What are the benefits, limitations, and ethical implications of comparing catastrophes?

You may wish to consider this note as you formulate your response.

Please reply directly to this annotation.

What might ethical scientific engagement look like in the aftermath of catastrophe? How do these poems represent science and medicine in relation to Chernobyl?

You may wish to consider the following annotations, among others, to inform your response.

Doctor Gale

Sweden

Is it the fault of science?

Do you think that transnational catastrophes require us to reevaluate the limitations and possibilities of language and communication? In the face of the "alphabet of death," what can writers, artists, and scientists do to respond to catastrophes in a way that is productive but not reductive?

Please reply directly to this annotation.

How do these poems place Chernobyl within the context of international politics? How are catastrophes instrumentalized, and by whom?

You may wish to consider the following annotations to inform your response:

Sweden

The radioactive cloud

Hiroshima and Chernobyl

Science versus humanity

Please reply to this annotation with your response.

Who has the right and the responsibility to write about and reflect on Chernobyl and other disasters? How do these poems complicate your understanding of the categories of victim, witness, and perpetrator?

Please reply directly to this annotation.

How is heroism represented across these three poems? Who is depicted as a hero, and what are the potential implications of these characterizations for our understanding of the Chernobyl catastrophe?

You may wish to consider the following annotations to inform your response:

They did not share it

God is in . . .

Firefighters

Doctor Gale / The man who flew into Russia

Robots and liquidators

Please respond directly to this annotation.

How does the ending of this poem fit into the focus on individual and collective accountability for Chernobyl that is developed throughout the rest of the text?

Please reply directly to this annotation.

Within this autobiography, the phrase "which is to say" is found at the beginning of practically every paragraph. What are your thoughts as a reader on the motivations behind Jose Antonio Rodriguez's decision to do this? It's possible he's trying to convey how deeply he thinks about topics while also demonstrating how rarely he shares those things with others. It's almost as if all of these thoughts are being expressed all at once. 

Is raising interest rates will be the best solution to economic problems?

While Joaquin identifies with beloved figures in Mexican history, such as Miguel Hidalgo, Jose Maria Morelos, Vicente Guerrero etc, he also identifies with the infamous dictator of Mexico, Porfirio Diaz, who served as president for over 20 years until he was overthrown in 1911, during the Mexican Revolution. Why do y'all think Joaquin identifies with both the good and the bad of his people? Is it because he does not have a choice? I am not sure but I would like to know what y'all think.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Porfirio-Diaz

Why is it necessary to pause Can't new person post their question/comment even if it's in reply to comment #10 and the latest comment happens to be comment #56? There's no rule against replying/discussing something that is not the very latest thing to be posted in a discussion!

Possibly due to lack of a threaded discussion feature in GitHub? I think so.

Threads would allow replies to "quick person" A to go under their comment, without flooding the top level with comments... thus alowing "new person" B to post a new comment, which in so doing creates a new thread, which can have its own discussion.

What are the differences?

Question: What kind of biases in classifiers?

Network architecture in detail, generative model: StyleGAN2 -> question, are there possible alternatives to using StyleGAN2?

Interesting! If we were to use post-hoc explanations (think of SHAP and LIME), would you say that we intend to explain the true label, right?

Would you argue that e.g. MLP is also a deep net? I would slightly rephrase the term "deep net" and change it into something like "neural network-based classifiers".

But, related to this, I actually found quite a relevant and interesting additional paper! It happened to be published 3 days ago, and the paper basically argued that you don't neccesarily need deep convnets to solve similar societal problems - any problem that can be solved using a transformer can be solved by a MLP/CNN, and vice versa, provided that you do exhaustive tuning and use the right inductive bias. Idem ditto for RNNs!

Link to CNN paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.03545 Link to RNN paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.09913

I have often wondered both questions, I know I always felt shame if I made a grammatical mistake and a teacher would point it out to the class. Also, am I problematic if I use SAE? Or is it more problematic to force my students to use SAE?

What is their definition of lesser educated? Is it people who do not hold a college degree? Anyone without a doctorate? Not finishing high school? What is their definition of education and lesser educated?

One question I have here is how do we teach this kind of concept in the classroom? Since we will be in high schools, how do we embrace this ideology when students may not even know how to engage with this kind of thing because they were not taught to do so prior to our class?

Do you have any information about when your ancestors arrived in America? Can you trace your people this far back?

Special Track 3. (n.d.). Data for Policy CIC. Retrieved 8 March 2021, from https://dataforpolicy.org/data-fof-policy-2021/special-track-3/

https://github.com/rails/sprockets/issues/162 was already closed as duplicated (so this just creates another duplicate).

Technically this could be added there.

Oh, I see, it was from so long ago (2015), that it would probably be frowned upon to reopen such an old issue.

https://www.reddit.com/r/BehSciAsk/comments/jkzuig/ideas_for_discussion_how_can_research_interface/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3

How would this relate and compare to other countries in general? Or in more specific areas in places that have higher amounts of people dying from pollution?

An interesting concept I'd like to consider and interrogate. Does exacerbating and essentially parodying gender roles ACTUALLY work to dismantle those roles, or does it enforce them?

No strong opinion yet. Come back to this.

To what extent is the writer's analogy to the medical industry persuasive?

What are the assumptions in the writer's argument?

Can you think of other industries in which this might also be true? Share illustrations with your class.

Do you agree that AI is incapable of decision-making, and that a human will always have to make the final call? Why or why not? How might this vary in different fields, including the ones you are interested in pursuing?

What are the pros and cons of focusing on representation in the leadership?

What do you think are some of these barriers?

Do you agree that the writer's proposals will be effective in achieving gender equality? Why or why not? What other ideas do you have for achieving gender equality?

Have you ever experienced or witnessed implicit gender bias? Share your thoughts with a classmate of a different gender.

Do you find the writer's evidence convincing? What are the the strengths—and limitations—of her evidence?

Do you think this is a fair claim? What examples of patriarchal attitudes can you think of in Singapore?

You may include photos, videos, or hyperlinks.

How do you think Singapore's history might have been different if women were included among the founders of independent Singapore?

Can you think of reasons for why this might have been the case?

How do you think the context of democratic socialism and gender are linked?

What assumptions do each o these policies reveal? Do you agree with these policies? Why or why not?

What assumptions do each of these policies reveal?

Do you agree that the writer's proposals will be effective in achieving gender equality? Why or why not? What other ideas do you have for achieving gender equality?

Can you think of reasons why this might have been the case?

Why do you think Mrs Lee Kuan Yew was excluded from the "inner sanctum" of the PAP? Do you think this could have been a justifiable decision in the circumstances?

Have you ever experienced or witnessed implicit gender bias? Share your thoughts with a classmate of a different gender.

Do you find the writer's evidence convincing? What are the the strengths—and limitations—of her evidence?

How do you think Singapore's history might have been different if women were included among the founders of independent Singapore?

Humans why we always change our mind in the simple staff in live ? why we make it so complicated in this world?

How will this lead to violence, waste, war, and destruction?

But is this idea not true for almost everything in life? If someone wins, someone must lose, right? Is this system poorly designed because some people lose? The alternative would be nobody wins, would that be preferable?

So by quoting this, what is the author trying to say? Should we stop the pursuit of knowledge after instituting these 'limits'?

Why would we fear to become inhuman and monstrous? What most people really care about is extinction. Yet her it states that's not the case. How? And why would we ned to become inhuman and monstrous?

True in a sense, But why must we have limits if we have never reached them. theoretically speaking isn't there always room for improvement regardless of the subject?

Can we as a society be "free" without restraints then?

Why do we think of limitless as a godly trait? Mankind continues to do the unthinkable as we progress. We have done things we once thought were never achievable.

How can a limitless knowledge affect a human brain dangerously ?

Is waste and greed the cause of global warming?

This thought process has guided America's economic choices from the beginning. There's always more: money, oil, freedom, opportunity...etc. But was it to occur when we are forced to realize that this way of thinking can only be temporary, and at some point time will catch up with innovation.

Humans beginning are not define as animals and not all religions agree with at. Some religions doesn't agree that human heritage begin from animals. That may be true scientifically but not culturally or religiously.

Because us as humans consume limitless amounts we lose respect for each other and humanity? Wouldn't sharing these limitless needs give us a common ground and make us a community?

How do you feel about renewable energy? and do you believe this argument is valid and appropriate regarding the necessity to follow nature in the essence of "natural ecosystems"?

How do you feel about renewable energy? and do you believe this argument is valid and appropriate regarding the necessity to follow nature in the essence of "natural ecosystems"?

what is the circumstance of giving up the right of being godlike animals and how would it effect the earth?

If we as a society focus less on big business, and more on what nature is giving us, would we have to worry about running out of what nature is already giving us as energy resources?

But why are we talking about this? Like why does it matter?

How would we even be able to present a limitless economy and what kind of an ending effect would it had on us?

The author talks about our "abused cropland" which opens up a lot of problems with un-regulated farming and deforestation in different places. And if we don't regulate farm land we can farm the land to the point where it has no nutrients and if we just keep moving to the next plot of land, eventually we are going to end up like the movie interstellar where the money is in crops instead of the progression of the technology.

Having studied the issue of Global Warming in detail under the direction of two other professors here, I find this claim Berry makes to be utterly flattering. It suggests that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions (less than 5% of total CO2 surface emissions) rival those that can be attributed to natural processes. Do you believe Berry to be employing a "truthful hyperbole"--as Trump would say--here to illustrate the danger of our "limitless" view of the Earth; or do you believe Berry himself to be caught up in a view of human limitlessness (in other words, do you believe he thinks the impact humans have on this planet to be limitless)?

Why would anyone think that a limitless economy would be easy to demonstrate?

What limits can we create to ensure we are still able to exist as human beings or to exist at all?

Do the points in this essay refer to us as selfish in a way? The people and the government seem to look at things as limitless but in reality stuff will run out. Example being the gas we use is not limitless and someday will run out. We need to be more resourceful and mindful. But of course no one thinks of these things while they fill their cars up..

How is monetary not a stats about wealth of land, but instead about wastes and depletes?

Why is hell everywhere for those who reject heaven?

Do we have a delusion that there will be enough oil and that it isn't going to ever run out?

So, by this metaphor, is the author implying that if we use our freedom to destroy nature, will there be no place to go where the environment is safe for living plants and animals?

Are we entitled to a limitless economy? Should we consume whatever we please in the world without regard to consequences of that unrestrained use of resources?

Why does our society have an assumed limitlessness when we are capable of doing things thought not possible?

Discussion: How can limits be acknowledged positively without the impediment of progress?

As a society, we tend to function in a rat race mentality, that we are busy people who focus on what is important and urgent. We usually put off what is urgent but can wait to be dealt with later. Is it wrong to let the next generation solve this problem so that we can continue on, "business as usual"?

Will looking away from science and technology and going to focus on the arts really help with limitless? If you look at a broad spectrum of things are technology and art really limitless? Is anything limitless?

Not really sure what "already abused cropland" is supposed to be referring to. The USA has plenty of land that is useful for crops, so we won't be running out of land anytime soon. Crops can be rotated to put the nutrients back in that a certain type of crop takes away. I would say that a shortage of water would be a bigger concern. As it is, we import about 19% of the food we consume for more variety of choices. With advances in farming, there is less crop loss and more yield per acre than ever before. Do you think that growing so-called bio-fuels such as wheat, corn, soybeans and sugarcane will really cause problems?

Why will we need to start over? We can learn the concepts of ideas and things but we would not need to restart completely to understand it.

Is the problem about us assuming limitlessness, true? Do we assume EVERYTHING is limitlessness?

Were limits learned by time and society or did we always have them instilled in us? ( ex: attention span of an audience)

Discuss: What does this mean? Have you experienced an "open door moment" like this?

Is this really a just request?

Is it significant that Helen has no lines? Is she even real, or just an idealized (and thus silent) version of femininity?