> Basically, all human knowledge is an application of either math or philosophy
Philosophy is not knowledge, it's pure speculation.
> law is philosophy, so cant be modeled by math
Law is not philosophy unless it was written based on sloppy speculations. In other words, what law is, depends on how it was written, it can certainly be modeled by logic and math methods can be developed for it too.
It's nothing new, lawyers have to master logic as part of their training.
Modelling intent, with math, is not going to happy. Law is based around the intent of those taking actions, and understanding intent is absolutely philosophy.
Understanding intent is understanding interest and that's not philosophy. If it's not about interest, it's psychiatry - not philosophy either.
Besides, only a lesser part of law is about intent, the major part is about punishing and avoiding harm, finding the true facts and applying the written law to them.
Down-voting can't change the truth, we've been led by the nose for far too long.
Intent has been the core underiding feature of the law since the Magna Carta. To ignore or trivialise it is nothing short of advocating for the return of kings.
> Intent has been the core underiding feature of the law since the Magna Carta.
I've already explained that intent is another word for interest - material or political, it may not be as trivial as potato chips but it's far simpler than rocket science.
> To ignore or trivialise it is nothing short of advocating for the return of kings.
Another purely speculative assertion with zero meaning or practical value.
There's no logical path from trivializing your occultist and unknowable notion if intent to the return of kings. First, you've got to start with a proof that at present there aren't any kings... but philosophy's got no proofs.
Speaking of kinks (sic), wasn't Epstein one of them? Or at least under their protection... until he wasn't, as usual.
If intent were so simply explained, then the High Courts across the world would serve no function - as interpreting intent is their core role.
Material interest and intent only accidentally collide. Intent cannot be defined in that manner.
Almost every person beneath a capitalist system has a material interest in wealth. That does not translate to intent to seize it.
If intent does not matter, only interest, then there is no war crime in bombing boats. There is no arguing with the government's interpretations of law, as they will have a vested interest as to how it plays out.
The "test of intent" is not a part of law to be so offhandly thrown aside.
Exactly. This is exactly we get in return for compromising on quality and price with framework. Other tech is cheaper because of planned obsolescence or lock in. Im glad to pay more money to have this freedom
It's not about outages. It's about the why. Hardware can fail. Bugs can happen. But to continue a roll out despite warning sings and without understanding the cause and impact is on another level. Especially if it is related to the same problem as last time.
And yet, it's always clownflare breaking everything. Failures are inevitable, which is widely known, therefore we build resilience systems to overcome the inevitable
You don't need outages to build experience in resolving them, if you identify conditions that increase the risk of outages. Airlines can develop a lot of experience resolving issues that would lead to plane crashes, without actually crashing any planes.
High risk bets like that cause bubbles. If that bet doesnt pay off then there will be a talent crisis that the american tech industry may not recover from
Sure but there needs to be a balance with momentum. You cant keep losing institutional knowledge like that. I think we are heavily disbalanced towards too much churn
Its the tragedy of the commons. These companies will think they are very smart for doing this, but theyll just foster a culture where there are no competent employees once the current seniors retire
Sample efficiency isnt the ability to distill alot of data into good insights. Its the ability to get good insights from less data. Evolution didnt do that it had a lot of samples to get to where it did
> Sample efficiency isnt the ability to distill alot of data into good insights
Are you claiming that I said this? Because I didn't....
There's two things going on.
One is compressing lots of data into generalizable intelligence. The other is using generalized intelligence to learn from a small amount of data.
Billions of years and all the data that goes along with it -> compressed into efficient generalized intelligence -> able to learn quickly with little data
It doesnt have to be US citizen only. It just has to be who they are claiming to be. If someone in india or europe wants to comment on foreign politics, thats fine. They just shouldnt be able to pretend they are from the US or anywhere else
a town square isn't just a place, it's always a polity that requires common values and a shared culture. Otherwise you at best have an airport lobby.
A town square in Cologne where 90% of participants don't hail from Cologne but London, Mumbai and San Francisco aren't going to solve the problems of Cologne or have any stake in doing so.
Which also reveals of course what Twitter actually is, an entropy machine designed to generate profit that in fact benefits from disorder, not a means of real world problem solving, the ostensible point of meaningful communication.
> A town square in Cologne where 90% of participants don't hail from Cologne but London, Mumbai and San Francisco aren't going to solve the problems of Cologne or have any stake in doing so.
Upholding at least some utterly basic foundational values of humanity doesn't require holding any stake.
And if you're not interested in upholding basic values? What if you're looking to intentionally destroy things instead?
Verified residency is better than nothing for putting real money on the table. Although if you've been to a local town meeting, you'll know it's still not perfect.
reply