Best site for stock trading tips28 comments
Choices for binary option brokers uk
I got to talk to some AI researchers last week, and they emphasized how surprised everyone had been by recent progress in the field. They all agreed on why they were surprised: Then AI progress went faster than expected, and everyone using the old heuristic was caught flat-footed, denying the evidence of their own eyes. A quick and dirty Bayesian calculation: In Model A, researchers are biased towards optimism: In Model B, researchers are biased towards pessimism to the same degree.
In Model C, researchers are unbiased and will overshoot, undershoot, and hit expectations with equal probability. This is all completely made up , plus my math is probably wrong. Thinking about this reminded me of an article from The Week , November Why was Team Romney so certain of victory? They simply did not believe that younger voters and minorities would turn out the way they did in But we all know what happened in It spins a narrative where the Hillary campaign management put all of their trust in flashy Big Data and ignored the grizzled campaign specialists who had boots on the ground, as if this was a moral lesson we should all take to heart.
But Moneyball makes the opposite argument. Once you get that, it all just becomes evidence — and then you wonder whether a single data point about Presidential campaigns necessarily generalizes to baseball or whatever.
I still feel this comes back down to the simple concept of: Unfortunately, most people are content constructing narratives based on a sample size of 1 or a few in your AI case.
Now, the question becomes: But brains are much more complex than our best designs, both in terms of architecture and training. We still marvel at the emerging complexity of something like how a convolutional neural networks recognizes images.
This is because we do not yet have a firm grasp of how the emergence comes about. And these neural networks are a far cry from how the brain work. More faithful neural networks like spiking neural networks still do not perform that well.
More importantly, we do not know how to train these more faithful networks! This goes to show we do not yet have a definitive idea of how the brain works. In fact, the opposite is true. All of this marvelous biological complexity; our capacity for art, music, poetry; all of these deep mysteries of the human soul… Well, it looks like most of them can be modeled with a relatively small number of matrices running on a moderately powerful computer.
Of, and in case you thought your ineffable soul was better suited to playing the ancient and inscrutable game of Go than creating art… well… the same bad news applies. Bugmaster — Truly, the creativity of this AI is breathtaking to behold. Speaking of Hillary loss, what is you theory there? Problem I have with celebrity reaction to Trump is that they might be barking up a wrong tree, thus not really helping except in pissing people off even more by calling them racist.
Sadly, America was not yet ready for an absurdist ticket. To be more explicit, though, I think Adams overbilled Trump and pretty much everyone else underbilled him. That all probably contributed to his victory, though he had plenty of other advantages too. Is there actually anyone except Scott Adams who believes that Trump is a Master persuader? All of these are things that many Americans admire to the point of worship. Me, and I guy I briefly met who does marketing for non-profits.
Adams claims that Trump is buddies with the best living persuader, Tony Robbins. What does reading books and learning the names of techniques have to do with being a Master Persuader? Trump attended Fordham University in the Bronx for two years, transferred to the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, graduated from Penn in May with a Bachelor of Science degree in economics. Some people are naturally gifted at certain skills and some are very hard to train for people without natural gifts.
Not a safe inference from the evidence at hand. Voting for Trump does not imply that you believe that he is a master persuader in any way, and not voting for him does not imply that you do not think so. If he got really good grades at Wharton, then that would be evidence either that he did the reading, or is actually very bright, or is very good at cheating and not getting caught. Trump is not much of a reader.
Sometimes it makes sense to pick your battles. It looks a little partisan when you try to defend your guy against accusations that are almost certainly correct and are mostly meaningless anyway.
Our host reviewed one here: My view is that signalling like this as a politician would be a big mistake, especially in this past election cycle. My guess is Trump avoids this intentionally.
Whether or not he drops this in private is unknown. Stating that Trump is not a reader or a deep thinker is not a criticism of Trump — it is simply an observation about him. There are many people who know Trump personally. This is not even controversial. It is because you are pro-Trump and all arguments are soldiers.
But this is partisan thinking and I think you can do better. Right, he ghost authored it the same way almost all politicians do for their life stories. Nobody is going to confuse Trump for a preeminent scholar, and I doubt he is going to be on the short list for Nobel Prizes anytime soon. The hope is that Trump will surround himself with people who can temper his ADD, have good domain knowledge of their areas, and he takes reasonable care in decision making.
There is certainly risk it can all go sideways. If your vote is to reduce risk, Trump is not your man. However, I think Bush was actually very well spoken and misspoke intentionally because he knew it would appeal to his base and evoke self-defeating smugness from his critics. I think his grasp of the spoken English language is probably much higher level than pretty much anyone gives him credit for including his biggest fans.
So intellectual snobs are all like: Judging by the result of a quick Google, his ex-wife claimed he had a book of Hitler speeches near his bed. When Trump was asked about it, he said that a friend had given him a copy of Mein Kampf. It convincingly argues that his perceived stupidity was a combination of deliberate ploy and media narrative. My theory is that George W. Bush is mostly a very lazy, intelligent person, who is poor at off the cuff speaking and very good at socializing.
This was a great advantage for the debates, because he got misunderestimated in the run up, but then he studied very hard for the debates and thus did very well. Then during his presidency he slacked off and let others do most of the work Dick Cheney took huge advantage of this during his first term. That would make sense for reasons that have nothing to do with the contents of those speeches.
Hitler was a brilliant damagogue, very good at moving people with his speeches. That is a skill that would be worth learning for people whether or not they agreed with anything Hitler said. Moon, you know John McLaughlin was a real person he died last year , and the McLaughlin group a real show, right?
Definitely not a master persuader. At least, he never convinced Eleanor Clift also real of anything that I remember: Yes, I know he was a real person. So it was popular for decades. I would expect that McL convinced his viewers of a lot of things during that time, with his macho know-it-all act and just making stuff up— just like Trump does.
Scott Adams claims are really dubious. Trump as master persuader lost the popular vote by 2. I would expect a master persuader to do much better than that.
Also consider that Scott Adams endorsed Hillary Clinton when he thought she was going to win. Then he switched his endorsement back to Trump.
Adams was Team Trump from day one. Considering all the obstacles that Trump faced press and Republican elites hated him, lots of strong primary opponents, being greatly outspent, the Access Hollywood tape, the hack of his tax returns, and h aving at least one foreign government working against him , he could only have won if he had something amazing going for him.
I do think it was a real shock that he won. And I also think it was more that Hillary lost than that he won. I mean, reading things like the recruiter who worked on hiring for her campaign link courtesy of Multiheaded, formerly of this parish , where with apparently no insight after the fact he says:.
Did you want to lose? Sounds dumb out of context, but I have no idea what the usual rates are. It could very well be that half is the usual proportion of campaign veterans on staff, or even higher than usual, bearing in mind that a campaign headquarters needs a lot of e.
Mostly volunteer centre in Nowheresville, where enthusiasm and a strong back means more? There is a ton of that needed for any billion-dollar enterprise, most of it is necessarily going to be centralized, and an Excel spreadsheet looks pretty much the same whether it deals with political donations or revenues from selling widgets. The best way for them to prove that they have that knowledge is to have done it successfully in the past.
Pregnant with her second kid now. Person who took 3 months off after graduating college to help 8 years ago? Manager who can do weekends… but not every weekend now.