Some apparently read this as "all recommender tech is bad & dangerous" which is not it at all.
The takeaway is that the information you consume matters and your attention is precious, so you should have very high standards for what's allowed to download thoughts into your brain.
You wouldn't eat random crap handed to you by a greasy robot on the street. Being deliberate about what you eat is critical to your health.
Well, being deliberate about the information you consume is critical to your mental well-being.
That doesn't mean that you should not eat anything or that you should never go to restaurants. It just mean you should have standards and you should be mindful of what you eat.
It's incredibly hard to convey even simple ideas on Twitter. Everything on here is either black or white.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I hear people saying "new housing is getting bought up as an investment vehicle, building more just helps the rich". Of course this is factually incorrect, but even more importantly, *in a world where enough housing gets built, housing is a depreciating asset, not an investment*.
When there is sufficiently supply, the price of a house / apartment goes down over time as it gets older (thus less attractive) and needs repairs. Eventually you have to tear it down and rebuild. Just like a factory. Or a car.
The price of housing only goes up because of artificial constraints that prevent supply from meeting demand. Housing works as an investment because we don't build fast enough / dense enough.
People get scammed not so much because they can't analyze a scheme on an intellectual level, but because of their personality or emotional state. Smart are often *more likely* to get scammed, because they're more confident in their own judgement.
"Is it a scam?" A checklist.
1. Is there a real product/service involved, with an actual business/consumer need? What does the thing look like if you consider it from 1st principles, rather than from the lens of "smart people are into it, must be legit" or "even my neighbor is making money, must be legit"?
(scams will often try to hide their lack of practical foundations by saying they represent a "new paradigm", like "the internet in the 90s" -- everything that involves tech and hucksters must be like the internet, nevermind what the internet was actually useful for back then)
The tech industry's successive waves of fascination with get-rich-schemes powered by FOMO ("my idiot neighbor is getting rich, I have to get on this") actually serve a useful social purpose.
It compartmentalizes the negative impact of a certain kind of people/activity.
By default, the get-rich-quick folks go into what's hot. And you wouldn't want them to be founding AI startups promising the Singularity in 5 years, or biotech startups promising 100s of blood test results from a single finger prick. The fallout would be devastating.
Well-isolated tech grifter ecosystems work as a magnet that shields productive areas of research and product development from conmen, their deleterious mentality, and their long-term impact on public confidence.
If the 3rd AI winter never arrives, it's thanks to them.
Use "mixed_float16" as the policy value on GPU, and "mixed_bfloat16" on TPU.
You can also configure the dtype policy on a per-layer basis using the `dtype` layer constructor argument. Useful to keep some layers running in float32 when necessary!
In our example, we kept the data augmentation stage in float32 (created before setting the global policy) since it's meant to be run on CPU as part of the TF data pipeline.
In the US, anti-abortion activism almost always leverages religious arguments -- because these are the only available arguments that would be socially acceptable -- to such an extent that many people actually believe that opposition to abortion is *motivated by religion*.
If you zoom out and look at more than just the US, you realize it's a misdirection. In every country, a certain kind of conservative men (and their allies, who may be women) staunchly oppose abortion rights -- no matter what their religion is, and whether they're religious or not
This is true independently of religion, culture, or even ethical foundations. Non-religious conservative men in Japan (a very patriarchal society) don't oppose abortion because they subscribe to christian ethics, or because they see "all life" as "sacred".
It's often the case that you can't understand a thing well purely by accumulating knowledge about it -- you need the context that's provided by knowing *other* things as well.
For instance, you can't understand the US well if you only know the US. You need to look at how the US is similar to other countries, and how it is unique. You need to look at what there was before it existed -- where it came from. And so on.
And you can't understand English well if you only know English. You're also going to need French, Latin, etc. Context is everything