I am interested to hear what career or societal role you think a women cannot or should not do because of menstrual related mood swings. Because it clearly isn't President of the United States or billionaire CEO.

The only circumstance in which there are men strong enough to so something that women can't do is at the most elite level of athletics. Any role relevant to society that would require that level of strength, we have machines for, because the majority of men and women are not elite powerlifters, and because they probably need way more strength than is safe even for those elite athletes to require all the time.

And then yes women can give birth and breastfeed (though it doesn't seem like being raised on formula alone is much of a problem these days). I don't see why those biological features need to affect roles as much as (some) people seem to think they should.

People with different skin colours have different resiliences to sun exposure, but just because the sun is a big part of our life doesn't mean we NEED to shape society around those biological differences.

Should particularly strong girls be "treated like boys"?

Should girls and women without functioning reproductive systems be treated like boys?

What differences in social roles have been proven "necessary"?

Is the fact that chimpanzees do things a certain way remotely good evidence that we should do something that way too?

Answer key:

- no

- no

- no

- which gamete you supply?

- no

The problem is just that even in the most lousy, turing test-failing LLM there's no guarantee that not a single subsection of these giant neural nets hasn't replicated the basic computational blocks of consciousness found in something even as simple as a snail.

Here's another question: can LLMs do addition?

Survey data is still real data that can be used for "analytics".

Some people also hate telemetry. It feels invasive. I have a guess about what direction the percentage of consumers who hate telemetry is moving toward.

I would argue we as society don't want crime to stop simply for the sake of crime stopping (or for prison labor), but ultimately because we want to feel happy and safe from harm and unjust treatment. The systems we design need to factor in the humanness of the police and their communities and make sure they are not set up in a way that loses sight of that bigger picture.

1. More short-term crime prevention than a system catching 10% of A's crimes and 10% of B's crimes (good!)

2. Enforce a societal belief that A is intrinsically better than B (bad!)

3. Disproportionately burden children, families, and communities in B than A, causing them to indeed perform worse in everything than those in A (bad!)

4. As a result of 2 & 3 it is not a stretch to say simply causing B to do more actual crime (potentially negating point 1 entirely)

If you believe that crime enforcement is not for the sake of vengeance but instead something done to improve the well-being, safety, and happiness of citizens, you may see that inequality=bad just as crime=bad. How to best solve this trolley problem is complicated but it's important that people are aware that it is complicated before firing off an answer.

Remote: Remote or on-site are both fine

Willing to relocate: Yes, anywhere in Canada

Technologies: R, python (including pytorch/sklearn/huggingface), SQL, HPC, linux, git, fastapi, C++

Email: (it's a gmail address) psvelayu

I am about to complete my PhD focused on unsupervised learning method development and application to large biological data. I have an MSc in experimental neurology and a BSc in chemistry (specialized in quantum/computational chemistry). I am very proficient with R and maintain a package on CRAN used by multiple research groups for clustering clinical patient data. I have a strong foundation in math and statistical learning theory. I'm open to applying my data analysis / statistics / technical writing skills just about anything (in Canada).