Readit NewsWell, I did not expected this level of honesty about what target audience really want.
It almost like finding "and its also addictive, in most profitable kind of way" in Marlboro brand pitch deck.
Its kinda refrshing.
And all of our surprising wins and awful mistakes had explainable reasons, dammit; it wasn’t just a misfiring of trained statistical networks!
The opposite to Flowers for Algernon is Captain America. A weak man is improved by science and goes on to be the champion of his nation: Science overcomes nature and God-given limitations can be overcome by government-backed scientific wonders.
Every lawyer worth their salt in America knows that you can’t get an injunction to prevent someone from publishing something. That’s a prior restraint and is about as close as you can get to something absolutely forbidden under American law.
It does sound like you've worked a lot, and probably also with computers, so you probably should try to find challenges in other fields, mainly sports. Run a marathon, do some climbing, get in the best shape of your life - it is utterly impossible to not feel ecstatic whenever you beat your own records. Also, sounds like starting a family would give you a tremendous benefit. Once you have kids the question about "feeling lost" doesn't even come up (probably because the kids won't let you think enough about that :P)
I'm 32 and I basically did not exist throughout my 20s but now I'm in better shape than I've ever been before, interact with people more than I ever did before and make new experiences on a regular basis.
- Discriminating artists across the board based on ethnicity
- Social networks banning end-users for having an opinion
Neither of these are in any way similar to selling your intellectual property to a third party and them deciding whether or not to air it. If you additionally enter an NDA with this party, voluntarily and through compensation, that is in no way anything like discrimination based on ethnicity, or blanket censorship on social media.
Why are you pretending this is a difficult issue to understand, it very clearly isn't. You're making up random assertions that fit your own predetermined perspective. Everybody that makes money on Youtube or Twitter or Spotify agreed to certain terms. And these terms say they can be deplatformed. So yes, the artist getting displaced based on ethnicity and the anti-war opinion getting banned is exactly the same thing. And it seems you think this is justifiable as long as a spread sheet says it's profitable to do so.
I'm not opening a discussion here, there is nothing to discuss. I'm simply following your own logic to it's conclusion. Your input is not necessary in any of this.
From first principles, lock-down will obviously work when you isolate everyone in the society.
The less stringent the lock-down the less effect it will have.
The real question is not whether they work, but the tradeoffs.
Do we want totalitarian style lock-downs?
Edit: 1.1 Argentina 1.2 Australia 1.3 Austria 1.4 Bangladesh 1.5 Cambodia 1.6 Canada 1.8 Denmark 1.9 Fiji 1.10 France 1.11 Ghana 1.12 India 1.13 Indonesia 1.13.1 Large-scale social restrictions 1.13.2 Community Activities Restrictions Enforcement 1.14 Iran 1.15 Ireland 1.16 Italy 1.17 Malaysia 1.18 Myanmar 1.19 Namibia 1.20 Nepal 1.21 Netherlands 1.23 Nigeria 1.24 Pakistan 1.25 Philippines 1.26 Russia 1.27 Singapore 1.28 South Africa 1.29 Thailand 1.30 United Kingdom 1.31 United States 1.32 Vietnam
The lockdowns were, and are, meant to spread out the deaths that we knew were going to happen. The goal was, and is, to avoid acutely overwhelming our hospital systems so people with emergency ailments like a heart attack could still get immediate care.
Thankfully we have control groups in Sweden and Florida, so you can prove your point in a very simple way by showing me the increased heart attack deaths in both those places.
There is no difference between learning a name in history or in biology, or some workflow.
But math reasoning really filters out people in a way nothing else does.
All other topics just require memory and basic reasoning.
Even physics mostly is hard because of math. And philosophy, mostly because of jargon and references. Otherwise, if you break it down, it's not that complicated.
But you can break down a math problem as much as you want, some of them are beyond what you can do comfortably. And a lot of students reach this limit early in their life.
I see this when I play board games with people: there is a threshold of rules and calculation power above which I lose 90% of the players. They just can't enjoy it, because it requires too much effort to play.
It's similar for me and sport. I've been doing exercise all my life, but my brother will always do more, and harder, because there is a barrier after which it's just too painful for me.
Math and athleticism can be trained, but there is a hard ceiling. And even before you reach that ceiling, closing the gap gets more and more expensive for some people, so much the ROI is difficult to justify.