Slashdot Mirror

It seems to me that there is lots of beforehand issues here and I see a problem with that. This doesn't seem too scientific. Why could you know that there was a black hole there?

Katie Bouman discussed this in her TED talk about the algorithm she designed to sift through the data. With black holes particularly, no one has seen in visible light but that doesn't mean that they cannot be detected. Could it be something else other than a black hole? Yes. However no other model of an object matching all the criteria exists. For your other questions, I suggest you talk to an actual scientist.

TED: Juliet Brophy on Homo naledi — March 2018

Pretty good, by the standards of 2018 TED. Many new questions, ultimately no new theories of any real depth, and mostly a lot of excited "more research needed".

That YouTube account has no relationship to TED. I'm not sure how the video was distributed, but TED was NOT involved. On the TED website, they initially pretended the talk never existed. Then there was a discussion, but it was quickly aborted.

TED claims to own that account, if you know otherwise please post a link. https://blog.ted.com/how-did-n...
The youtube link I provided is the same as in the blog.

Hilarious this talk is not available on.

Truely hilarious is that the talk in question was posted by TED on youtube https://youtube.com/watch?v=bB...
TED does not host every talk on their home page.

Hilarious this talk is not available on.

So I'd heard a lot about TED talks, had seen a few on video, and in considering this question, I wondered, what can the subjects be about? Here are the 25 most popular TED talks. They're supposed to 18 minutes or less. The acronym stands for "Technology, Entertainment, Design". So, some ideas I'd like to see:

Technology:
* "Avoiding "Guru Syndrome": Start with the Tenerife crash, where two 747s collided on the runway. The copilots knew something was f-cky but wouldn't tell/challenge the captain, and ended with 583 dead in a fireball as the 747s collided at takeoff speed. In programming, in business, in the workplace, one guy sometimes can be though of as knowing everything. He doesn't.

* "Listening With Humility": No matter how smart you are, and no matter how dumb your client, user or patient is, listen with humility, listen like you're trying to learn, and you can get better results.

Business:
* "Stopping Control Fraud": How to create organizational structures which are resistant to control fraud.

* "How to persuade people to give you money?": I am definitely no expert at this, but I'd like to see a discussion. I see panhandler and charities making money - what desire are they fulfilling in people? I see squeegee boys getting money - what desire are they fulfilling in their "patrons"? I see patent trolls, landlords, pharmaceutical companies, prostitutes, government contractors, lawyers: Why do people give each other money?

Finance:
* "What is money?": How do we get people to pick up the trash at zero dark thirty in freezing weather, slaughter cattle, lay pavement, build skyscrapers, go to war, with slips of paper?

* "What is MMT?": Funding the government via seignorage is an old idea that typically doesn't end well. Why is it becoming popular again?

* "What drives the economy?": I'd say it's human desire. Can it be reduced to equations? Or do you need a coherent theory of human behavior first?
 

Flickr photo sets have been used for computational work loads and data mining for well over a decade, this is hardly NEWs.

https://www.ted.com/talks/blai...

There it is, the unmatched confidence of a Slashdot AC!

Here you are. Ignore that it's a TED talk, they do actually have legit people on occasionally, and Hans Rosling is one of those.

https://www.ted.com/talks/hans...

Indeed.

Here's to hoping technological advances, or happenstance, bail us out of this without catastrophic regression.

Not meaning to downplay the significance of this breakthrough but early last year synthetic biologist Floyd E. Romesberg already announced the creation of two additional synthetic letters.

https://www.ted.com/talks/joe_...

I've heard something eerie similar on TED quite a lot time ago: Suzanne Simard: How trees talk to each other | TED Talk, and Greg Gage: Electrical experiments with plants that count and communicate | TED Talk. There are many other TED talks about the topic of plants' nervous system, intelligence and communication. This kinda invalidates the whole premise of vegetarianism but I don't want to argue about that now.

I've heard something eerie similar on TED quite a lot time ago: Suzanne Simard: How trees talk to each other | TED Talk, and Greg Gage: Electrical experiments with plants that count and communicate | TED Talk. There are many other TED talks about the topic of plants' nervous system, intelligence and communication. This kinda invalidates the whole premise of vegetarianism but I don't want to argue about that now.

You can't feed in a bunch of musical information to a computer and have it spontaneously generate music.

Check this out:
Aiva
Related TED talk
Looks like this is coming along...

None of the short comments on this thread seem to be showing much understanding of the problem. This last comment (your [Luckyo's] second) might be related to some aspect of the real problem. I was actually looking for some more data for this topic for my students today. In addition to a section early in Homo Deus and this TED video: https://www.ted.com/talks/jenn..., though both of them seem to be too dismissive of the threats.

I actually think the most likely doomsday scenario is a bioweapon. Genetic manipulation makes it more more likely that some fools will do it inadvertently in the belief they have targeted the weapon accurately enough to only kill their genetically marked enemies.

On one point of apparent confusion in my position (but shallow thinkers are just so eager to construct straw men (because they can sometimes defeat them)) I would actually say that we should not apply passive eugenics against random mutations. We should start from the basis of allowing parents to select in favor of their best genes, but when mutations occur, we should not eliminate them. However, we should essentially have a form of social insurance to cover the costs, because most of the mutations are going to be negative. Time's up, but ADSAuPR, atAJG.

in our free society

It's really free? https://www.ted.com/talks/jaro... https://libreflix.org/assistir... https://libreflix.org/assistir...
* most Venezuelans think they are in a 'free society', so are most Russians and Turkeys, etc...

So what this means is that a computer has decided Microsoft shares will go up in value by enough to make day trading in Microsoft shares highly profitable.

None of these algorithms would work were it not for the boundary condition that many people invested in the market are investing for value, i.e. a future share in the underlying profit stream.

The second stable semi-stable pool are the people busy hedging their bets to create a stable business environment. A proper hedge is conceptually a moving target. Hedge positions need to slosh around a bit all the time. What the speculators are doing is projecting where all this sloshing will find its natural equilibrium. For this service, they extract a profit, sometimes a large profit.

Otherwise, all the hedge funds would attempt to debark on the same appealing tropical island to ride out a storm, and there would be serious run on coconut milk, and soon the "pomegranate" Pina Coladas would be haemoglobin infused.

Moral of the story: you can't all hedge to the same shelter at the same time. Speculators increase the convergence rate to acceptable shelter occupancy levels. They're the PID controllers of nervous nelliehood.

The mathematician who cracked Wall Street — March 2015

Chris Anderson: But should we worry about the hedge fund industry attracting too much of the world's great mathematical and other talent to work on that, as opposed to the many other problems in the world?

Jim Simons: Well, it's not just mathematical. We hire astronomers and physicists and things like that. I don't think we should worry about it too much. It's still a pretty small industry. And in fact, bringing science into the investing world has improved that world. It's reduced volatility. It's increased liquidity. Spreads are narrower because people are trading that kind of stuff. So I'm not too worried about Einstein going off and starting a hedge fund.

Right, the average physicist couldn't math the hell out of a wet paper bag. And it's almost complete bullshit on another level, too, because much of the profit is driven by having a pre-eminent vantage point, which is extracted by rent rather than mojo.

But it's not complete bullshit. Underneath all that, the speculators are indeed performing a small, valuable service in smoothing out the dynamic behaviours of a too-complex system.

This is hardly ever explained at length by anyone competent on the inside, because very quickly any smart person can tell that this explanation's dick is small compared to the total volume of proceeds extracted (which only serves to heighten attention to the rent side of the business).

But since (for this reason) it's rarely mentioned, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist at all.

Jim Simons: We stayed ahead of the pack by finding other approaches -- shorter-term approaches to some extent. The real thing was to gather a tremendous amount of data -- and we had to get it by hand in the early days. We went down to the Federal Reserve and copied interest rate histories and stuff like that, because it didn't exist on computers.

We got a lot of data. And very smart people -- that was the key. I didn't really know how to hire people to do fundamental trading. I had hired a few -- some made money, some didn't make money. I couldn't make a business out of that. But I did know how to hire scientists, because I have some taste in that department. So, that's what we did. And gradually these models got better and better, and better and better.

Maybe it's something else I read about this guy (he's directly connected to a controversial Robert Mercer, and Peter F. Brown, and a huge pile of NLP research papers I once amassed myself back in the 1990s) but he does point out that the cream here

And yet somehow the Fashion Industry survives without copyright

In school kids are taught to share their toys.
As adults digital sharing is illegal and (excessively) fined.
And people wonder why there is cognitive dissonance.

In talking along these lines, this ted-talk comes to mind. It's Michael Shermer talking about how we allow ourselves to be deceived by fake devices and the like. One of the very interesting thing that he points out is that someone invented a "dowsing" device to create probable cause to find drugs in school lockers. You'll like the video.

https://www.ted.com/talks/tim_...

https://www.ted.com/talks/tim_...

So this was a talk he gave in 2014. Up to the minute news here on Slashdot now eh?

Here's an example of a TED-Ed talk, "The benefits of a bilingual brain - Mia Nacamulli": https://ed.ted.com/lessons/how...

Left/right hemisphere dominance in the brain is a myth. We use all of the brain all of the time. Different areas are associated with particular tasks but each region is almost always associated with more than one task, e.g. Broca's area is famously associated with grammar, but also with action recognition & gestures.

Critical period hypothesis is controversial & probably not true, except for accents.

Bilingualism doesn't prevent the onset of Alzheimer's, it's just that the symptoms are less apparent in bilingual patients because they compensate for the effects better.

Bilingualism is no more cognitively beneficial than exercise, playing board games, or socialising, i.e. there's nothing special about bilingualism.

And they managed to pack those errors and more into just 5 minutes.

No, you can get more accurate, comprehensive, coherent, peer-reviewed information for free from Open Textbooks, e.g. https://open.bccampus.ca/find-... & https://openstax.org/subjects

"What makes you think change in society, which you call progress, will be an improvement?"
Go read The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined by Stephen Pinker, or watch the TED talk summary.

I watch a TED talk by the head of googles driverless car project. He said in the talk that you cant partially automate a car for exactly this reason. Has to be all or nothing. Google new this years ago. See here https://www.ted.com/talks/chri...

I disagree to some extent. You can and should automate the absolute safety features. Making a car try to not hit other things will reduce accidents, injuries and fatalities.

I think from there is the leap point. If your car is very very good at preventing you from hitting things, then it can also be relied upon by a navigation system to go in a certain direction and towards a destination without hitting things. Then worst case the navigation system screws up and you have to manually intervene to direct the car where to go.

I think however collision avoidance systems need to reliably prevent collisions that would otherwise be the drivers fault and additionally help mitigate collisions that wouldn't be the drivers fault. Practically speaking they will be held to a higher standard than humans are.

From that sociological perspective the system should be able to do everything a human actually does to avoid a collision (not just what we think we do after the fact through false memories).

The social problem it seems today, as reflected in the headline and discussion, is that a system can be scientifically proven to make driving 30% to 40% safer and the headline and most of the story is apparently about the downside risks rather than the opportunity to save thousands or even tens of thousands of people through wider adoption of this technology. 30% of a big number is a big number.

Put another way and it seems that people are recognizing that the technology makes driving safer and they are slacking off a bit. Unfortunate, but even with this human factor they are reporting a 30% to 40% risk reduction which is huge.

I watch a TED talk by the head of googles driverless car project. He said in the talk that you cant partially automate a car for exactly this reason. Has to be all or nothing. Google new this years ago. See here https://www.ted.com/talks/chri...

Perhaps a misinterpretation of this one which claims that "female fertility peaks at age 28, and things get tricky after age 35"?

Eureka! I finally figured this out.

Not having to plug and unplug the wire really is a convenience.

The kind of people enamored with convenience are the same people who also find it inconvenient to pause to quantify the magnitude of any benefit received. The proxy metric becomes number of mandatory, minor context switches out of narcissism fugue.

The first secret of design is ... noticing — March 2015

For example, see this piece of fruit? See this little sticker? That sticker wasn't there when I was a kid. But somewhere as the years passed, someone had the bright idea to put that sticker on the fruit. Why? So it could be easier for us to check out at the grocery counter.

Well that's great, we can get in and out of the store quickly. But now, there's a new problem. When we get home and we're hungry and we see this ripe, juicy piece of fruit on the counter, we just want to pick it up and eat it. Except now, we have to look for this little sticker. And dig at it with our nails, damaging the flesh. Then rolling up that sticker — you know what I mean. And then trying to flick it off your fingers.

(Applause) It's not fun, not at all.

My first reaction to this—and it's never changed—is to thank my lucky stars I don't suffer from Sticker Peeling Annoyance Syndrome. What a horrible way to have to live.

Comedians know all about this. Jerry Seinfeld's entire career was built on noticing those little details, those idiotic things we do every day that we don't even remember. He tells us about the time he visited his friends and he just wanted to take a comfortable shower. He'd reach out and grab the handle and turn it slightly one way, and it was 100 degrees too hot. And then he'd turn it the other way, and it was 100 degrees too cold. He just wanted a comfortable shower. Now, we've all been there, we just don't remember it. But Jerry did, and that's a comedian's job.

I'm sure every engineer has watched their non-engineering spouse try to set the car temperature by making a major initial adjustment, and then never accounting for the feedback delay tau (either the initial cold-start tau, or the subsequent recirculation-delay tau), so this is promptly followed by an extreme adjustment (equilibrium has now departed the grocery wagon for the next half hour).

Voila! Shower Temperature Adjustment Syndrome, exactly as Jerry describes.

What Tony Fadell fails to add is this: all the same things Jerry notices are the sandpaper of George Costanza's existence.

If you are George Costanza, you can loose a pitched emotional battle with a small fruit label. That's Seinfeld's world.

Jerry actually said (IRL) that Seinfeld couldn't exist in modern times. Kramer would text, and never crash the perimeter—unless he had to come over to use Jerry's charging matt, because his own matt failed (perhaps he tried to charge his phone after it was vacuumed up by his Roomba—he was only concerned, in the short term, about hearing a certain ring tone).

And then—inevitably—the glorious communal convenience of the charging matt would lead to soured romantic interests all around.

Of course, if Kramer never actually gets his phone out of his Roomba (and he finds a charging matt sufficient to the cause), they actually could resurrect Seinfeld (at least in Trump's white America) and continue to have Kramer crashing the gates in every episode.

A TED talk on Impostor Syndrome popped up in my Facebook feed this morning. Must be the flavour of the month. Or perhaps Facebook's algorithms are making some assumptions about me...

> Let's face it, if you have someone's IP without paying for it, it's IP theft, and no amount of "but I'm poor" justifies it.

/sarcasm Damn! And here all the gifts I've given/received actually turned out to be "IP theft"! Who knew!

/sarcasm Wait till my family finds out that they are commiting "IP theft" when I buy a DVD / BluRay and they watch it for free !

/sarcasm Who knew that Libraries were part of IP theft !? My friends can rent a book / CD / DVD and we can all enjoy it. OH NO!

/sarcasm Wait till you find out about Project Gutenberg -- one can read over 57,000 books! /sarcasm Look at ALL that IP theft!

On a more serious note, you are out of touch with reality. It is obvious you don't have a clue how the Fashion Industry works. It has no copyright or patent protection and yet it thrives.

Are you against books / movies / games passing into the public domain after X amount of time?

* If so, then WHAT length of time is reasonable ?
* If not, then why do you get to hold culture hostage? What gives you the right to dictate to who I can or can't share it with after you are dead??

> whining about their entitlement to intellectual property

Red Herring Fallacy much?

Disagreeing with the premise and/or the definitions is NOT whining -- it's called having a discussion. Not everyone agrees with:

* Hijacking the term "copyright" to mean "Intellectual Property",
* Extending the duration of copyright to some unreasonable length of time, and
* The delusion of "Imaginary Property" that magically becomes some bullshit "Intellectual Property" because lawyers say so. It is in their best self-serving interest to make copyright as long as possible.

Artists did NOT invent copyright. Copyright was invented by --> Publishers <-- to maintain control by preventing other publishers from making a profit.

"The history of copyright law starts with early privileges and monopolies granted to printers of books. The British Statute of Anne 1710, full title "An Act for the Encouragement of Learning, by vesting the Copies of Printed Books in the Authors or purchasers of such Copies, during the Times therein mentioned", was the first copyright statute. Initially copyright law only applied to the copying of books."

I suggest reading the History of Copyright Law

Not everyone agrees with the shenanigans of life plus 70 years or 95 or 120 years. The ONLY reason the original 20 year copyright was extended was due to excessive greed by corporations lobbying, er, bribing congress.

Copyright is NOT property. It is a compromise contract:

* Creator gets exclusivity for a certain amount of time, and
* In exchange the Public gets free access to it afterwards.

Most people would, probably, be OK with the original 20 year copyright.

The current 120 years is TOO long.

Even back in 1841 the "dangers" of a long copyright was being discussed by Thomas Babbington Macaulay and the House of Commons.

--
Greed is a cancer that destroys society

I would recommend the following talk about Education: https://www.ted.com/talks/ken_... ("Changing Education Paradigms" from Sir Ken Robinson)

There are no mines or wells to bring up hydrogen from the earth. Given current sources of electricity for electrolysis and how hydrogen is predominately formed this is a truck that burns natural gas. There are already natural gas trucks on the market, Kenworth announced they'd have some in 2104.
https://www.kenworth.com/news/...

Given that T. Boone Pickens has been talking about his "Pickens Plan" on energy policy for 10 years now moving transportation fuel to natural gas is far from new.
https://www.ted.com/talks/t_bo...

Cut out the middle man from natural gas to moving cargo and just use natural gas in the trucks. What hydrogen does is add the costs and losses in running power plants on natural gas for water electrolysis, or using that natural gas in steam reformers. Natural gas trucks exist now, they have better range than these hydrogen trucks, and I'm guessing that they cost less to make and maintain. Natural gas reduces particulate emissions, NOx emissions, CO2 emission, and other air quality problems.

If we burn natural gas in trucks instead of for electricity then where do we get our electricity? Pickens endorses wind and nuclear, and I believe he's right about that. Pickens admits his plan is a "bridge", a plan that alone is not a permanent solution because the natural gas will run out at some point. Something will have to replace even natural gas at some point. How long can natural gas last? Decades at least, if not centuries, so it's not like investing in natural gas will be a loss for someone buying a fleet of trucks, the trucks will have plenty of natural gas for the life of the truck.

What's one possible endpoint for the Pickens Plan "bridge"? Synthesized fuel. The US Navy has been researching how to turn electricity and seawater into jet fuel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

This synthetic fuel process from the US Navy doesn't have to produce only jet fuel, it can produce hydrocarbons of any length on that carbon chain, from methane (the primary component of natural gas with one carbopn) to cetane (primary component of diesel fuel with 16 carbons).

Synthetic fuels from this process the Navy is researching produces hydrogen as part of the process, they just take one more step of grabbing carbon (from CO2 dissolved in the water) and attach it to the hydrogen to make fuel. The Navy is intending this electricity to come from a nuclear power plant on a large warship but the electricity can come from anywhere, and the water can come from anywhere it is exposed to the air and dissolves the CO2 from the atmosphere. It closes the carbon cycle so this fuel is as "carbon free" as anything else.

I expect any plans to use hydrogen as transportation fuel to fail, unless that means of transportation is a rocket. It's just far easier and cheaper to cut out the hydrogen middle man and burn natural gas for cleaner running trucks. If the concern is CO2 output even from the natural gas then produce "synthetic natural gas" (or rather "substitute natural gas" since synthetic and natural are opposing terms) and introduce that into the existing natural gas infrastructure.

Hydrogen is a terrible fuel, especially since it's not really a "fuel" as most people understand it since it does not exist as something we can just dig up out of the ground. This Toyota truck burning hydrogen is a stupid idea and there are already existing solutions that are far easier and cheaper to implement.

I never claimed that words lost their old meanings. To be clear, they've mostly gained new ones which have displaced their old meanings in regular use. Languages evolve, both grammatically and in word meaning. Most words start as either slang or loan words. Further, you're confusing vocabulary (symbols chosen for ideas) with language (the use of symbols to represent thought). Symbols get re-purposed.

We have new words for new things, but we also have old words for new things. Which type of mouse you reference is determined contextually. Further, to "know" someone indeed was used in isolation. It came from the notion of carnal knowledge, but had an alternate contextual meaning. See definition 7 at http://www.dictionary.com/brow.... Also listed as such in older printed dictionaries.

Look up Old English. It's mostly unrecognizable (though fascinating). Alternatively, you can refer to https://ideas.ted.com/20-words.... But note I work with a professional linguist. As she so elegantly pointed out, "If languages never changed, we'd only have one in all the world."

Gotta admit, after starting to read a bit more about what lkcl is on about at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... - it's actually a pretty amazing rabbit hole.

jaezuss that's a cluster**** gone sideways :) i bet you the discussion is two orders of magnitude longer than the original page.

If I am not totally mistaken, there was a TED talk a while back that tried to summarize up some of this?
https://www.ted.com/talks/garr...

that's a really informative talk, good find. i love the 3D representation of particles, how he goes from 2D to 4D to 6D and it's all projected down to 2D. if you ever want to explore that for yourself with an HTML5 "thing" you can play with it here: http://deferentialgeometry.org...

Gotta admit, after starting to read a bit more about what lkcl is on about at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... - it's actually a pretty amazing rabbit hole.

If I am not totally mistaken, there was a TED talk a while back that tried to summarize up some of this?
https://www.ted.com/talks/garr...

I am opposed to wildlife conservation. I arrived at this opinion for three reasons.

First was I watched a pro-conservation video on TED called "Life lessons from big cats" which had some of the most miserably fucked up wildlife footage I had ever seen.

How does that turn you AGAINST conservation?

I just watched it and while the half-dozen or so lions trying to bring down an elephant was brutal despite the elephant surviving I have to question what kind of nature videos you've been watching. We all know carnivores eat meat and those who are predators, like cats, kill to survive. This was explained to me as a young child watching nature videos.

Life Lessons From Big Cats

But then you start off reasonably with your second point until you come to the conclusion that allowing them to become extinct is more compassionate than providing a natural habitat for them to thrive and eventually die in even if that natural death is brutal.

Many humans suffer greatly both in life and while they're dying. Would it be more compassionate to just end human suffering once and for all at the expense of continuing as a species?

Not to poo-poo their work, but this is definitely not a first. A quick google search reveals several:
      https://gizmodo.com/its-almost...
      https://spectrum.ieee.org/auto...
      https://www.ted.com/talks/a_ro...

I also remember a DARPA project to create a flying insect with a camera, that was powered entirely by ambient wi-fi. It would fly a bit, then spend hours charging, then fly a bit more.

True, but what that means is that other folks should always be looking for other theories that might better fit the data. Unfortunately, most of the folks on the other side seem to think that "unsettled" means "I can ignore this because it is inconvenient," which is not the same thing.

No, not at all. That's the strawman constructed and attacked. Go check out Watts Up With That, and you'll find 99.9% of the posters acknowledge some warming, but are skeptical that it is all man-made and it all comes from CO2. Rather, the appearance of trends as I linked tend to show a high likelihood that much of the warming is natural. So perhaps we need to re-think our priorities and budgetary allocations based upon data, rather than models that simply do not match the real world.

The problem is that their alternative explanations only fit the data over a very short period of time [skepticalscience.com], geologically speaking. These theories have been debunked repeatedly by trivial comparison with the actual data.

Actually, no. Not a single IPCC model accounts for the rise of temperature from 1890 to 1940, then the plunge from 1945 to 1975, let alone the general pause in the 2000s. However, there are models that correlate nicely with the past and also have predicted - more reliably than the IPCC models - the current 2000s. They come from geologists, though, not from climatologists. In fact, looking at past inter-glacial periods, we see a continual cyclic pattern of ever-increasing temperatures until the entire system "flips" into deep cooling. In other words - what we see today, is not unprecedented.

That said, there's a lot we don't know. It is possible (nay, almost certain) that we will eventually hit an equilibrium point at which more plants are growing, and the temperature change levels off.

When it levels off, that's when it starts falling. A few hundred million years says that's the way it happens. Typically glaciated over most of the Northern hemisphere, with occasional blips of warmth - like we have now.

The big unanswered questions are how many major cities will be underwater when it does, whether we will have enough arable land to feed the earth's population as temperatures and rain patterns shift, and whether the cost of reducing our greehouse gas emissions exceeds the cost of dealing with the effects of climate change over the long term. And *that* is where there is a lot of room for speculation, debate, etc.

Sea levels historically happened 4X faster than now, food production is skyrocketing, and there still isn't any real effect from increasing CO2.

Rather than sweat over something that has NOT been shown to be a cause of disaster (CO2 increases driving climate change), I fully agree with Bjorn Lomborg that we should look to spend our money on real, defined, understood problems.

https://www.ted.com/talks/joha...

https://www.ted.com/talks/joha...

Because otherwise, this is a criminal act *by Apple*.

Everybody should watch this:
Lessons from fashion's free culture - Johanna Blakley at TEDxUSC
It makes clear how pointless copyright is.

Dry your hands with one paper towel

It's been known for quite some time, it's good finally we have a scientific research providing evidence for one of the factors that make present day schooling (developed in the XIX century) a waste of creativity and personal development: https://www.ted.com/talks/ken_... Ken Robinson: Do schools kill creativity? TED2006

Scientists are discovering that Consciousness Affects Matter. (The fact that the Placebo Effect even _exists_ at all is partial proof of this.)

But this is nothing new. You can find doctors talking about their NDEs. A NDE (Near Death Experience) is when a person has an OBE when they almost died.

Neuroanatomist Jill Bolte Taylor's My stroke of insight is an interesting talk about her OBE.

Eben Alexander: A Neurosurgeon's Journey through the Afterlife

Dr.Eben Alexander talks about his Near Death Experience & Proof of Heaven

Before you graduate to OBEs you'll probably want to start with Lucid Dreaming. Reddit, of all places, has a good sub-reddit: /r/LucidDreaming/

Then as you learn to meditate you can work on having an OBE.

Thomas Campbell documents the experiences of his OBEs in My Big Toe -- where he was one the participants.

Once you have you OBE's you can start having them with others.

My wife and I have had shared OBE's -- we then compare and contrast "our notes" to see what is the same and different. The fact that we can describe the same experiences proves that consciousness is non-local -- something that Physicts just now are starting to understand.

Lastly, Michael Talbot's The Holographic Universe: The Revolutionary Theory of Reality discusses past experiments done by neuro-scientists that show the brain is !== mind, and non-local.

That is enough resources to get you started. Good luck on experiencing a wider reality !

This seems to be the same three word system created by Chris Sheldrick and discussed last year on a TED talk. He describes the rationale behind it and how it is currently being used in remote areas. The three word concept is nice in that words are easy to remember, but those words are meaningless as a guide to where the location is. Latitude/longitude are the opposite. Google's system somewhere in between.

  https://www.ted.com/talks/chri...

None of the people who were fooled by Russian trolls will admit they were taken by the Ruskies.

It's an extremely difficult (near impossible) task to design a rigorous experimental protocol that can accurately track decision-making cause and effect, especially concerning a decision potentially buffeted by hundreds of distinct forces.

Do you really know why you do what you do? — recorded November 2016

Experimental psychologist Petter Johansson researches choice blindness — a phenomenon where we convince ourselves that we're getting what we want, even when we're not.

TED has become a sad echo of its former self, but that segment is okay. Not great, merely okay. Sixteen minutes, one idea, but a decent idea by the end.

Your standard for people explaining themselves is unattainably high, not just for this matter, but pretty much every matter 24/7.

Johansson is confused about how people reason. We don't (normally) construct a direct delta between A and B which we reason about and commit to memory for later dissection. There are some special cases where we can reason about the delta explicitly, which is probably why Johansson has fallen into this trap.

(God, I hope I would not number among the sheeple who can't even remember what they just picked. Chances are good that I'm a member of the 10%. It would utterly slay me to learn I was a member of the sleepy 90%.)

This would also be a good way to control how much radiation from the Sun reaches Earth's surface.

If you really need to that quickly and cheaply sulphate aerosols seem like a very promising option.

https://www.ted.com/talks/david_keith_s_surprising_ideas_on_climate_change

Common sense is only laziness and ignorance. It's common sense that teachers in school should be armed so they can shoot back at the school shooters. Try it in practice--it won't work: the teachers will be prime targets for shooters because they're a threat and they're carrying ammo drops. They'll also probably miss now and then, causing even more danger to the students around them (as much as that's really possible when someone's trying to kill them).

It's easy to nerf armed teachers.

Common sense says harsh punishments deter crime. That doesn't work either .

I agree we should have standards of competency before you're allowed to touch certain things. What those things are requires some review.

Or just Cassava-killing viruses:

How a TED Fellow is working to save African cassava from whiteflies

>Microexpressions are fast, involuntary facial expressions which other people may not
>consciously recognize, but arise from our real emotions instead of the face we wish to
>present to the world.

FYI, that is only a hypothesis, not a universal truth, and there's plenty of evidence against (and debate about) so-called microexpressions and "unconscious emotion." For example, if you place electrodes on people's faces and measure actual muscle movements during emotion, there's tremendous variety, not uniformity. There's also lots of evidence that emotional expressions in the face are neither universal nor innate.

See the recent TED Talk by neuroscientist Lisa Feldman Barrett for a friendly overview.

it seems obvious his intent was to get someone hurt or killed

If I were redesigning the school system, the four major food groups would be reading, writing, arithmetic, and intent is never obvious (keep your head up, and your eyes on a swivel on social media, boys and girls).

You aren't at the mercy of your emotions — your brain creates them — December 2017

She's accurately portraying real research, although I don't even like this talk, because she's skating over necessary context in an unhelpful way.

The way that we see emotions in others are deeply rooted in predictions. So to us, it feels like we just look at someone's face, and we just read the emotion that's there in their facial expressions the way that we would read words on a page. But actually, under the hood, your brain is predicting. It's using past experience based on similar situations to try to make meaning. This time, you're not making meaning of blobs, you're making meaning of facial movements like the curl of a lip or the raise of an eyebrow. And that stone-faced stare? That might be someone who is a remorseless killer, but a stone-faced stare might also mean that someone is stoically accepting defeat, which is in fact what Chechen culture prescribes for someone in Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's situation.

I read a book recently with the title Do No Harm (2014) by Henry Marsh where he devotes half the book to the admission that without the rituals of patient depersonalization, some of the unbelievably desperate and risky procedures would be impossible to perform for any normal person (though a beneficent sociopath—these really do exist—might find a way—including some already in the profession).

This giant farce where the jury stares at the face of a person in a strange, threatening situation, under extreme stress, a person that the jury hardly knows (and has never witnessed interacting in a less artificial context) is strictly for the birds: the birds of not having to take too personally whatever harsh (possibly fatal) judgment the jury decides to hand down.

Some rituals are more for the surgeon than the patient; more for the jury than the accused; more for the police than the perpetrator.

What makes Lisa Feldman Barrett's talk irritating is that she never even mentions FACS.

So you watch the talks given by the people who either a) are world class at actually doing this; or b) are in the business of imparting some dangerous modicum of this skill to law enforcement professional and to the last man and woman a full one third of the talk is the long road from salient observation to supportable interpretation.

There's this thing called mental multitasking, and to judge from 90% of their students, most of the world has never heard of this.

The salient facial micro-twitches can arise from any thought or emotion passing through the other person's head. But no, 100 people surveyed, 99 people are cock sure that the other person's fleeting facial twitch is all about their own narcissistic central concern of the moment.

The experts require a cluster of three to five twitches each in close proximity to the same stress point (which is why police interrogation done correctly involves more circling around than cleaning up after a fender bender on the main runway).

The biology of our best and worst selves — April 2017

Let's look at an example. You have a gun. There's a crisis going on: rioting, violence, people running around. A stranger is running at you in an agitated state -- you can't quite tell if the expression is fr