to me they have an agenda and they really don't care about professional journalism.
most are untrustworthy and that's a shame.
Simon:
Defense of free speech is in my view linked to a defense of a free press; you can't have one without the other. It took about 1 month for Lenin to call the press the enemy of the people in 1917 and now here we have Trump doing the same. I think that is quite chilling.
to me they have an agenda and they really don't care about professional journalism.
most are untrustworthy and that's a shame.
Just a thought.
Trump has called several of the largest media outlets the "enemy of the American people". He has never said the same about Putin.
to me they have an agenda and they really don't care about professional journalism.
most are untrustworthy and that's a shame.
I don't want to outrage-post everything Trump says but he just made this statement about the free press:
"Enemy of the people" is a well-known phrase from history, it is a chekist catch-phrase.
to me they have an agenda and they really don't care about professional journalism.
most are untrustworthy and that's a shame.
At least Breitbart can give some people a clue as to why CNN and other news networks can be so biased in their reporting
That statement presupposes that it has been proven that CNN is "so biased".
Bannon is in the white house, what do we make of that?
In my opinion, not too much: we look at what Breitbart says and judge them based on that.
to me they have an agenda and they really don't care about professional journalism.
most are untrustworthy and that's a shame.
Just my 2c:
I think a bit part of the problem is that the question is framed as "is the news media truthful, yes or no".
In reality, the questions we should ask are
I simply can't see how anyone can claim with a straight face that e.g. Breitbart does better than the CNN or nytimes on these counts.
what does this mean for us as individuals and our civilization?
harris, kurzweil, and musk among others have some interesting thoughts on the subject.
as do shows like westworld.
Azor: Oh, I just read Breitbart every now and then, and they seem to always be running at least one story along the line of "so-and-so is crying/having a meltdown over this-or-that" and the comment sections always agree that whatever the person is having a meltdown over is the best thing ever :-).
what does this mean for us as individuals and our civilization?
harris, kurzweil, and musk among others have some interesting thoughts on the subject.
as do shows like westworld.
Azor: All we got to do is dye your hair blue and make a youtube video where we cry every time someone says "redistribution"; they will demand redistribution within a month :-D.
what does this mean for us as individuals and our civilization?
harris, kurzweil, and musk among others have some interesting thoughts on the subject.
as do shows like westworld.
Azor: In the short run automation of manufacturing should lead to a great increase in wealth and it (should!) be a problem of redistribution.
In the long run there will be true AI and all bets will be off, but it's in all likelihood a very long way off (we don't know how the brain fundamentally gives rise to intelligence).
what does this mean for us as individuals and our civilization?
harris, kurzweil, and musk among others have some interesting thoughts on the subject.
as do shows like westworld.
Well, this is actually my research area (statistical methods for machine learning).
There is currently a huge increase in applications and interest in machine learning. What many don't realize is that this is the result of a gradual but steady improvement in the field since the 90s which around 2010 meant machine learning could begin to solve "real" problems (image classification, etc.). That created a huge influx of investments which has increased the rate of progress considerably, however the progress is happening by modifying and tweaking technologies known since the 50s.
So despite the hype people should think about the development in machine learning as what happened with batteries for cars where you have a steady improvement until batteries are "good enough" and then it seems like an explosion.
In terms of AI, what machine learning can do well today is classification and regression tasks of various sorts and (to some degree) control tasks in limited environments and (to a lesser extent) image/sound generation... it would be very surprising to nearly everyone in the field if the current methods that are used now will generalize to true AI.
What does seem within reach is machines that might not be able to think in any conventional sense but can still accomplish rich control tasks, for instance driving (nearly solved) or replacement of low-skill factory labor with robots (progress will depend on task with the truly big breakthroughs some way off). These robots can't "think", but at some point they will begin to replace low-skill factory jobs in large numbers and that will have a *huge* consequence.
In other words, terminator might take your job but it won't kill you :-).
all that talk about hillary clinton's unsecured e-mails?
read the following:.
"deagazio posted additional photos from the weekend, including one of his dining companions kissing trump on the cheek, a selfie with white house strategist steve bannon and another selfie identifying a man named rick who he says is responsible for carrying the nuclear “football,” which allows the president to authorize a nuclear attack while away from the white house.. "“this is rick,” wrote deagazio.
Simon: I encountered it a few times. You can see an example of it here:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5654/debunking-911-myths-planes/
(check the "no stand down order" item).
