We at mappes.io are doing something similar in industrial domain. Our knowledge graph has few layers
Products (Raw Material <> Application use)
Products to company (Supplier <> Buyer)
People connected via companies and products
We are already seeing benefits of this in being able to easily discover new connections across products and companies. Our focus is right now on few verticals in manufacturing sector and hope to expand to wider manufacturing space at some point.
Can someone explain in non-legal way why the court believes an individual has right to decide whether they can wear a mask or not but not whether they can have a medical procedure or not? What's the main difference between these two?
The court has rapidly given itself over to partisanship in the last few years. That framework lends understanding to the seeming contradiction in their decisions.
Sure that may be the case but there is still some argument applied to both decisions. What's the main difference between one vs. the other that makes decision to get a medical procedure not legal but decision to not wear a mask legal?
Well, not everyone sees abortion as merely a medical procedure. The rights of the fetus and the father are the major concerns. How to balance these is, of course, controversial.
Similar issues exist about masks too. (e.g. concerns of immunocompromised people)
Your understanding of the mask cases is incorrect.
There is no "right not to mask". A right not to mask would mean that such a law would not be enforceable. But the court found no such right. It simply found that the executive was interpreting a statute incorrectly.
Specifically, the Biden administration believed that a piece of legislation gave them the authority to mandate masks in certain workplaces. The court disagreed except for in the case of medical facilities. In particular, the court said nothing about what would happen if, hypothetically, Congress were to pass a law clarifying that OSHA does indeed have the authority to mandate masking.
The SCOTUS decisions regarding masking/vaccines were not cases of constitutional law or individual rights. Rather, SCOTUS was simply ruling on the meaning of a statute passed by the legislature and enforced by the executive. Individual constitutional rights were not in play.
By contrast, Roe v Wade establishes a constitutional right to abortion. What this means is that even if Congress or a state passed a law outlawing abortion, that law would not be enforceable unless SCOTUS overturned Roe.
I don't think there is a single justice on the court who believes that the constitution provides a right not to mask. The court is hopelessly political, and on hot-button issues it's best to think about the court reasoning backward from decisions rather than forward for law, but "a constitutional right not to mask" is not how the conservative justices currently on the court would ever go about justifying striking down a mask policy.
Comparing the mask/vaccine decisions to the Roe decision doesn't make much sense.
They ruled that the government doesn't have the right to force people to wear masks. The parallel would be deciding that the government doesn't have the right to force people to get abortions - which, if it ever came to that, I'm pretty sure the court would in fact rule.
>> the court believes an individual has right to decide whether they can wear a mask
> They ruled that the government doesn't have the right to force people to wear masks.
Both of these statements are super false.
The court ruled that one particular piece of legislation does not give the executive branch the authority to force certain employers to have and enforce a rule that their employees, while in the workplace, must be masked or vaccinated.
There is NO "individual right to not mask" involved here. It's a ruling about the authority of the executive branch given the contents of a law passed by the legislature. That's all.
In particular,
1. The businesses effected by the ruling are of course free to none-the-less mandate masking without a federal mandate. I.e., there is no right for individuals not to mask.
2. If Congress were to pass a new law explicitly giving OSHA authority to mandate masks in workplaces, the court's reasoning in Nat'l Federation of Businesses v. DoL would be wholly irrelevant to that new piece of legislation.
3. Mask mandates in non-OSHA contexts -- eg federal buildings -- are not effected by either scotus ruling.
4. Biden v Missouri, decided by the same court at the same time, left vaccine mandates in place for healthcare facilities.
Neither of the SCOTUS decisions have anything to do with masking as an individual right, and they certainly don't rule that "government doesn't have the right to force people to wear masks". All they say is that one particular law, as written, doesn't give the Executive the authority to mandate that employers mandate masks/vaccines in certain workplaces.
If the court had found a reading of the constitution that enshrined a right not to mask that somehow didn't create a penumbra within which many other individual rights (including abortion) lived, that would be... a rather incredible exercise in bullshitting. But that's not what happened.
Regardless, other comments here are accurate: at least on certain issues the supreme court is hopelessly politicized.
Search for "supreme court mask mandate" gives me articles how the court is sending mixed messages and in general has not given a clear guideline about the issue. The non-legal explanation seem to be that they simply don't know if mask mandates are good or bad, and within or outside the scope of the federal government authority. They did reject one federal law that required "large businesses" to have vaccination/mask mandates, but the same ruling allowed a similar federal law to be put on medical care facilities.
They have not said if states can impose such restrictions, nor if large companies can decide for themselves if they want to have such restrictions, and I am unsure under what paragraph the distinction between health care worker and worker of a large businesses is defined. It is possible that health care workers are defined as a "critical role" or something that allows for additional restrictions.
"My body my choice" always was a bad justification because you obviously have to look at the interest of the child too if you count it as human life as many do. If you ask around you don't find too many people that wish they were aborted. The same logic can apply to wearing masks because it can affect other people aside yourself. But many argue here that the responsibility to protect yourself with masks is on those that want this protection but in case of abortions the child cannot defend itself or its rights.
To be honest I believe part of the problem is self-inflicted. Many conservatives had already made their peace with the issue and some media personalities unnecessarily picked up the topic and some people made a fool of themselves in a way so that the opposition only needed to show around their behavior to garner more supporters against abortion. It is probably naive to believe that the argument is about ethics instead of partisanship at this point.
I am for legal abortions and against mandatory masking (most of the time, there are situations where wearing a mask is just sensible), but I don't see these topics intersecting very much. Abortions will happen if they are legal or not. To minimize suffering a legal and medical responsible way is required.
But it is still an ethical question to allow it or not and intrinsic to almost all ethical considerations is that there is no clear right or wrong so I don't see a solution if either a vast majority supports it or not or opposing political factions collaborate on the issue.
> If you ask around you don't find too many people that wish they were aborted
but if you asked them when the abortion was possible they wouldn't even understand the question, while people understand what wearing or not wearing a mask means, usually!
The baby is not a citizen, meaning they haven't the same rights of adult people because they also have much less responsibilities, given their status.
It's completely obvious, I don't ask my cats if they want to get vaccinated, I just do it, because they have no way to decide on the matter.
I may agree but some others have the opinion that even a fetus already has rights. It is an ideological position but so is the sanctity of human life in general.
>The baby is not a citizen, meaning they haven't the same rights of adult people because they also have much less responsibilities, given their status.
US law protects the lives of non-citizens as well, not sure how that is relevant. And their argument would be what is the difference between a 38 week old fetus and 2 day old baby? What magical occurrence happens in the birth canal that transforms it from non-human to human? Obviously, science is on their side. So then the courts have to decide where do you draw the line? 8 weeks? 38 weeks? That isn't covered by the Constitution, so leaving it up to the states (or Congress) is the correct decision.
Because science says the fetus is a developing human being and abortion destroys (or in the words of pro-life people "kills") it, while a mask is a piece of cloth worn on the face.
Are these conclusions correct though? They show the electoral map and the districts that were lost. Those are more rural and more traditional industry focused areas.
It is more likely that coastal Democrat's income and education was always higher than rural leaning counties and remained at par between these two time periods. To state that this materially changes the Democratic party is not right.
Full disclosure : I work at the company mentioned below
There are products out there like this. There are emerging tools like Syntasa (https://www.syntasa.com/) that have all of these integrations baked in to allow you to grab exact same data from various SaaS tools you are using (like Analytics, Marketing automation etc) and have templates for various analytics activities like attribution or LTV or propensity modeling and integration points back to activation points in your Marketing stack. This allows you to perform many advanced analytics activities, customize it for your business without needing to hire a very large team. In fact, even large teams find it more useful to use a tool like that so they can spend their time worrying about their objectives instead of spending months gluing everything together.
Like OP mentioned, CDPs and Marketing automation are glue tools in a way but they have superficial data and are not meant for in-depth analysis.
This article is suggesting that higher than normal number of people who are on Autism spectrum explains the gender imbalance in tech industry. Further it is somehow attributing this to Damore's reasoning about his memo. There are a lot more normal people in the industry though - surely all the woes directed towards tech industry are not due to folks on the spectrum?
Having worked with normal devs and "brogrammers", I have a hard time accepting that the "brogrammer" that is constantly belittling others on the team, second guessing other's work output is on the Autism spectrum. Wouldn't someone on the Autism spectrum not want to draw everyone's attention towards themselves and just do their own work?
I had a friend in grade school who was on the Autism spectrum. From what I remember, he was awkward, self-aware, genius, not looking for attention - but he was never a jerk and if he knew he was making someone uncomfortable he would stop. To suggest that people on Autism spectrum are misunderstood as brogrammers is a stretch.
> This article is suggesting that higher than normal number of people who are on Autism spectrum explains the gender imbalance in tech industry.
I think this article is suggesting that autism is predominantly more prevalent in males, due to higher testosterone, and mild autism is beneficial for employment in tech.
That being said, if that were believed to be true, that would explain the prevalence of males in tech. And I've read Damore's reasoning for his memo - there's nothing explicitly objectionable about it except for the easily reasoned about backlash from most people. Which is sort of a sign of autism.
This is my story basically for many years. I've found having side project is even tougher as a mom than a dad (SO has been better at carving time for himself than me).
What I've found works is to be consistently working on same side project over time, dedicate some me-time and set small goals. Instead of trying too many new things, stick to same side project for months at a time. Also "book" a few hours every 2-3 weeks for myself and go work at a Starbucks instead of staying home. Finally set small achievable goals; what I would want to do in 1 day, spread that over a month.
It's easy to dismiss the push for diversity by saying that women themselves do not want to go into tech. I used to believe the same when I saw most of my girlfriends opt for non-tech majors - their reason being this is not my cup of tea. Made me feel superior for not only choosing tech, but also being successful academically and later in career.
Now that I have kids, I realize how early the push for conformation to some societal ideals starts. 3-4 yr old kids in day care already have this notion of how girls are not supposed to play with boys, they should look pretty all the time, they should not play rough with each other or other boys. Girls in 1st grade paying more attention to how their hair looks than how good they are reading/writing. I remember that many of my girlfriend's families passively discouraged them from going into male dominated majors, saying it would be easier for them in the long run.
Once, in a line at gamestop, I saw an altercation between a pre-teen girl and a pre-teen boy. The pre-teen boy was adamant that the girl should not be allowed to purchase a game he thought was meant just for boys. Neither of them knew each other. The girl's father interjected and made it clear to the boy that she can choose to play whatever game she wanted and it was not his job to keep her out of it. This is not abnormal in gaming world, grown men even today scorn on female gamers.
IMO, the best way to combat this problem is to have parents actively push their daughters into tech education from early years. Dads spending time with their daughters and giving them confidence that they can be as good as boys will work wonders. And I say Dad specifically because when the most important man in a girl's life shows her that she is as capable and can compete against other boys who will eventually become men, she cares less about fitting societal norms.
Besides your anecdotal evidence, there are strong proofs that the society is NOT influencing a woman's choice too much.
A gigantic survey (I could find references if you are interested) has shown that from ultra-repressive environments (Muslim or African countries) to ultra-liberal countries (Northern Europe) the percentage of women going into CS is about the same. It actually decreases a bit in progressive countries.
This strongly supports the fact that the environment does not matter, biological differences do.
A similarly plausible argument is that despite a lack of overtly regressive policies towards women in the West, there are still a number of cultural norms that influence their behaviour. Which is exactly the point the parent comment is making.
There was research done in various nordic countries that when men and women are free from severe economic selection pressure, They naturally prefer different roles something like nurse vs construction worker.
Also area's like India,when men and women are under more economic pressure, there is more gender equal distribution in fields.
I've had this explained to me as the "Nordic Paradox".
There is a good course on coursera just for recommendation systems. Evaluation of different models is something many algorithm oriented posts don't talk about but is covered well in this course.
Yes. I have used its material and found it helpful.
Machine learning: recommender systems and dimensionality reduction also looks good but it starts in July. If you are already familiar with dimensionality reduction techniques the first one should be enough to get you going. There are other self paced courses on dimensionality reduction on coursera too.
This is a good course for the fundamentals. Although IIRC the programming assignments aren't that great because it mostly involves plugging in their recommender system framework that was developed by one of the instructors
A decent CS undergrad degree decade ago included abstract math concepts. I took Engineering math, Information Theory, Numerical analysis, Probability, Simulation in my sophomore and Junior years. NLP and AI were electives in Senior year.
As a Junior, we were building toy programs that do Operations research type of work - solving linear equations via various matrix operations, design optimal queue processes based on poisson process.
Assuming a software engineer is a CS undergrad, he/she most likely has good footing to learn more by themselves.
In all fairness, that's pretty atypical of a standard CS degree. In my anecdotal experience (knowing people that went to Stanford/Berkeley/MIT/CMU), most people take at most 1 probability class, 1 linear algebra class, and maybe 1 AI/ML class. Info theory, NLP, numerical analysis, optimization, etc. are not at all common.
Or just got a CS degree too long ago. I got lots of discrete math - formal methods, automata theory, and number theory. All that stuff that's in Knuth. But no number-crunching beyond matrix inversion and Fourier transforms.
Bad CS school student here, we don't take any Math aside from a very basic "discrete structures" class, which is simplified discrete structures :/ Wish we did more math...
That all seems like quasi-maths, however. What hopefully was being referred to earlier is algebra and analysis, at least up to the 2nd iteration, so one has real understanding of methods of proof.
E.g - no probability class that doesn't require analysis 1 and 2 is truly a probability class.
Products (Raw Material <> Application use) Products to company (Supplier <> Buyer) People connected via companies and products
We are already seeing benefits of this in being able to easily discover new connections across products and companies. Our focus is right now on few verticals in manufacturing sector and hope to expand to wider manufacturing space at some point.