ALoafOfBread

Nah. Obviously, you'd talk beforehand, and no one would be forced to use it. It's no different than arranged dates through a matchmaker. Now, there'd be valid privacy and ethics concerns - especially if your ML model is racist. But that's a whole different thing. People are often quite bad at picking good matches for themselves, and computers are great at pattern ID and so potentially good at finding matches.

I've seen many more coffee folks who have opinions ranging from "it doesn't taste different than the local coffee" to "it tastes downright bad". James Hoffmann has a good video on it: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=pkbuFwHnJQY

Primary thing seems to be the quality of the coffee cherries the civet eats. So if it's just force-fed coffee cherries, it'll be no better than normal coffee. If it gets to choose on it's own, naturally, then it may pick better coffee cherries and the coffee may be better - but not because of the digestive process, most likely.

The problem is that it doesn't actually taste good. It's the labor-intensive and "exotic" manufacturing process that makes the coffee so expensive, not its quality.

I mean... maybe in this case? I feel like profile/picture based matchmaking is something an ML model could be pretty good at in theory. Match people based on physical preferences and attractiveness (get head scans and frontal & profile full body shots), basic demographic/location/financial info, fill out a questionnaire with hobbies, political views, sexual preferences, etc.

Do that for groups of satisfied pre-existing couples first to train the model on, then continue training the model on the successful matches from the app. Have it spit out X number of matches that have the highest ratings for all users, limit it to X matches per time period to limit "swiping" behaviors, then let users talk/date and provide feedback to the app about what they did/didn't like.

Obviously, it would need major privacy protections given how sensitive the info is, but that'd be a way better system than Tinder and the like. Like a super powered robo matchmaker serving up the highest probability matches.

I didn't realize how cheap the big hdds had gotten. Definitely looking into 2 bays.

You might be right. The Synology products look really good. I didn't see that they actually have a sub-$400 4-bay NAS... DS423. Not sure if it'll meet my performance needs. But the $600 4 bay doesn't look too bad either really.

Amazing. You don't think that a system for individualized pricing would take demographics into account? Brilliant! You should take your thesis on how demographics don't affect consumers' willingness to pay to every ad agency on earth. They'll be riveted. Or is it that you don't think race and SES are correlated? In that case you should hurry to publish a book on economics before someone steals your idea.

It'd probably be the opposite. I bet they'd charge more to specific demographics - and common convenience store beverage brands would probably cost more for poorer people.

Plus, without controls, they'd probably end up charging different ethnic groups more for specific goods - they'd probably obfuscate it somehow, like to charge white people more for something they'd probably say they were doing it because you're a model train enthusiast or something. Or like "our consultants have told us that Tejano music fans are willing to pay a premium for coca cola" and so they jack up the price of coca cola for Mexicans without saying it's because they're mexican.

But yeah, I bet poorer people who have less free time would be "willing" to pay more for essentials because they often have less choice in where they get groceries. In other words you could force poor people with fewer options to accept jacked up prices whereas non-poor people may have the luxury of shopping around or paying someone else to get their groceries.

Also, if poor people were charged less there'd be a whole industry of personal grocery shoppers who'd get discounted prices for rich people and charge them a service fee in exchange.

That isn't really how the judging worked though. First they had a huge panel of judges - 9 of them. And they judge them on 5 criteria: technique, vocabulary, execution, musicality, and originality. It is qualitative, but it's a comparative rating system with actual guidelines - so they each simply have to decide who did each thing better:

Maintaining physiological control while focusing on athleticism, form and spatial awareness.

The range of moves that display variation and the quantity of moves, ideally with minimal repetition.

The ability to land and perform moves smoothly, without falls or slips and while maintaining consistency and flow.

The ability to stay on beat, syncing movements to the rhythm of the music.

The capacity for improvisation, creativity and maintaining spontaneity with style and personality.

I don't think breaking necessarily needs to be in the olympics, but we're past the point of only allowing sports (looking at you, dressage) and we do have other artistic events (rhythmic gymanstics and synchro swimming). And, the scoring system for breaking was reasonable and able to determine valid winners.

Afaik the IOC did all the standard testing on her and didn't find any issues (no doping, normal testosterone levels, etc). Idk if they did a genetic sex test - I'd imagine that isn't standard. Is that correct? Regardless of the Russian-run boxing federation's intentions, I'd still trust the IOC's findings over theirs.

Plus, even if she was XXY or something, does that actually have any impact on athletic performance? I'd imagine not

Edi: yep. Looks like it is widely believed that having a y chromosome is unfair, but the science doesn't necessarily back that up.

"improved understanding about genetic factors that lead to selection in sport should offer reassurance that female athletes with hyperandrogenism do not possess any physical attribute relevant to athletic performance that is neither attainable, nor present in other women."

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-014-0249-8

I don't think he's ever had a plan - so while that's his schtick, I don't think it's like a smokescreen or anything. He's just some dumbass who wanted to start a show to interview interesting people and smoke weed. But, when you're interviewing fringe political figures, racists, snake oil salesmen, etc. you have a journalistic duty that Joe Rogan: dumbass, was not prepared for and didn't understand. Now he's in over his head. People take him seriously, and he agrees with some of the crazy people he's brought on because he's a dumbass

Oh of course. Never meant to imply otherwise