Poland says no Polish killed Jews, but Jews killed Jews.

[John Wright]

3 minutes ago, Manximus Aururaneus said:

I don't recall Britain invading Poland in 1939?

And what relevance does that have?

Both sides did unspeakable things. 

We only tend to hear about the things done by the losers.

Im not trying to weigh them in the balance, it’s impossible to do that in any meaningful sense.

However it makes for interesting work on the algorithms for risk choice for robotic vehicles.

[Manximus Aururaneus]

30 minutes ago, John Wright said:

And what relevance does that have?

Both sides did unspeakable things. 

We only tend to hear about the things done by the losers.

Im not trying to weigh them in the balance, it’s impossible to do that in any meaningful sense.

However it makes for interesting work on the algorithms for risk choice for robotic vehicles.

Yes, of course both sides did unspeakable things - but if Germany had not invaded Poland (and then France, Belgium, Russia etc.) then both sides would not have done unspeakable things would they? There would have been simply no need to do so.

That's the relevance.

I'm glad that you introduced algorithms John, I used to love them (and how apt that they originated to a large extent with the German physicists racing to develop the bomb).

So, whatever particular algorithm you are using John, try entering this data;

1. Germany does invade Poland, France, Russia starting 1939.

2. Germany does not invade Poland, France, Russia starting 1939.

% Chance of Dresden firestorm occurring in February 1945 given either Scenario 1. or Scenario 2.

What answers do you get?

[manxman1980]

17 minutes ago, Manximus Aururaneus said:

I don't recall Britain invading Poland in 1939?

Wasn't Britain signed up to a defensive pact with Poland but instead chose to appease Hitler and failed to honour that pact? 

Pretty sure the same happened with Holland and Belgium as well...

[woolley]

4 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

Wasn't Britain signed up to a defensive pact with Poland but instead chose to appease Hitler and failed to honour that pact? 

Pretty sure the same happened with Holland and Belgium as well...

No. That was the end of appeasement. It was the invasion of Poland that caused Britain to declare war on Germany.

[John Wright]

19 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

Wasn't Britain signed up to a defensive pact with Poland but instead chose to appease Hitler and failed to honour that pact? 

Pretty sure the same happened with Holland and Belgium as well...

Britain and France had a pact with Czechoslovakia, which they ignored. They had similar with Poland, and guaranteed the borders of Belgium and Netherlands as well. They acted on the Polish invasion.

[John Wright]

28 minutes ago, Manximus Aururaneus said:

Yes, of course both sides did unspeakable things - but if Germany had not invaded Poland (and then France, Belgium, Russia etc.) then both sides would not have done unspeakable things would they? There would have been simply no need to do so.

That's the relevance.

I'm glad that you introduced algorithms John, I used to love them (and how apt that they originated to a large extent with the German physicists racing to develop the bomb).

So, whatever particular algorithm you are using John, try entering this data;

1. Germany does invade Poland, France, Russia.

2. Germany does not invade Poland, France, Russia.

% Chance of Dresden firestorm occurring in February 1945 given either Scenario 1. or Scenario 2.

What answers do you get?

1. We know what happened.

2. Are you saying that Germany wouldn’t have rounded up and exterminated Jews, and that the rest of Europe wouldn’t have eventually acted, even been the aggressors. Similar unspeakable incidents of  civilian death, on both sides, would have happened, not necessarily in February 1945, but definitely in Coventry, London, Dresden and the Ruhr.

[Manximus Aururaneus]

2 minutes ago, John Wright said:

1. We know what happened.

2. Are you saying that Germany wouldn’t have rounded up and exterminated Jews, and that the rest of Europe wouldn’t have eventually acted, even been the aggressors. Similar unspeakable incidents of  civilian death, on both sides, would have happened, not necessarily in February 1945, but definitely in Coventry, London, Dresden and the Ruhr.

Is that what the legal people call 'obfuscation'?

[John Wright]

24 minutes ago, Manximus Aururaneus said:

Is that what the legal people call 'obfuscation'?

No, it’s pointing out that these things are never a simple dichotomy, an either or, and if you attempt to treat them that way any answer you get is bound to be wrong.

The algorithms on moral choice, robotic car, aren’t just choose to kill the cat, not the child, or the rabbi, not the thug, or one person, not 10.  

They are much more complicated. And often they aren’t the decisions humans would make, in the instant.

Your questions  start with a false proposition, and assume a conclusion, so they are totally flawed. Just the same as the stop and search knife question on the labour thread.

You can draw any meaningful conclusions without taking account of all the variables.

Of course in the world of populism reductio ad absurdam dichotomies are posed as proof of “common sense “ ideas.

It also conveniently avoids much more relevant questions about how many of the unspeakable acts of war, terror on civilians, could have been avoided if Britain and France had acted when Hitler reoccupied the occupied and demilitarised Rhineland, in 1936, marched into Austria, or occupied the Sudetenland, in the run up to Poland.

[Manximus Aururaneus]

29 minutes ago, John Wright said:

No, it’s pointing out that these things are never a simple dichotomy, an either or, and if you attempt to treat them that way any answer you get is bound to be wrong.

The algorithms on moral choice, robotic car, aren’t just choose to kill the cat, not the child, or the rabbi, not the thug, or one person, not 10.  

They are much more complicated. And often they aren’t the decisions humans would make, in the instant.

Your questions  start with a false proposition, and assume a conclusion, so they are totally flawed. Just the same as the stop and search knife question on the labour thread.

You can draw any meaningful conclusions without taking account of all the variables.

Of course in the world of populism reductio ad absurdam dichotomies are posed as proof of “common sense “ ideas.

Calculating K Effective using the (expanded) six factor formula was my job for a couple of decades. I know precisely (and I mean precisely) how algorithms work.

I also know obfuscation when I see it - especially when coupled to the introduction of such terms as 'populism' to further increase the density of the smokescreen. 

You introduced algorithms not me - so using your chosen method, I'll ask the question again;

So, whatever particular algorithm you are using John, try entering this data;

1. Germany does invade Poland, France, Russia starting 1939.

2. Germany does not invade Poland, France, Russia starting 1939.

% Chance of Dresden firestorm occurring in February 1945 given either Scenario 1. or Scenario 2.

What answers do you get?

You choose the algorithm, and tell us what likelihood the algorithm of your choice suggests?

Clue. Algorithms don't provide either 'decisions' or 'conclusions' (as you state) - they merely provide 'likelihood's' which increase in accuracy by volume and validity of data. That's how the whole 'futures and options' markets work (based on the work of German and other scientists around WW2 to develop the bomb and nuclear power).

[John Wright]

11 minutes ago, Manximus Aururaneus said:

Calculating K Effective using the (expanded) six factor formula was my job for a couple of decades. I know precisely (and I mean precisely) how algorithms work.

I also know obfuscation when I see it - especially when coupled to the introduction of such terms as 'populism' to further increase the density of the smokescreen. 

You introduced algorithms not me - so using your chosen method, I'll ask the question again;

So, whatever particular algorithm you are using John, try entering this data;

1. Germany does invade Poland, France, Russia starting 1939.

2. Germany does not invade Poland, France, Russia starting 1939.

% Chance of Dresden firestorm occurring in February 1945 given either Scenario 1. or Scenario 2.

What answers do you get?

You choose the algorithm, and tell us what likelihood the algorithm of your choice suggests?

Clue. Algorithms don't provide either 'decisions' or 'conclusions' (as you state) - they merely provide 'likelihood's' which increase in accuracy by volume and validity of data. That's how the whole 'futures and options' markets work (based on the work of German and other scientists around WW2 to develop the bomb and nuclear power).

Now that’s obfuscation, avoidance and deflection

[dilligaf]

7 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Now that’s obfuscation, avoidance and deflection

But when it the plebs, it is abuse 

[John Wright]

This shows how difficult the choices are.

Apparently I favour saving young children, and not saving animals more than most.

http://moralmachine.mit.edu/

[Manximus Aururaneus]

22 hours ago, John Wright said:

Now that’s obfuscation, avoidance and deflection

You do yourself a disservice John.

There are others on here, far less intelligent than yourself, who use terms like 'Algorithms' to make themselves sound intelligent when in fact they are thick. Some of them even think that 'Algorithms' are a new phenomenon. Ha!

They have found a new (to them) toy to play with - they seek to reinforce their new-found intelligence by calling people who disagree with them politically 'stupid' or ' Populist'.

The thing is, I could debate things with you, even though I might disagree with you.That's called democracy.

I therefore cannot understand why you wish to join the newly formed lefties who have picked up on a few fashionable terms (algorithms etc.), that they actually do not understand, to beat up their political rivals.

They are thick, not capable of writing or understanding an algorithm, but using the term to denigrate people - why are you jumping on that bandwagon?

You have made some (totally incorrect) assumptions about my politics - but I am capable of putting that aside in the pursuit of reasoned debate regardless of your politics.

Are you?

You do not know what an algorithm actually is - but in debate, I would not hold that against you.

 

[P.K.]

Jeeeeeeeze.....

[Manximus Aururaneus]

On 2/7/2019 at 1:12 AM, P.K. said:

Jeeeeeeeze.....

See what I mean John?