Fact-check of viral climate misinformation quietly removed from Facebook - <AUTHOR> https://popular.info/p/fact-check-of-viral-climate-misinformation?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo3MzQyNTMsInBvc3RfaWQiOjczNzE5NSwiXyI6InltL3hkIiwiaWF0IjoxNTk1MjQzNDMwLCJleHAiOjE1OTUyNDcwMzAsImlzcyI6InB1Yi0xNjY0Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.8KbuvtlorsxcLyrho1siReQsViHR6TPmpCGCtKDoMYk <comment><USER2> This is yet another reminder that climate change is not a science / technology issue. Science has been settled, technology exists. It's a moral courage issue. Moral courage that our leaders lack. So we have to do it ourselves. There are two broad categories of actions one can take. 1) personal life-style changes 2) system change activism. We are at the point where anyone concerned about the climate change has to do both. Nobody is gonna do it for you.

<comment><USER3> _Science has been settled_

Science can never be so arrogant. Most people probably know this but it's worth restating in a heated debate about the 'evidence': The _null hypothesis_ exists for a reason; that is because we can not prove anything. We can only eliminate those theories which are demonstrably false.

<comment><USER4> As far as I know, there is no heated debate about the evidence among climate scientists, at least not on the points that matter for policy decisions. The debate only exists outside of expert circles.

<comment><USER5> There is no real debate about whether climate change is real nor whether or not it is a major threat, but there is still debate on policy-relevant points. I'm not a climate scientist myself, but I do work with a bunch of them and from what I gather from talking to them there is still a lot of work and debate over consequences, remediation, and urgency. The latter mostly ranging from "extremely urgent but we still have time to avoid the most severe consequences" to "it's too late to prevent widespread disasters and we need to try to minimize the worst."

<comment><USER6> Right, there is plenty of confidence that climate change is real and caused by humans, but pretty much zero confidence in the long term effects of climate change on human population.

<comment><USER7> Yeah; nobody knows for certain how long we've got left. Could be a century or more, could be a few decades. Personally, I'd rather not risk it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Is this the original controversial article : [https://quillette.com/2020/06/30/on-behalf-of- environmentali...](https://quillette.com/2020/06/30/on-behalf-of- environmentalists-i-apologize-for-the-climate-scare/) which was reproduced in Daily Wire???

Is there a link to copy of what got censored by facebook?

It would be good to have access to original material being discussed.

<comment><USER9> This is not the original article, it was published on "The Daily Wire" and titled something about 12 climate myths based on this article.

But it is the same author. Maybe the "Daily Wire" piece was a rewriting of this?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> It is poignant to see a Louisiana congressperson pushing for disinformation to be unmarked, especially climate change disinformation, since Louisiana is continually falling into the sea due to climate change. In some sense, they do it to themselves.

Edit: Downvoters, look at the satellite images [0] and tell me that Louisiana isn't drowning, falling into the sea. Tell me that Louisiana doesn't do this to itself with jungle primaries and fake maps. By deliberately ignoring the problem, they make it worse.

[0] [https://nsf.gov/news/mmg/media/images/sea_level4_h1.jpg](https://nsf.gov/news/mmg/media/images/sea_level4_h1.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER11> They fact checked "Humans are not causing a massive 6th extinction" as false.

So we are causing an extinction as big-ish as the last 5 and that's settled science? Not allowed to debate?

That's why you can't trust fact checkers.

And a big wow lie from the fact checkers, it implies he wants coal fired stoves.

"Our work has shown much higher cancer risk from coal-burning stoves compared to wood-burning stoves"

Noone anywhere is suggesting people go to coal fired stoves. What a lie, clearly he is talking electric stoves, which is know as fact would save hundreds of thousands of lives yearly if people went to. This is a huge push in the NGO's dealing with health.

Original article -

[https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp- content/uploads/2020/06/Schel...](https://wattsupwiththat.com/wp- content/uploads/2020/06/Schellenberger-Apology.pdf)

<comment><USER4> The Wikipedia article uses pretty strong language

"The Holocene extinction, otherwise referred to as the sixth mass extinction or Anthropocene extinction, is an ongoing extinction event of species during the present Holocene epoch (with the more recent time sometimes called Anthropocene) as a result of human activity."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction)

It also has a lot of references. You can always debate scientific results, but for many topics you need to be an expert in the field and bring some serious data to support your opinions if you don't want to be laughed out of the room. Most "debates" don't feature that kind of argument.

<comment><USER11> Obviously I'm cherry picking, but here's a explanation why we aren't

Earth Is Not in the Midst of a Sixth Mass Extinction [https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/the- ends...](https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/06/the-ends-of-the- world/529545/)

Pretty pic with info on the first 5 - [https://www.sciencealert.com/images/2019-11/file-20191111-17...](https://www.sciencealert.com/images/2019-11/file-20191111-178484-1e7unnm1.png)

Doing a quick literature review I'm not seeing much at all on the "Sixth Mass Extinction". There are mostly the same articles from wiki.

No one is doubting we are extincting species at a rate far beyond anything normal. This is nothing to do with a Sixth Mass Extinction though, that's many steps up.

What international bodies recognise it? Do we have any data on how many scientists agree?</comment></comment></comment>


Understand what AI sees - <AUTHOR> https://hackernoon.com/understanding-what-artificial-intelligence-actually-sees-7d4e5b9e648e <comment><USER2> To state the obvious, AI doesn't see anything. What people call AI is simply a statistical model, a system of equations. By solving it, we find a solution that solves the equations simultaneously. The model doesn't see anything, because it doesn't exist as such. It simply is a series of calculations done on a computer or on a piece of paper.

<comment><USER3> Then biological brains don't see anything either.

<comment><USER4> I'm not sure your conclusion follows. We agree that we "see" things because we have the conscious experience of doing so and we talk about it.

Nothing remotely analogous happens with current AI algorithms.

<comment><USER5> >We agree that we "see" things

That's precisely the epistemic problem. _We_ agree that we see things. Since "we" have no experience of being an AI, we have no way of affirming or denying what "their" experience may or may not be (apart from mere chauvinistic dismissal, ie "'they' [and their hardware+software] aren't like us [and our brains], therefore 'they' can't be conscious").

<comment><USER6> They don't have a conscious experience.

<comment><USER5> I happen to agree with your conclusion, but since _we 're_ not part of "they," neither of us can know for sure. That's my point.

Merely by examining the hardware, the human brain doesn't look like it should support consciousness either. Our inability to identify consciousness by inspection does not deny consciousness _in vivo_ , why should it do so _in silico_?

Re: burden of proof, let me be clear what I'm saying here. _In silico_ consciousness has not been proven _or_ ruled out, because we have not yet developed a _material_ definition of consciousness, ie one that can be applied merely be examining the hardware. It's not that we've disproven it (as "they don't have conscious experience" suggests), it's that _we don 't yet even know what we should be disproving!_

It's not like we have a Consciousness Detector Box ala C&H, which flawlessly classifies all human brains as conscious merely by examining the configuration of the atoms in the box. All we have are functional definitions which look at human behavior.

If we don't even know conscious hardware+software when we see it (namely our brains), how can we say for sure whether X is or isn't conscious, for any arbitrary X?

<comment><USER7> > because we have not yet developed a material definition of consciousness, ie > one that can be applied merely be examining the hardware

It's not a metaphysical puffy thing (unexplainable or inscrutable) or a property of the brain itself - it's the ability of an agent to act in an environment in a way that maximises its rewards. Biological rewards are tied to survival and self reproduction. So consciousness is what happens when there is an agent, an environment and a stream of rewards to be gained, where the agent learns to understand its situation and acts in an intelligent way, learning from its past mistakes and experiences. All these concepts are covered by unsupervised learning and reinforcement learning. That's a material definition of consciousness.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I was actually giving an example to my friend on ML vision applications over the hotdog app. The underlying network probably only recognises a red shape surrounded by lighter parts, as opposed to understanding _conceptually_ what a hotdog is. The USB example of course is an extreme case of that.

<comment><USER9> Eh? What does conceptually mean?

<comment><USER10> The AI sees data/markers/patterns that look like something it's seen before, as opposed to actually comprehending that it sees a tube of meat that people call a hot dog.

The best metaphor I can think of is the cognitive difference between navigating a transit station that has signs in your native language, and one that you spent a couple of hours learning on Duolingo - with the latter, you aren't really understanding anything, just associating a:b::x:y.

<comment><USER11> This might be another formulation of the "Chinese Room" argument: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room)

If every action is the same -- that is, if you produce some actions which would have been produced if you "conceptualized" it rather than merely "memorized" it -- isn't that identical?

The only thing we can do in life is make decisions. Regardless of how they're derived, if those decisions are identical to yours, isn't that entity "you" in some sense?

<comment><USER5> >if those decisions are identical to yours, isn't that entity "you" in some sense?

If by "decisions" you mean every single nerve impulse in response to every possible set of stimuli, then that's pretty exacting. Every wobble while standing, every mouth movement answering any possible question, etc.

Also, how do you determine if the responses are "identical?" It's not like we can rewind reality and play it back, substituting yourself for an AI. And due to quantum nondeterminism, even if you played it back with no substitution your actions will diverge over time! If you're not considered identical to _yourself_ , how is that a useful definition/test of "identicality"?

At the required fidelity, this thought-experiment is problematic both in theory and in practice. It obscures more than it illuminates imo.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I was always puzzled by human's experience of "seeing". When you "see redness" for example. It was very hard for me to explain it to other people before I found that there is special term called "qualia":

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia)

And I have absolutely no idea how to make machines experience "qualia". Any sophisticated image/motion recognition is rather trivial stuff compared to achieving mysterious "qualia".

</comment><comment><USER13> I believe models with attention are more appropriate for 'telling' what they re focusing on , at least if the question is which part of the image they re focusing on

<comment><USER14> Attention is only (edit: typically) for sequential models (e.g. time series), not image-based convolution models.

<comment><USER15> Untrue! Three are a number of valid strategies for using attention in non sequential models. Attention is really just generating a mask to apply on a feature representation; it generalized perfectly well to classical models.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Isn't this pretty far behind the state of the art for white box neural nets? Which would use the first layer's activation to do something similar?

<comment><USER11> Could you give some references for an ML novice to learn these techniques? (Papers, books, anything.) I've been studying ML, but I'm not advanced enough yet to know effective ways to learn state of the art methods.

<comment><USER16> I just try to follow along, I don't really get into the details. The bit I was referencing was from a blog post that was on here a while ago: [https://ai.googleblog.com/2018/03/the-building-blocks-of- int...](https://ai.googleblog.com/2018/03/the-building-blocks-of- interpretability.html). That said, I've seen the following listed as good resources:

fast.ai

The Google ML crash course

Andrew Ng's Coursera course

If reddit's your thing, it also looks like there's a sub, [https://www.reddit.com/r/learnmachinelearning/](https://www.reddit.com/r/learnmachinelearning/), that might be helpful.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> We need to invent a quad type machine ( opposed to the current binary model) where we have a "maybe" type of data structure.

Yes and a No and a MaybeYes and MaybeNo.

<comment><USER18> Other kinds have existed.

Ternary computers [0], where the most famous examples come from the Soviet Union.

And whilst I'm not aware of any computer that used the quaternary numerical system, it should be possible.

However, none of that necessarily means it's a good idea or necessary to perform quaternary logic.

[0] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ternary_computer](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ternary_computer)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you build the marketing site for your SaaS app? - <AUTHOR> This is for anyone running a SaaS business - what tools/apps do you use for building and maintaining the marketing site for your product? I mean the home landing page, with the copy, video, testimonials, etc, the pricing pages, blog, and other content pages, which are NOT the product.
I always find that I build up the product part of my app easily, and leave the marketing site for the end and then scramble to put something together before launch. Editing the content later is also annoying, because I need to commit to the repo for it, and I don't like doing that for content.
Just wondering how others deal with this. <comment><USER2> The latest pattern I've been following is to treat the marketing portion of your business as a separate entity from your application. I use an amazon s3 bucket set to static web hosting. Not only is this incredibly cheap but it reduces the load on your application and scales.

I usually use some combination of Rails for the application and I think its a great pattern to keep non-customer load off of app resources. By keeping it as a separate project, your uneasiness surround committing to your app repo marketing changes is alleviated.

</comment><comment><USER3> Step one, have the app on a separate subdomain from your marketing site.

Initial version, use Unbounce or Squarespace or whatever gets you moving with the least wasted effort.

Later on, you probably want a CMS so it's easy for non-technical users to update. WordPress is happy because of adoption levels, then throw money at WPEngine to handle many of the more common issues for you.

You could use Drupal or some custom thing if you WANT...but make sure you have a benefit equation that justifies it. The more custom your solution is, the more maintenance overhead you commit yourself to.

For stuff like landing pages, set up a site style guide. It may also be helpful to standardize on a style library like Bootstrap or Bourbon Neat. Don't make people reinvent the wheel every time.

Then add tools like Optimizely, Woopra, Kissmetrics, Intercom, Snappy. Your major bases to cover are generally testing, tracking, and customer interaction.

It may also be helpful to add a content management tool like GatherContent. WordPress may be easy to update but planning what to update and aggregating assets for it is a completely different problem.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, those are the various options I was considering. Have you used any of them successfully for a SaaS app specifically?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> We used a WordPress installation with a $8 theme. That made it look pretty decent while I could focus on building the app.

Since then we haven't found a reason to move away from WordPress. It's been fairly easy finding affordable WordPress developers whenever we want to do a big redesign. And allows us to focus on our actual product instead of wasting time building a hacked-together CMS.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your response, Anthony. Do you self-host the Wordpress site?

<comment><USER4> We used DreamHost at first since it was practically free. Then moved over to WPEngine once we got a bit more serious.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The marketing page for a Rails app is usually the index action of a controller I name "home" for me, but I don't mind pushing marketing changes to a repo.

I've seen others write up a really basic CMS for their marketing pages: have a "page" object with a title and body, and render the page named "home" on the home page.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, that's what I typically do too. But, the result is usually not very impressive. Just looks like Bootstrap. Also, it's not just the homepage, at the minimum there's a pricing and sign up page too.

Just wondering, what SaaS apps do you run?

<comment><USER5> Hah, I have no problem with bootstrap, as you'll see:

* [http://emailtipbot.com](http://emailtipbot.com)

* [http://textbooksplease.com](http://textbooksplease.com)

* [http://dbinbox.com](http://dbinbox.com)

I'd put the pricing and signup pages as other actions on the home controller.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Use a popular CMS like Wordpress, Drupal or if you're language specific e.g. Python, Django.

That way you can worry less about the marketing site and more about the product. It also means you can hand-off content and copy to someone non- technical if required.</comment>


Zynga team announces testing Bitcoin payment using Bitpay - <AUTHOR> http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1udclz/zynga_launches_bitcoin_test_with_bitpay/

<comment><USER2> I seem to recall reading that Zynga has in excess of 200,000,000 monthly users. If nothing else, the exposure will be interesting.</comment>


Definitive List of CSS Frameworks – Pick Your Style - <AUTHOR> http://www.w3avenue.com/2009/04/29/definitive-list-of-css-frameworks-pick-your-style/

<comment><USER2> Compass deserves a mention, despite it being a Sass-based meta-framework rather than a straight CSS framework.

<comment><USER3> After first I hated Compass (and Haml and Sass) - I didn't mind futzing around with CSS, especially with a nice editor, like CSSEdit. But after using Compass on a project, working with a regular CSS file is just painful. I wouldn't be surprised if editors start supporting Compass in the future.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Does anyone have recommendations for CSS framework that manage grid-based layouts? I've been using YUI Grids up to this point but have been wondering if there are other frameworks to consider.

<comment><USER5> I tend to use 960.gs when a grid is appropriate. Honestly, I looked at that and Blueprint, flipped a coin, and came out with 960. It did enough of what I need at that time and I've stuck with it since.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> the best thing about these css frameworks is because they are built to be maintained and such, reading through them can give you ideas for coding practices.

if you can't write your own css, then you're a document creator, much like someone who edits a word document. of all the complexities involved in web development, css is a minor one, and you don't need a framework (javascript is a different story). someone had to say it.

<comment><USER5> CSS resets are extremely useful and there is little need to reinvent them every time you make a page. A lot of people will eventually come up with their own base typography rules at some point as well. And grids are extremely helpful in eliminating some headaches and speeding up development. These are all components of most frameworks.

None of these "frameworks" do much of anything besides some routine stuff that saves your some start up time. Telling everyone that they don't need them is a bit ridiculous. If it saves you time, makes your life easier, or have some other benefit to you, they are worth your time. For example, 960 isn't a "framework" in the same magnitude that RoR or JQuery is a framework. The problems that a CSS framework solves are much smaller than most other frameworks. 960 took all of 10 seconds to figure out and has been helpful in quickly tossing page layouts together. It has shown itself to be very reliable across browsers and certainly beats having to test your CSS layouts on IE, Firefox and Safari. The constant edit-save-refresh CSS testing cycle is a lot easier with a CSS reset and manageable grid system. Also, with 960, you aren't running away from CSS. You still need to know CSS to do anything useful with it, it just solves a few immediate issues with CSS and then gets out of your way.

<comment><USER6> agreed on css reset, i use "Reset Reloaded" <http://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2007/05/01/reset-reloaded/></comment></comment></comment>


The Internal Clitoris, which wasn't properly mapped until 2009 (2011) - <AUTHOR> http://blog.museumofsex.com/the-internal-clitoris/ <comment><USER2> Highlighting this for importance:

        "When I returned to France to treat genital mutilation, I
         was amazed that they were never tried. The medical
         literature tells us the truth about our contempt for
         women. For three centuries, there are thousands of
         references to penile surgery, nothing on the clitoris,
         except for some cancers or dermatology -and nothing to
         restore its sensitivity. The very existence of an organ
         of pleasure is denied, medically. Today, if you look at
         the anatomy books that all surgeons have, you will find
         two pages above. There is a real intellectual excision."

No doubt someone will try to nitpick it, saying something like, "Well <inconsequential part of a man's body> wasn't documented until <year slightly earlier than 2009> so I don't see why it's such a big deal!"

The fact of the matter is, though, that a body part crucial to a woman's sexual pleasure wasn't even properly _documented_ until _2009_ , while a pill released solely to make men have more sex was put on the market _10 years earlier_.[0] In a world where 140 million women have experienced genital mutilation,[1] and women are still shamed for having any sort of sexual experience[2] to the point where politicians[3] and even pharmacists[4] want to ban birth control, there's no way that's not indicative of a problem our culture still has regarding female sexuality.

[0]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sildenafil](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sildenafil)

[1]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation)

[2]: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slut- shaming](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slut-shaming)

[3]: [http://www.care2.com/causes/after-banning-almost-all- abortio...](http://www.care2.com/causes/after-banning-almost-all-abortions- arkansas-gop-targets-birth-control.html)

[4]: [http://www.prevention.com/health/healthy-living/new-birth- co...](http://www.prevention.com/health/healthy-living/new-birth-control-ban)

Edit: Of course this story disappears off the front page. Oh sure, an article about a 1912 school test and _yet another_ log on the NSA hate fire sit up at #1 and #3 respectively, but God forbid someone posts about _female genitalia_. Really just proving the point.

<comment><USER3> > to the point where politicians[3] and even pharmacists[4] want to ban birth > control

If you want this problem to get better, it would help to blame the right thing, which is religion.

<comment><USER2> ...which oppresses female sexuality.

Saying it's the fault of religion doesn't help solve anything. It's individuals who decide to interpret the Bible in ways that harm women, just like other individuals can consider themselves Christian, or Muslim, or Jewish, and still support women's right to birth control.

<comment><USER3> > It's individuals who decide to interpret the Bible in ways that harm women

And on what grounds are you going to claim that they should interpret their holy books differently?

There is only one valid, fundamental basis for making arguments one way or another, and that's reason. Religion is a systematic (albeit, potentially compartmentalized) rejection of reason.

Fortunately, going by reason, we can establish (with significant effort) that it is in everyone's interest to recognize certain rights for human beings, and we can institute governments to protect those rights. And, we can establish (with some effort) that hurting women is destructive and evil and malevolent.

Trying to argue from any other perspective is just saying, "It should be this way, just because."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I am a little confused, to be honest, how to hack the clitoris.

Interesting material, though.

EDIT: And by hack, I mean get at its fundamentals, not the more archaic meaning of hack (color me embarrassed by insensitive language)

<comment><USER5> Start thinking of it as a little penis. Treat it like one! It is much more than the "head" or glans.

In the great tradition of Revenge of the Nerds (1984) [1], we have been hacking the clitoris for a long time.

I especially am a fan of this: [https://github.com/scanlime/arduino-lelo- remote](https://github.com/scanlime/arduino-lelo-remote)

Hack the Clitoris!

[1] [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088000/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088000/)

<comment><USER6> >In the great tradition of Revenge of the Nerds (1984)

In which the protagonist commits rape by fraud, dressing up in a costume of Betty's boyfriend, then having sex with her under false pretenses? Probably not the best movie to shine as a star of anything good sexually. (The peeping tom crap too)

<comment><USER5> Wow our culture today! My stars.

It's my interpretation that the protagonist in question provides oral sex to the lady and stimulated her clitoris in ways her jock boyfriend never thought or knew how to. It's my understanding she definitely enjoyed that. It is also my understanding that she was not too pleased to find out who was behind the mask at first.

It's further my understanding that Revenge of the Nerds II: Nerds in Paradise (1987) [1] intimates that they then became something of an "item" (in today's terms that means they dated!).

Finally, it's my understanding that it's a fun movie and not a manual for life.

[1] [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093857](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093857)

<comment><USER6> That's not our culture today. That was the culture 29 years ago.

Her reaction and enjoyment at a later time is immaterial: It's rape (or sexual assault, depending on jurisdiction) to have sex this way.

Rape and sexual assault are something you can pick out before you engage in them.

>it's a fun movie and not a manual for life.

It certainly can be a fun movie and have misguided lessons for people. Many old pieces of art do this, but are still enjoyable in other places. That said, the bad parts should still be pointed out clearly as bad, even if it taints enjoyable experiences of our youth. They aren't harmless. They normalize this crap and convince young fools this type of thing is fun instead of criminal.

<comment><USER2> _Exactly_. Pointing out that problematic elements exist in a piece of media does not mean that piece can't be enjoyed! Just that one should be aware of those elements and understand why they are problematic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> cupcake-unicorn Oh my god, I misread that as "the INTERNET clitoris" because you get those lovely "Map of the internet" things...</comment>


Forestdb: A repository for generative models - <AUTHOR> http://forestdb.org/ <comment><USER2> This is very interesting, and a good collection of algorithms. But before digging I didn't know what Church [0] was, and took me a while to figure out that this is what the algorithms are written in. You may want to put a note on the page somewhere for those new to the language.

[0] [http://projects.csail.mit.edu/church/wiki/Church](http://projects.csail.mit.edu/church/wiki/Church)

</comment><comment><USER3> For context: [https://probmods.org](https://probmods.org) "In this book, we explore the probabilistic approach to cognitive science, which models learning and reasoning as inference in complex probabilistic models. In particular, we examine how a broad range of empirical phenomena in cognitive science (including intuitive physics, concept learning, causal reasoning, social cognition, and language understanding) can be modeled using a functional probabilistic programming language called Church."

</comment><comment><USER4> The Github repository because the link on the page returns 404: [https://github.com/forestdb/forestdb.org](https://github.com/forestdb/forestdb.org)

</comment><comment><USER5> This is not about procedural 3D models but something unspecified I have no clue about.

<comment><USER6> It is about generative models - models that let us draw samples from complicated distributions.</comment></comment>