ecoli

You cite single candidates on an independent platform (I don't count Perot's reform party, since he started the party). I was specifically referencing 3rd parties. I'm interpreting this as higher than average rejection of either major party, rather than a particularly likable alternative candidate with broad appeal (though I haven't seen any data on that) which would be unprecedented in the last few decades. I also did not claim that turnout was higher than average, just that one can safely assume that, of those that did not vote, did so because they actively did not like either candidate. I admit that I was not being entirely precise in my claims, but you haven't adequately supported your own claim either: that the people broadly liked Hillary. Coming in first in a two-horse race where many Americans didn't bother to vote, when her own nomination was hotly contested in the first place, is not strong evidence that she was a popular politician.

You want to say that 'voters' did not mistrust Hillary to an extent that they wouldn't vote for her. But a vote is not necessarily an endorsement of trust (when DJT is the major alternative) - see, for example, unprecedented support for 3rd party candidates - and when 41 million people abstained from voting, many of those, one assumes, did not trust either option.

I know... I wasn't responding to anyone in particular, just stating a de novo opinion.

I don't think profits are evil. Making money is a great incentivizer that has resulting in much public good, and markets based around private capital greases the wheels of this economic engine. However, what is evil is the socialization of the losses resulting from private risk. If 'last mile' supply of energy is too risky for private companies to allow competition (ie local/state governments allowing de facto monopolies on electrical and other utilities) than the service shouldn't be operated by private companies. I'm of the somewhat extreme position that subsidized companies should be cut loose or acquired by the public.

This is correct, emergency rooms are required to treat anyone

I am highly skeptical of this narrative. With highly visible exceptions, people are not more racist than they were 4 years ago. Trump got smaller percentage of the white vote than Romney, while the Democrats lost a significant amount of minority turnout compared to Obama, and have lost 10 million voters overall. Republicans have certainly benefited from asymmetric power granted to less populous states, as well as redistricting... But don't forget that Obama had a D majority Congress when he got elected, and a lot of ink was spilled over how the GOP was finished. Somehow, nothing major got done before the midterms and now people are tolling the bell for the Democratic party. A few (hundred) thousand people vote instead of staying home and the narrative in 2016 would be completely different.

come on, Phi... you are being disingenuous by labeling 'the wealthy' as some unanimous group that all agree on health insurance policy.

What are you trying to say? Please be clear.

As long as non-citizens are living on US soil, they are protected by the first amendment. Given the Citizen's United ruling (money = speech) I don't see how banning campaign contributions is constitutional.

I'm inclined to agree and I'm no fan of the idea of returning to cold war status with Russia. On the other hand, if it turns out the Trump campaign was complicit in the privileged dissemination of information, then there is legitimate cause to pursue legal action. However, I assign very low probability to this, since simple incompetence and political jockeying is a simpler explanation. Especially to the #peegate component

If you are trying to make an argument based on reason / appeals to actual evidence, it may help to start with the question "what evidence would you need to see to actually change your mind?" One of the biases we confront is the tendency to weasel our ways out of uncomfortable information... actually changing your mind feels really uncomfortable. By forcing the other party to pre-commit to accepting a certain type of evidence, you can cut off an escape route, so to speak. It also reduces hindsight bias, and promotes thinking according to conservation of expected evidence (i.e. the eventual outcome of the study cannot support both sides of the argument). Also, be sure to reward the other person when they successfully change their mind - this will condition them that the behavior is not a bad thing. A piece of chocolate or another tasty treat works nicely.

Probability, statistics, linear algebra, even some analysis and geometry are courses that will be useful for applied math and modelling in many quantitative fields.

which still isn't rewriting it's code, which was my only point.

Uh what? AlphaGo can only learn about Go. From the abstract of the Nature paper: Maybe, you could retrain the neural net to play a different game, but you would require a new software pipeline to obtain data, i.e. which is surely code modification. Reinforcement learning (i.e. playing games of Go against itself) selects strategies for winning at Go, only.

Yes, but AFAIK, AlphaGo doesn't rewrite its own code.

At this point, it is unclear that deep learning will lead to Artificial General Intelligence (AGI or hard AI). Which, despite sharing a name, is different than current deep learning / AI. More generally, researchers are concerned with programming an AGI that has a utility function that includes peaceful coexistence with humans. Mostly, these are philosophical exercises, but the end result is that the values of an artificial intelligence do not have to be as complicated as racist political theories to pose a danger to humans. For example, see the concept of the Paperclip maximizer https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer. What do you mean? AI/ deep learning tools do not program themselves in any real way, so humans are still doing most of the programming work...

Assuming you have an spectrophotometer, you make a linear standard with a defined product and measure optical density at the optimum wavelength.

Define AI first... also, models.

You may be interested in the book Flatland... the setting is geometrical, though the whole thing is actually an allegory to gender norms in Victorian times. The thing to take away is that, imagine you are a 2d object like a square. You would probably be having just as much trouble imagining a 3d object, such as a sphere, as you are currently having imagining a 4th dimension. For example, take a sphere moving through your 2d plane. All you would see is a point turn into a long line, and then shrinking in length before disappearing. A 4d cube rotating along a plane in 3d would look something like this, to a 3d observer:

I'm a bit off the radar still for these journals... but when you can upload papers to Bio/chem/ArXiv these days, there's absolutely no reason to fall for this.

Identity politics is more like card carrying union, rust belt middle class white americans voting for Trump, despite being more closely aligned with Democratic party in previous elections.

Do you have a citation for that?

Hello, a fellow rationalist! I admit my utility function might be more egotistical than yours. And yes, we should clarify that life extension through, say the cannibalization of a million people to gain a million years of life is unethical and not permissable, but I see no reason why a life maximizer would turn down, say, cheap immortality for yourself in a post-scarcity economy.

It seems that OP did not read the homework help rules before posting... ! Moderator Note Homework Help Rules A simple reminder to all: this is the "Homework Help" forum, not the "Homework Answers" forum. We will not do your work for you, only point you in the right direction. Posts that do give the answers may be removed

This is probably a trick of the eye. Since there is spatial correlation between SNP-phenotype associations, and you are squeezing a lot of information into a small space, genome locations (x-axis) appear to overlap but don't actually. Did you plot this yourself? To be sure you can zoom in on a specific location. For example: http://www.gettinggeneticsdone.com/2014/05/qqman-r-package-for-qq-and-manhattan-plots-for-gwas-results.html