No, because you put the parent directory in CDPATH. If I have funstuff/blogs/pics, funstuff/blogs/foods, funstuff/blogs/cats, etc., I put funstuff/blogs in CDPATH and now cd cats just works. If I created a pile of symlinks, I would have to individually create one symlink each for ~/pics, ~/foods, ~/cats, etc. And also type cd ~/cats.
Of course, adding a symlink “~/f” that points to “funstuff” would work around the limitation, at the expense of typing two more characters. Four more if you count the leading “~/”.
Author here. Nobody has ever asked about the art before. It depicts Maruyama Oukyo, a famous painter of ghosts (and other things), where one of his pieces comes to life and frightens him.
Because it would be the equivalent of a natural built-in evil bit and an extremely bizarre thing - for the same reason that the evil bit is unlikely to be used.
Any system that claims to work on that sort of input is almost certainly picking up socio-economic status of different races, or something similar, with no causal predictive power.
You are saying that there is no genetic component to personality? That's dumb. Are you saying there is no genetic component to facial features? Also dumb. Are you saying that there is no crossover whatsoever between the genetics that govern facial features and personality? Also dumb. There will be crossover above 0, it would extraordinary if there were 0 crossover. So there is likely some small correlation between facial features or skull shape and personality. How big is the effect, I don't know. The problem here is that you are judging the value of a person based upon their personality, not that their personality might be bound up in some way with their genetic makeup.
You've missed an angle - the causal link between genetics and personality is completely overwhelmed by the non-causal correlation between genetics and social status.
These models aren't going to pick up the correlation between facial structure and personality, they are going to pick up which families are high status and which are low, then provide the same pseudoscientific justifications for discriminating that people have been deploying since the dawn of pseudoscience.
Basically, these models are going to mislead people into thinking that a non-causal correlation is causal.
> Any system that claims to work on that sort of input is almost certainly picking up socio-economic status of different races, or something similar, with no causal predictive power.
I wonder which will have more predictive power, the version where you let the AI do it’s thing or the version where you intervene to correct for things that are almost certainly wrong according to you.
An AI doesn't do "it's thing", it learns with the bias the researcher encoded in the model, and most importantly in this case, with the massive bias of the datasets.
Correcting is just steering a bias from one way to another.
But how do you measure that predictive power? Humans do have to build an evaluation set. And that evaluation set will be biased one way or the other, you cannot just pretend bias does not exist and hope for the best.
I also can't disprove the existence of unicorns, but I can cite a preponderance of the evidence.
Why is the shape of your face different than the lumps on your head? Even if you find a correlation in the data why would there be a causative relation? If I'm innocent one day but steal a loaf of bread do you expect the shape of my face to change? The idea makes no sense.
No, it won't change, but certain facial metrics may indicate proclivity.
This is statistics, so an n = 1 doesn't really help your argument.
I agree though, that physiognomic "accuracy" based on self-assessments is of little value, like most self-assessments, and not very different from tarot readings or online IQ or MBTI tests.
Now when there are external assessments, these types of correlations are to be handled carefully in social sciences, because they can be self-fulfilling prophecies (people don't trust you because you look untrustworthy, so you end up behaving the way that gets you treated that way anyway) or straight up spurious, so the independent variable(s), if any, can be extremely non-evident: nutrition, environmental, cultural... This is, again, not unlike intelligence tests.
The best hard data we have is on a less delicate subject: aggression in hockey, where certain facial features correlate with quantifiable aggressive behaviors [0].
Because the shapes of portions of our bodies do not betray our moral character. It is nonsense, and debating this issue is so tiresome. I've worked in facial recognition for quite some time, and thank gawd nobody where I've worked had over-reaching opinions of our software's capabilities. For example, the "emotion recognition AI" fraudulently being marketed - we howled in laughter when those frauds appeared. However, while interviewing at other FR/ML companies, I meet a horror of over-reaching attitudes. I guess someone can work in trained algorithms and yet carry a head full of conspiracy-theory quality logical connections. That must be the case, because physical shape cannot dictate moral character, and debating the issue is Kafkaesque.
This is because CFF is mainly built to support the software citation principles [1], where it is argued (rightly so, if you ask me) that software is important enough to be cited in its own right.
Also, there will likely be no new paper for each version of software, so if you want to cite the version you have used in your work (e.g. towards reproducibility), the paper may be useless.
I saw this article shortly before a trip to Berlin in 2019 and went by the button shop. It definitely felt like the guy was some kind of button philosopher, or lord of a button empire.
I hadn't brought a picture, but I told him I was looking for some square buttons and he seemed upset - "buttons should be round, you might as well have a square wheel!"
I didn't find the buttons I was looking for but it an amusing experience.
Funny enough, first time I was in Berlin, I was meeting with a friend and one evening we went to a random currywurst stand to grab some food. There was no one else around and the guy came out to talk to us. I generally avoid interacting with people so the guy started talking to my friend(who is the complete opposite) and when my friend told him he was French, the guy entered some strange mode and began a lecture on French potatoes, and 10 minutes later he asked if I was French too. I said I was from Bulgaria, at which point the guy gave an even longer lecture on Bulgarian potatoes, incluing regions, villages and whatnot. I guess by the time he finished I had my wtf face on and he paused for a few seconds and said "Haha, I'm the potato master, I know everything about potatoes".
Hey, which one was the shop exactly? At this point I'd like to give a try to his fried potatoes (not sure if calling them french fries would be always appropriate :) )
Pfff that was in 2014, hell if I remember. All I can remember is that it was 15-20 minutes walking from the Estrel hotel but that's as much as I can narrow it down.
