”Another Lavender user questioned whether humans’ role in the selection process was meaningful. “I would invest 20 seconds for each target at this stage, and do dozens of them every day. I had zero added-value as a human, apart from being a stamp of approval. It saved a lot of time.”
This article is more than 1 month old
‘The machine did it coldly’: Israel used AI to identify 37,000 Hamas targets; Guardian, 2 Apr 2024
> Practically, I don't think Jews really had another place to go - remember, most of the Jews of Israel were either fleeing Europe before the Holocaust, or were the survivors of the Holocaust, or were ethnically cleansed from surrounding Arab countries. It's not like they had anywhere else to go.
Not true. One proposal was the Kimberly plan, which received strong push back from proponents of Zionism that simply refused to settle for anything less than Palestine. Theresa very real case to be made that had there been stronger support from Jewish community as a whole that this may well have actually ended up being the outcome.
> This is very wrong. For one thing, you're ignoring the 20% of Israelis that are Arabs/Palestinians, but I'll assume you meant the Jewish ones. There has been continuous Jewish habitation of Palestine for literally 2,000, since the Jews were forced out
Not the person you're responding to, but personally I'd say that's largely irrelevant. Any perceived connection to a land that anyone has is something learnt from cultural context. There's nothing that empirically literary connects people to an arbitrarily divided portion of land. Countries are an abstractional fiction. Religions and cultures build stories upon these abstractions with varying levels of historic accuracy. Through exposure to these stories people develop a perceived connection with essentially no direct physical basis in reality. More succinctly - a person's perceived connection to the land depends almost entirely upon their exposure to certain cultural stories.
A small portion of the perceived connection to an area is obviously related to literal experience and exposure to said area. The fact that the is often mentally tied to back to an abstraction like a "country" implies that these experiences are secondary to the broader cultural stories.
In terms of immediate (non-cultural) connection, it seems pretty accurate to say that immigration and conflict is going to be a significant factor for everyone currently in Israel. Be they the descendants of immigrants, direct immigrants, or the descendants of people historically living in that area (having ancestors that lived there doesn't historically doesn't preclude them or their parents from being impacted by the creation of modern day Israel)
> Theresa very real case to be made that had there been stronger support from Jewish community as a whole that this may well have actually ended up being the outcome.
Maybe. I honestly don't know enough to say one way or the other, though I do know enough to say that most countries closed their doors to Jews during the Holocaust specifically, and I'd be rather astounded to discover a country that was willing to absorb millions of new people. E.g. I don't know anything about the Kimberly
plan except reading Wikipedia just now, but it seems like it was vetoed by the Australian government? Ironically, there are signs from European countries in the 1930s telling the Jews to "go back to Palestine".
> Through exposure to these stories people develop a perceived connection with essentially no direct physical basis in reality. More succinctly - a person's perceived connection to the land depends almost entirely upon their exposure to certain cultural stories.
Again, I'm probably not the best person to ask, but I couldn't care less about this specific land itself. I wouldn't have minded Israel being located somewhere else.
I do live here though, that's my connection to the land, as well as the connection that 9m other Israelis have to the land. We're not going anywhere.
(And neither are the Palestinians! If both sides just accepted the obvious reality that neither side is going to disappear, we could just divide up the land and sign a peace treaty already.)
> Be they the descendants of immigrants, direct immigrants, or the descendants of people historically living in that area
But, if I'm understanding you correctly... that's true of literally everyone everywhere. Everyone is a descendent of someone who at some point came to that land, and in many cases that's even fairly recent. Including many (though not all) Palestinians.
I vaguely recall hearing something similar, with the reasoning being that there was a fear of future hostility enabled by Emperor driven fanaticism. That said, I've also heard that there wasn't really enough time given for a response after the first bomb, and that it was largely a political move to claim they'd offered an initial surrender - and that the goal was always to drop two bombs, partly because they wanted to test out different aspects of their designs.
Australia also probably has some of the worst deployments of asbestos in the developed world. Drive around even nice neighborhoods in Sydney and you’ll see plenty of cracking and breaking “fibro”, a cement asbestos sheet. Canberra is full of asbestos. They had to completely remove an asbestos mining town (Wittenoom) from the map because it was so contaminated.
There is a ton of asbestos currently in Australian households. Plenty of aussies drink water collected in tanks off of asbestos cement roofs.
Yes - unfortunately we have a lot of leftover usages of asbestos.
Historically, it was used a lot. My father even remembers playing around in the bush as a kid, and using asbestos for chalk a bunch of time to mark stuff on trees. My friends dad also remembers coming home covered in asbestos after work a bunch of times too.
I'm not sure I agree with your assessment about seeing asbestos in nice neighbourhoods. It depends how you define nice.
Asbestos was banned in 2003,but hasn't been used in housing since the 80s, so it's only going to be in older developments that you'll really encounter it.
Your wording regarding "plenty of Aussies" is also unclear to me. The numbers as a percentage are going to be very low, but it undoubtedly is a thing.
I was visiting a relative in their $3M+ house in Bronte and saw plenty of it. Not in the front facades of the homes, but drive through the back alleys, and you can spot some in < 1 min. I remember an uncle there who's neighbor had a fibro cement mail box which was built into some stone work.
I agree my usage of "plenty" was more in absolute terms. It is probably thousands to tens of thousands, which is small in percentage terms. I also spent a lot of time on Australian farms, and they have lots of asbestos sheets buried in places. Most farmers would rather pile it up or bury it then pay the costs of having it removed properly.
Not the person you asked, but the initial point was taking that idea to the extreme. The concept of "one thing" in the NAND case is more extreme (in terms of granularity). No need to be sorry, it's ok.
Right, the person I asked is claiming that NAND is two things. You appear to have responded as if you disagree with my comment while not actually disagreeing with any part of it.
What did you think I meant by this question?
>> In what conceivable sense is "doing a logical and" one thing while "doing a logical nand" isn't?
NAND is more complex than AND, in the sense that it is more expressive than AND (having functional completeness which AND does not).
Similarly, it can be built from other less complex operators (AND and NAND).
If you're taking "One thing" to the extreme, in terms of the granularity or complexity of that "one thing", NAND is not as granular or simple as AND - and therefore isn't taking it to as far "to the extreme".
What's the argument that AND is less complex than NAND? It's true that NAND has completeness and AND doesn't, but so what? What you can build from something is not a measure of how complex it is. You measure complexity in terms of what it takes to describe something.
You have to justify why you've chosen the particular starting point. NAND isn't defined as being "first you do AND, and then you negate it". It's defined like this:
You may notice that they are almost exactly the same.
> It seems naively obvious to me that a(b(x)) is more complex than b(x).
This is just obvious gibberish; if you define b(x, y) = x & y and a(x) = ~x, then you can say "I think a(b(x, y)) looks more complex than b(x, y)", but how do you respond to "when c(x, y) = x ↑ y, I think c(c(x,y), c(x,y)) looks more complex than c(x,y)"? The two claims can't both be true!
Everything, no matter how simple, can be described as the end of an arbitrarily long chain of functions. So what?
I always find that portion of ADHD somewhat amusing. Getting fixated on a task and unable to context switch is a big thing, which I think is surprising for many people.
For me, I've been on dexamphetamine sulphate for about five years. I had to have my dose adjusted after about a year, because I experienced what you mentioned (decreased efficacy). Once the dose was increased, the effect became pretty stable though (I'm currently on 45mg a day). I wouldn't say it completely negates my ADHD, but it definitely makes things a lot more manageable.
I believe it was 30mg (10mg, 3x a day) that I started on. Dosage was adjusted after about a year, when I began to notice the dosage wasn't really having the same effect. Was upped to my current dose that I've been on since then.
I disagree with this. For me, the energy is because I have to use less energy doing basic day to day shit. Unmedicated, it takes far more effort and work, and leaves less energy for later tasks.
Imagine doing the dishes. Unmedicated, thats 2 or 3 tasks. Each with a high failure rate, and high cognitive cost.
1. Stop what you’re currently doing.
2. Decide you next task will be to wash the dishes.
3. Wash dishes.
The spoon theory [0] covers this concept well, and can be a useful tool.
> The spoon theory[a] is a metaphor describing the amount of physical and/or mental energy that a person has available for daily activities and tasks, and how it can become limited.
It’s amphetamine. The energy is from the amphetamine. The mechanism of action (norepinephrine and dopamine reputable inhibition) isn’t far from that of cocaine or methamphetamine. Let’s be real here. Amphetamine is known to skew one’s self assessment of their performance while on the drug.
> It’s amphetamine. The energy is from the amphetamine.
Energy still comes from food, and if you forget to eat on stimulants your body will eventually catch up with you.
Like coffee, stimulants let you better tap into that energy.
> The mechanism of action (norepinephrine and dopamine reputable inhibition) isn’t far from that of cocaine or methamphetamine.
Yep, they’re all stimulants. ADHD meds however, are manufactured in very controlled conditions, and taken in specific doses. Street drugs are more variable in quality, ratios, ingredients and strengths, and so not relevant to the treatment of ADHD.
Methamphetamine is a legitimate treatment for the most severe ADHD cases, it’s often a last resort. It’s sold as Desoxyn. It’s rarely used, but it _is used legally and successfully_.
> Let’s be real here. Amphetamine is known to skew one’s self assessment of their performance while on the drug.
If you don’t need it, stimulants are going to have a different effect.
People with ADHD are in my experience, going to be able to self-assess performance on their meds better than off them.
Don’t assume one experience is universal, especially when we’re talking about neurodiversity. Even among those with ADHD, experiences are not universal. We may rhyme, but we don’t always repeat.
The self-assessment is less to do with how efficient I was, and more based on the fact I get things done sooner, because I don't fuck around and get distracted every few minutes. Completing a task significantly sooner/earlier, because I managed to stay on task has a real impact on the energy and time I have to spend on other tasks.
If I only get 80% of the stuff I need to get done before bedtime, there's no chance for me to do other. If I get the stuff I need to get done well before bedtime, there's time left for other things. Skewed self-assessment isn't really a factor in that.
And by the way, the effect on dopamine is secondary. ADHD meds work because they affect glutamate leveles. You all do not have low Dopamine, you have low glutamate.
AADC is an enzyme in the path that converts amino acids into dopamine and PEA/NMPEA (see "biosynthetic pathways" in above link), the latter of which is an endogenous structural isomer of amphetamine.
You're not really making a strong case that this isn't about dopamine or that amphetamine is the wrong thing for it.
Moreover, B6 will make more of these things up until the point that it's no longer the rate limiter in their production, if it ever was. (The rate limiting step for dopamine is ordinarily AAAH converting Tyrosine into L-DOPA). And if you hit a different rate limiter before you have enough dopamine or PEA/NMPEA, what then?
I did not say it is not about dopamine, but it is, at a deeper level, about glutamate. Which is why coffee works so well for ADHD because the stimulant action from caffeine is produced by glutamate.
> Which is why coffee works so well for ADHD because the stimulant action from caffeine is produced by glutamate.
Caffeine also antagonizes adenosine receptors which modulate dopamine. (Caffeine is complicated. Nicotine too.)
> Regardless, here is so much evidence that B6 plays a large role in ADHD and what, you all just ignore it?
The problem is it's the same kind of thing as saying that eating more reduces nutrient deficiencies. It might be more effective than placebo. If you're deficient in one thing and you get more of everything, you get more of that. It might even be the right solution if your underlying problem is actually that you're not eating enough.
But you want the solution that solves the problem as effectively and as narrowly as possible. Unless your underlying problem is actually a B6 deficiency, it's completely plausible that B6 could be more effective than placebo and less effective than Adderall. At which point nobody wants to hear you telling them to give up their Adderall for B6.
I was diagnosed with ADHD when I was about 27-28. I've been on medication since then, and the impact has been amazing. It makes me wish my condition was diagnosed much earlier. So much unnecessary difficulty (Especially in school) that could potentially have been avoided.
