All of Daniel_Reeves's Comments + Replies

Dumb Deplaning

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/02/boarding

[The fastest way to board a plane is to] have 10 passengers at a time board in alternating rows. He says it's at least four times faster than what most airlines are doing because it lets everyone stow their luggage and take their seats without getting in one another's way.
Moral Complexities

Why do people seem to mean different things by "I want the pie" and "It is right that I should get the pie"? Why are the two propositions argued in different ways?
Because they believe the answer to "is it right that I want the pie?" isn't always "yes."

I'd take it

presidents post Reagan are no longer killable
Neither was Reagan!

(10) declare large bounties to certain technological improvements in areas such as energy, healtcare, communications, etc.
Oh, I like that idea.

Of course, on second thought that also may show that women just don't know men. :)

The men were likely to consider a friendly gesture a sexual invitation and consider a sexual invitation a friendly gesture.

Of course, on second thought that also may show that women just don't know men. :)

There's an interesting question hidden here. Which person in those interactions had the "burden of knowing" the other? If it's the man's job to interpret the woman, we might say that he has failed at knowing her well enough to do so. If it's the woman's job to communicate her intent to the man, again, we would say she has failed at knowing... (read more)

Some people don't think this is difficult at all, and/or that psychological sex differences are trivial. What relative proportion of these would you say are unusual for their sex, unusually empathetic, and just delusional, respectively?
Ah, I read something about that, before. It was an article on a small study that took note of a few people's reaction to women come-ons. The men were likely to consider a friendly gesture a sexual invitation and consider a sexual invitation a friendly gesture.

What Would You Do Without Morality?

It's like asking how our world would be if "2 + 2 = 5." My answer to that would be, "but it doesn't."

So unless you can convince me that one can exist without morality, then my answer is, "but we can't exist without morality."

Conditional Independence, and Naive Bayes

I'm confused :/

P(X,Y,Z) = P(X,(Y,Z)) = P(X) + P(Y,Z) - P(X;(Y,Z)) = P(X) + (P(Y) + P(Z) - P(Y;Z)) - P(X;(Y,Z)) = P(X) + (P(Y) + P(Z) - P(Y;Z)) - P((X;Y),(X;Z)) = P(X) + (P(Y) + P(Z) - P(Y;Z)) - (P(X;Y) + P(X;Z) - P(X;Y;Z)) = P(X) + P(Y) + P(Z) - P(X;Y) - P(Y;Z) - P(X;Z) + P(X;Y;Z)

By the inclusion-exclusion principle, no?

1wobster10910yThis was what I expected to see, and I believe it's equivalent to H(X,Y,Z) = H(X) + H(Y) + H(Z) - I(X;Z) - I(Z;Y) - I(X;Y | Z) It appears that Z is very artificially constructed --- Z is exactly I(X,Y) in the example. Therefore, H(X,Y) = H(X,Y,Z). Since the term I(X,Y | Z) is mutual information about X and Y given Z, that's just 0. There's no new mutual information about X and Y that isn't already in Z. So I believe that we could replace it with +I(X,Y) - I(X,Y,Z), and get inclusion-exclusion.