foolrush

5 ms·

1.
by foolrush 3y ago
Sleigh guidance.
2.
by foolrush 3y ago
https://www.npr.org/2021/08/05/1025018833/looking-back-on-wh...
3.
by foolrush 3y ago
> But those are also the most expensive line items in Federal and State budgets, https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/discretionary_s...
4.
by foolrush 3y ago
I hope you are kidding. Tell you what, why don’t you show yourself and search for common racist language or homophobia? https://counterhate.com/blog/fact-check-musks-claim-about-a-...
5.
by foolrush 3y ago
“Brighter-than-white”… Gilchrist enters the chat. http://wexler.free.fr/library/files/gilchrist%20(1999)%20an%...
6.
Q&A with Dr. Stephen Grossberg 2022 (Deep Takedown of Deep Learning)(youtube.com)
2 points by foolrush 3y ago|0 comments
7.
by foolrush 3y ago
False.
8.
by foolrush 3y ago
I did not lay claim to epistemic truth. I referenced epistemology. That is, there are a plurality of epistemologies, all of which have their own epistemic truth mechanics. So I would agree with you, entirely! I was merely pointing out that
9.
by foolrush 3y ago
The issue is that the definition of “statistics” is anchored in a magnitude of frequency of glyphs. The “information” is fabricated in this regard, pulled up out of the ether, and by decree christened as “meaning”. Numbers carry no meaning,
10.
by foolrush 3y ago
Epistemology 101. Statistical pattern matching has no epistemological truth beyond a correspondence of linguistic statistics. It is merely statistical probability, which hardly can be classified as an epistemological basis. If we pretend fo
11.
by foolrush 3y ago
This is not technically correct as best as I can ascertain. When we think about AA, it is a representation of sub pixel occlusion. As such, using uniform tristimulus to sample the “in between” value is incorrect. There is simply no “correct
12.
by foolrush 4y ago
> in the sense that atoms are a direct cause of our perceptions. I do not believe this is correct in any manner, and reduces the role of cognition. Jastrow’s work focuses on this departure between one context and higher order cognition.
13.
by foolrush 4y ago
Resisting the structure requires an epistemic shift; resist applying a license.
14.
by foolrush 4y ago
So having a self avowed Neo-Nazi invited back into the room, who cannot be reported, is “virtually no difference”?
15.
Some in app browsers can record keystrokes and presses(twitter.com)
3 points by foolrush 4y ago|0 comments
16.
The Case for a Ukraine Nuclear Deterrent (1993) [pdf](mearsheimer.com)
11 points by foolrush 5y ago|0 comments
17.
by foolrush 5y ago
Take humanities courses there; you come from the land of some of the heaviest continental philosophy thinkers. Roll with the chances of life.
18.
Uber / Lyft Surge Price on Low Battery(twitter.com)
4 points by foolrush 5y ago|1 comments
19.
Welcome to Nestflix(nestflix.fun)
237 points by foolrush 5y ago|51 comments
20.
Anthony Bourdain’s AI-Faked Voice in New Documentary Sparks Backlash(variety.com)
25 points by foolrush 5y ago|1 comments
21.
by foolrush 5y ago
It’s linear output; the PQ is just the “down the wire” encoding, and the display undoes it back to linear photon light.
22.
by foolrush 6y ago
Paradox of Tolerance. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
23.
The Town That Went Feral(newrepublic.com)
9 points by foolrush 6y ago|0 comments
24.
How Corporate Money Has Distorted American Science(lithub.com)
1 points by foolrush 6y ago|0 comments
25.
Customs and Border Protection Paid $476000 to a Locations Data Firm(twitter.com)
2 points by foolrush 6y ago|0 comments
26.
MIT Professor Marvin Minsky accused of sex with minor(twitter.com)
1 points by foolrush 6y ago|0 comments
27.
A Toolkit for Centering Racial Equity Throughout Data Integration [pdf](aisp.upenn.edu)
1 points by foolrush 6y ago|0 comments
28.
by foolrush 6y ago
Science is political. Get over yourself.
29.
by foolrush 6y ago
And if you actually read Binet, you’d know that he explicitly warned against its usage beyond what he designed it for.
30.
by foolrush 6y ago
Sure you did buddy. Sure you did. The whole idea of the SAT was an expansive control of capital when the USA grew too large for word-of-mouth recommendation systems. But you knew that too right? You also knew that it was basically designed

More ›