Lol, what's the problem with inconveniencing Reddit users? That's the whole point! Get more users to feel shitty about the site and be frustrated with it, turning elsewhere for answers. If they cannot find them, then that's their problem!
The comment was posted three years ago, but that's not (necessarily) the date of deletion. It could've been deleted much later than that, such as during the API exodus.
Reddit should not have an information monopoly on these things. We're deleting the messages so that Reddit's influence and degree of information control is reduced. If people cannot find answers to some of their obscure problems because of that, then they are acceptable collateral damage.
You cannot technically prove it, that's true, but that does not invalidate the interpolated or extrapolated data, because you will be able to have a certain degree of confidence in them, be able to judge their meaningfulness with a specific probability. And that's enough, because you are never able to 100% prove something in physical sciences. Never. Even our most reliable observations, strongest theories and most accurate measurements all have a degree of uncertainty. Even the information and quantum theories you rest your argument on are unproven and unprovable by your standards, because you cannot get to 100% confidence. So, if you find that there's enough evidence for the science you base your understanding of reality on, then rationally and by deductive reasoning you will have to accept that the prediction of a machine learning model that extrapolates some data where the probability of validity is just as great as it is for quantum physics must be equally true.
making a blind guess at what could be there, based on an existing data set.
Here's your error. You yourself are contradicting the first part of your sentence with the last. The guess is not "blind" because the prediction is based on an existing data set . Looking at a half occluded circle with a model then reconstructing the other half is not a "blind" guess, it is a highly probable extrapolation that can be very useful, because in most situations, it will be the second half of the circle. With a certain probability, you have created new valuable data for further analysis.
They talked about algorithms used for correcting lens distortions with their first example. That is absolutely a valid use case and extracts new data by making certain assumptions with certain probabilities. Your newly created law of nature is just your own imagination and is not the prevalent understanding in the scientific community. No, quite the opposite, scientific practice runs exactly counter your statements.
That's wrong. With a degree of certainty, you will always be able to say that this data was likely there. And because existence is all about probabilities, you can expect specific interpolations to be an accurate reconstruction of the data. We do it all the time with resolution upscaling, for example. But of course, from a certain lack of information onward, the predictions become less and less reliable.
You, and humans in general, are also just sophisticated pattern recognition and matching machines. If neural networks are not intelligent, then you are not intelligent.
Cringe af. Can you please stop with the constant violent rhetoric? This does not solve any problems and instead divides humanity. You will not create a better future by killing more people.
Richard @ ricdeh @lemmy.world Posts 6Comments 655Joined 2 yr. ago
The correct way to call bash scripts is through bash, e.g.
bash badware.sh