One way to generate a sequence of heads and tails is to start with either heads or tails, then randomly choose how many of those to use before switching to the other. You're sampling the length of runs. e.g. Heads, then choosing 12113 would translate to HTTHTHHH.
It feels easier to ditch some of my biases generating a sequence this way.
I was so bummed when I looked into this in college. Going for a physics degree, there was basically nowhere I could go in the spanish speaking world with classes that counted towards my degree. Which is nuts, since physics is a degree almost everywhere.
>The seventy percent of New Yorkers who supported Amazon and now vent their anger also bear responsibility and must learn that the silent majority should not be silent because they can lose to the vocal minority and self-interested politicians.
This like makes me frustrated. It shouldn't be everyone's responsibility to go on twitter or wherever and be loud. Maybe politicians should put in real effort to learn about who they represent. They could engage in the same kind of polling they do during election season, rather than just paying attention to whoever is loudest.
In a perfect world yes. In reality what matters is not how many people support a position but how many will vote based on that issue. If you support something but it is not in your top ten of voting factors (assuming you even vote) then in reality your view doesn’t matter to the powers that be.
Most utilitaristic? Best in stealing public resources while being seen as a philantropist?
What the best is, depends on the incentives, the goals and the company culture. The best Mafioso in a group of the best mafiosi will be without a doubt a damn good Mafioso – but what does this mean for the rest of society?
The definition of best is irrelevant. The point is the distinction between maximizing something for an individual versus maximizing that same thing for the group.
I'd bet that sample efficiency is a factor in translating they most hyped bits of RL into solving IRL problems. So many business problems translate to "Learn which of these things to do, as quickly and cheaply as possible."
>The best argument might be that eventually no one will trust video.
Obama talked about it this afternoon. He said "This is bad, blah blah oh no." Of course, you don't believe me because I made this up. That doesn't preclude you from believing written quotes, given the right chain of trust. It's been great to have formats like video that didn't require the chain of trust for a while, but if that time has passed, there's nothing we can do. It is hard, but in the context of text where quotes have been easy to fake for ages, we have dealt with it. It's good for everyone to be on the same page.
I think there's a very visceral part of seeing a human face do/say something that puts it in another league from text. Even though intellectually it may be known that both text and video are trivially forgable, I think it will be a long time before people truly start to question video.
Even when people know the source is not to be trusted, it still influence their judgement in some way.
E.G: we all saw the close shots used journalists to magnify a so-so event and make it newsworthy. Yet, when seen one, many still consider it as "news". We all know which politician lied last year. Yet, when speaking again, many still listen. We all know which company abused consumers. Yet, when a new product is advertised, many still buy.
FWIW, video doesn't need to be forged or manipulated in order to provide an untrustworthy or inaccurate portrayal.
It's possible a video doesn't reveal the appropriate context. (e.g. what happened before the start of the video, and maybe what happened afterwards; or what's happening out of view).
That said, that isn't inherent to video. (And, sure, "swapping faces" doesn't lead to a more accurate portrayal).
