Just wondering, what org specifically asks for 4chan use?

This article is great, super information sense, doesn’t try to spin a narrative, just investigates the facts.

I find it crazy that as a system this guy of all people managed to slip though the cracks. An autist with Hitler’s signature tatooed on his arm, combined with arrests and jail time for stalking and harassing women, and nobody thought to give this guy the mandatory anti radicalization treatment? Kind of insane. Lots of holes in the Swiss Cheese model.

On the other hand, what could have been done? The guy had no social support network, no family that would have taken care of him. You can’t force someone to have friends, or to get them to take the prerequisite steps to overcome whatever might be holding them back. Getting rid of X? Maybe that would help things in aggregate, but I’m and optimist and believe that people are smart enough to no be racist just because their feed is.

I think it’s unlikely you can donate without any conversions…

Yeah haha I didn’t write this well. What I’m trying to say is that where you have socialized healthcare people are way less likely to agree with the idea that you’re free to not wear a helmet. I just worded that poorly.

But what about the reverse argument?

The elders know much more than the young generation, shouldn’t they have a larger say?

Basically, Japan is the most developed nation on earth. Not because of technology, or culture, or anything of the sort. But they were the first developed nation to have their birth rate drop and pyramid start shrinking. In that sense, their policies are ahead of every country on earth that still keeps admitting massive amounts of immigrants to keep their populations up.

deleted by creator

I’ve always thought that regular expressions are just specifications for state machines. They aren’t that difficult.

Hot take! 👨‍🚒

I feel like the problem with this argument is that it’s consequentialist. You can never be 100% certain which parents will raise their children well. There’s no metric that will conclusively tell you.

I think this depends on where you live. If you live in the US, maybe. Private healthcare means the effects on the public are limited to traumatizing people, the services to dispose of your body, and EMS.

In area with socialized healthcare, ain’t no way my taxpayer dollars are going towards fixing your head if you crash.

Eventually. Maybe they will feat it for different reasons as well.

I’ve been trying to highlight the benefits of using AI to some folks at work. Some get very scared of it because they don’t want to be replaced by AI. Bruh, if your job can already be replaced by AI, maybe it’s not a very stimulating job?

I think it’s a 2016 - 2018 SYM Wolf Classic 150

Found it! Thanks to your image.

It’s a 2016 - 2018 SYM Wolf Classic 150

What bike is that in the photo?

Interesting response!

Yes, the node, edges, travelling salesman, those are my definitions as well.

The only difference is that I’ve always thought about this is with an undirected graph. That models conventional friendships pretty well, but now that I’m thinking about it, it’s probably not a good way to model modern “relationships”. Either way, with two nodes it’s no longer a travelling salesman, as it becomes a much easier problem to solve.

I would argue that the tyranny of the majority unlikely to not be solved with the current form of social networks. I’m not sure if I have time to write out my argument, but it stems from the fact that the most popular people in the world have very uni-directional relationships with most people; everyone knows of Mr. Beast, very few know Mr. Beast.

Hot take, but I think the Model Y/Late Model 3 were really well engineered.

I would have thought this is already a solved problem.

If you model social networks like a graph, then you can measure certain properties. One property that’s very important for social networks is the “small world index”. The small world index is a ratio of (how many of your friends know about each other(clustering coefficient))/(how many people on average to connect with anyone in the world (average path length)). Basically, in tribal communities, it used to be that everyone knew one another, AND if you really needed to send a message to another community then it would take only a few intermediate people. The former gives you a sense of safety, and the latter gives you the sense of being able to change the world.

With the advent of social media and other things, the small world index has gone way down. The amount of your friends that your friends know on average is gone down, aka, everyone is very fragmented and the clustering index has gone down. This number has gone down faster than the average path length, because the average path length was surprisingly low to begin with. The net effect is that people feel less like they are part of a community.

Social networks always try to tune their algorithms to encourage interactions to raise the small world index in this direction, but it’s very hard. For one, only few percent of users actually generate any content, the rest are lurkers. You can’t have a high clustering if your “potential friends” never talk to each other, if you can call them that.

Another reason is that enabling small worlds inside social networks is sometimes at odds with revenue generation. In general, consuming content/having para-social interactions online is much easier than before the modern social networks. Thus, people have gotten much more picky with their time and interactions, and now the type of content that people expect to see online now must be of the highest quality. High quality content is easier to monetize, but it’s also harder to create. So this puts an artificial floor on who creates content (only people who are in it for the money), and thus we have fewer people who spread/share ideas. This decreases the clustering coefficient. Thus, paid social networks are against small worlds.

Follow me for more crazy ramblings.