I'm pretty sure I've seen some examples of this but I can't find them now. Besides the better-known pinhole photography, there is also pinspeck photography, and some random object standing in front of the wall could perform the function of the pinspeck.
From what I gather, there are some anti-abuse filters that can sometimes affect otherwise good accounts. When this happens, the best thing to do is vouch for the comments you think are good and contact the mods using the Contact link in the footer.
"There’s a lot more to the evolution, enough for a book on the subject, but if you had to create a list of what kinds of technology and methodology went into the Looking Glass (since they do not list it), it might look like this:"
Yes, this is what forums and mailing lists used to do (well, they're still doing it, there just aren't as many).
When Digg introduced voting on links, it was initially seen as having way better content than the rest. And then Reddit did it with comments as well, and nobody looked back.
The main reason, I think, is that nobody read a whole thread. They look at the few top level comments (in upvoted threads) or at the last ones (in a forum/mail threads) and will reply to that - so that the quality of the whole discussion is determined by what people see first.
That being said, it indeed comes with a lot of problems of its own. Upvotes/downvotes favor hive mind thinking (you want to be loved, so you'll give people what they want) and mobs (if something is downvoted, you'll just add one more downvote).
A couple years ago, I went back to using mailing lists and it's indeed a less frustrating experience, from my point of view. But I'm not sure it's about the technical aspect, it may just be because there are just less people in it.
The ones with the shock value tend to get bigger though. Chronological ordering would emphasize either the first or the last comment, and given that these are two out of many, it's unlikely that either of them is the best comment.
I don’t know why they don’t do this at $1K/mo for life for 30 people (and then study them qualitatively) instead of $250 one-time for 20,000. What is a one-time payment of $250 going to tell us about a UBI?
The biggest problem with UBI is political. Even if you manage to implement it you have no guarantee that the next administration will continue it. If you can't guarantee that your $1k/mo will really be for life then you can't take the risks on things like starting a small business because you might have to go back to work one day and if you have a large employment gap that's going to be tough.
In this case you would set up a trust and fund it with the $5M so legally the only thing that could happen with the money would be $1K/mo to the recipients for life. I just meant in terms of what to do with this $5M that might be more useful for studying UBI.
Ah, but can you power all of those from a battery pack and keep them on your lap on the train after taking them out of your small backpack? And all at the same time!
Last I heard, integrated information theory is _not_ neutral w.r.t. substrate, i.e. to compute the consciousness of a human being simulated on a computer chip, Tononi wants us to apply the IIT calculations to the computer chip.
Oh, certainly the processes occurring on the chip itself could bring about an entirely separate consciousness while at the same time simulating a human one on a different level.
Well, sure, there is something it is like to be that computer, but it is only accessible to the computer, which does not pay a lot of attention to what it's like to be itself generally. When you ask me what it's like I can try to imagine becoming the computer, but in the process I would cease to exist, so for me there is only the objective computer seen from the outside.
The only reason "what it's like" seems to make sense with other humans is because we evolved this nifty faculty of empathy. But if I examine more closely what it's like to be you, I also find that at the point I'm you, and thus have subjective access to your consciousness, I'm not me anymore.
So, it seems that when looking more closely exactly the same problem occurs when asking what it's like to be a computer, or a human, therefore the "what it's like" question is not a valid argument to ascribe consciousness to one but not the other.
It is possible the computer pays as much attention to its own subjective experience as you or I but we have not given it the tools necessary to express itself.
Most studies of voter fraud have shown it's negligible. Compared to the disenfranchisement of minorities and the poor caused by requiring voter ID, I'll take that risk.
This is the same argument being wielded against Vote by Mail. Yet fraud in VBM is rare as well, and VBM works extremely well for servicemembers deployed overseas. And Trump even votes by mail...
The GOP just knows that if more people vote, the GOP candidates will do worse.
I regard it casually because it's statistically negligible. I usually post this link in threads about vote-by-mail where people bring up fraud, but it applies here too:
The (elected, republican) secretary of state audited the 2016 election and found 54 cases -- out of 2+ million votes cast -- of what's generally called "voter fraud," most of which were people voting in Oregon and in another state.
Oregon is entirely vote-by-mail, so there's no way to show an ID.
Remember, how you voted is anonymous, but who voted is known to the government agencies. They can and do analyze that. Voter fraud is not a meaningful problem.
Not even an American but this number is convicted people for voter fraud. It's not even a study or some intelligence agency estimate, so you're dishonest here.
It's not undetectable. There are many ways to determine if a vote is fraudulent. In person voter fraud (the only type that would be prevented by Voter ID) is the most difficult, and unlikely fraud to pull off. It doesn't scale well, is easily detected due to signature cross-checking, and according to the Dept of Justice, only 13 cases occurred between 2000 and 2010. In that time period, there were over 649M votes cast in the US.
Signature cross-checking just checks the signature with the voter registration. It doesn't tell you if the registration is fraudulent. Don't you recall the articles about thousands of people being allowed to register in California that shouldn't have?
>and according to the Dept of Justice, only 13 cases occurred between 2000 and 2010
Again, how would they know? You appear to think voter fraud is only a mismatch signature on the ballot and signature in voter registration.
No, I don't recall the articles you mention. Do you have any links?
You're asking me (and the authorities for that matter) to prove a negative.
Can you show me any evidence that supports your fears of voter fraud in the US? Other than a few rare cases, I haven't seen any evidence.
The reason I believe the system is working fine without Voter ID is that voter fraud just doesn't scale, either with manual paper ballots cast in person, or via absentee ballots and VBM. It's just too much work, too high a chance of being caught for the reward.
Now what does worry me in regards to vote integrity is electronic voting systems. I will never trust those.
Uh, they could as a start include the theoretical predictions for all spectral lines?
Instead they take the subset of lines that have ended up in one (out of several) databases on spectral lines and, without any real motivation, declare this to be a complete sample.
Finally, putting the main result (Figure 2) before the section on data collection ("Experimental Section") is just rude.
Are you saying that conflict of interest disclosures in general are meaningless? Or this one is just poorly implemented? I'm having a hard time interpreting your meaning here.
In the context of what this paper brings to the reader, this should not have been published. If the paper at least did the chores and proposed some scientifically valuable hypothesis, then it could be OK to publish. But. If one guy had the original idea, worked his way through the required steps and the other discussed with him a little, he should have published himself, possibly with acknowledgement of the others. There is no work for 4 people here. The references are ridiculously long and nobody is going to read them all in order to "get" this paper.
Clearly, this is a product of the cultural, societal and economic pressure to "get published" often, quality or value be damned. My cousin who knows a little about science or academia once told me scientist should publish at least once a month, otherwise they do too little work. Obviously, the academia agrees.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinspeck_camera
(p.s. you seem to be shadowbanned)