Readit NewsI know there is a lot of controversy with Manning compared to Wikileaks et. al. as far as not redacting documents or using a discriminating news source to filter them. Still, I oppose state secrets and the Hillary e-mails are actually very chilling when you start reading through them. I still side with Manning. Too many of the Snowden documents were redacted with critical information (like which hardware encryption chips were compromised by the US government). No one has the actual Pentagon Papers outside of very specific news agencies. Manning gave the entire story to the people .. and I find it more sad that we didn't see more outrage and change from that release.
I also see another message here. Obama is trying to leave a positive view of the Democratic legacy with this lasting memory. It helps people forget about the predator drones, secret kill lists, continuation of torture, NSA spying and the expansion of war, military and the American hegemony throughout the world. I wish people would see this manipulation; this handout to the left to keep them angry at the incoming administration and not at the government that continues to spy on them and kill people without trial in and endless sea of never ending conflict.
If you misuse the term, you make it more difficult for legitimate whistle blowers to get the protection they deserve.
Remember, the average IQ in the US is just below 100[1]. Exactly what kind of jobs do you expect to retrain these people for? And how are they equipped to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps?
Most of these jobs provided on the job training or apprenticeships so it's not even a matter of "they did it once they can do it again".
Also, many are battling obesity and related illnesses such as diabetes or struggling with mental illness and/or addiction.
We need a systemic overhaul of the economic system and soon. Self driving vehicles will put 3-5 million out of work in the next decade.
No one wants to change careers. I certainly don't. But the economic realities are what they are. It would be nice to change the economy with basic income or government work programs, both of which I'm in favor of. I just don't see how that will realistically happen in the next 10-15 years.
So we need to make retraining great again. Invest time and money into making the process easy, affordable and open to as many people as possible. Maybe we need more schools, or organized apprenticeship programs or maybe teaching robots. This is a problem that has to be solved with innovations in business and/or technology. At least until we can gain the political position to make major changes to our financial and economic ways of life.
This way he makes some off the cuff remark that has people in news and social media tripping over themselves to denounce and loudly proclaim righteous indignation. His supporters laugh, the crazy fringe love him, and the media and the left chase their tail around in circles until he needs to distract them from something else.
I agree with everyone who has said that we're capable of making up our own minds about what to talk about. I don't think political discussions were ever a problem
This is a nonsensical over-generalization.
>> In addition, it is automatically do the feature extraction.
At the cost of interpretability. Let's not even mention the dreadful nights of tweaking parameters (such as dropout probability, activation function, network architecture, learning rate, optimization function, various pre-processing tricks, pre-training to warm-start, convolution parameters, maxpool parameters, and so much more).
Deep learning is not "better" than other forms of algorithmic prediction. There's a best tool for every job
See my other comment somewhere in this thread: IMO, the author got their arse kicked. I received 39%, didn't do nearly as much as the author, and I consider that a pretty solid defeat (but conveniently just shy of what I consider an arse kicking <g>). Somewhere there must be a study with hard numbers, but I figure X% just because I wasn't the other guy, Y% from voters who just randomly chose because they didn't really pay attention to the race, and 0.Z% from those that just screwed up the ballot. Leaving me with, I dunno, 20-25% who actually thought I was the better choice based on what they knew of me and the conversations we had. That's not a very good number. :-)
Not to take away from the main point, though. You want to run for office? You think you can do a better job? Then go do it. The barriers can be quite low for local offices, a bit higher for state offices. You'll get your arse kicked the first time around most likely. That's called "experience" and if you truly want to hold office, you'll be worlds ahead for next time. Most importantly, the vote is not a mandate on you as a person. I was soundly defeated, and that's fine: the people have spoken, and they said "come back in a few years when your better at this". Or they said, "the incumbent is doing a fine job, we see no reason to take a chance on someone new." But I never took it to be, "we just don't like you personally, mikestew."
How can it be so hard to be nice to others? Everybody disagrees with everybody else on something. Everybody has false ideas about the truth. Do we toss a kid in a meatgrinder when it has a weird idea about society? No, we include it in our discussions because opinions change when they are challenged. But when they cross the age of 16, or is it 18?, then they suddenly become demons that we need to get rid of. The cancer of our society. Where do you draw the line?
If you honestly think that you have a moral superiority that gives you the right to tell people what to do just because they are stupid (or pick any other negative attribute), then know that there are a lot of people to whom you are literally stupid (they are more intelligent and know more than you). Would it be okay if they told you what to do? If they tried to silence you? Ignored your desperate calls for help, which they think are stupid and wrong?
You don't have to be smug about it, but that can be a tricky line to walk. Personally, I think it's better to advocate for certain values as respectfully as you know how and not worry about offending people who disagree. Placing too much emphasis on phrasing and tone is what people refer to derisively as "political correctness". It's best to focus more on saying the right thing, and less on how you say it