Yeah there are many other ways of "seeing" through bubbles. Like range-gated cameras/radar/sonar.
That said I suspect dolphins mostly build a picture or even 3d model of the environment based on the perceived location of the reflections.
For example, say there is someone talking right in front of you, but you can still listen and aurally locate people who are talking further away behind that person. Even if the person in front is talking loudly, as long as he's not way too loud you can still detect the position of the other talkers and know where they are in the room. And the crucial difference from simple echolocation - you're not timing the echoes to figure out the distance of the talkers - there are no echoes! And yet you know the distance and location of the talkers just from listening alone!
So I think animal (including human) echolocation is an extension of this ability. They make sounds to produce "talkers" from the resulting echoes, and then they build a picture based on where the "talkers" are.
For example if there is nobody "talking" in the room you could clap your hands (or click your tongue) and hear the location of the echoes in the room. With practice you can identify the rough shape of the room and even location of large objects.
It's not a stretch to believe that first there was hearing ability, then the hearing ability was used to accurately locate noise making enemies, prey and objects. Then animal echolocation is just causing the silent objects "make noise" so they can locate them just the way they used to locate noisy objects from the sounds they make.
I haven't investigated if this is what dolphins (or bats) really do either, but my bullshit is just as plausible right? If not more so, but I'm biased;).
But if they do things the way I describe it becomes obvious why the bubbles and background noises aren't necessarily big problem. In fact some background noises would just let you know the shape of the background without you needing to expend time and energy to "illuminate" them with your sonar.
The market is just a casino where the players gamble vs each other often using other people's money.
When the players win big, they take their cut. When the players lose big, they ask for a bail out (since they have lost a lot of other people's money) and get to keep whatever cuts they have been taking.
There is no wealth being created. It's just being transferred around with the "casino" taking a cut for the transfers.The fancy "products" are just different games in the casino. The fancy math is just the gambler's "bullshit" to describe his method.
All HFT does is makes the gambling faster, there's no big benefit to those outside the casino. Only to favored players and the casino.
All that talk about market efficiency is bullshit. Go add up all the costs of the market including the bailouts and cost of big failures then come tell me how efficient it really is. It's just a big casino that can't even be run 24/7.
You missed out cooperatives. Cooperatives tend to be better behaved than corporations - they tend to rip people off less. There are still bad ones of course, but they have a place in your spectrum somewhere in between Gov and a Corp.
The problem is starting a cooperative is about the same effort as starting a corporation, but the benefits to the founder are much lower. So more corporations are started than coops. Perhaps if someone can design an incentive scheme that can't be abused then more coops will be started and hopefully we'll have less ripping off going on.
Then again maybe coops are better behaved only because they self select for founders who are less greedy who then set a less greedy organization culture;)
That's fine. It's still much better than if he hasn't won them over.
The referendum will prove it and will also help make things clearer for the defenders. Their consciences will be clearer when wiping out entire cities if most people in the attacking country want a war. If the whole country votes for war then they shouldn't complain if they get war.
Plus with my way at least the leader has proved he believes the war is worth risking his _own_ life for. If he's not willing to risk his own life for it then why should others risk their own lives to kill OTHER people for his idea?
The solution is if everyone had crypto whether they used it or not and things were set up so that you can't tell whether they used it or not. See also: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/148440 Or even better if everyone was using crypto (full disk crypto, vpns etc), but you can't tell whether they were using additional crypto- extra container file lying around by default).
Then if those in power are still going to torture people even though there actually isn't anything (extra) to decrypt/unlock, your country is so screwed up you could be tortured for hundreds of other reasons anyway.
Fighting against your own government/leaders who are enemies of your country, is not the same as fighting against your country. It's still fighting for your country.
To me it is more patriotic than killing people in some other country.
If more people around the world did that sort of thing there would be much less need to kill people of other countries.
That said I'm not a big fan of patriotism. Seems to cause more harm than good.
To those who say they have no free will: "If you have no free will then you are a machine. Beware, it is easier to justify discarding/destroying/retask a machine that no longer 'meets the specifications'".
As for the question we don't even have proof that the physicist's definition of free will is correct, much less the OPs. The physicist is assuming free will = not knowing the final decision. But that's ridiculous! He hasn't even explained Consciousness - which is the "knowing" phenomena of how "we know we know". If there's no "you" observing yourself, there's no "you" deciding what happens next, thus there's no free will - since there's no Entity to _will_ anything in the first place whether free or not!
If he can figure out how the "knowing"/Consciousness phenomena works than he is in a better position to decide whether something has free will or not. Otherwise he's being silly and talking about stuff that he should do more thinking about first.
We think we have free will because we are self aware. Not because we don't know what we will ultimately decide to do. Sometimes we know exactly what we will decide to do next and yet our sense of "free will" does not go away. If I put you in a cage, you still believe you have free will, you just don't have the freedom to exercise your free will. That cage could be physical or metaphorical (e.g. limited choices).
No the norms do not have to evolve at all, until most humans can themselves evolve to be good multitaskers e.g. able to have more than one conversation at the same time, or similar.
It is rude. As you can see from the responses from those who think it's OK - they're so full of "I'm more important than you hence you'll have to do with what I have leftover" or similar[1].
If you are having a conversation with someone, it is rude to not pay attention. Maybe if you are a virtuoso multi-tasker you can do it successfully and the other person won't notice, but most people can't do that - they will miss stuff and either get the wrong message or the other person will have to repeat himself/herself.
So it's not cultural bias until humans themselves can multitask way better than they can now.
[1] Yes we all know there are people who are more important than others. But you can be more important without being an asshole. You could be President of the World and you're polite if you actually have a real conversation (without reading your email) or if you just tell people "sorry, I'm too busy to talk to you", or "Sorry can you send me an email instead?". You're rude if you attempt a conversation and then do other things at the same time. Because you'll be wasting other people's time while treating them as if they are wasting your time.
p.s. Too often I'm guilty of being this rude. It still is rude though.
If OCZ making crap was not their fault but them getting backstabbed by their suppliers they better start gathering proof and taking appropriate action.
So I take 6 days to setup and configure a many billions year old Universe simulation and only start it at the end of the 6th day.
If there really is a Creator of this universe it'll be silly to assume what he can or cannot do.
Imagine an IT guy from the future trying to explain 100% what he does for work to some shepherds 6000 years ago[1]. Configure and tune virtual machines to run mailing and software asset management systems?
Will what he says to them be 100% accurate? Unlikely. Is it a lie? Not really.
So automatically assuming it's all a lie may be even sillier.
[1] Bronze age? I bet they haven't even got iron yet.
It also costs money to charge. Setting up and maintaining the systems to charge people money and handle, manage the money, deal with people with payment issues, often isn't that cheap either.
My personal belief is that for some cities or towns public transportation should be free (at least the buses, trains and subways).
Most shopping malls or office buildings don't charge you to use the escalators or elevators. It costs money to run these things, but the malls and office buildings make the big bucks elsewhere.
So same thing for some cities - if they're a thriving city, public transport wouldn't be a major net income source for the city anyway.
Running public transport like subways costs a lot, but as I said - charging for it costs too. Think of all the subway turnstiles, extra guards to catch those who don't pay or escort the cash, ticket booth operators etc.
How much of that cost comes from the maintenance of the necessary transport stuff (including safety and security) and how much is going to the charging part?
So if a lot of cost is due to the charging part and the transport system is not making much or even running at a loss, perhaps the city should consider not charging at all.
After all if turns out you're collecting only enough money to pay for the charging infrastructure and staff then what's the point? The only benefit is "job creation".
Unfortunately, no one can be told what Chocolate is. You have to taste it for yourself.
And how would tasting it work for aliens with different "tastes", living light years away from any chocolate? You might try an analogy, but how would you know what analogy would work in advance?
There is more to communication than just math. In fact math could be a distraction in some cases. When you and someone else (even a dog) look at each other and gesture, and you both know what to do next, do you two actually use math to figure it out? You might be able to describe it with math but it's not the same thing.
Yes you could say it is because both of you were thinking enough similar bits and the little nonverbal communication was sufficient for the "rsync".
That still does not adequately describe the results.
Yeah years (or even a decade) ago there was already tech (whether narrow band or UWB) that could detect the movement of someone _breathing_ behind walls. That's a lot smaller than 10cm movement.
As for gaming, let's see what the latency figures are first.
If Slashdotters today regard this as exciting and interesting perhaps they should start looking at Slashdot articles 5-10 years ago. They might find even more interesting stuff there than on Slashdot's frontpages today.
There is no such thing as "safe" radiation, so eliminating all man-made causes is a good thing, even if the levels are lower than background in some areas.
In many places where the background radiation is higher but still at "safe" levels it doesn't seem to be killing people faster. In fact in some places they seem to live longer! Yes it could be due to other factors (diet, lifestyle), but it just shows that at those levels the radiation no longer significantly reduces your lifespan.
Note: if someone on your network has been using P2P you may have to wait for a while when doing 2) since peers may still be trying to connect/respond to your router's IP. If it's still flashing like crazy after more than 30 minutes then you're probably being DoSed.
A few blinks every few seconds is not a DoS. Being DoSed = continuous blinking like a fast continuous data transfer.
Computers can do many savant-like tasks quite well. Add wireless tech plus suitable infra and you have savants with virtual telepathic and telekinetic powers*.
You're being rather optimistic. It doesn't actually solve the problem. There's a Google video proposing a well thought out verifiable system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDnShu5V99s
But that doesn't solve the real problem either!
If someone in power with resources wants to rig the election doing it electronically makes it easier. He could let you check your votes and they show up just fine (as per the video's system), but you have no proof that your vote played any part in the final results! Yes it's audited by some experts, but the someone could plausibly bribe/coerce/select those few auditors.
That's why a good paper based voting system is superior. When your own representatives and volunteers are there to observe and jointly count the votes one by one, sign off on the totals, check that the final total is the sum of the subtotals it gets pretty hard to tamper with the counts and results. The way you'd rig it is with postal votes, have fake/"supplementary" voters and gerrymandering (electronic systems don't solve these either). Swapping or replacing the ballot boxes might be possible but only likely in isolated areas with few witnesses (in which case the area might be "theirs" anyway).
And so a good paper based system is also more likely to satisfy one important requirement of elections - convincing enough of the losers that they lost.
A fancy blackbox system is not really convincing from a IT Security perspective.
Whereas when the losing candidate's counting/observing team has been telling them that they've been counting the paper votes one by one and the results aren't looking good, it's far more convincing.
Rigging such a paper based system would require more visibly obvious methods. Everyone can safely assume it's rigged if only one side does the counting and does it behind closed doors.
It's not inconsistent at all. A lot of these silly academicians clearly don't take into account that people don't live forever.
If you are old, are virtually unemployable, have no income other than from your life savings, but still need enough money to last maybe another 20 years or more it sure makes sense to be risk averse - lock in on sure wins and try to avoid bigger losses.
To take things to an extreme for explanation, if your budget is only 8 bucks a day, assuming it's a one time thing do you take a 5 buck sure loss or risk a 50% chance of a $8 buck loss (and 50% losing nothing)? With the latter there's a 50% chance that you don't get to eat anything at all for that day. With the former you can get something to eat, not much but more than nothing. Now if it's going to happen every day for the rest of your life, maybe it makes sense to go for the 50% 8 buck loss, but that also assumes you have enough savings to survive a few days or longer without money for those losing streaks - which are likely to happen assuming it's really random. Heck if you are risk averse and have found a way to survive on 3 bucks you might still prefer the 3 buck a day, than risk starving to death or going into debt. And in the real world getting into debt can be bad if it's a middling amount.
Another example: if your goal is to have tens of millions of dollars but if you are: 1) dirt poor 2) Living in a society where social mobility is low 3) Not educated with not much skills 4) Don't have that much "energy" (some people can go full tilt whole day, others not so). Then it actually makes sense to gamble on those big lotteries!
Because the odds of you achieving your goal _within_your_lifetime_ by say working 50% harder are even lower! You can say start your own business but the ugly fact is very many new businesses fail, it's only the successes who write books and talk about their failures and final successes. And guess how long it takes for a poor person to build enough capital. There are just so many wipeouts you can recover from in your lifetime.
Now whether it makes sense to want to have tens of millions of dollars that much is a different thing. Then there's also the psychology of it (hope etc).
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah there are many other ways of "seeing" through bubbles. Like range-gated cameras/radar/sonar.
;).
That said I suspect dolphins mostly build a picture or even 3d model of the environment based on the perceived location of the reflections.
For example, say there is someone talking right in front of you, but you can still listen and aurally locate people who are talking further away behind that person. Even if the person in front is talking loudly, as long as he's not way too loud you can still detect the position of the other talkers and know where they are in the room. And the crucial difference from simple echolocation - you're not timing the echoes to figure out the distance of the talkers - there are no echoes! And yet you know the distance and location of the talkers just from listening alone!
So I think animal (including human) echolocation is an extension of this ability. They make sounds to produce "talkers" from the resulting echoes, and then they build a picture based on where the "talkers" are.
For example if there is nobody "talking" in the room you could clap your hands (or click your tongue) and hear the location of the echoes in the room. With practice you can identify the rough shape of the room and even location of large objects.
It's not a stretch to believe that first there was hearing ability, then the hearing ability was used to accurately locate noise making enemies, prey and objects. Then animal echolocation is just causing the silent objects "make noise" so they can locate them just the way they used to locate noisy objects from the sounds they make.
I haven't investigated if this is what dolphins (or bats) really do either, but my bullshit is just as plausible right? If not more so, but I'm biased
But if they do things the way I describe it becomes obvious why the bubbles and background noises aren't necessarily big problem. In fact some background noises would just let you know the shape of the background without you needing to expend time and energy to "illuminate" them with your sonar.
The market is just a casino where the players gamble vs each other often using other people's money.
When the players win big, they take their cut.
When the players lose big, they ask for a bail out (since they have lost a lot of other people's money) and get to keep whatever cuts they have been taking.
There is no wealth being created. It's just being transferred around with the "casino" taking a cut for the transfers.The fancy "products" are just different games in the casino. The fancy math is just the gambler's "bullshit" to describe his method.
All HFT does is makes the gambling faster, there's no big benefit to those outside the casino. Only to favored players and the casino.
All that talk about market efficiency is bullshit. Go add up all the costs of the market including the bailouts and cost of big failures then come tell me how efficient it really is. It's just a big casino that can't even be run 24/7.
You missed out cooperatives. Cooperatives tend to be better behaved than corporations - they tend to rip people off less. There are still bad ones of course, but they have a place in your spectrum somewhere in between Gov and a Corp.
;)
The problem is starting a cooperative is about the same effort as starting a corporation, but the benefits to the founder are much lower. So more corporations are started than coops. Perhaps if someone can design an incentive scheme that can't be abused then more coops will be started and hopefully we'll have less ripping off going on.
Then again maybe coops are better behaved only because they self select for founders who are less greedy who then set a less greedy organization culture
That's fine. It's still much better than if he hasn't won them over.
The referendum will prove it and will also help make things clearer for the defenders. Their consciences will be clearer when wiping out entire cities if most people in the attacking country want a war. If the whole country votes for war then they shouldn't complain if they get war.
Plus with my way at least the leader has proved he believes the war is worth risking his _own_ life for. If he's not willing to risk his own life for it then why should others risk their own lives to kill OTHER people for his idea?
That's why I proposed this: http://slashdot.org/~TheLink/journal/208853
But I know it is unlikely to happen :)
The solution is if everyone had crypto whether they used it or not and things were set up so that you can't tell whether they used it or not. See also: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/148440
Or even better if everyone was using crypto (full disk crypto, vpns etc), but you can't tell whether they were using additional crypto- extra container file lying around by default).
Then if those in power are still going to torture people even though there actually isn't anything (extra) to decrypt/unlock, your country is so screwed up you could be tortured for hundreds of other reasons anyway.
Fighting against your own government/leaders who are enemies of your country, is not the same as fighting against your country. It's still fighting for your country.
To me it is more patriotic than killing people in some other country.
If more people around the world did that sort of thing there would be much less need to kill people of other countries.
That said I'm not a big fan of patriotism. Seems to cause more harm than good.
To those who say they have no free will: "If you have no free will then you are a machine. Beware, it is easier to justify discarding/destroying/retask a machine that no longer 'meets the specifications'".
As for the question we don't even have proof that the physicist's definition of free will is correct, much less the OPs. The physicist is assuming free will = not knowing the final decision. But that's ridiculous! He hasn't even explained Consciousness - which is the "knowing" phenomena of how "we know we know". If there's no "you" observing yourself, there's no "you" deciding what happens next, thus there's no free will - since there's no Entity to _will_ anything in the first place whether free or not!
If he can figure out how the "knowing"/Consciousness phenomena works than he is in a better position to decide whether something has free will or not. Otherwise he's being silly and talking about stuff that he should do more thinking about first.
We think we have free will because we are self aware. Not because we don't know what we will ultimately decide to do. Sometimes we know exactly what we will decide to do next and yet our sense of "free will" does not go away. If I put you in a cage, you still believe you have free will, you just don't have the freedom to exercise your free will. That cage could be physical or metaphorical (e.g. limited choices).
No the norms do not have to evolve at all, until most humans can themselves evolve to be good multitaskers e.g. able to have more than one conversation at the same time, or similar.
It is rude. As you can see from the responses from those who think it's OK - they're so full of "I'm more important than you hence you'll have to do with what I have leftover" or similar[1].
If you are having a conversation with someone, it is rude to not pay attention. Maybe if you are a virtuoso multi-tasker you can do it successfully and the other person won't notice, but most people can't do that - they will miss stuff and either get the wrong message or the other person will have to repeat himself/herself.
So it's not cultural bias until humans themselves can multitask way better than they can now.
[1] Yes we all know there are people who are more important than others. But you can be more important without being an asshole. You could be President of the World and you're polite if you actually have a real conversation (without reading your email) or if you just tell people "sorry, I'm too busy to talk to you", or "Sorry can you send me an email instead?". You're rude if you attempt a conversation and then do other things at the same time. Because you'll be wasting other people's time while treating them as if they are wasting your time.
p.s. Too often I'm guilty of being this rude. It still is rude though.
It gets even worse:
http://www.behardware.com/articles/881-7/components-returns-rates-7.html
http://www.hardware.fr/articles/893-7/ssd.html
There are other reports from this guy before and after those times and it's ugly numbers for OCZ till maybe this far back: http://www.behardware.com/articles/831-7/components-returns-rates.html
But that might have been early stages for the SSDs so the stuff hadn't started failing yet, or they hadn't got them to their usual "quality".
Go look at OCZ's track record for RAM back then compared to the rest: http://www.behardware.com/articles/831-4/components-returns-rates.html
Maybe OCZ stands for Often Crap, Zero quality... ;)
I don't see the point of keeping the brand.
If OCZ making crap was not their fault but them getting backstabbed by their suppliers they better start gathering proof and taking appropriate action.
I doubt it though.
So I take 6 days to setup and configure a many billions year old Universe simulation and only start it at the end of the 6th day.
If there really is a Creator of this universe it'll be silly to assume what he can or cannot do.
Imagine an IT guy from the future trying to explain 100% what he does for work to some shepherds 6000 years ago[1]. Configure and tune virtual machines to run mailing and software asset management systems?
Will what he says to them be 100% accurate? Unlikely. Is it a lie? Not really.
So automatically assuming it's all a lie may be even sillier.
[1] Bronze age? I bet they haven't even got iron yet.
Which unlucky places are those? Insert suitable carrier lost jokes...
Do you mean Al and not Au (Gold)?
It also costs money to charge. Setting up and maintaining the systems to charge people money and handle, manage the money, deal with people with payment issues, often isn't that cheap either.
My personal belief is that for some cities or towns public transportation should be free (at least the buses, trains and subways).
Most shopping malls or office buildings don't charge you to use the escalators or elevators. It costs money to run these things, but the malls and office buildings make the big bucks elsewhere.
So same thing for some cities - if they're a thriving city, public transport wouldn't be a major net income source for the city anyway.
Running public transport like subways costs a lot, but as I said - charging for it costs too. Think of all the subway turnstiles, extra guards to catch those who don't pay or escort the cash, ticket booth operators etc.
How much of that cost comes from the maintenance of the necessary transport stuff (including safety and security) and how much is going to the charging part?
So if a lot of cost is due to the charging part and the transport system is not making much or even running at a loss, perhaps the city should consider not charging at all.
After all if turns out you're collecting only enough money to pay for the charging infrastructure and staff then what's the point? The only benefit is "job creation".
Unfortunately, no one can be told what Chocolate is. You have to taste it for yourself.
And how would tasting it work for aliens with different "tastes", living light years away from any chocolate? You might try an analogy, but how would you know what analogy would work in advance?
There is more to communication than just math. In fact math could be a distraction in some cases. When you and someone else (even a dog) look at each other and gesture, and you both know what to do next, do you two actually use math to figure it out? You might be able to describe it with math but it's not the same thing.
Yes you could say it is because both of you were thinking enough similar bits and the little nonverbal communication was sufficient for the "rsync".
That still does not adequately describe the results.
The usual SciFi trope is that 'Maths is the Universal language', and data is just Maths
I suspect there's probably a trope that that's not true too ;)
Can someone give me the math version of "I like chocolate!". Or "I love my wife"?
Yeah years (or even a decade) ago there was already tech (whether narrow band or UWB) that could detect the movement of someone _breathing_ behind walls. That's a lot smaller than 10cm movement.
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/06/01/08/0753222/military-device-will-sense-through-concrete-walls
http://science.slashdot.org/story/01/04/17/2339212/scanning-for-people-through-walls
As for gaming, let's see what the latency figures are first.
If Slashdotters today regard this as exciting and interesting perhaps they should start looking at Slashdot articles 5-10 years ago. They might find even more interesting stuff there than on Slashdot's frontpages today.
There is no such thing as "safe" radiation, so eliminating all man-made causes is a good thing, even if the levels are lower than background in some areas.
Citation please? I give you mine:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2663584/
In many places where the background radiation is higher but still at "safe" levels it doesn't seem to be killing people faster. In fact in some places they seem to live longer! Yes it could be due to other factors (diet, lifestyle), but it just shows that at those levels the radiation no longer significantly reduces your lifespan.
Note: if someone on your network has been using P2P you may have to wait for a while when doing 2) since peers may still be trying to connect/respond to your router's IP. If it's still flashing like crazy after more than 30 minutes then you're probably being DoSed.
A few blinks every few seconds is not a DoS. Being DoSed = continuous blinking like a fast continuous data transfer.
Is there a comparison between a partial scan with this processing and a full scan?
The funny thing is many scientists dismissed cold fusion merely because of the lack of neutron generation.
Goes to show how many scientists are really scientists.
Things like Google Glass actually have potential for significant human augmentation:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3478821&cid=42956909
Computers can do many savant-like tasks quite well.
Add wireless tech plus suitable infra and you have savants with virtual telepathic and telekinetic powers*.
* only in supported locations, YMMV ;).
You're being rather optimistic. It doesn't actually solve the problem. There's a Google video proposing a well thought out verifiable system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDnShu5V99s
But that doesn't solve the real problem either!
If someone in power with resources wants to rig the election doing it electronically makes it easier. He could let you check your votes and they show up just fine (as per the video's system), but you have no proof that your vote played any part in the final results! Yes it's audited by some experts, but the someone could plausibly bribe/coerce/select those few auditors.
That's why a good paper based voting system is superior. When your own representatives and volunteers are there to observe and jointly count the votes one by one, sign off on the totals, check that the final total is the sum of the subtotals it gets pretty hard to tamper with the counts and results. The way you'd rig it is with postal votes, have fake/"supplementary" voters and gerrymandering (electronic systems don't solve these either). Swapping or replacing the ballot boxes might be possible but only likely in isolated areas with few witnesses (in which case the area might be "theirs" anyway).
And so a good paper based system is also more likely to satisfy one important requirement of elections - convincing enough of the losers that they lost.
A fancy blackbox system is not really convincing from a IT Security perspective.
Whereas when the losing candidate's counting/observing team has been telling them that they've been counting the paper votes one by one and the results aren't looking good, it's far more convincing.
Rigging such a paper based system would require more visibly obvious methods. Everyone can safely assume it's rigged if only one side does the counting and does it behind closed doors.
The "protection" system could also be a way to DoS the network/services.
A hacker might trick it into preventing all the humans from doing normal stuff. Or it could be misconfigured or too paranoid or buggy.
It's not inconsistent at all. A lot of these silly academicians clearly don't take into account that people don't live forever.
If you are old, are virtually unemployable, have no income other than from your life savings, but still need enough money to last maybe another 20 years or more it sure makes sense to be risk averse - lock in on sure wins and try to avoid bigger losses.
To take things to an extreme for explanation, if your budget is only 8 bucks a day, assuming it's a one time thing do you take a 5 buck sure loss or risk a 50% chance of a $8 buck loss (and 50% losing nothing)? With the latter there's a 50% chance that you don't get to eat anything at all for that day. With the former you can get something to eat, not much but more than nothing. Now if it's going to happen every day for the rest of your life, maybe it makes sense to go for the 50% 8 buck loss, but that also assumes you have enough savings to survive a few days or longer without money for those losing streaks - which are likely to happen assuming it's really random. Heck if you are risk averse and have found a way to survive on 3 bucks you might still prefer the 3 buck a day, than risk starving to death or going into debt. And in the real world getting into debt can be bad if it's a middling amount.
Another example: if your goal is to have tens of millions of dollars but if you are:
1) dirt poor
2) Living in a society where social mobility is low
3) Not educated with not much skills
4) Don't have that much "energy" (some people can go full tilt whole day, others not so).
Then it actually makes sense to gamble on those big lotteries!
Because the odds of you achieving your goal _within_your_lifetime_ by say working 50% harder are even lower! You can say start your own business but the ugly fact is very many new businesses fail, it's only the successes who write books and talk about their failures and final successes. And guess how long it takes for a poor person to build enough capital. There are just so many wipeouts you can recover from in your lifetime.
Now whether it makes sense to want to have tens of millions of dollars that much is a different thing. Then there's also the psychology of it (hope etc).