= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Try us. Are you selling to us? If yes then maybe not so great to do (however Squirrelinhell released hasteworm just recently and no one complained). If no, then idea sharing is good.
Say, that you have a school with about 100 teachers, 1000 students, 25 rooms ... Each having his/hers demands and constraints.
Now, you want an optimal schedule - who doesn't. For that I have a software to do it automatically. Not semi-automatically like everyone else.
I want to test it for the North America and Australia's primary and secondary schools on several real life examples. For free, of course.
I am looking for a principal or his assistant to try this together over Skype.
In response to
Open thread, Jul. 11 - Jul. 17, 2016
I have a neat software solution for something. Is it kosher to discuss it here, or it would be considered just as another spamming attempt?
I did interviews with three people last month on my podcast Future Strategist:
Steve Hsu, an expert on the genetic architecture of human intelligence,
Max More, the CEO of cryonics provider Alcor, and
James Barrat, author of Our Final Invention: AI and the end of the human era.
If you like my podcast please consider writing a review on iTunes.
In that last podcast with James Barrat you are even more interesting to listen than him. I'll check other podcasts of yours if is it often so.
I will probably vote for Trump if he wins the Republican nomination, and I don't think the article was anti-Trump.
I am not an American and I'll not vote. I hate the intelligentsia's attitude toward the man.
Nancy, I could have certainly made similar points about Sanders, although less emphatically. To some extent, all candidates are appealing to anger and fear, although Trump is the clearest and most strident example. This is why at the end of the article, I noted that "he is not the only candidate doing so. Whatever candidate you are considering, my fellow Americans, I hope you deploy intentional thinking and avoid the predictable errors in making your political decisions."
Good question on checking whether I'm right. I didn't go into this in depth in the source, due to space limitations, but I read quite a bit of primary sources of why people are voting for Trump. I have a scholarly background in studying emotions and deployed that methodology for studying this topic.
Should we expect your Anti-Trump campaigning here until November, or what?
I tried to explain it in my recent post, that on current level of technologies human level AGI is possible, but foom is not yet, in particular, because some problems with size, speed and the way neural nets are learning.
Also human level AGI is not powerful enough to foam. Human science is developing but in includes millions of scientists; foaming AI should be of the same complexity but run 1000 times quicker. We don't have such hardware. http://lesswrong.com/lw/n8z/ai_safety_in_the_age_of_neural_networks_and/
But the field of AI research is foaming with doubling time 1 year now.
So I can trade one currency for another, and then trade back, and the amount I now have in the first currency can be arbitrarily high. This doesn't feel like it particularly changes anything.
In response to
Stupid Questions, December 2015
Repeating my question from late in the previous thread:
It seems to me that if you buy a stock, you could come out arbitrarily well-off, but your losses are limited to the amount you put in. But if you short, your payoffs are limited to the current price, and your losses could be arbitrarily big, until you run out of money.
Is this accurate? If so, it feels like an important asymmetry that I haven't absorbed from the "stock markets 101" type things that I've occasionally read. What effects does it have on markets, if any? (Running my mouth off, I'd speculate that it makes people less inclined to bet on a bubble popping, which in turn would prolong bubbles.) Are there symmetrical ways to bet a stock will rise/fall?
if you buy a stock, you could come out arbitrarily well-off, but your losses are limited to the amount you put in
You never only buy, but at the same time you have traded your dollars, euros or whatever currency for that stock.
There is nothing like "buying" and "shorting" - it's always trading. Swapping two "currencies".
In response to
Reflexive self-processing is literally infinitely simpler than a many world interpretation
The idea, that both slits, the electrons, the detector and everything else near the experiment are influencing the outcome of the result - looks very good to me.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
I used to make schedules with aSc TimeTables years ago. There is a free demo available. Could you compare your approach with this app?
The application is fully automatic, in the sense that you first enter all the data and constraints, and then you run the computation. (There is an option to put some items on specific place and "lock" them there, but this is strongly discouraged unless you really know what you are doing. Essentially, you can do it to speed up the computation if you have a logical proof that certain things must be done some way, but the application can't notice that and keeps wasting CPU time with alternative approaches.) As far as I know, the numbers of teachers / students / rooms / subjects are not limited, but of course their number has an impact on the complexity of the computation.
The complexity of constrains for each student or teacher is much greater with our software than with aSc. The scripting language is much more complex and enables you to describe pretty much every whim one might have. Like a different speed, teachers have between two different locations or after how many classes a break is mandatory for a specified teacher ... and many more.
It's student oriented primary and every student can have a very different curriculum then everybody else.
Still, all this will be automatically calculated and then optimized.
Now, we want to see how it will behave in practice for North America and Australia.