>Ultimately I think there are a lot of industries that a degree requirement is a good thing (I really want my doctor to actually have an MD), a lot of industries where certification is sufficient .
Why only Doctors? Because human lives are involved? I assume by the same logic, Civil Engineers also need to have a degree (they build bridges and other life critical infrastructure)
There may be thousands of software products that are also life critical. Not just the obvious ones like some medical hardware control program/firmware, Air traffic control programs, Flight onboard software Self-driving car auto-pilot software etc. So I assume those would require a qualified software engineer with a degree.
But there may even be others that may not be so obvious immediately.
I have a degree and not been on the other side (not having a degree) and so cannot identify with any injustice that is perceived by folks on other side. I can certainly see somewhat equivalent when it comes to bachelors degree vs Masters/PHD as I don't have those. So I am not sure where the lines should be drawn to make it fair to everyone.
Ha! Brings back memories. When I was an engineering student at UIUC, I was taking a physics class where the Prof graded crazy hard, even by the standards of the department.
His response was "one day you might build a bridge and can kill someone."
I guess I spoke too broadly in this case. The primary I see isn't an MD, they are a PA-C. But I know that they're consulting with an MD behind the scenes as necessary.
I'm not exactly sure where I draw the line, and for me it's a lot of "I know it when I see it". I'm not suggesting any specific code here, just pointing out that there are positions all over the spectrum. I find the fact that a CID (Certified Interior Decorator) is a thing is absurd.
Maybe my requirement is that someone with an appropriate level is in the chain somewhere.
Facebooks customers are the ad buyers. I and my data is the product. Mark says I should have control over which of my personal data is shared to whom.
1) But can I control which of my behavioral data (ad clicks, etc) can be collected and used by facebook and provided to the ad buyers? Can I say nothing be collected , even in anonymized manner?
2) Primary selling point to ad buyers is facebook provides them ability to do targeted advertisement. Granted over time facebook has limited discriminatory targeting (Race based, political inclination based) etc to comply with anti-discrimination laws. But as a user, do I have control over how I can be classified, what legal category labels facebook can apply on me and my data? And whether I want to be classified into any category at all ?
Ads and the data used for those ads aren't the really the issue, and that's a problem that people don't realize. The issue is that entities can utilize the Facebook platform to target specific individuals (or specific groups of individuals) and bombard them with disinformation that looks like legitimate information.
1) The only thing they really provide(non-aggregated) to advertisers is query params that say you arrived at the advertisers website through a click on a fb ad. They also claim to recognize adchoices optouts
Goods have intrinsic value...currencies don't. They are just trusted (and backed by a public trusted entity, usually government, but need not be) stores to 'hold' transferred 'value' that lubricates an otherwise raw barter exchange economy.
Raw barter economy:
I provide service to someone in exchange for food/clothes
Currency lubricated economy:
I provide service to someone. They give me 'token(s)' equivalent to value of my service. I use the token(s) to buy what I want from someone else.
The token(s) need to be trustable, not-easily-duplicatable, should be equal to the total sum of values of all services + goods that exist in the society/economy. The token(s) needn't have any intrinsic value themselves other than the properties mentioned (probably more than the listed ones, but I listed basic ones)
Punish/hurt the company with punitive damages, big enough to discourage negligent behavior - 100% on this
Compensate the victims with amount equivalent to their loss(physical) + some decent compensation for emotional losses etc. But that need not be 30X of their actual loss. May be 2x or 3x. The rest of the punitive damages should be awarded to the regulatory body that can improve their oversight, or to a public research body that works on fire safety alarms/products etc for example, or to a public cause/charity that helps fire hazard victims or to a publicly funded affordable fire hazard insurance body etc. I see no need to award all the punitive damages to a single victim. This only encourages the 'sue first and for anything' behavior of the society.
iPad or other tablet with facetime or skype. Open a chat session, ask parents to point camera at laptop screen. Then guide them thru steps (click on this, click on that etc). Bit more time (and patience) intensive but has the side effect of making parents/relatives more familiar with doing new things on the computer as well as satisfaction of some level of self sufficiency :) . Only useful for this type of remote support use cases only though.
For me both problem 2 and problem 3 should also be 1/2 .
The variances are due to how people interpret the outcome space .
It is right that probability = favaroble out comes / total possible outcomes.
In problem 2, in my opinion the possible outcomes are not how it was suggested in the post but as below. When a family has 2 kids , the below are the only possible outcomes
1) Potential Outcome 1: Both are boys
2) Potential Outcome 2: One boy and one girl
3) Potential outcome 3: Both are girls
The 3rd one is not a legal potential outcome in our particular constraint of problem 2, since problem #2 statement already states 'at least one is a boy'
So Total possible legal outcomes = 2
Favorable out comes for our event (both boys) = 1
So probability for Problem 2 = 1/2
Similarly for problem #3, I think the post unnecessarily complicates the calculation of problem space. The fact that 'Tuesday' is mentioned is irrelevant in my opinon, if you state the problem #3 in a different way that is more clearly understood.
There are 14 baskets labelled as follows "Sunday Boy", "Sunday Girl", "Monday Boy", "Monday Girl",....."Saturday Boy", "Saturday Girl". A stork came and dropped 2 babies. One baby was dropped in "Tuesday Boy" basket. What is the probability that both are boys?
Now the total outcomes and favarable outcomes are :
Total possible outcomes = Number of ways second baby could have been dropped = 14 possible baskets = 14
Favorable outcomes = second baby dropped in 'boy' basket = 7 possible baskets = 7
If you understand problem 2, then you will get problem 3 as well, so let's focus on 2.
> It is right that probability = favaroble out comes / total possible outcomes.
No, not actually: It is only right if all outcomes are equally likely! (There's an old joke about the guy who has a 50% chance of winning the lottery, since either he will win it or he won't.)
In particular, you make that mistake here:
> 1) Potential Outcome 1: Both are boys 2) Potential Outcome 2: One boy and one girl 3) Potential outcome 3: Both are girls
These three outcomes are not all equally likely. Outcome 1 has probability 1/4, outcome 2 has probability 1/2, and outcome 3 has probability 1/4. (This is if you assume that each child has a half chance each of being a boy/girl.)
Norvig gets rid of this problem by listing out all four possible outcomes, which are all equally likely.
Again, both Norvig and you are messing with ordering of events. If you list 4 events like this, assuming that ordering of boys and girls matters, then you should stick with that. So, if ordering mattered when children were born it should also matter when you are doing "checks". So you shouldn't formulate problem as "one of the children is boy", you should formulate problem as "first child is boy" (with ordering in place), which eliminates possibility 3. Otherwise you are "solving" problem by listing sample space of completely different problem.
The event "at least one child is a boy" is well-defined on the 4-state sample space. It is the set of events (first boy/second boy, first boy/second girl, first girl / second boy). It has probability 3/4.
When you say "1) Potential Outcome 1: Both are boys 2) Potential Outcome 2: One boy and one girl 3) Potential outcome 3: Both are girls" you are right that those are three potential outcomes, but they are not equiprobable outcomes. One boy and one girl is twice as probable each of the others.
Why only Doctors? Because human lives are involved? I assume by the same logic, Civil Engineers also need to have a degree (they build bridges and other life critical infrastructure)
There may be thousands of software products that are also life critical. Not just the obvious ones like some medical hardware control program/firmware, Air traffic control programs, Flight onboard software Self-driving car auto-pilot software etc. So I assume those would require a qualified software engineer with a degree.
But there may even be others that may not be so obvious immediately.
I have a degree and not been on the other side (not having a degree) and so cannot identify with any injustice that is perceived by folks on other side. I can certainly see somewhat equivalent when it comes to bachelors degree vs Masters/PHD as I don't have those. So I am not sure where the lines should be drawn to make it fair to everyone.