Re: an issue with the spacecraft’s valves
I don't recall rust as a problem in the 60s. There were other problems, but somehow humidity was not one of them.
313 posts • joined 30 Dec 2014
There are many things wrong about your comment.
1) You ignore the potential impact of culture. If you are socialized into reading "girlie" things you will. Women who do conform to that standard femininity are often punished for it.
2) In this day of modern equipment there less of a need of muscle mass in construction. But women heavy equipment operators don't seem to be common.
3) You make the assumption that diversity and excellence are at odds with each other. There is no evidence for it. This is a glaring bias.
4) Women forced to take time off is a failure of policy. Bias against people who take time off for family or health reasons is a social problem.
5) IQ tests tend to be biased to upper and upper middle class men as that is who conceived of the concepts in the test and wrote them.
6) Do I need to mention the wage gap? Women are clustered in helping professions which pay less. Meanwhile scams such as investment banking, which produces nothing, are higher paying and male dominated. Preparing the next generation or helping the sick is seen as lesser value.
Anecdote. When I started in the IT and Software at the Uni in the 80's our classes and the first few years after graduation the numbers were close to 50/50 male to female. Something happened to skew the numbers. It wasn't due to lack of ability.
Anecdote: a freind of mine was hired into a company to do GIS development. She had an MS, her name on a couple of papers, wrote several chapters in a text book, and quite frankly was the smartest person in the room. Eventually she was forced into field support and then quit due to being frozen out and given only grunt work to do. I doubt it was due to ability.
So basically the conversation should go like this:
You: we need hardware and software for a mission critical reasons.
Manager: oh, we don't have a budget for that.
You: I can lash together something from my personal kit.
You: Since it is my kit I'll have to have you sign a contract where you indemnify me and hold me blameless and a monthly lease of BIGNUM money.
Manager: How much money do you need in that budget?
The logistical problem is huge. Assuming the water and other critical materials are found on Mars, there is a boot strap problem.
You need to get enough people, equipment, building materials, etc to Mars to boot strap the process in the in the first place. SO for years you will have to supply the colony long enough to the point where thay can grow enough food, mine enough water, mine enough construction materials, set up workshops and factories so they can repair and/or manufacture all the building materials and machine parts they need to hit the critical self supporting point.
People make is sound so easy; we mine then asteroids, send them to Mars. THen we take the water from the moon ad send it to Mars. We set up a colony and Bingo! We are living on Mars.
We should just sit back and work on transporters ala Star Trek and get those working and and hey! Problem solved ;)
OK, so we use bodily fluids. Including blood. Assume we can recapture a fair bit of water from urine or blood, but some will still be contained in the material matrix. It is likely to be bound up for a long time. SO replacement water will be needed from somewhere. Either Martian or from Earthian. so we're basically back to where we started.
But of course the human brain is doing much more than that at any one moment; processing visual light spectrum data, maintaining gase exchange processes, pumpumping and monitoring nutrition and waste products throughout the human, processing sound waves, building planning maps of futures events (I'll get done with this and have then have a pint), etc.
I don't think there is a machine yet that could approach this amount of tasking in 20W. You'd basically have to run a the giant factory with thousands of subsystems 24/7 on 20 watts to match the human brain.
Dirty and biased data will lead to a bad model. Adding more dirty and biased data does not help at all. Meanwhile a smaller data set of clean and representative data will give better results.
It also looks like they just are discovering the concept of parameter sensitivity analysis. If a parameter doesn't cause an appreciable change to a model either throw it out or stop training it.
All data suck unless it is carefully reviewed and vetted. Which is impossible. The data stream is hopelessly polluted, once a bad datum enters cleaning the data stream is impossible. This can be unintentional (typos happen), a bug in the system (Buttle can become Tuttle), intentional (I often use false DOB or other information when I am forced to sign up for something) or malicous.
We then use those data to "train" AI. Of course the AI is going to suck. At worst, when used in state security, military, or other life critical applications, it will be deadly.
AI shouldn't be unless 1) it is a non-critical e.g. suggesting movies or 2) in a well constrained environment where data can be vetted, e.g. space exploration.
Remember children, GIGO.
your statement strikes at the heart of Economics. It creates externalized costs, in other words freeloading which causes most Economic models to fail as it creates an unmeasurable part of the economy. You can't do policy with those models.
It also suppresses wages. I don't care if you are donating part of your wages. But if in the process you you suppress mine I do mind.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021