The thing that's wrong with it is that inaction bias can also cause immense human suffering.
The solution here is to establish a consistent, quantifiable principle about how much caution is enough caution for this. We can't wallow in an endless series of "it needs more research", but sure, it needs some research so we don't accidentally engineer the Rage virus. So, how much?
That would be the mitigating circumstance, dude. That's why I hesitate to call him a murderer or manslaughterer. But keep in mind, nobody else shot the man. There were other cops. The victim was innocent n matter what it looked like he was doing. It's not acceptable to kill innocent people, even by mistake. I guarantee this situation will happen again and we should do what is in our power to prevent it.
This guy who plead guilty is unquestionably at fault of "making a false report resulting in a death", and definitely was at fault for causing the death. And yet I see slashdot posts question it. He sent armed people to another man's house to harass him (although harassed the wrong man too). Accidents happen and it's criminally unreasonable to assume that this is a harmless prank.
The guy who took the shot also has some implication, and a mitigating circumstance. There should be a criminal investigation into him and maybe he gets off on the circumstance. But even if innocent he absolutely should not be allowed to have a job where he points guns at people anymore without a truly extraordinary reason, since he's proven to be incapable of doing it without accidentally killing innocents.
Then the training and hiring should at least be reviewed. Can we make systemic changes that reduces the risk of this? Eg. training of the shooter, hiring of the shooter, training of the dispatcher, etc.. Is this truly, tragically impossible to avoid / impractical to do so without vastly increasing the risk to other innocents?
The purpose was never to make it harder for perverts to peep. If you read up on the history, the purpose was to keep society completely gender-segregated in all things. We have removed most gender segregation, but we keep it in bathrooms, change rooms, and public showers. The latter two at least do have legitimate peeping concerns. A well-designed bathroom really doesn't have a reasonable concern any more than any other room where men and women could cohabit.
The point was that humanity was verifiably able to impact the entire planet by accident. The assertion of the GGP is that it's impossible in principle for humans to create a global environmental problem.
No, he literally did not claim that. You have in your head that "diversity hire" means unqualified, and he's literally explaining that's not what it means. You need to step out of your own head for one moment to at least understand the argument presented to you.
The whole point of the diversity initiatives is the theory that ethnicity should not count in and of itself, but it empirically does, so it tries to set up an equal and opposite force so that ethnicity doesn't count again.
You may argue that this isn't true, and then we can have a statistics war because I can point to a bunch of things that say it is true, but likely there are scenarios where it's not or is even reversed which doesn't negate the overall trend but does call for nuance.
I think an investigation into murder / manslaughter charges is warranted, but I could my way into a "not guilty" verdict, although I'm leaning guilty (to be clear: I think the SWATter bears more guilt because they had malicious intent, this cop was "just" criminally reckless but did not intend to hurt innocents).
However, this person has demonstrated without any doubt that they cannot be trusted with the power of life and death. The default should be to permanently bar him from police duty and similar (like guard duty), and (I know this is somehow controversial in some parts) remove his right to carry firearms. And reversing either of those decisions should require an extraordinary demonstration of why he can now be trusted not to accidentally kill innocents.
I literally have no idea why you think that's unlikely.
I don't understand how you don't see this is open and shut.
I'm the first person to roll my eyes at "Samsung executive's daughter caught using iPhone" or "Coca-cola employee takes kid to his favourite restaurant for his birthday, that happens to serve Pepsi, and doesn't force the kid to have water or milk but in fact allows him a Pepsi". But literally the job of the brand ambassador -- the whole job -- is to preferentially use that brand's products and represent how great it is.
Whether 1.6 million is reasonable, I don't know, that sounds high but I'm not in possession of the full facts for the situation. But as to whether the brand ambassador should lose the lawsuit? This is open and shut, unless there's some huge missing piece of the story (eg. "criminals broke in and swapped out the samsung phone for an iphone and the ambassador didn't have time to fix it", and *that* would be an unlikely situation to snicker at).
Is the only reason that you poop with the door closed is to hide your poop?
Really?
Here's the difference: with poop, 99.99% of the time you don't actually care if somebody *wants* to deal with your poo, you just know that they almost certainly don't.
With encryption, you do care if somebody wants to deal with your contents, even though in most cases they probably don't.
It's completely different. Why don't we use normal analogies? The surprise you intend to keep for a loved one until their birthday?
The reasons to encrypt your data are all about information hiding and non-repudiation. The reasons to wear clothing include that, and temperature modulation, shelter from elements, carrying capacity upgrades, and sanitation. And on a less practical level, self-expression (you could argue encryption as self-expression, but that's usually cyphers that humans can decode).
The analogy is just a terrible one. We already know why "if you're not guilty, you have nothing to hide" is a troublesome statement and it's not really similar to why people wear clothing.
I think the notion that college necessarily implies being well-versed in the humanities is kind of parochial. Lots and lots of college and university graduates have intense education but essentially minimal humanities exposure.
First, I'm not sure how you concluded that two males would only produce boys when the reason you gave for women producing only girls doesn't apply to boys...
Second, the X Y model is for humans. Other animals have differnet models, and some have multiple models, even mammals, especially rodents.
I agree with most of what you say, but you can demand scientific evidence that ethics questions cause people to think about ethics and change their behaviour, as opposed to ethics classes causing people being better able to justify the behaviour they would have done anyway.
No. Let's be clear. This is not a political statement, this is a grammatical statement: guns kill people. They kill people by firing bullets which have sudden traumatic impact. The vast majority of the time (although not 100%), it's because a person pulled the trigger -- but that doesn't really change anything.
There's no other context I can think of where people make this distinction. "Elevators don't life people, people lift people" -- by pressing elevator buttons, by setting up power plants, by plugging the elevator in and setting up the counterweights and programming it, etc.. "Airplanes don't transport people, people transport people" -- using airplanes. Airplanes are used to transport people, but the airplane, by itself, doesn't transport people. "Computer monitors don't display documents, people display documents". Etc.. Nobody ever expects you to follow the chain of causality until a conscious actor.
It's a rhetorical distinction that is made for a particular political purpose, and I really don't want to dig into that in this thread, but this is a discussion that isn't about that purpose. Bringing it up is injecting a weird gun control meme into a discussion about bizarre art valuation practices.
You're confusing the mechanism to enact change with the the opportunity to enact change. The former is at the country level. The latter is based on per capita emissions compared to the quality of life they buy. The resolution is to get each country to normalize their per capita emissions to a similar level, one which makes all capable of achieving a high quality of life, but which is sustainable. It's completely absurd to ignore the latter.
What are you talking about? Per country is almost irrelevant. As you said, political action is necessary, but emissions per capita is the measure of opportunity for a country to apply political action.
There is no reason whatsoever to expect that a country with 4x the population has 4x the opportunity to do better. It's everybody that contribute, not lines on maps. Country lines are meaningless in terms of what is causing the problem.
The one with more "wasted" pollution, as opposed to pollution that is thoughtfully and gainfully incurred in order to increase quality of life.
If one country has a higher per capita rate of emissions, that's evidence that it is wasting more pollution. You can counter that with quality of life evidence and then you try to dilly around with the right specific solution.
Note that pollution reduces quality of life directly, so it's not entirely the case that quality of life goes up with emissions. It's complex. Quality of life in several cities went up when stricter car emissions standards were applied, even if it made cars more expensive for a time, since it ultimately also improved air quality and gas mileage. The straw man of "ban electricity and fire" would certainly reduce quality of life. The opposite straw man of "emit for the hell of it for no reason; dig up oil just to burn it to stare into the flames" would also certainly reduce quality of life. Clearly there's some kind of curve in between, not a linear relationship.
The environment doesn't care about countries. It cares about total pollution. Countries is a completely arbitrary delineation that has no bearing on anything. People is a concrete delineation -- to support people, some pollution must be produced. To support countries, in theory, nothing has to be produced because you can draw a line on a map and have a country of 0.
If the world had two countries, and one had only one person in it and did 49% of the pollution, and the other had the other 7 billion people, everybody else and did 51% of the pollution, which country has the most opportunity to reduce pollution? Unless you have a damn good rationale, it's the country of one person. Because the environment doesn't care about countries. But the country of 7 billion people is strong evidence that the other country is polluting almost 7 billion times as much as it needs to.
Especially since it's conceivable that the country of 7 billion is using the absolute minimum possible pollution to support 7 billion people at an acceptable level. But it's not possible for the country of 1 to be doing so.
None of that is to say that China is perfect. Eg. if you dug up evidence that 1/10th of China's population is responsible for almost all the polluting and the other 9/10ths are in abject poverty and should really be brought up to a higher standard even at the expense of polluting *more*, then you could make the argument that China is the bigger problem.
It frustrates me when people say that because I (a male) was bombarded nonstop growing up with efforts specifically to get more men into teaching and especially nursing (not so much social work, to be fair). I honestly don't get the assertion that nobody ever looks at that, which I see all the time, because from where I'm standing it's intensely looked-at. I suspect you just see the part where we're trying to get women into STEM because you're in STEM.
I see you read sentence two, where it sounds like it's a higher-order polyglot, but didn't make it to sentence four, where it's bilingual.
Whether that's for reasons of processing power, or language-detection accuracy rates dropping as the number of potential languages goes up, I don't know.
We went to the moon and picked up rocks and brought it back. That is, in fact, a small-scale mining operation and is absolute proof that it's possible.
I'm pretty sure you're mentally adding the stipulation that it's economical because we're getting useful amounts of useful material instead of a tiny amount of random material.
Even so, I'd like to ask why you think this is impossible to ever do? Imagine setting up a machine on the moon -- we have done that lots, even sent machines to Mars that lasted years. Imagine that machine is a drill and a coil gun and solar panels/batteries to power it. And it just sort of cuts rocks up and shoots them toward the earth indiscriminately. An electric coilgun is sufficient to escape the Moon's gravity and start falling to Earth's greater gravity well. Then on Earth we go find where the rocks landed, and extract whatever minerals are useful.
Again, not necessarily an efficient or good idea, but no part of that requires the invention of wacky future technology, and over time you'll get stuff out of the moon (also, subtly push the moon away from Earth bit by little bit).
The part that requires new tech is to be able to aim this contraption at a place that has viable quantities of useful minerals, aim the results back to a specific location on Earth, and ensure that it lasts long enough to be economically viable. And Earth-based mining, recycling, and material substitution has to become so impractical compared to demand that this complex setup is worth it.
There is no law that says that a company with 20% of the marketshare of one product (physical phone hardware), even if that's the biggest one by far, has to allow it to pair with some other product -- alternative OSes. iPhone hardware isn't even all that special. If iPhone hardware was 75% of some market, then you might have a point. As it stands, it's ridiculous.
Samsung owns 100% of the market of phones that have the Samsung logo printed on it, so now it's got a monopoly because you can't put an iPhone into a Samsung branded case and sell it? That's clearly absurd, because it doesn't matter if you have 100% of the market on an intermediate product where the final product itself has only a small fraction of the market.
You're comparing Apples and Oreos to Salt Mines. What a weird stretch.
Yes, Apples is doing all the same things as Google. And if they had sufficient marketshare for that to matter, they would no doubt get crushed.
Apple is a monopoly, by every definition, and abuses it.
Ridiculous. There is no way you can define Apple to be a monopoly. Your attempt earlier is that Apple has a monopoly on putting together Apple products. Absurd.
I'm not convinced Google has done anything wrong. But there's no reasonable way to say that iOS has anything close to the market power of Android.
It's mentioned in the summary of this article, which also cites the ruling:
3. has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called "Android forks").
Slashdot Mirror
The thing that's wrong with it is that inaction bias can also cause immense human suffering.
The solution here is to establish a consistent, quantifiable principle about how much caution is enough caution for this. We can't wallow in an endless series of "it needs more research", but sure, it needs some research so we don't accidentally engineer the Rage virus. So, how much?
That would be the mitigating circumstance, dude. That's why I hesitate to call him a murderer or manslaughterer. But keep in mind, nobody else shot the man. There were other cops. The victim was innocent n matter what it looked like he was doing. It's not acceptable to kill innocent people, even by mistake. I guarantee this situation will happen again and we should do what is in our power to prevent it.
It can be more than one person's fault.
This guy who plead guilty is unquestionably at fault of "making a false report resulting in a death", and definitely was at fault for causing the death. And yet I see slashdot posts question it. He sent armed people to another man's house to harass him (although harassed the wrong man too). Accidents happen and it's criminally unreasonable to assume that this is a harmless prank.
The guy who took the shot also has some implication, and a mitigating circumstance. There should be a criminal investigation into him and maybe he gets off on the circumstance. But even if innocent he absolutely should not be allowed to have a job where he points guns at people anymore without a truly extraordinary reason, since he's proven to be incapable of doing it without accidentally killing innocents.
Then the training and hiring should at least be reviewed. Can we make systemic changes that reduces the risk of this? Eg. training of the shooter, hiring of the shooter, training of the dispatcher, etc.. Is this truly, tragically impossible to avoid / impractical to do so without vastly increasing the risk to other innocents?
The purpose was never to make it harder for perverts to peep. If you read up on the history, the purpose was to keep society completely gender-segregated in all things. We have removed most gender segregation, but we keep it in bathrooms, change rooms, and public showers. The latter two at least do have legitimate peeping concerns. A well-designed bathroom really doesn't have a reasonable concern any more than any other room where men and women could cohabit.
The day they have bathrooms that say "only ten fingered people allowed" is the day that's relevant to this conversation.
The point was that humanity was verifiably able to impact the entire planet by accident. The assertion of the GGP is that it's impossible in principle for humans to create a global environmental problem.
No, he literally did not claim that. You have in your head that "diversity hire" means unqualified, and he's literally explaining that's not what it means. You need to step out of your own head for one moment to at least understand the argument presented to you.
The whole point of the diversity initiatives is the theory that ethnicity should not count in and of itself, but it empirically does, so it tries to set up an equal and opposite force so that ethnicity doesn't count again.
You may argue that this isn't true, and then we can have a statistics war because I can point to a bunch of things that say it is true, but likely there are scenarios where it's not or is even reversed which doesn't negate the overall trend but does call for nuance.
Absolutely.
I think an investigation into murder / manslaughter charges is warranted, but I could my way into a "not guilty" verdict, although I'm leaning guilty (to be clear: I think the SWATter bears more guilt because they had malicious intent, this cop was "just" criminally reckless but did not intend to hurt innocents).
However, this person has demonstrated without any doubt that they cannot be trusted with the power of life and death. The default should be to permanently bar him from police duty and similar (like guard duty), and (I know this is somehow controversial in some parts) remove his right to carry firearms. And reversing either of those decisions should require an extraordinary demonstration of why he can now be trusted not to accidentally kill innocents.
I literally have no idea why you think that's unlikely.
I don't understand how you don't see this is open and shut.
I'm the first person to roll my eyes at "Samsung executive's daughter caught using iPhone" or "Coca-cola employee takes kid to his favourite restaurant for his birthday, that happens to serve Pepsi, and doesn't force the kid to have water or milk but in fact allows him a Pepsi". But literally the job of the brand ambassador -- the whole job -- is to preferentially use that brand's products and represent how great it is.
Whether 1.6 million is reasonable, I don't know, that sounds high but I'm not in possession of the full facts for the situation. But as to whether the brand ambassador should lose the lawsuit? This is open and shut, unless there's some huge missing piece of the story (eg. "criminals broke in and swapped out the samsung phone for an iphone and the ambassador didn't have time to fix it", and *that* would be an unlikely situation to snicker at).
Too big and successful isn't.
Abuse their power definitely is though, if this is actually believed.
Is the only reason that you poop with the door closed is to hide your poop?
Really?
Here's the difference: with poop, 99.99% of the time you don't actually care if somebody *wants* to deal with your poo, you just know that they almost certainly don't.
With encryption, you do care if somebody wants to deal with your contents, even though in most cases they probably don't.
It's completely different. Why don't we use normal analogies? The surprise you intend to keep for a loved one until their birthday?
You do realize that's not a parallel, right?
The reasons to encrypt your data are all about information hiding and non-repudiation. The reasons to wear clothing include that, and temperature modulation, shelter from elements, carrying capacity upgrades, and sanitation. And on a less practical level, self-expression (you could argue encryption as self-expression, but that's usually cyphers that humans can decode).
The analogy is just a terrible one. We already know why "if you're not guilty, you have nothing to hide" is a troublesome statement and it's not really similar to why people wear clothing.
I think the notion that college necessarily implies being well-versed in the humanities is kind of parochial. Lots and lots of college and university graduates have intense education but essentially minimal humanities exposure.
First, I'm not sure how you concluded that two males would only produce boys when the reason you gave for women producing only girls doesn't apply to boys...
Second, the X Y model is for humans. Other animals have differnet models, and some have multiple models, even mammals, especially rodents.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I agree with most of what you say, but you can demand scientific evidence that ethics questions cause people to think about ethics and change their behaviour, as opposed to ethics classes causing people being better able to justify the behaviour they would have done anyway.
No. Let's be clear. This is not a political statement, this is a grammatical statement: guns kill people. They kill people by firing bullets which have sudden traumatic impact. The vast majority of the time (although not 100%), it's because a person pulled the trigger -- but that doesn't really change anything.
There's no other context I can think of where people make this distinction. "Elevators don't life people, people lift people" -- by pressing elevator buttons, by setting up power plants, by plugging the elevator in and setting up the counterweights and programming it, etc.. "Airplanes don't transport people, people transport people" -- using airplanes. Airplanes are used to transport people, but the airplane, by itself, doesn't transport people. "Computer monitors don't display documents, people display documents". Etc.. Nobody ever expects you to follow the chain of causality until a conscious actor.
It's a rhetorical distinction that is made for a particular political purpose, and I really don't want to dig into that in this thread, but this is a discussion that isn't about that purpose. Bringing it up is injecting a weird gun control meme into a discussion about bizarre art valuation practices.
You're confusing the mechanism to enact change with the the opportunity to enact change. The former is at the country level. The latter is based on per capita emissions compared to the quality of life they buy. The resolution is to get each country to normalize their per capita emissions to a similar level, one which makes all capable of achieving a high quality of life, but which is sustainable. It's completely absurd to ignore the latter.
What are you talking about? Per country is almost irrelevant. As you said, political action is necessary, but emissions per capita is the measure of opportunity for a country to apply political action.
There is no reason whatsoever to expect that a country with 4x the population has 4x the opportunity to do better. It's everybody that contribute, not lines on maps. Country lines are meaningless in terms of what is causing the problem.
The one with more "wasted" pollution, as opposed to pollution that is thoughtfully and gainfully incurred in order to increase quality of life.
If one country has a higher per capita rate of emissions, that's evidence that it is wasting more pollution. You can counter that with quality of life evidence and then you try to dilly around with the right specific solution.
Note that pollution reduces quality of life directly, so it's not entirely the case that quality of life goes up with emissions. It's complex. Quality of life in several cities went up when stricter car emissions standards were applied, even if it made cars more expensive for a time, since it ultimately also improved air quality and gas mileage. The straw man of "ban electricity and fire" would certainly reduce quality of life. The opposite straw man of "emit for the hell of it for no reason; dig up oil just to burn it to stare into the flames" would also certainly reduce quality of life. Clearly there's some kind of curve in between, not a linear relationship.
The environment doesn't care about countries. It cares about total pollution. Countries is a completely arbitrary delineation that has no bearing on anything. People is a concrete delineation -- to support people, some pollution must be produced. To support countries, in theory, nothing has to be produced because you can draw a line on a map and have a country of 0.
If the world had two countries, and one had only one person in it and did 49% of the pollution, and the other had the other 7 billion people, everybody else and did 51% of the pollution, which country has the most opportunity to reduce pollution? Unless you have a damn good rationale, it's the country of one person. Because the environment doesn't care about countries. But the country of 7 billion people is strong evidence that the other country is polluting almost 7 billion times as much as it needs to.
Especially since it's conceivable that the country of 7 billion is using the absolute minimum possible pollution to support 7 billion people at an acceptable level. But it's not possible for the country of 1 to be doing so.
None of that is to say that China is perfect. Eg. if you dug up evidence that 1/10th of China's population is responsible for almost all the polluting and the other 9/10ths are in abject poverty and should really be brought up to a higher standard even at the expense of polluting *more*, then you could make the argument that China is the bigger problem.
It frustrates me when people say that because I (a male) was bombarded nonstop growing up with efforts specifically to get more men into teaching and especially nursing (not so much social work, to be fair). I honestly don't get the assertion that nobody ever looks at that, which I see all the time, because from where I'm standing it's intensely looked-at. I suspect you just see the part where we're trying to get women into STEM because you're in STEM.
I see you read sentence two, where it sounds like it's a higher-order polyglot, but didn't make it to sentence four, where it's bilingual.
Whether that's for reasons of processing power, or language-detection accuracy rates dropping as the number of potential languages goes up, I don't know.
We went to the moon and picked up rocks and brought it back. That is, in fact, a small-scale mining operation and is absolute proof that it's possible.
I'm pretty sure you're mentally adding the stipulation that it's economical because we're getting useful amounts of useful material instead of a tiny amount of random material.
Even so, I'd like to ask why you think this is impossible to ever do? Imagine setting up a machine on the moon -- we have done that lots, even sent machines to Mars that lasted years. Imagine that machine is a drill and a coil gun and solar panels/batteries to power it. And it just sort of cuts rocks up and shoots them toward the earth indiscriminately. An electric coilgun is sufficient to escape the Moon's gravity and start falling to Earth's greater gravity well. Then on Earth we go find where the rocks landed, and extract whatever minerals are useful.
Again, not necessarily an efficient or good idea, but no part of that requires the invention of wacky future technology, and over time you'll get stuff out of the moon (also, subtly push the moon away from Earth bit by little bit).
The part that requires new tech is to be able to aim this contraption at a place that has viable quantities of useful minerals, aim the results back to a specific location on Earth, and ensure that it lasts long enough to be economically viable. And Earth-based mining, recycling, and material substitution has to become so impractical compared to demand that this complex setup is worth it.
There is no law that says that a company with 20% of the marketshare of one product (physical phone hardware), even if that's the biggest one by far, has to allow it to pair with some other product -- alternative OSes. iPhone hardware isn't even all that special. If iPhone hardware was 75% of some market, then you might have a point. As it stands, it's ridiculous.
Samsung owns 100% of the market of phones that have the Samsung logo printed on it, so now it's got a monopoly because you can't put an iPhone into a Samsung branded case and sell it? That's clearly absurd, because it doesn't matter if you have 100% of the market on an intermediate product where the final product itself has only a small fraction of the market.
You're comparing Apples and Oreos to Salt Mines. What a weird stretch.
Yes, Apples is doing all the same things as Google. And if they had sufficient marketshare for that to matter, they would no doubt get crushed.
Apple is a monopoly, by every definition, and abuses it.
Ridiculous. There is no way you can define Apple to be a monopoly. Your attempt earlier is that Apple has a monopoly on putting together Apple products. Absurd.
I'm not convinced Google has done anything wrong. But there's no reasonable way to say that iOS has anything close to the market power of Android.
It's mentioned in the summary of this article, which also cites the ruling:
3. has prevented manufacturers wishing to pre-install Google apps from selling even a single smart mobile device running on alternative versions of Android that were not approved by Google (so-called "Android forks").
Cite: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-r...