iNow

Is reverse emulsifier a poetic name for increasing entropy, in context of time here?

It’s weird how many people conflate PII with open posts on public fora. Your posts here aren’t PII

It's not personal information. It's public information. And I'm confident that if someone accidentally shared their social security number or mothers bank account information that the staff would be happy to help them remove THAT ONE post.

Came here to say the same thing. Just finished rereading it again a few weeks ago.

Your idea here reminds me of my daughters fear that she's going to overflow the pool she's swimming in by dropping just one of her ice cubes into it.

My pleasure. Thank you also for being so understanding. ✌️

Thankfully, the transparent and open presentation of facts and evidence has a long history of arresting conspiratorial thinking. Oh, wait…

It's totally fair (and I believe often times important) to push back sometimes on some rules. That's okay. Here, though... It's like we're co-authors on a book. You write some chapters. I write some chapters. Our friends write some other chapters, and we stitch them all together and send them off for publication. The book goes out. People read it. Reference it. Share it. Come back and read it again later, sometimes. Now, if several years later you say, "I want my sections of the book removed," then all of that goes away... and since you mentioned fairness earlier in another post, one might argue that THIS is truly the unfair approach.... to take your part the story away and subtract your previous contributions to the book and all while countless others are still reading it.

And soon perhaps more apropos... "do you know who my father is?!?"

These forums rely on a threaded discussion structure. When you start arbitrarily pulling out threads, the entire garment falls apart. Or, in this case, the discussion stops making sense. Conversation has PersonA, then PersonB responds, and PersonA replies, and PersonC jumps in, then PersonB posts, and PersonA replies. This keeps going on and on for days, often weeks or even months. Deleting PersonA leaves that "conversation" looking like "PersonB no context, PersonC no context, PersonB no context." Why does this need explaining? When creating a membership, you agree to certain rules. Also, you post voluntarily. If you're bothered by inability to delete later, then don't post. Problem solved. The volunteer staff here are not in place to help you try to revise your post history because at some point later on you suddenly decide you don't like it.

I mean, what's next? A person who is just a former president and is once again little more than a regular old private citizen gets treated as if... as if... as if he were just a regular private citizen!?! Where will this jackbooted thuggery end?!?

Makes sense

I'm sure the OP is happy to have this thread necrobumped 7 years later by a completely new member with zero other posts offering the shocking insight that plants respire O2.

I mean this is ultimately a political decision and the people making them very often do so without regard for facts. They prioritize politics, like appealing to the voters who don't want the "yucky brown people in their country stealing their jobs," for example. Even if your algorithm or calculation or AI or whatever magical technology you clearly don't understand very well... even if one of those gives the optimum distribution for people movement... the likelihood legislation and policy will execute on that proposal is slim to none. On another note, you're using the term "Artificial Intelligence" and AI as many peddlers or woo and nonsense use the term Quantum Mechanics and QM. Not much light btw your camp and theirs when comparing approaches.

You are conflating Stephen Hawking with Richard Dawkins. They sorta rhyme, but they're completely different people working in completely different fields of study. Not the best post with which to necromance an almost 3 year old thread.

What benefit does an AI bring to this? Those things are already being tracked and it requires little more than a pen, paper, and 6th grade level algebra. It’s not needed, and the people doing the planning often don’t care what the facts are.

No stains, no dyes, no paints, nor metal fasteners. Just wood and finish. Cool flex, bro.

Oh, my. Okay then. So you came to a discussion forum to NOT discuss your idea with others showing interest in it? Fascinating. Yawn. Nobody cares. Defend your idea. Answer the questions posed. Or, acknowledge you cannot/will not. Cheap attempts at flattery won't make me magically forget that you're evading my queries and counterpoints.

There’s nothing hard about your concept. Your concept is that you’ll release the AI and the world will thank you while showering you with rainbows and unicorns. Your entire premise requires full faith and trust from a diverse and varied global population, and it requires that trust be placed into a still not yet designed, still not yet built, still not yet trained AI. What precisely requires me to show you a PhD before you accept that you’re trying to sell us digital Jesus or ML Mohammed? I mean seriously, dude. It’s hard to take your claims of super advanced societal advancement through vaporware technology at all seriously when you can’t even figure out the quote function on a 2 decade old discussion forum platform. You measure the nutrient content of the soil and local rainfall. It’s not as hard as you make it out, and farmers are already using AI to help them decide which supplements their crops need, exactly what day to plant, and how to maximize yields. Yes. I heard you the first time, but you didn’t hear me when I responded. There’s no universal measure of fairness. Ask 10 different people what fairness means and ideas of equity will be tossed about, but if you ask them how to measure it you’ll get 10 different answers. The AI won’t be able to learn in the way you think unless you can clearly define for it what success and what failure look like. Doesn’t matter. You couldn’t even get this to work at the country, state, city, or even neighborhood level. Hell, I bet it’d even fail within a single family household. Those family members all have different ideas of how fairness should be realized.

The point is: Fairness must be defined in a way that can be metered / measured, and different people will have differing opinions on how much weight each variable should carry in the final calculation (or even which variables to calculate at all). For instance: P1 might say: Orange = Fair P2 might say: Nuh Uh… Hippopotamus = Fair P3 might say: Fairness = Balanced plates of savory crepes for starving children P4 might be sitting there oblivious with his finger up his nose. You: Aha! This AI has the ONE answer to “fairness” despite each of your definitions being incongruent, inconsistent, and mutually exclusive of one another. Are you familiar with the concept of snake oil sales?

You assertion rests on a foundational premise that there is some universal and all-encompassing measure of fairness, but the sense of fairness is always relative to the individual or local system. In other words, it’s subjective, not objective, and therefore your idea of the masses being placated by this approach strikes me as unrealistic to the point of being Pollyannish.

Is certainly possible, but one of the things we learned from the affidavit just released (even with all of the redactions) is that “MULTIPLE” sources reached out to the DoJ due to sensitive data still being there even when they said it wasn’t. So, if Jared was involved, he wasn’t alone.

Negative

You asked WHERE a consumer could voice their demand and I answered that both simply and thoroughly. You then replied parsing each sentence with post containing no fewer than 7 new questions, questions which followed your cursory curt dismissal of each valid answer I presented. Just so we’re clear, I have neither plans to nor interest in addressing any of them.