He said [1]: "I'll just challenge the group to one other thing. How do you know it ends at 21 million [bitcoins]? You all read algorithms? You guys all believe that? I don't know, I've always been a sceptic of stuff like that."
Yes Jamie, we all read algorithms, and it is no rocket science. If Jamie himself does not read the algorithm, why doesn't he do so instead of embarrassing himself by proving how retarded he is? Because he is a "sceptic" of the computer language C++ and "stuff like that". Interesting.
Jamie, the Bitcoin code is open to the public since 12 years, easy to understand and was peer-reviewed AND TESTED(!) 1000s of times by experts, incl. academia and IT experts working for banks or governments all around the world. Not a single reviewer has pointed to any lack of the 21 Million cap in the code. If you cannot trust your own IT experts, you should step back as CEO due to loss of authority.
Jamie has lost his connection to reality and manipulates the masses with evil lies, turns out he is to banking what Donald Trump is to society and politics. An evil clown - someone who should not and could not be taken seriously, if he weren't such an influential public person.
Reference: [1] https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/currencies/jamie-dimon-bitcoin-worthless-questions-21-million-supply-cap-2021-10
I am in the middle of reading this book and since the release of Rails 7, I started to wonder if keep reading it is going to still be useful.
A little bit of background. I've started to work with Rails last April, I have some years of experience in the field (started with WordPress templating and done a couple of years only on JS/React) but Rails is my first full-stack framework and I started to really love it. At work, I mostly work on the FE side of the application but I want to deeply learn the framework so I plan to create some side projects.
Anyway, the first thing I noticed about learning Rails is that it is really easy to learn things that are not practical anymore. Also, there is a LOT of things that, even if I know the theory, I have to grasp properly (talking about background jobs, all the convention over configurations of ActiveRecord, and so on...).
Back to the book, I am in the middle of reading the CSS chapter and the following will talk about TypeScript, webpack, and Webpacker.
Since the standard way of Rails 7 is to use importmaps and, if I have to use a bundler, my preference will go to esbuild do you think it makes sense to study those chapter too?
Probably it'll be better if I give a read at them just because there is a higher chance that projects that I'll work on will also have it? At my company, we haven't yet started a Rails 7 project and many of the applications that we maintain still use webpack so I am wondering...
Hey guys, this might sound like a silly question but this has been part of the reason I have been getting answers wrong on the test. At what point am I allowed to bring in common sense assumptions or prior knowledge in LR?
For example, I just did a question from PT 20 S.1 Q. 18 and the correct answer (C) requires you to assume that the increase in temperature mentioned in the passage is enough that the pests mentioned in the answer choice will survive.
Also for PT 62 S. 4 Q. 17 also requires you to bring in real world understanding that cigarette smoking contributes to an increased risk of cancer to reach the correct answer.
This is not a jab or anything at the people who do enjoy this type of playstyle, I'm genuinely curious. Whenever I find myself playing a low or average INT character, I always find myself basically on the edge of my seat, gritting my teeth because there's something obvious the rest of the party isn't seeing or something that I want to say that is relevant but my character wouldn't be smart enough to realize.
I play mostly with groups who roll for stats, and as the stat rolls are wont to do, I've ended up in groups with a barbarian that ends up even with a 13 or 14 in Intelligence (and non discountable wisdom), and then they roleplay it as though they'd spent their whole life in a cave banging rocks.
Why do people enjoy this style of roleplay so much?
Excited to share the code for our paper: Zero-Shot Learning with Common Sense Knowledge Graphs.
Paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.10713
Code: https://github.com/BatsResearch/zsl-kg
TL;DR
- We propose to learn to map nodes in common sense knowledge graphs to class representations for zero-shot learning.
- We present ZSL-KG, a framework based on graph neural networks with a novel transformer graph convolutional network (TrGCN). Our proposed architecture learns permutation invariant non-linear combinations of the nodes' neighbourhoods and generates expressive class representations.
- Our results show that ZSL-KG improves over existing WordNet-based methods on five out of six zero-shot benchmark datasets in language and vision.
Happy to answer any questions :)
Everyone has met someone who appeared not to have any common sense. But have you met someone who believes and says they do not have common sense? Pretty much everyone believes themselves to have this magical cognitive quality, a sort of undefinable discernment ability. Yet who can define common sense in a mechanistic fashion? Is common sense the same throughout history and culture or does it change over time and across cultural borders?
I contend that common sense is an ill defined collection of heuristics and biases that carries about as little epistemic authority as saying "I think good with my smart brain".
Some points to consider:
-
Common Sense is dependent on and composed of biases and fallacies. Many common sense propositions are derived from poor reasoning, including the argument from incredulity, salience bias, confirmation bias, and the naturalistic fallacy. The argument from incredulity is especially strong; common sense invites you to assert things are false based only on how hard they are to believe given your current knowledge. But many true things (especially in the realm of science) have contradicted common sense in devastating ways. Our brains operate in a heuristic manner. They are not perfectly logical machines, instead, they employ a diverse set of mechanisms that approximate truth in energy-efficient ways. Common sense basically accepts these heuristic approaches as solid means of judgement because these heuristics are universal among people.
-
Common Sense is extremely vulnerable to cultural bias. Travel 200-400 years in the past and ask a fairly educated individual about certain "common sense" propositions. These individuals would believe that the subservience of one race to another is common sense, that the existence of the Abrahamic God is common sense, that miasma causes diseases is common sense, that skull shape is related to intelligence is common sense, that animals being designed is common sense, that all manner of incorrect, biased, or unprovable propositions are common sense. Ultimately, common sense becomes a stand in for whatever arbitrary notions a culture believes and attempts to give those notions some legitimacy and authority by stating they are born out of sound judgement.
-
Common Sense has no explicit and systematic means of arriving at truth. There are no "rules" to common sense. No set of axioms, no reasoning precepts. Common Sense is a loose collection of reasoning methods applied selectively. A
I was interested in expanding on this topic and would like to hear you guys thoughts.
It’s not like I don’t believe in it completely, but doesn’t common sense come from where you’re from and what you’ve perceived through your lifetime? So one persons common sense is different from another, same with whole countries, which makes me wonder why people get so upset about it. Especially when a kid doesn’t know it, like the dudes been alive for 8 years, he doesn’t understand this world anymore than our dog does. So he wouldn’t understand what common sense is for specific activities unless taught, which is usually taught through anger and hate, where the parent gets upset because the kid doesn’t understand ‘basic’ stuff. Anyone else feel this way?
Wanted to see who has had similar experiences, no books but actually living and learning through life itself.
I'm taking a college class where every week is a discussion board, and most of the time I do the minimum work and answer what needs to be answered. For example, we just discussed about bisexuals and society's historically negative view of them.
I explained why I think society hates them: basically because they're different. Maybe it's the way I said it, but some of my classmates sent me emails and texts saying that my posts are very thought-provoking.
I mean, is it really thought-provoking to point out that bisexuals are hated because they're different? Shouldn't that be common sense? Am I underrating myself or overestimating others? Either way, am I narcissistic for thinking so?
To clarify, I didn't and would never tell them that they're dumb for not knowing or that it should be common sense or whatever. I thanked them and conversed with them about it. But I can't help but think that it's saddening how people have so little common sense.
Reading this post, I feel like it's borderline narcisstic but also full of underrating myself. Both are possible but very different so I'd like input on this! Thank you.
