It looks a lot like the stuff I produced a while back with an rnn. I just fed the rnn raw web pages for a giggle. It does surprisingly well, often managing to close braces correctly. It really goes to show how good the browsers are at dealing with junk html. I was thinking about trying to jointly train the html and an image of the webpage, in the vague hope that you might be able to go from image to webpage. One day. Probably quite soon...
This. It's about economics. It's about extracting value from the parents. It's about making the children, who are the workers of the future, more compliant.
You may consider it conspiracy theory, to me it's just obvious.
You really think people will prefer driving themselves to work rather than kicking back and doing whatever they fancy on the way? Driving a long distance? Punch in the destination and get some sleep, glorious
This does not need any shiny packaging to be a no brainer. It's a drop dead delicious invention.
That some even entertain the notion that they don't want one goes to show how clueless people are. They are just saying what they think everyone else thinks, without engaging thier brain.
Companies should be charged for these externalities. Going to pollute? How many people a year will this kill? What is the economic cost of these deaths? Levy that sum on the companies. Very simple. Then lets see who funds the research into cleaner tech.
It's not without its merits, but the question then remains whether emacs suffers when closed if it accumulated enough state for Steve Yegge to consider it "conscious" the way humans are.
Medical research is currently a clusterfuck. It is an absolute non sense to create throw away data for the purpose of verifying or falsifying one theory. Fucking morons. Sometimes I think I'm the only sane person on this rock, but I used to think that maybe I was just arrogant. Nope. Now I am older and wiser now and I realise its just true.
Well. I think you might be getting a little bit too eager with your reductionist approach to mental illness. Sure there is a large genetic component to schizophrenia - I was terrified for years that I might have it because my mother did. I think it more likely that shizophrenia is a heterogenous illness - there are many pathways to the same disease state. It is quite a bold statement to say that none of these pathways are in any way effected by the environment in which we develop. Especially given what we know about the association between early traumatic experiences and various disease states.
It may not fit nicely into your mental model of the world, but biology is extremely messy business. It appears that biological systems, although heirachical and modular are, unlike human engineering, highly interconnected across all the levels. Particularly: The health of the mind effects the health of the body and the health of the body effects the health of the mind. If you do not believe this you have not learnt enough, or like many, you have ideoligical issues with this reality.
Yes. It surprises me that people are so quick to so readily assume a biologically deterministic cause when these types of findings are presented. People seem too eager to discount environmental factors - even when it should be obvious to all that our biology is intimately related to our environment and circumstances.
For a good summary of the contemporary positions of the biological and environmental camps when it comes to the causes of schizophrenia I can't recommend this lecture highly enough: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxVY2Vptfwg&feature=youtu.be
Long story short; both camps have valuable insights and a lot to learn from each other.
> Well. I think you might be getting a little bit too eager with your reductionist approach to mental illness.
Schizophrenia is a classic case of a mental illness that isn't one, a condition that doesn't appear in people who don't have a specific genetic predisposition.
> It may not fit nicely into your mental model of the world, but biology is extremely messy business.
Yes, that's true, but according to the new finding this thread is about, biology is now able to (a) detect schizophrenia in people who lack symptoms, and (b) dismiss the possibility in those who show symptoms (for example by an actor trained to imitate the symptoms). The reason? Schizophrenia isn't a mental illness, it's a physical illness with mental symptoms.
Dustin Hoffman nailed autism in "Rain Man". If Mr. Hoffman appeared at a mental health clinic and performed his character, do you suppose he would be turned away by the psychiatrists as a fake? Now consider this alternative -- if there was a genetic test for autism (there isn't at the moment), do you suppose he would be turned away by the biologists?
> ... you have ideoligical [sic] issues with this reality.
Science isn't about ideology, it's about evidence.
Ive also heard it said in seemingly respectable articles that no one is sure if the grey matter dies off because of the disease itself or because of the medication to treat the psychotic symptoms.
"The Influence of Chronic Exposure to Antipsychotic Medications on Brain Size before and after Tissue Fixation: A Comparison of Haloperidol and Olanzapine in Macaque Monkeys"
