Kevin C. (KevinC)
3,102 followers -
If you're reading this, you're part of the mass hallucination that is Kevin the Blue.
If you're reading this, you're part of the mass hallucination that is Kevin the Blue.
3,102 followers
Kevin's interests
Kevin's posts
Post has shared content
Being a police officer is safer than ever, and "In the first week of September, police killed more civilians than the total number of police officers killed so far this year." Yikes.
Police are safer now then they ever were in the past, and yet they claim to act out of fear when murdering the very people they are swarm to protect.
Post has attachment
I will not
Post has shared content
Very interesting, though unfortunately the details of the design appear to only be behind the journal's paywall.
This article shared by +Gideon Rosenblatt had slightly more detail on the architecture, but not much:
http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/software/googles-deep-mind-boosts-memory-to-navigate-london-underground
This article shared by +Gideon Rosenblatt had slightly more detail on the architecture, but not much:
http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/software/googles-deep-mind-boosts-memory-to-navigate-london-underground
A neural network that is attached to a memory system and that can learn to use the memory has been developed by DeepMind. With this memory, the neural network can answer questions like "How do you get from Piccadilly Circus to Moorgate?", "What is directly adjacent to Moorgate, going north on the Northern Line?", and "'Starting at Bond street, and taking the Central line in a direction one stop, the Circle line in a direction for four stops, and the Jubilee line in a direction for two stops, at what stop do you wind up?" if given a map of the London Underground. Or "Who is Freya's maternal great uncle?" if given a genealogy chart. In other words, the neural network forms a data structure called a graph, in computer science terms, in its memory, and can answer questions based on that graph, but the neural network is never told how to form the graph -- it learns how to do it by itself.
That's when the system is coupled with a supervised learning framework. Using a reinforcement learning framework instead, the system can output actions that are scored. For example in the simple block game they show here, you can give it a set of "goals", such as "Put the light blue block below the green; the orange to the left of the red; the purple below the orange; the light blue to the right of the dark blue; the green below the red; and the purple to the left of the green" and it will output a grid with the blocks placed on the grid, and you score it according to how well it fulfilled the goals. Can't wait to see what happens when they make a system like this to play video games. Remember, these are the same people who beat a whole bunch of Atari games a few years ago.
That's when the system is coupled with a supervised learning framework. Using a reinforcement learning framework instead, the system can output actions that are scored. For example in the simple block game they show here, you can give it a set of "goals", such as "Put the light blue block below the green; the orange to the left of the red; the purple below the orange; the light blue to the right of the dark blue; the green below the red; and the purple to the left of the green" and it will output a grid with the blocks placed on the grid, and you score it according to how well it fulfilled the goals. Can't wait to see what happens when they make a system like this to play video games. Remember, these are the same people who beat a whole bunch of Atari games a few years ago.
Post has shared content
Post has attachment
A firecracker under water is beautiful, like a crystal ball or a snow globe. Some interesting thermodynamics when the water recompresses the explosion and reheats it.
Post has shared content
LOL, quite an intent viewer!
![Cat Freaks Out While Watching Horror Movie [Video]](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/muU48B4SqzL35My4L-nWWN9Tpu_sFQBjbI7vuSvRKY9DFIEl6AHSfICOp2WUmMWK5KVZ9S1sa_MjG9VH_wKF6iYSstrk8LXsSUPWu8LGm7jdSRQoSZtt2PxgslFrMt51cXv6xxrcx2pwKI0p14-mZyAfemA=w530-h260-p)
Post has attachment
<shakes head> Saw one of these this morning... was looking at it confused, cuz he died already, for a moment thought maybe I was confusing him with Kernighan or Thompson or something. Strange world we live in.
Post has shared content
This makes a lot of sense, unfortunately.
> On the Left (e.g. Metafilter and Twitter), many expressed surprise that [Trump's harassment-bragging video], appalling as it may be, is the bridge too far for the Right, and are spinning hypotheses as to why this, and not any of the other reprehensible things he's been recorded saying, is what provoked the Right's rejection. [...]
> How one hears what is in that audio recording depends on at least two things. One of them is what one believes constitutes unacceptable sexual behavior. [...]
> For most of human history men were people and women were either the property of people or unclaimed property, like a lost $100 lying on the ground. Here in the US, we inherited English common law, under which the doctrine of coverture a wife was legally a "chattel" of her husband. "Chattel" is a confusing word for moderns. It's a technical legal term meaning "property that's not real estate", and has passed into discussions of history as a euphemism. Since most people don't know the technical definition of "chattel" the term serves well to allow people to discuss the historical legal status of women without actually confronting the ugly truth that word indicates: women were property.
> In societies in which women legally are (or socially are regarded as) property, their value is reckoned in terms of their value as livestock: the labor they can perform, the obedience they demonstrate, and, above all, the offspring they can produce. Since the value of those offspring to their owners in such patriarchal societies is mediated by the certainty of those offsprings' paternity, men in such societies or otherwise of that mindset understand themselves, both individually and as a demographic, to have enormous interest – financial interest – in controlling women's sexual contacts. This results, obviously, in various attempts to control women's sexual behavior, and curtailing women's liberty in general. But – and I think this is much less obvious to modern liberal Westerner – it also shaped legal and moral policy around men's conduct: Thou, presumed male audience, shalt not covet thy (also presumed male) neighbor's wife, neither shalt thou covet his house, his male slave, nor his female slave, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.
> Rape has approximately always been illegal. But it has only recently in the West become regarded as a crime of violence against the person, usually female, it is done to. Historically, it was primarily a property crime, against the person who owned the person it was done to. To put it crudely, rape was the crime of unlawful breeding of someone else's livestock. Rape was a crime because it spoiled the incontestability of paternity of any subsequent offspring – it ruined, for the owner, the carefully cultivated sexual containment of their breeding stock. [...]
> A lot of women (and a lot of men) seem surprised to see Republicans object to women being treated as Trump describes treating them in that recording. That seems to be way more consideration for women than they ever expected to see on the Right. Don't worry: in many cases, it is not consideration for women at all.
> Many – not all, but Mitt Romney, I'm looking right at you – men on the Right who are recoiling in righteous indignation aren't doing it because Trump did something to a woman, or even (as some observed) a white woman.
> Oh, you sweet summer children. He did it to a married woman.
> The line too far is that he macked on some other bro's bitch.
> How one hears what is in that audio recording depends on at least two things. One of them is what one believes constitutes unacceptable sexual behavior. [...]
> For most of human history men were people and women were either the property of people or unclaimed property, like a lost $100 lying on the ground. Here in the US, we inherited English common law, under which the doctrine of coverture a wife was legally a "chattel" of her husband. "Chattel" is a confusing word for moderns. It's a technical legal term meaning "property that's not real estate", and has passed into discussions of history as a euphemism. Since most people don't know the technical definition of "chattel" the term serves well to allow people to discuss the historical legal status of women without actually confronting the ugly truth that word indicates: women were property.
> In societies in which women legally are (or socially are regarded as) property, their value is reckoned in terms of their value as livestock: the labor they can perform, the obedience they demonstrate, and, above all, the offspring they can produce. Since the value of those offspring to their owners in such patriarchal societies is mediated by the certainty of those offsprings' paternity, men in such societies or otherwise of that mindset understand themselves, both individually and as a demographic, to have enormous interest – financial interest – in controlling women's sexual contacts. This results, obviously, in various attempts to control women's sexual behavior, and curtailing women's liberty in general. But – and I think this is much less obvious to modern liberal Westerner – it also shaped legal and moral policy around men's conduct: Thou, presumed male audience, shalt not covet thy (also presumed male) neighbor's wife, neither shalt thou covet his house, his male slave, nor his female slave, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.
> Rape has approximately always been illegal. But it has only recently in the West become regarded as a crime of violence against the person, usually female, it is done to. Historically, it was primarily a property crime, against the person who owned the person it was done to. To put it crudely, rape was the crime of unlawful breeding of someone else's livestock. Rape was a crime because it spoiled the incontestability of paternity of any subsequent offspring – it ruined, for the owner, the carefully cultivated sexual containment of their breeding stock. [...]
> A lot of women (and a lot of men) seem surprised to see Republicans object to women being treated as Trump describes treating them in that recording. That seems to be way more consideration for women than they ever expected to see on the Right. Don't worry: in many cases, it is not consideration for women at all.
> Many – not all, but Mitt Romney, I'm looking right at you – men on the Right who are recoiling in righteous indignation aren't doing it because Trump did something to a woman, or even (as some observed) a white woman.
> Oh, you sweet summer children. He did it to a married woman.
> The line too far is that he macked on some other bro's bitch.
![[pols, womenslib, Patreon] Trump's Sexual Inkblot](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/2WjKmXdVAiSGDhKXbPrz_97q2QR_PXhThfr9LM54yMaDuu9iir-r_qAf7JNGWVck0PViedEF4R-Ubn8-8SQEStlupwLpmesF0MkmYpVnxL-Evx_622gyztKx=w530-h298-p)
Post has attachment
“Police misconduct can powerfully suppress one of the most basic forms of civic engagement: calling 911 for matters of personal and public safety,” the authors concluded. This also leads to spikes in crime.
Post has attachment
"But focus on Billy Bush in that tape. The sycophantic laughter. The way he listened to Trump go on about how he gropes and kisses women without consent, then immediately thereafter became Trump’s wingman, urging the woman to hug him."
That was really the creepiest part of the video for me, but perhaps only because my expectations for Trump were already so low.
I also completely agree with @hels's tweet: "Hey dudes this is a great opportunity for you to tell other dudes in private dude spaces that you're not okay with treating women like that" - https://twitter.com/hels/status/784567661460066305?s=09
That was really the creepiest part of the video for me, but perhaps only because my expectations for Trump were already so low.
I also completely agree with @hels's tweet: "Hey dudes this is a great opportunity for you to tell other dudes in private dude spaces that you're not okay with treating women like that" - https://twitter.com/hels/status/784567661460066305?s=09
Wait while more posts are being loaded