Some humans who are not trained that curiosity produces beneficial outcomes are often not all that curious. It is difficult to know what is truly innate vs. the result of conditioning. It is also difficult to know what is the result of an absence of opposing conditioning. If I was raised in a poor area with high crime and little economic opportunity, my conditioning would be quite different. How would that have changed my behavior? Could curiosity get me in more trouble than it's worth? Could I observe that and adjust my own behavior as a result?
We are all, to some extent, a product of our environment (training data). I wasn't raised in that type of area, but does that mean my own intellectual curiosity is more innate? Or does it mean it is less innate? I could argue that both ways.
> Some humans who are not trained that curiosity produces beneficial outcomes are often not all that curious.
Innate traits such as curiosity & boredom are things that we are born with, not learnt. The reason evolution has selected for these innate traits is because there is a benefit (encouraging exploration and learning which help survival), but you don't need to be aware of the benefits to experience and act on boredom or curiosity.
Innate behaviors can certainly be reinforced, or suppressed to some degree, by experience.
Same. Around then, I requested MySQL and was told no for the same reasons you were. So I implemented my database as flat files and proceeded to use up all the inodes a few weeks later on a large call center server used for interviewing and data collection.
I received a panicked call from the admin that turned down my request. He wasn’t happy with me but understood the role he played in creating an expensive disaster.
Plenty of learning to go around in that experience :)
That's not entirely true. In fact, the Sound-Harmony-Melody-Rhythm-Growth model for analysis explicitly calls it out as a critical building block of the music that we hear and experience. Like any subject, it takes some study to get to the interesting bits.
For example, the vast majority of people who have taken Music Theory 101 have completed coursework that is the equivalent of "Hello, World!". That is barely scratching the surface and certainly give the aspiring programmer the skills necessary to create something non-trivial. The same is true of music theory. You don't instill in someone the musical understanding of Brahms with one music theory class.
I think that there are rules, but they're less about a teacher being an asshole. Musical styles evolve over time. We wouldn't have classical without baroque, and we wouldn't have romantic without classical. The style itself imposes a "rule" that is really a best practice. How do we in technology treat best practices? Well, they're basically rules that we shouldn't violate without careful thought. The same is true of music. People who study basic music theory learn about the cadences used most commonly in church music ... V-I ... IV-I ... and the deceptive I-IV-V-vi cadence! You feel where music is going because you've learned the rules by listening to other music and embedding yourself within its best practices. V-vi is deceptive because it violates a best practice, but used effectively, it works.
As music evolved, and as the world became smaller in terms of ease of travel and exposure to other cultures' music, we started to see new influences. Debussy and others were influenced by indonesian gamelan music. Without that influence, we might not have the jazz that we have today. Why? The impressionist style that Debussy practiced created floating pillars of sound, chromaticism, etc. that became important elements of early Jazz.
It's all connected and has evolved over time, just like technology. Personally, I do think they are rules, but like most rules, they're meant to be broken.
The issue is with how many will interpret that headline. People who already want to believe that 100% of the vaccine research is a sham will run with this. The burden is on BJM to be extremely clear if they don't want to add to the misinformation.
It is an issue but that issue has to be solved by different means than having fact-checkers saying that BMJ is wrong. BMJ clearly states at the top of every page that it is meant for healthcare professionals.
As best we can tell, no one has "permanent acquired immunity". 36% of those infected never develop antibodies. Of the remaining 64% that do, most lose their antibodies in less than a year.
The solution, of course, is to give our virtual avatars virtual smartphones that they carry around in their virtual pocket, running virtual versions of Insta, FB, their text message apps, and even their calling app. You could do all of those things from within VR, no more isolated than before. Arguably less isolated, in fact.
Remember that half the population loves the government, half hates it, and they think both one another are evil incarnate. Logic breaks down a bit when that kind of irrational vitriol enters the equation.
We are all, to some extent, a product of our environment (training data). I wasn't raised in that type of area, but does that mean my own intellectual curiosity is more innate? Or does it mean it is less innate? I could argue that both ways.