If you have any system that tries to gravitate to a local minimum it is almost impossible to not make Newton's fractal with it. Classical feed forward network learning does pretty much look like newtons method to me. Please take a look into https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_method
yeah. use raw datatype url provided by the language and get hacked by some exotic xss you are not aware, because the specs have kitchen and sink included
I have understood that the bronze age collapse was a climate fluke that resulted into famine, which did lead to military power balance change which did lead into trade route collapse.
The Bronze Age Collapse is a very dark moment in history, both figuratively and literally.
We don't know much about what happened back then. Excavations can show you that palaces were abandoned, but there is an enormous dearth of written records which would help with understanding what happened.
In absence of such records, people of today will project their most favorite contemporary theory onto the ruins. On the right, I have certainly heard the idea that both the Bronze Age Collapse and the collapse of the Western Roman Empire were caused by too much immigration. On the left, climate is the word of the decade.
Now that is an idea that I could get behind. If the local cinema has "The Beast of Knossos XXXXIV", the natural reaction is just to burn it to the ground, and hey, once you start, why stop?
(From a slightly more serious angle: the Nika Rebellion in 6th century Constantinople is a fascinating piece of history, chariot racing intertwined with politics etc. Imagine if baseball or hockey teams had their political parties or vice versa.)
That is interesting. I've never heard that 'immigration' was a possible cause. I know 'sea people's as part of it, just hadn't heard that spun as an anti-immigration argument.
Didn't realize the 'right' had even managed to co-opt something like Bronze Age Collapse to promote anti-immigration. Since isn't a lot of studying history, about tracking 'immigration', the movement of peoples. People move around. It isn't bad, it is what actually happens.
What would the world look like if during all of history, there was never any immigration? Wouldn't humans have died out.
"If only they had built a wall to keep out those 'sea peoples', then today we would be living as good and just Hattusas".
If it hadn't happened, would there even be a Jesus? or Christianity?
Absolutely not. Without large scale immigration, a slightly important country you may be familiar with wouldn't exist at all. The one where so many of these absolutely rotten-brained zero tolerance takes on immigration become popular.
Can you snake a single significant figure in US politics who has actually advocated for zero immigration? Or are you saying zero-tolerance for illegal immigration? And if so, why would that be a bad thing?
How these arguments go is, I find a quote, then you say "not that person", or "that isn't what they meant", or "the law is wrong, it should be illegal".
If 'valid immigration' is a-ok, then why produce so much false information re-casting it as 'illegal' in order to advocate stopping immigration?
Who recasted legal immigration as illegal? Your “citation” is of Ron Desantis complaining about too many people illegally immigrating, nothing to do with what you call “valid immigration”.
What do you think is happening if he is using falsely inflated statistics?
What is the goal of drumming up hate using false data, to rile up his followers?
Is it really to promote 'valid' immigration? Wouldn't it be better to discuss 'valid' immigration, if that was in fact the goal?
You haven’t any provided evidence of your claim that people are calling legal immigration illegal, or that anyone wants to prevent legal immigration. Please do so, or stop claiming it.
“The only thing that we are not doing is we’re not shooting people who come across the border—because, of course, the Biden administration would charge us with murder,” the Republican governor told former NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch on her radio show last week. (Check it out at the 11:45 mark.)
“I can’t believe I have to say ‘murdering people is unacceptable,'” wrote Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-Texas) in a post on X. “It’s language like yours that left 23 people dead and 22 others injured in El Paso,” she added, referring to the 2019 mass shooting in a Texas Walmart by an anti-immigrant killer.
I feel you cannot separate the two concepts. It is possible to support legal immigration but not illegal immigration, and remarks made against illegal immigrants cannot be used as evidence of any feelings towards legal immigrants. The two are, in every sense of the term, entirely disjoint sets.
If today, Republicans are against the number and type of immigrants that are allowed in under the current law, then they can change the law. They do not agree with current law, and feel that there are situations that should be illegal. So they want to change the law, thus changing what is legal now, to become illegal. So, 'calling todays legal immigration, illegal'.
I hate falling back on tropes, but this is the type of 'legal' maneuvering that was done in Germany. A lot of persecution was 'legal', once the laws were changed to make some 'people' illegal.
""The Republicans’ plan is similar to both a similar rule that the Department of Homeland Security adopted in 2019 and a policy that President Joe Biden is trying to push through.
I am an immigration professor and teach asylum law. I believe it’s important to understand what sets Republicans’ proposed law apart from previous iterations.
The president cannot change the law, but Congress can. If these lawmakers succeed in changing federal asylum law, the law would override the court decisions striking down previous versions. Because Congress has broad power over immigration, the new laws would likely be upheld if challenged in court.
""
So we started with “absolutely rotten-brained zero tolerance takes” and now we’re at “there exist congressional representatives performing their constitutionally-mandated job of reevaluating the specifics of what the immigration policies of the country should be going forward”. Interesting.
That is how the 'right' is winning, isn't it? Playing both sides of crazy and reasonable?
Dream up crazy situations, be intolerant, get everyone riled up and ready to riot and burn the constitution.
Then turn around and be "well, indubitably, my dear chap, lets discuss the matter". Then dance around in circles because they don't actually want anything solved, because then they wont have any issues to get their base angry.
Then anybody that tries to engage with them starts looking just as crazy. Seriously, these tactics are strait verbatim out of mein kampf.
I fell for it again, getting pulled into a seemingly innocent exchange, and it really is just trolling. You haven't provided any argument either way, just questions, to make me run around.
My argument is that there does not exist a public official pushing for any sort of “zero-tolerance” of any legal immigration. I cannot prove a negative (unless you want me to somehow iterate through every statement ever made by an elected official), but you cannot prove the positive. Your claim was the positive, you have not been able to provide any proof of it, therefore any logical analysis would be left with the negative.
Now I’m left to wonder why you made the claim in the first place, given you have no proof. Were you simply repeating what some liberal media narrative said the “big bad right” was plotting, without having attempted to find any proof of it until now?
You: ""My argument is that there does not exist a public official pushing for any sort of “zero-tolerance” of any legal immigration.""
I never said anything like that. I had to go back and re-read to figure out what argument you were talking about.
You kind of fantasized something I said, and all subsequent arguments didn't really make sense since I was never trying to prove that. I made a comment about 'sea peoples' in the bronze age. To then try and infer some stance on very specific legal standing today seems a stretch.
So to me, it seemed kind of crazy that someone is claiming the 'right' doesn't have some pretty radical views on immigration.
But yes, I do agree, the right is pretty awful. I don't need any media to tell me that, when I have my own eyes.
Get out of the bubble, I flip channels to conservative media now and then to see what they are being told, and it is full of lies. Like really blatant lies someone could debunk just by looking up the truth if they wanted to.
> [America is a country] where so many of these absolutely rotten-brained zero tolerance takes on immigration become popular.
Can you explain what you mean by that? Because it sounds to me like you believe there’s some sort of zero tolerance immigration policy that is popular in America, but you haven’t been able to produce evidence of it so far.
As for the left leaning and right leaning media, they both lie. And I was right there with you believing the left’s over the right’s up until 2020. Since then I don’t lean one way or the other, but I do demand every claim be accompanied with concrete evidence. This is the only way to find truth.
I didn't say that. It was someone else that replied first, and then you and I started replying to that reply. But I hadn't been directly arguing that persons post.
So guess we got off-track at the beginning.
Though, given that the Governor of Texas, someone that is significant in the republican party, has advocated shooting immigrants. I'm not sure the sentiment is wrong.
I also agree Left and Right Media, both 'skew' what they say. I find the left has less outright blatant lies. They certainly 'frame' what they say. The Left will be very careful in what words they choose. The right will actually just say 2+2=5, and trust nobody checks.
Throwing up your hands and saying “but I never even said that” 6 replies deep into debating a particular point is certainly… a socratic technique.
And you’re back to conflating illegal and legal immigration. I’ve never argued nobody is against illegal immigration, far from it.
To your point about media lies, the Left’s are less obvious yes, but that makes them much tricker to deal with. The Left will first convince you 3 and 4 are effectively the same, tell you 2+2 is pretty much 3, then have you laugh at the Right for being so far off base from reality when they say it’s 5. You can show someone on the Right a calculator and they’ll see they were mistaken, you show someone on the Left the calculator and they’ll tell you you’re in the wrong for thinking the difference between the answers matters. See: legal vs illegal immigration, “The Science” of COVID, approaches to crime, etc.
Not sure this is throwing up hands. I'm saying we were talking in circles, because you were the one that brought up the legal arguments based on a different comment, and I was not really sure how there is any legal framework for how immigration happens through history.
There was no legal/illegal basis for settling the Americas. There was no world court where Columbus could be charged with illegal immigration.
I do strongly disagree with your take on left/right reactions to media.
Typically those on the right subscribe to a more 'religious fundamentalism', and thus notions of right/wrong, true/false, are not based on any scientific findings. It is based on faith, a moral right granted by God to his chosen. So there is no arguing. No room for truth.
Hence, the truth can be spelled out clearly, and they will still not accept it. They will argue the sky isn't blue, if their leaders tell them it isn't. Religion has morphed the brain to the extent that reason is not allowed.
See: legal vs illegal immigration, “The Science” of COVID, approaches to crime, etc. Vaccinations, life, etc...
Science is not a substitute for morality, the two go hand in hand. The Left however invokes a powerful ploy to attempt to redefine their various preexisting perspectives on morality as being “Science”: they take questions of morality, cast them into questions of science (injecting their own moral bias in the process), and select those studies which answer those questions in ways which affirm their existing moral biases. They therefore always end up feeling they are on the side of “The Science”, while ignoring (willfully or not) that they have selected from the beginning that very science which was on their side.
This isn’t the place to keep going on the topic, but feel free to reach out “my username at outlook dot com” if you’d like to discuss further.
I agree. Science is not Morality. (see atom bomb).
But also, morality shouldn't over-rule science. If there is a hypothesis, and it can be tested, so you know what is true, then a religious belief shouldn't make you ignore it. The 'right' these days is anti-science to the extent that they are rejecting things that can be tested and shown to be true. Rejecting things that can be proven.
Agree, probably enough on this thread.
Later, bye, best of luck.
Probably wont e-mail, because I'm paranoid about anonymity.
I have understood, that this is the current most plausible theory, but not much is actually "understood" about that time and cultures. In most cases, we don't even know the name of the culture and they are named by the places where the first stuff has been found.
The mistake here could also be that they are building a snake and that the real algorithm is about minimal ring containing start and end node. Usually when solving a puzzle the bad decision is taken as the first step and it is some sort of ego barrier that is hard to get over with
starting everywhere and building bigger snake from smaller ones sounds like quantum version of classical inside outside algorithm that is used to check if an input follows certain probabilistic context free grammar. if you don't know it, might be hard to find it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside%E2%80%93outside_algorit...
It could be also a sign of dependency hoarding and making you the bottleneck of the whole project. Bad architectural decisions, narcissistic need of importance or both. With those hours your partner starts to date with your friend. With experience I can assure you that position is not worth it. Not for you and not for the project. You end up draining your imagination. Over fitting is emerging in programming like it is emerging in the machine learning.
Those are used. Search for minimum description principle and entropy based classifier. The performance is poor, but it is definitely there and really easy to deploy. I have seen gzip being used for plagiarism detection as similar text tends to compress better. Use the compression ratio as weights on spring model then for visualisation. Also works with network communication metadata ...
