21
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Liz Truss
« on: September 07, 2022, 07:34:06 PM »I value integrity and honestly far more than charisma.You're in for a disappointment either way.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I value integrity and honestly far more than charisma.You're in for a disappointment either way.
"We couldn't connect to that serverThis is a Kiwi IRC problem, nothing to do with us. Hopefully they will fix it soon. You can work around it for the time being by connecting with Mibbit if you like.
Unknown error"
Been thinking of a few things we observe and had a quick question for the EA crowd. Does the effect of EA lessen as you get farther from the surface or the earth. In other words, does horizontal light begin to straighten as you get farther from the earth?Not as far as we know, but it is not very convenient to make long-distance observations of horizontal light far from the surface of the Earth, so we don't have a huge amount of data to draw conclusions from. Intuitively, though, it would be strange for a universal law to depend on the position of the Earth at any given moment in time.
It can, it all depends. As made famous by Carl Sagan "“extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” and you still have not provided any evidence, extraordinary or otherwise.I do hope not, if I'd provided any evidence that would have been an enormous failure on my part.
I thought "data collected" made it clear I am talking about scientific data, not tales of tales etc.You are the only one who seems to think that eyewitness accounts do not constitute scientific data.
I stated (and still do) that no data collected (note this is not tales of hearsay but actual collected data)Ah, so now you are cherry-picking which evidence qualifies as "evidence" to you. Once again, this is not how science works, nor is it what you initially claimed.
But instead you insist that I prove a negative.I am simply suggesting that you should be able to back up claims you make, but thank you for admitting that your claim is indefensible.
You can make the case for that if you likeIt is neither relevant to the discussion at hand, despite you doing your utmost to derail the thread with your pseudo-intellectual ramblings, nor necessary, since you have provided zero justification for your own claim.
All the data humans have collected shows no evidence of miracles or gods or devils or angels, etc.That is patently false, but par for the course for your brand of "science".
What I've learned from observing the latest in machine-generated music is that a machine can only (fail to) reproduce what already exists, it can't truly create anything new in the way that a human being can. What I've seen of DALL-E and other visual arts AIs is much the same, it can be prompted to create an amalgamation of known things, but it can't produce something unknown. Granted we live in an era in the arts where we are "out in the ocean", and there is no identifiable progress* as such other than technological. Perhaps progress in art is now, rather than new material, new efficiency in reproduction of old material, but nonetheless personal style remains unquantifiable.The very concept of art being "new" is a human abstraction, and has to do with the expression of ideas rather than any concrete definition. All art is, after all, a combination of existing colours and shapes in some way. I don't think it makes any sense to say that an algorithm can't create new things because a computer simply isn't aware of that distinction.
“[incomprehensible gibberish]” (James 2:14-26)Or, for those of you who speak English:
Who exactly wants to regulate them in America? If I vote for the Democrats, they give universities what amounts to free infinite money. If I vote for Republicans, they do literally nothing. Seems like two very bad options to me.The fact that your current political system is too crippled to do anything useful does not prevent us from discussing what a good solution might look like.
I generally approve of the policy, but the cut off is ludicrously high.Or save the administrative costs of checking whether people qualify and eliminate the cutoff entirely at that point.
And with automation already taking away non-artistic jobs, then what will be left in the future?Maybe automation taking away all our jobs is the sign we need to stop having a job being the basis of our entire civilisation.
According to copyright law, inspiration is acceptable, but blatant copying is unacceptable. The distinction between inspiration and copying is a human one with no strict definition, which raises the question of whether it is possible for a computer to understand the difference, let alone apply it in practice.given that these models are trained on art from living artists, is it fucked up for people to use them to generate art for commercial purposes?Human art has always been influenced and taken form based on art made by someone else (or nature itself). I think it's fine for an AI to be influenced by human art since we're fine with humans being influenced by human art.
Here is how I was explained Prayer:Isn't God supposed to know what everyone is going to do before they do it? In which case he should already know whether they would pray and make the situation different from the start so they don't need to.
If enough people pray for something, and God is ok on changing his mind on that thing, he will.
Like: if little Jimmy is dying of cancer and enough people pray hard enough, God might allow Jimmy to live instead of killing him. But you can't know how many people is needed or if God is willing to change his mind. So its a crap shoot.
Carney's organisation works with an evangelical law firm called ADF International whose London spokesperson Lois McLatchie has been interviewed by Scottish media saying the buffer zones "ban legitimate offers of help and silent prayer."Excuse me, what? "Legitimate offers of help and silent prayer"? How exactly are these protests "helping" women?
"Women have the right to hear about these options at the point of need and it is patronising of the government saying women don't want to hear this," McLatchie told BBC Scotland in a recent interview.
The nature of population growth means there's (almost) always more young people than oldThe developed world has had net population decline (if you discount immigration) for about half a century. The global population is growing due to high birth rates in developing countries, but they don't get to vote in the USA.
I think the point is that a very Red state doesn't appear to be entirely aligned with the GOP platform.Indeed — in a two-party system, it only needs to find the GOP's platform very slightly less abhorrent than the Democrats'.
I do that to. It also helps with spell check, which I don't think Is a feature here?Why would it need to be? Your browser can already spell-check text input fields.