As far as the dialog, it is known that Facebook pays PR firms to improve their image by spreading misleading stories (see Definers Public Affairs), so I think there is reason to believe that some comments here may be disingenuous.
Exactly. The authors don't seem to have any basis for their explanations, and the title should really be "neural nets more accurate... on dating website images". Still this is significant, because these are the same images a government or business could potentially access for their own ends.
Yeah that was the first thing I noticed as well. I'm somewhat surprised (a little sad, even) that the BBC chose not to write it in the subjunctive mood, which is precisely what is required here.
I thought when I read the headline that Instagram was insisting (that is, reiterating) that Littergram was already renamed.
The subjunctive is ingrained in my internal English grammar model, as is the who-whom distinction. I've been thinking about dropping them, though. They have started to sound a bit elitist.
the betting argument is not the same as what is being discussed.
to a halver, the likelihood of heads and tails are still each 1/2, but the expected winnings of betting tails would of course be larger.
it would be like saying i'll flip a coin, and if you guess correctly that it's tails i'll give you a million dollars. obviously i will guess that it's tails, even though i still believe each outcome is equally likely.
