1) Definitely - but without a market improvements fall flat and dont stick. Ancient people had a lot of good ideas but overall progress was really slow and retrograded often until.. well until capitalism became a thing. Abolishing serfdom, general civil rights, separation of church from state and the fall of absolutism made the Iphone possible.

2) No, that is my point. People "discover" things all the time, some of these things are deemed useful by the general public and capitalism provides the tools to finance production and distribution (the profit part is optional - it is entirely legal to sell your invention for any price or indeed give it away for free).

So to get to the original point capitalism did not discover or design the Iphone but it certainly MADE the Iphone.

3) Not impossible but incredibly slow. Generations lived out their entire lives without perceptible changes in their environments prior to the onslaught of capitalism and the industrial revolution. The advent of science from the renaissance onwards was OK, but only once factories and transport infrastructure became a thing did living conditions start to change for everyone.

A big problem with free markets is that they are never really "free". A theoretical free market implies too many things that dont ever happen in real life, like everyone having all relevant information and being able to make a good decision. People just dont do that IRL.

Also not everything can be solved by free markets because you cant just let your neighbors die poor because the market says they deserve it. However the Iphone is really not something the state should subsidize. I understand that it paid for some of the technology that went into designing it. But true socialism would have to make sure everyone could afford one, and would design a cheap bad phone to fit the need.

The document is in duplicate. Literally in the link. Yes, fingerprint card also. The cost is low. The cost of the firearm is a separate issue.

Yes, the background check. The "process" I'm referring to has context, i.e. the background check process. Obvious really.

"No one asked you that."

You asked me.

"So [do] you think machine guns aren't firearms...or do you think they aren't really illegal? Edit: What about bazookas, grenades, mortars, etc.?"

"Which you begrudgingly".

What language made it begrudging? I stated it was the case without any issue. Stop making stuff up.

I didn't say they can't be regulated. I said that they can't be "effectively regulated". I also stated that there are many regulations that are probably illegal (waiting for supreme court challenges). And I said that there are some regulations that do exist because the supreme court debated it and came to the conclusion that it was within the scope of the 2A.

"especially when you can verify by just scrolling up"

Yeah, exactly, so what are you on about. My comments are literally above you. Why distort them? Do you have comprehension issues? No shame if you do.

"This is a paranoid delusion."
You're entitled to your opinion. History supports their argument though.

"Your argument was there are better issues to throw money at, bucketloads you said, now you admit it takes no money and declare yourself correct"

Yes, there are better issues to throw money at, but the issue is they don't want to throw money at anything when there is a low cost red herring issue they can use to gain public standing instead.

"Then don't be dumb and fuck little kids.
Don't be dumb and rape random women.
Don't be dumb by getting caught in the Jr high locker room filming.
Don't be a snarky tool who hides from what he said by doing mental gymnastics to pretend their warnings aren't implications.
See how giving these warnings imply you needed warning? That's how warnings work."

Yes, they are all warnings. And valid ones at that. The issue is context. You don't put a "warning strong current" warning in the middle of a desert because there is nothing to warn about.

Likewise making those warnings here makes no sense. Ergo, no, these warnings don't imply anyone needs warning. They are just random warnings.

Otherwise we could continue on and I could say:

Don't be dumb and fuck your mother's dead body.
Don't be dumb and fuck animals.
Etc., etc., warnings that are truly good advice but make no sense in the given situation.

On the other hand:
"Danger, high voltage wires" on a cabinet that holds a large transformer makes sense.
"Do not dig, high pressure gas lines buried here" above buried high pressure pipes makes sense.

Do you see the difference?

"Everyone is welcome, welcome to post as much or little as they choose"

Well, everyone is welcome until they're not. And they're not welcome pretty quick here.

"but if I see lies, misstatements, abuse, or insults when none are called for, I'm going to say something, just like I do in person"

Funny about that, that's what I'm doing.

This isn't really true though and greatly understates how amazing this demo, and current AI actually is.

Saying the agents are obeying a set of human defined rules / freedoms / constraints and objective functions would lead one to imagine something more like video game AI.

Typically video game AI works on a set of weighted decisions and actions, where the weights, decisions and actions are defined by the developer; a more complex variation of:

if my health is low, move towards the health pack,
otherwise, move towards the opponent

In this demo, no such rules exist. It's not given any weights (health), rules (if health is low), nor any instructions (move towards health pack). I guess you could apply neural networks to traditional game AI to determine the weights for decision making (which are typically hard coded by the developer); but that would be far less interesting than what's actually happening here.

Instead, the agent is given a set of inputs, a set of available outputs, and a goal.

4 Inputs:
- Position of the agent itself
- Position and type (other agent, box, ramp) of objects within a limited forward facing conical view
- Position (but not type) of objects within a small radius around the agent
- Reward: Whether they are doing a good job or not

Note the agent is given no information about each type of object, or what they mean, or how they behave. You may as well call them A, B, C rather than agent, box, ramp.

3 Outputs:
- Move
- Grab
- Lock

Again, the agent knows nothing about what these mean, only that they can enable and disable each at any time. A good analogy is someone giving you a game controller for a game you've never played. The controller has a stick and two buttons and you figure out what they do by using them. It'd be accurate to call the outputs: stick, A, B rather than move, grab, lock.

Goal:
- Do a good job.

The goal is simply for the reward input to be maximised. A good analogy is saying 'good girl' or giving a treat to a dog that you are training when they do the right thing. It's up to the dog to figure out what it is that they're doing that's good.

The reward is entirely separate from the agent, and agent behaviour can be completely changed just by changing when the reward is given. The demo is about hide and seek, where the agents are rewarded for not being seen / seeing their opponent (and not leaving the play area). The agents also succeeded at other games, where the only difference to the agent was when the reward was given.

It isn't really different from physically building the same play space, dropping some rats in it, and rewarding them with cheese when they are hidden from their opponents - except rats are unlikely to figure out how to maximise their reward in such a 'complex' game.

Given this description of how the AI actually works, the fact they came up with complex strategies like blocking doors, ramp surfing, taking the ramp to stop their opponents from ramp surfing, and just the general cooperation with other agents, without any code describing any of those things - is pretty amazing.

You can find out more about how the agents were trained, and other exercises they performed here:

https://openai.com/blog/emergent-tool-use/

Even though I think the world would be FAR better off without religion I in no way advocate any purging of people that "believe" in that crap. But I would also like to not have asshat politicians (mostly Republican in the USA) trying to push their BS religious agenda's in govt, what happened to separation of church and state.... In God We Trust should be removed from anything govt related and any legislation better not have stuff in it because "it goes against my religion".

Oops....among all your other misstatements of fact, you forgot Papadopolis, who's illegal collusion with Russia, seeking a hostile foreign power's help in digging up dirt on Democrats, actually started the FBI investigation before anyone knew the Republicans hired Fusion/Steele, who later turned their work over to Clinton, who then informed the FBI who was already investigating Trump's campaign. Papadopoulos plead guilty. His actions spurred the legitimate investigation, not Fusion or Steele.

On October 5, 2017, Papadopoulos pleaded guilty to making false statements to FBI agents about the timing and the possible significance of his contacts in 2016 relating to U.S.-Russia relations and the Donald Trump presidential campaign.

It's clear you haven't read the Mueller report...although if you had it's also clear you would continue to lie about what's in it, as you just did. There are mountains of evidence being considered in multiple courts as we speak, and mountains more waiting for him to leave office. 34 convictions on that evidence you say isn't enough for court. The lions share of those blacked out parts of the report you didn't read are due to ongoing cases....liar.

Most of what was in the Steele dossier turned out to be 100% correct, as was the decision to turn it over. It was independently verified before being mentioned in courts. This has been litigated, and Trump lost, sore loser. Trump, conversely, still publicly states he would accept foreign help in his campaign and wouldn't inform the FBI, two crimes against the US. Rusher, if you're listening, please hack government servers and release dirt on my opponent...remember? And within hours they did exactly that, remember?

In October 2015, Fusion GPS was contracted by conservative political website The Washington Free Beacon (who, like most Republicans were Trump haters) to provide general opposition research on Trump and other Republican presidential candidates. In April 2016, attorneys for Hillary Clinton's campaign and the DNC separately hired Fusion GPS to investigate Trump, while The Free Beacon stopped its backing in May of 2016. In June 2016, Fusion GPS subcontracted Steele's firm to compile the dossier. Clinton campaign officials were reportedly unaware that Fusion GPS had subcontracted Steele, and he was not told that the Clinton campaign was the recipient of his research. Following Trump's election as president, funding from Clinton and the DNC ceased, but Steele continued his research and was reportedly paid directly by Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn R. Simpson. While compiling the dossier, Steele passed information to both British and American intelligence services.

Trump has said clearly he would not have turned it over, nor would he care if the accusations were true.


Trump is a life long criminal fraud, admitted and convicted, and horrific business man, backstabbing "friend" who constantly tried to sleep with his friend's wives, incestuous pedophile, cheating husband and philanderer, and well known documented golf cheat. You and he admit he's a constant liar, in fact you applaud him for lying, stating clearly that you think that he is smart to lie under oath, because the truth would convict him. His cabinet has proven to be the worst, most criminal administration ever in the history of the US. None has more convictions for crimes against the state, or more pending criminal cases, or more lobbyists filling positions, or more turnover, or more failed appointments.

Funny, don't you still chant "lock her up" over pizzagate and Benghazzi, demanding more politically motivated investigations alongside Trump? Sore loser...still fighting the losses. As usual, you have it all hypocritically backwards.

[Redacted to conform with sift rules, not because I didn't mean every word]

I've said before in other comments that earth is home to many worlds. Each of us creates our own world with what we know or don't know. Some know they are artists. Others don't know or don't believe it.

Since the bible has been the biggest stumbling block on earth ever created, religions have been created that separate us. Don't get me wrong. I have been an atheist. I was raised as a Catholic and had to go to church every Sunday. I hated going because it was so damn boring and confusing.

Love on the other hand was something different. Something I could relate to just by some of the hot babes that were in my classes in school! I could feel the love there. But my love was limited. I hated being kissed on the cheek by Aunt Mary because she always got lipstick on my cheek and her breath stunk. Pretty shallow, I know.

Stick with me here.

It's been said or at least I've heard, God is love. That was simple. Brief. But it was also puzzling. Is it God or is it love. Which is it?

The only way it made sense to me was, God is the character name of the person reading the book. I don't need to believe in God. I just need to believe in myself. That helps me believe in others.

I learned that by losing someone I love.

Since then people tell me I should stop smoking cigarettes. I tell them that if I quit smoking today and then die in a car accident next week I'm going to be PISSED!

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today... Aha-ah...

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion, too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace... You...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world... You...

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one -John Lennon


All alone, or in two's
The ones who really love you
Walk up and down outside the wall
Some hand in hand
And some gathered together in bands
The bleeding hearts and the artists
Make their stand
And when they've given you their all
Some stagger and fall, after all it's not easy
Banging your heart against some mad bugger's wall

Isn't this where

-Songwriters: Roger Waters

Well that's just vicious circle going nowhere.

They said something right. Join them with more signs.

Maybe the next sign they hang will be more accurate to separate themselves from the people they hate.

Life's not the movies.
In real life, the rich have police and private security, secure buildings and walled off communities to make sure that doesn't happen.
What you do see is a total separation. The rich and the poor rarely exist in the same space, and on those rare occasions when they do, the rich protect themselves in ways the poor don't even consider....like bullet and knife proof clothing, body guards, armored cars, etc.
Put 5 billionaires in East Oakland or Compton at night without cell phones or guards, I think you'll see the lynching you're looking for.

For it to become the norm, maybe wait 10-20 years....less if there's another drought in places like California where we grow most of what we feed the nation.

It's like a frog in the pot....if you were to time travel from 1950, you would be horrified at the current state of civilization and the planet, because it's a slow change, people forget and ignore how bad it really is. The pot doesn't need to be boiling for the frog to get cooked.

"Get the answer faster" is not the point.

The left explains why multiplication works, whereas the one on the right is a process for multiplying.

The left makes it visually obvious that scalars are separable.

That : (35*2) = (30*2) + (5*2) = (30+5) * 2


The only thing missing (which may have been covered elsewhere) is that : 35 'IS" (3*10^1) + (5*10^0), and that multi-digit-numbers are already presented as separate scalars in sum.

-scheherazade

So, separate drinking fountains for pigeons. Where have I heard of this before. Just dragging us back to the '50s and '60s.

They tried this crap in my geometry/pre trig class....they called it "proofs"....forcing us to do mental gymnastics to spread out a problem from maybe three quick steps into 20. Asinine.
My last high school math class was advanced placement B/C calculus....I never found this a bit useful, because I was taught real math. By second grade we were expected to know up to 12 X 12 multiplication tables without hesitation, if they taught us by this method, we would have been years behind.

Since next to no one today is doing even moderately difficult math without a calculator/cellphone, I can't fathom why they bother at all anymore with more than basic math skills for non math or science majors...that said, my cousin still can't add 3 digit numbers or multiply or divide at all thanks to Waldorf schools, and that's really sad.

@Payback, I was accused of cheating in trig because I refused to show my work or do homework. I was separated from the class for a big test, and my score remained an A while the class average dropped by around one full grade. I never had to do homework or show my work in that class again, but did have to separate myself for tests so the class wouldn't cheat off of me. That was in boarding school.

Thanks for your concern, I can feel it and much appreciated.

Those church goers doesn't dictate me, I'm more like one of those that love to call out on any BS hypocrisy shit-disturber in the church. Why? Mainly because I don't really care about going to heaven and belong to a religion organization. But I do look up to Jesus as a great philosopher/role model. Actually, to be honest, the bigger role model in the Bible to me is Paul.

So far, there are many good people in my church that are genuinely involved to the community at large (not just within the church), those I would
sincerely call friends and partners, a vast majority are the regular church goers - there for their own purpose (like to belong to a community, trying to figure things out), and some bad apples (the alt-right type in the USA).

I'm just glad I'm a Canadian, where Christians doesn't play the political game as hard-core (read: bat-shit crazy) as in the States. Pretty European, clearer separation of religion and state.

If one day my church is too much for me (i.e. I see a negative value in the community), I'm more than happy to go.

I hope people like you on Videosift can keep me grounded. This community is pretty unique to me.

Only the initial armed thug in blue was even given paid vacation pending INTERNAL investigation, the rest of the gang don't even get it put on their service record.
They all need jail time, they didn't try to stop the armed nutjob for harassing citizens in their own yards, they stood with him so they're all complicit.

We need an independent armed force to police the police, with their own separate prosecutors. Internal investigation is a bad joke, not a serious check on abuse.

This is why cops don't deserve respect....they're disrespectful.

That just sounds an awful lot like two wrongs making a right.

Claiming an established well defined name for your group/association, and then proceeding to define your group as something completely different is BAD communication. That is an objective fact, not something that varies depending upon your subjective POV. Whether that bad communication also has some morality attached to it sounds more like what your addressing, which is something I was saying nothing about.

Having groups like Westboro Baptists claiming to be either Christian or Baptist is like you said much the same. Morality wise, infinitely worse. Communication wise they might arguably be more accurate, although their words and actions look nothing like the Christ they claim to follow, I do understand that their group at least claims to truly believe in and follow their God. Secular Satanists apparently neither worship nor even believe in the existence of Satan, making the moniker more misleading. Their push for religious neutrality/separation of church and state however place them as far superior morally. Again, these examples are laden with my opinion regarding morality.

Morality aside though, you honestly can't say that claiming a name for your group with a strongly established meaning and definition isn't bad communication when your group shares neither the beliefs(grammar edit) nor practices of that established meaning and definition.

That mission/purpose is clear enough, the miscommunication is in calling that 'Satanism'. To repeat myself, "Satanism" has been well understood to mean the worship of the Abrahamic center of all evil Satan. Calling your movement 'Satanism', and then clarifying that you neither believe in nor worship that Satan and your movement is an entirely separate and distinct secular one is deliberate bad communication.

It's like going around calling my group a antivaxxers, but then clarifying we don't actually oppose vaccinations, we are just against the high profit margins of pharma corps.

When words already have strong definitions deliberately failing to use them and choosing your own new definition isn't clever, it's just bad communication.