Not sure those documents had any legal right to be secret in the first place. Criminals (and that's what the people that broke wiretap laws became) should not enjoy the benefits of secrecy.
That seems like it pushes it further from science, no? The point of a well-crafted hypothesis is that if it doesn’t bear out, you know that it’s because one+ of your assumptions was wrong. Your ability to continue your scientific inquiry is pretty much == your ability to then identify which assumption was wrong.
You don't need to do an scientific experiment to tell why your BST doesn't work. "Computer Science" is a misnomer because most of its contents and methodologies are from mathematics (which is used in science but is not a science in itself).
CS uses mathematical proofs. You don't need a computer to execute your code to tell why the BST doesn't work. You can introspect your code and figure out why it works or does not work. If it's correct, CS methodology says you can "prove" that it works (without executing it).
Working with large AI models is like working with an artificial brain. It's as scientific as neuroscience in this sense. You make some hypotheses, tweak some hyperparameters, and get a result, which may or may not invalidate your hypotheses. Nobody knows why. Science is not necessarily about knowing the fundamental "whys" (amateurs think humanity has figured all the "whys" out, but that's a lie). It's about establishing some useful model of how things work.
But it's definitely possible to know why your BST does not work, even without a computer, without empirical testing. That's why CS is not a science.
Not sure what you are saying here. Perhaps an analogy helps.
Psychology is a science. You can make falsifiable statements about the human brain. You will need experiments to build and test theories. It's the same with deep learning.
With computer "science" (and math) it's not the same. You can reason completely about your subjects, i.e. you can determine if something will or will not work just by reasoning, no experiments needed.
Seems like the distinction is mainly between which tools are available to you as a scientist (at least if we stick to comp-sci, math is in a league of it's own). When, or if, we can completely model a human brain, a psychologist would no longer need to perform experiments to test their theories.
Given enough computing power, most theories could theoretically by proven or falsified purely through reasoning.
The point is: being able to run a brain inside a computer is not the same as understanding that brain. If you wanted to build a new brain, you'd have to reach for the tool all the time in an iterative way and hope for the best. Only tools that aid in understanding matter. We have only very few tools that help DL researchers better understand what they are doing. Hence DL is more akin towards science than towards math/CS or engineering.
But this is clearly not "everyone". This is just one/two readers. Not even copiers, as the network does not "remember" the content of the book, at least not better than a casual reader. Infringement in this case is more like standing in a book shop reading the book for free, or loaning one in a library for a day, not actually copying for keeps.
The comment they replied to literally said "Let's take a second to remember that copyright is the reason ~every child doesn't have access to ~every book ever written."
I block ads because they're a security risk. I have encountered browser-based attacks from ads that are supposed to come from reputable ad brokers, including on YouTube once. As long as the brokers don't properly vet the ads, those malware bits are not getting into my computer.
I really don't understand how Google and Facebook lost control of their own platforms to the extent that they actually serve malicious advertising.
Some people use the excuse of 'scale', and "can't monitor everything", but it's not like Google and Facebook don't have the resources to solve it, it's just that they have no motivation to solve it because it's not costing them anything to be a platform for malware and scams.
>it's just that they have no motivation to solve it because it's not costing them anything to be a platform for malware and scams.
While that's true, it glosses over the fact that not only is it "not costing them money," it's bringing in revenue -- those malware/scams are paid-for ads after all, aren't they?
You're right, I admit I had a long-standing misunderstanding about this - I had always assumed the word was referring to semitic people in general, but have decided to look this up (unfortunately after posting the above) and realized that's not the case...
Ah, those are nice examples, but... some 50% of private land in Israel is owned by Arab Israeli citizens, not by JNF, and they apply similar restriction on any Jewish family trying to settle in a predominantly Arab town or village. A similar restriction doesn't apply to predominantly Jewish towns, only to small community villages.
I'm curious if you have any references, because as you can imagine, it's hard to search for such things.
I tried to make my statements and figures based on objectively verifiable information (the stated policy of JNF and its land holdings, naming the Admissions Committees Law). I think if you were to account for the broader discrimination in property sale/leasing, the amount of land where non-Jewish nationals are denied would be much higher than 13%, never mind counting the colonies in the occupied territories.
I would agree with you if you were saying that petty discrimination (done by individual land-owners) is widespread against all "nationalities", but the issue is that entire neighborhoods, communities, and territories have official sanction and support to be discriminatory against non-Jewish nationalities. And if you believe as I do that Israel must retreat to its border as defined by international law, and that it has in fact done the opposite and engaged in literal colonization for 60 years or so, then it would be plain to see why much of this conversation is besides the point. Of course there will be petty discrimination, perhaps even rooted in each side's belief that each property transaction is really a territorial battle. The actions of consequence are those of the state and those backed by the state apparatus.
>Currently, in Israel “proper” (within the Green Line), only 7 percent of the land is owned privately by individuals (3 percent Jews and 4 percent Arabs). According to the Israeli NGO Regavim, the rest is owned by the Jewish state (80 percent) and the Jewish National Fund (13 percent)
Thanks, but those figures weren't what I was asking about -- I do believe in their accuracy, and used a similar breakdown when writing my comment. I meant regarding the following:
> [Arab Israeli citizens owning private land] apply similar restriction on any Jewish family trying to settle in a predominantly Arab town or village. A similar restriction doesn't apply to predominantly Jewish towns, only to small community villages.
I'm not sure, because you clearly make a distinction between towns and small community villages, so I could be wrong, but it sounds like even there you are describing the (probably rampant) petty discrimination by individuals on 4% of the land. My default is also to assume there are comparable levels of petty discrimination on the other 3% of private land, unless you have some reference to support your comments about restrictions only applying in the other direction.
To repeat another point though, I am highlighting the rigidly enforced discrimination on at least 13% of the land, and think this is far more significant than haphazard petty discrimination on either side of the 4% and 3% private land divide, where creating or buttressing homogenous communities is far harder without state support (though one side does have that). Never mind that, like I said I don't have time to research it now, but I think a substantial portion of that 80% of state land has similar restrictions in place against non-Jewish nationals.
As I said:
> Of course there will be petty discrimination, perhaps even rooted in each side's belief that each property transaction is really a territorial battle. The actions of consequence are those of the state and those backed by the state apparatus.
To make clear the reasons for this:
- they cover a far greater proportion of the land
- they are far more rigidly enforced
- their power to engineer demography is far greater, as the instruments at their disposal are far more powerful (punitive travel/work restrictions, evictions, municipal infrastructure support/denial, military support/harassment, etc.)
The reason I make a distinction between towns and small villages is because Israeli laws only allow committee-based exclusion in small villages. Grow to the size of a town and anyone can move in (buying via third party if one is afraid of discrimination, if necessary). It would only face "petty discrimination" if it moves into a radical religious neighbourhood, but then the same would happen to a non-religious Jewish family.
However, if a Jewish family tries to move into a predominantly Arab town, it will be pushed out even if legally there is no exclusion. Yes, by illegal means if necessary. The petty discrimination levels are different in those two cases.
Regardless of the above, the majority of Israeli population (92%) lives in large cities, where every citizen can buy an apartment, and in most cases the construction companies are not allowed to discriminate at all.
Well I think there are ample cases that are in conflict with the idea that "anyone can move" into any Jewish neighborhood in larger towns and cities, and then you have groups like Elad in Jerusalem on top of that. https://archive.ph/20180614062757/https://www.haaretz.com/is...
I was just thinking that I should expand the point to illustrate what I mean when I saw your reply -- I wasn't clear. The article I posted is about the actions of the mayor, but I was using it as an example of petty discrimination, without explaining why.
The point I was indirectly making, was that there was vocal support from other Jewish Israelis in the area. It's highly probable that among those protesters, there are many such people where if they were selling their property, they would not obligingly sell to the best offer if it came from an Arab Israeli. My personal opinion is that there would be many who would not make the sale (there are also many many Jewish Israelis who would, of course). This one concrete case becomes in all likelihood many examples of the exact thing we're talking about.
I do agree that there are some judicial checks in place against some such cases.
Of course nobody cares that an Israeli Jew marrying a Lebanese, or a Jordanian, or an Egyptian, let alone a Saudi citizen, can't get Lebanese or Jordanian or Egyptian or Saudi citizenship.
But Israel must give citizenship to everyone... right?
This is happening between Palestinians. You can call them Arab Israelis if you want but they still identify as Palestinians. Splitting them up for the sake of division with these policies is political and systematic.
And yes a double standard applies compared to other countries because Israel identifies as a western liberal democracy whereas the others don’t or no one implies that they seriously are.
Main problem here that if Israeli citizen will decide to marry a Lebanese, or a Jordanian, or an Egyptian or even Saudi citizen, they won't be able to live in Israel.
Outrage of non-Israelis about is law is merely academical. Outrage of (some of) Israelis is practical: the state is putting a choice in front of a citizen -- be able to marry a person you want or be able to live in Israel.
Because I'm not a citizen of Lebanon, Jordan or Egypt. As an Israeli citizen I share the responsibility and am obliged to react to any colonial era exercise the government is trying to pull off.
20 years in prison if caught en route might be a good demotivator. And it's not like you can just catch a train there from Russia. Or a plane.
(I'm not from or in the conflicting countries but aware of the new Russian law)
> How do you achieve super cheap products made by people making super high pay?
By economy of scale. If you have 50,000 paying users, $10 each, that should cover either 5 man-years of average software development, or 2 man-years of one senior/principal level developer.
Most products in question have users in the millions, paying 10 to 100 times as much. Do the math.
It would be a lot safer if ad companies vetted their ads responsibly. After a third case of an ad on a perfectly reputable site trying to exploit my browser, an ad-blocker became just a standard part of network hygiene.
