundamentally evil.

Willingness to generalize an entire group seems far more deserving of a black mark.

Hard to imagine how that could be done in one month.