I feel like the problem with this argument is that it's consequentialist. You can never be 100% certain which parents will raise their children well. There's no metric that will conclusively tell you.
arrakark
joined 2 months ago
I think this depends on where you live. If you live in the US, maybe. Private healthcare means the effects on the public are limited to traumatizing people, the services to dispose of your body, and EMS.
In area with socialized healthcare, ain't no way my taxpayer dollars are going towards fixing your head if you crash.
Eventually. Maybe they will feat it for different reasons as well.
I've been trying to highlight the benefits of using AI to some folks at work. Some get very scared of it because they don't want to be replaced by AI. Bruh, if your job can already be replaced by AI, maybe it's not a very stimulating job?
I think it's a 2016 - 2018 SYM Wolf Classic 150
Found it! Thanks to your image.
It's a 2016 - 2018 SYM Wolf Classic 150
What bike is that in the photo?
Why is it bender?
I'm not arguing about the paper.
I'm wondering about the specific wording used in the title.
"is the dominant control".. what? Is this a typo?
Interesting response!
Yes, the node, edges, travelling salesman, those are my definitions as well.
The only difference is that I've always thought about this is with an undirected graph. That models conventional friendships pretty well, but now that I'm thinking about it, it's probably not a good way to model modern "relationships". Either way, with two nodes it's no longer a travelling salesman, as it becomes a much easier problem to solve.
I would argue that the tyranny of the majority unlikely to not be solved with the current form of social networks. I'm not sure if I have time to write out my argument, but it stems from the fact that the most popular people in the world have very uni-directional relationships with most people; everyone knows of Mr. Beast, very few know Mr. Beast.
Hot take! 👨🚒