occultist_throw

> Insulting the community won't help against the downvotes. The healthy path is to just ignore the votes and freely discuss your opinions, whether they resonate with other people or not.

That's the problem with "Downvotes" in the way they're done here. Legitimate discourse, albeit unpopular will attract downvotes. And so will unrelated offtopic garbage (Spam, 1 word replies, crazy rantings ala TempleOS).

The end result to both "unpopular" material and "spam" is the same - hidden. Simply put, -1s = losing right to talk and be seen. So yeah, I am pretty disappointed in the community, and I have a justifiable right to be.

Thank you for acknowledging that. I tend to dig in to certain topics that I feel strongly in. I've had similar response before, on reddit and in real life. Both cases have been, what I could call, nasty responses to matter of factly stating what the 13'th amendment actually says.

Or one can look at plenty of longform articles about this very topic. Or countless books in this realm. Or if one doesn't believe the evidence, look no further than that 1 dot per person map, and finding prisons. They stick out.

But yeah, "climate change" rage inducing indeed. I mean, we have people denying simple (easily verifiable) claims with feelings and "simplistic" retorts.

Ive always taken an unpopular view about slavery.

"We never quit doing slavery."

It is true the Constitution was amended after the Civil war to include banning of slavery in most circumstances. However, slavery is explicitly still allowed as a "punishment for a crime". Instead of "Black = Slave", it's "Black = criminal , criminal = slave". After all, it only takes only 6-12 angry white men to find you guilty.

I would think one of the major points BLM should be making, is removal of slavery as a punishment. It has too many very degenerate ways it can fail - and in some ways I think were very intended. But I doubt in this political climate of this happening.

EDIT: Boy, I said it was an unpopular view. Wasn't expecting this much hatred and contention, along with this much -1's. I mean, it's not like the 13th amendment explicitly says.

Kind of pricy, to be honest. Walmart has an A1C test for $30.

Although if they offer other tests, it could be useful.

Indeed not. The prosecution is on the Cops' side. The prosecution decides how vigorously they go after people in Grand Jury and open court. The Judicial system is on the Cops' side, even if during a jury trial they give words that "cops are just like everyone else" - they aren't.

It isn't a thin blue line. It's a big fat highlighter blue bar. The people, vs the Judicial System. And they're the ones that make and enforce the rules.

Evidently for their trials, they have bots that scan the VMs and kill machines running cryptocurrency software. Just read a bit of threads on google, reddit about this.

Possibly, you can run it on paid machines - but why would you? They charge you more for a machine/hour than you can make cryptocurrency/hr.

Well, where "Machine Learning" (aka: black box you can only get weights for a given question), one can train a machine to be racist, sexist, ageist, or whatever.

The problem is that the end weight distribution is different than the GB's or TB's of training data. How do we know the training was fair and impartial? How did the trainers even know if it was? What biases crept in on this stage?

Worse yet, what if the bias of the black box does denigrate black people... Say, we take in all pictures of convicted criminals- it's disproportionaly black. I would argue part of that is because of inherent policing biases, but that's embedded in "guilty" verdict. Who's at fault for this "bias"? Is there a fault? How do we detect, other than exhaustively?

I'm eagerly awaiting for methods to "open up" ML black boxes and see what makes them tick. See their decision trees, their neural weights. I want to poke and prod to see what's behind those series of numbers like [.888271829 1.10999292992 37.999999921 1000.32 .73] . Right now, it's shove data in exhaustively and hope for the best. I don't particularly care for that way of analysis.

I can't speak for New York. I've never been there. My experiences are that of portions of the Midwest in Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, Missouri. Larger places will have Walmarts and will have grocers and more industry.

What I see time and again our little towns that are too small to support even a Walmart or a grocery have one or two Dollar Generals. I'm not an economist and not sure what to make of that other than that a Dollar General seem to be pretty cheap to set up pretty cheap to stock and I guess and implicit acknowledgement that these markets are failures for anything other than dinky stores.

(edit: android voice to text mistakes)

I would concur with that paragraph. When I was driving through South Indiana and Kentucky, I saw dollar store after dollar store after Dollar Store. I would see a little town with one to three dollar stores.

These little towns all had something in common. They had no noticeable industry, very limited business opportunities, and dilapidated and or dying community.

My and assessment, just driving through, is that these towns were all dead ends. I really hate saying that about people because it shouldn't be true. But for all intents and purposes they looked like they were in the last stage of existence.

I would love for someone to explain how keeping the pricing information away from me, for weeks or months equates "Informed Consent"?

Because if I would have known the price, I would have chosen not to "consume" the services. I would love to see a lawsuit based on this very area, with complete lack of informed consent with regards to cost and health benefit.

Because the way it's currently handled is like if I went into a Walmart, loaded up with lots of stuff, and walked out the door. Then 3 months later, I get letters saying I owe X*$1,000 on threat of all sorts of things (garnishment, lawsuit, etc).

So, in other words, the law is wrong. And the is kept as such for purposes of revenue enhancement (illegal taxation)?

I can see a few interesting govt things coming out of "Autos":

1. Revenue from bad laws drops to 0. These vehicles follow the letter of the law. And they have the logs to prove any sort of claim against the former.

2. A false claim is filed (BLM makes about a point about this..) and says driver did X. Is this the person's responsibility, or the company who wrote the AI?