I don't like the word invention for this. The grammar is laid out by the author who has to teach the AI and correct it several times. If the AI had then proceeded to generate something similar on its own with different grammar and lexicon then I might feel comfortable using the word invention.
As humans we seem to have feelings about what this calculator does, but it doesnt have any about us.
In any case it seems to be particularly good at understanding syntax, even though its architecture seems to be based on Transformers. Those don't have baked in notions of syntactic or recursive structures. It must be interesting to see how these linguistic structures arise in a system that is basically learning the context of words. People will be dissecting its brain soon i think
Well, I feel like I said it, but for the same reason that a student learning French has not invented French, or even a new language, if he has come up with his own equivalent for each French word
I understand your appeal to democracy here, but the US had no problems imposing sanctions on Russia and Iran and I don't recall there being an overwhelmingly popular campaign from the people for those. After the fact, sure, maybe
Tangentially. As someone who has only read the old Signet version of Les Mis, I find it interesting that you think it isn't as good. When I read it, I was very impressed with Hugo's prose (or at least, filtered through the translated lens). It was not like reading anything I had ever previously read. Sounds like I need to check out the new one then too :)
Please do. Les Mis was the first book my wife sent me in jail. I read the Penguin version and then one of the guys in my cellblock showed me the Signet one and said he was struggling with it. I read a bunch of it and was highly disappointed.
Modern English doesn't have the thou-you singular/plural distinction. My preference is to keep these details in reading translations of religious texts, and I personally prefer to keep "thou" over having to say "you all" for plurals, and especially over collapsing them all to "you". The old stuffy style consideration is not as important to me. Maybe I'm just used to it now
I don't think so. Supporters may think Bloom's conservative position stands 'above' insufferable woke politics or something like that. In fact the politics has already been brought, so to speak, and is now inescapable. Perhaps Bloom was not the first one to inject 'politics', but once the new ideas have been brought, rejecting them is reaction and political too.
Perhaps, but I would be cautious in saying that even present-day Sufis from traditional orders are especially representative of a normative ideal of 'Sufism', especially those who have exposure by social media and the internet to huge audiences and to the West. This is partially what I think is common sense and partially from some personal experience. My working conjecture is that if such people like Rumi and other ancient Sufis like Hallaj, Junayd, Ibn Arabi, &c. genuinely exist today, they won't be easily found without intense search.
There is probably no doubt that the line from Barks' translation has much to offer readers who ponder it. If it provides benefit, people should keep using it. But they should be more clear in attribution - I would be happy if the quote was always presented alongside Coleman Barks' name, the same way Ezra Pound's translations of Li Bai are attributed more to Ezra Pound than to Li Bai.
Not any more apparently. Fascist, socialist, communist, alt-right, neoliberal, etc. just mean whatever they need to quickly slur someone with them. Hell ever Marxism seems like it doesn’t actually refer to anything Marx or his contemporaries ever said anymore. Did you know Bloomberg is a Maoist?
Fascinating how the site obsessed with their pseudo-intellectual superiority can’t add anything other than downvotes.
I agree. Unless we are talking about avowed actual Nazis or card-carrying Communists, much of this extremist labeling can be reduced to identify ‘enemy tribe members.’
Well, one is the claim that Democrats don't get anything done because they have a secret commitment to keep things the way they are so that voters have a reason to come back to the polls for them, and I'm saying maybe the reason is simply that Democrats are mostly fine with the way things are. Maybe your point is that this is a distinction without a difference, which I guess I'd mostly have to agree with.
It seems that your claim of infinite harm is based on the idea that the future is infinite. If the current subpar healthcare situation continues indefinitely, is the harm that it inflicts on its victims not also infinite? Is the benefit provided from removing this source of harm not also infinite? Then by your own reasoning, the question is not nearly as simple as infinite > finite.
Being in favour of single-payer, I can still appreciate arguments against it I guess. But this particular one isn't very effective.
Cheap healthcare advances at the same rate as expensive healthcare, it just lags some years. That's why Walmart famously has dozens of prescriptions it can offer at a price of only $4/mo. Those drugs were once very expensive and were only available to the relatively wealthy.
Once upon a time, I bought my expensive asthma inhalers from Walmart because it's the most convenient pharmacy. Then they stopped carrying it. In fact, every one did. The manufacturer's patent ran out and they stopped making it. It was several years before the drug came back on the market by which time I had moved on to another expensive inhaler.
I too was affected by this. The root cause was the CFC bans [1] to save the ozone layer. The old inhalers used CFCs and therefore could not be used anymore. New technology had to be created that used a different delivery mechanism. Profit incentive is what caused that new delivery mechanism to be created.
I think you'll find that the price just changed. People are reporting absurd price drops on a wide variety of different medications. You can thank Trump for it.
It's sort of price controls, but not the usual sort. Trump decided to enforce most-favored-nation pricing. Any price can be charged, except that the USA always gets the cheapest price. The drug manufacturers are understandably livid, so they are now funding attack ads.
