> Eagles see a lot better than we do. Sea sponges live much longer. Dolphins are really good at echolocation; people are generally really bad at it. And yet we keep proclaiming how special we are. As Webb puts it, “Hamlet got one thing right: we’re a piece of work.
Oh yeah? But which one of those species is writing a book challenging their own exceptionalism.
It would be saying that while caged off or otherwise having its living space restricted by humans. And those humans are using using much better "claws" that are propelled at great speed to keep that tiger in check from a safe distance.
Logic is much more than classical AI. The logic culture in classic AI was very ambitious and that was one of the reasons it crashed and not due to fundamental flaws in logic.
Formal classical logic can represent all kinds of truths and even uncertainty with trivial syntactic mechanisms. E.g., "It is true that statement X holds with probability P." can be a syntactically correct statement representing uncertainty with certainty (there can be levels of statements with varying levels of certainty). Classical logic is extremely good at complex nested representations and the objects represented can be probabilistic statements. See the following paper for a syntactically classic FOL of probability (semantically it is a bit different from the standard model-theoretic approach)
Of course, researchers who posit probabilistic models reason mostly in classical logic when they write papers explaining the math (other than for assumptions of course).
Can you name one modern rigorous and precise discipline that does not have philosophic roots? We don't know what science today's philosophy might produce in the future.
There are many open problems in ethics and metaethics (i.e. what is right and wrong, is that even a thing, etc) that seem (to me) to have pretty clear practical consequences.
I think many of the problems could be phrased in a way to convince most people (that think about this kind of thing) as well.
FWIW:
Using a cell phone to take video in polling places in most states is prohibited, and in general "frowned upon" in others. I would not be surprised if he simply took a video as quickly as he could and then left. I agree it would have been a more believable incident if there was more video.
Based on the reddit story, I think this was Central PA, which definitely falls into the "not allowed to take video" category.
Why did you leave out what was stated just before and after what you have quoted from the study? You seem to be misrepresenting what they intended to show with those numbers. The point of that number was not to show a decline, but rather to show stagnation.
"The study found that, for the first time in decades, the growth rate of immigrant-founded companies has stagnated, if not declined. In comparison with previous decades of increasing immigrant-led entrepreneurism, the last seven years has witnessed a flattening out
of this trend. The proportion of immigrant-founded companies nationwide has dropped from 25.3 percent to 24.3 percent since 2005. While the margins of error of these numbers overlap, they nonetheless indicate that immigrant-founded companies’ dynamic period of expansion has come to an end.
We also performed a special analysis of Silicon Valley, which is widely known as the international hub for technological development and innovation. The findings indicate that 43.9 percent of Silicon Valley startups founded in the last seven years had at least one key founder who was an immigrant. This represents a notable drop in immigrant-founded companies since 2005, when 52.4 percent of Silicon Valley startups were immigrant-founded."
Sanskrit is quite a unique language and is far from being dead.
Modern linguistics owes quite a lot to Sanskrit, e.g. Chomsky's famous notation, thematic roles in semantics, controlled grammar, compositional semantics etc.
I suggest the following article in the AI magazine which merely touches the surface of what makes Sanskrit stand out.
By this criteria, you can then say many other non-psych conditions are not disorders.
What classifies as a disorder other than making life worse for someone?
There is no universal book given by a holy entity that we can read to classify something as normal or a disorder.
Why do we have arbitrary cutoffs for cholesterol, blood sugar, blood pressure, etc?