As a bus person, I would agree, but in the end, they are really not a great technology. It is like the train system, eventually, after privatisation was supposed to make it more efficient, and ticket prices kept going up and up, you come to wonder that its problem isn't mismanagement, inefficient government, greedy corporations, nor old tech, it is just that it is a Victorian technology and concept.
The city I'm in used to have a big tram network, and you have to wonder why they got rid of it all those years ago.
Anyway, I imagine a a vast taxi network, cheaper because there is no driver, and like public transport in that you only pay for what you use, no need to buy the machine, and with so many available in a city that there is often one just 5 minutes away from you, and can be used for long and short journeys, door to door, or with a changeover somewhere for intercity routes. Each car is in use like a jet airliner is used to maximise its cost, rather than it sitting parked for most of its life.
It needs something like the FAA to investigate crashes openly and come down hard on companies. I flew in a helicopter the other day, and googling its registration brought up its accident history. There has to be a lot of process and money put into making this stuff, which nobody would spend on normal software. And that might be a good thing for the industry overall, as too many health and safety critical devices are not well tested. Robot killer car crashes on the other hand generate headlines.
Indeed, and in one sense it focusses the scrutiny and energy of the law and of the safety bodies, from millions of drivers down to a few companies. I hope this means the authorities can then afford to spend nearly as much time investigating crashes as say, when an airliner goes down.
Open the pod bay doors HAL. Yes, that needed an off button. It is difficult though because many malfunctions will kill very quickly. Even without a computer. Mechanical failure in a helicopter? Software means more things can go wrong. But I trust Google ius so highly motivated to track our every move, that they will take safety very seriously. **cough** It'll need some kind of official accident investigation authority to come down hard and fast and demand all logs and investigate openly and with high technical acumen each accident, and laws which say the companies have to turn over all their source code and specs.
But normal cars are so dangerous to self and others and yet we put up with that risk daily. So what if road death rates go up from 3 to 4 or 5 per hundred thousand? Albania's is like, 30. We often choose speed over safety.
I was going to ask whether USB3 was any better for ZFS. Anyway gave up wondering and went with a Thunderbolt enclosure instead. Unfortunately it costs more. But ZFS is free.
I think they are simple to tease out the complex counterintuitive irrational process we go through when making ethical decisions in real life. Which is why in his lectures he puts up a simple scenario, and most people say yeees, and then he slightly changes it, and suddenly people say nooooo, and then he slightly changes it again (you can stop the train by pushing a fat man onto the track) and people are like, oh wait we reverse our choice again. In real life we probably use a little bit of all sorts of stuff, and smoosh it together.
The topic reminded me of a guy who'd gone to Rome but found it hard to cross the road because all the car drivers were insane, so he found shelter in the middle of a bunch of nuns who were crossing.
True. The philosophical bullshit is just for people to figure out who to blame after your system goes wrong. As long as it isn't you, then you can go back to figuring out how to improve it.
Or a rock from space. Say it was heading for Tokyo (9 million) and the best you manage is to divert it to land on Nairobi (3 million). I think the Kenyans would be rightly annoyed.
IIRC there was the concept of the "curtain". You have to imagine that after pulling or not putting the lever, you immediately become one of the participants, one of the passengers or one of the children, but you don't know which one you'll be.
And in a wider sense, do we say that democracy is merely the most satisfaction for the most people? Or is that a tyranny by the majority? If 9 out of 10 people don't like gays, is it ok to oppress them because the wider majority thinks they should be sacrificed? What little I could follow of his thought experiments was looking at this issue of whether ethics is just adding up numbers, or whether it was about principles. But then on principles, do you never lie even if that might cause someone's death, like Nazis at the door asking is you're hiding Jewish kids?
True, otherwise the opposite scenario, the train is going to hit the children, but you can pull a lever to divert it over a ravine...
There is also two meanings of innocent here, innocent because they are young children, and innocent because they were just in the wrong place (maybe the track is broken and it would slide the train onto them as they sit nearby...)
But even those subtleties, the larger the numbers get the more abstract it becomes, and each person's individual context stops being considered, so in the end, it becomes a question of numbers...
IIRC the second track is disused, or a variation, there are repair men working on the other track. Something like that. As one of the replies says, the point is whether it is ethical given that you are causing them to die when the situation, on its own, would not have killed them.
Another example, four people are sick and going to die, but you could save them by killing one healthier person. Like say, people stranded in a boat on the ocean, where without food and fluid the weakest will die, and they are the majority, but the youngest and strongest blood bag, and er, tastiest, would make it. IIRC in the Sandel series he mentioned this scenario having happened, and it was one of those things where the survivors simply never talk about it.
A further issue is that they may choose the er, living blood bag of food option because they have wives and children back home who need them.
I'm reminded of Michael Sandel's televised series on ethics.
If you could stop a runaway train from going over a ravene, by pulling a lever, thus saving 300 people, but the lever sent the train down a different track on which 3 children were playing, what do you do?
Somehow, involving innocents seems to change the ethical choices. You're no longer just saving the most lives, but actively choosing to kill innocent bystanders.
I find it a bit odd how it seems very rational to maintain that the brain and nervous system is all we are, at the end of the day, so all our complex human behaviours, intelligence, and emotions, are purely the result of a physical machine running, and death is a physical and complete end, yet as soon as we imagine that this machine could run in the dark, ie. we'll all still be talking to each other, interacting, going about our day, just there would be no sentience to experience any of these events, as soon as we imagine there might not be any sentience, it sounds depressing. Sentience and experiencing existence are so primary, my body could be here going about its normal day, yet unless I am sentient and experiencing it, it would seem like complete death, I "would not exist", even though the physical body would still be just the same, so strange how sentience is primary, yet generally philosophy and science in the modern age doesn't concern itself much with sentience itself, perhaps because it is so hard to even know how to define it or how to study it.
Like, if you could give someone a choice, you can either be a real piece of meat, a human organism in the real physical world, with high intelligence and ability to manipulate your environment, with the catch that you won't be sentient, you'll experience none of it, OR you could be purely a sentience, and free to dream any experience you want, just without any body or physicality or means of interacting with the real world, which would you choose?
And I think there is an odd catch with both of those, namely, that they are both eternally lonely.
There is video of the, what was it, McGovern hearing or some name like that, I can't remember, but you can watch Robert Lustig who has spoken a lot about this.
Well what quantities are you saying? I guess an implicit thing is that fat is very satiating. So "eat as much as you want" doesn't lead to overdoing it. I eat lots compared to a "low fat" diet, but I don't put on weight.
Also they are rethinking the cholesterol. The link between what you eat and the cholesterol in the blood is weak, and cholesterol rushes to the scene of damage in an artery, but it doesn't cause the damage. I don't know, just saying this is unresolved stuff.
It is also called "ancestral health" because you're interested in what people thrive on, not just what the guys stuck in a drought with nothing walking left to eat can obtain just to stay alive day to day.
They aren't banned. Paleo "hacks" are often experimenting with figuring out how much of which kinds of tubers and carbs may be beneficial.
What is banned is consuming the large quantities of carbs that the average person eats.
And yes they would have eaten chocolate cake if they could obtain it. In the absence of chocolate cake, there are Africans today who get into a little raft and paddle around in the dark trying to catch crocodiles.
Well I said "good natural fats" and this seems to be a big part of the whole low carb, banting, primal, paleo movement's message.
AFAIK, good fats here means omega 3, fish oil fats, coconut oil, macadamia nuts, grassfed animal fat, more coconut oil, grassfed butter, grassfed cream, etc.
The first point seems to be, fat is not bad, because that's a big part of the ordinary public message, "fat baaad! fat make you faaat! fat give u um chest pain!" and that's pretty much wrong, actually lots of fats protect the body.
Once people are over that fat-bad message, and aren't counting calories and thinking that they will stay healthy by eating the potato but skipping the bit of butter on top, then there is a long list of stuff regarding good fats, and knowing the difference between crap fried in crap, and good grass-fed butter and cream and animal fats and egg yolks.
But I only started down this path late in life so if I drop dead with a heart attack anyway, there is no way for me to know now what caused it. But eating good fats, lots of good fats, and generally for what it is worth, finding I feel so much better for it, is as much as I have to go on.
Same here. Tried it and found it works really well. Closer to hunter gatherer ancestors 300,000 years ago who ran down a large animal and then ate practically the whole thing, supplemented with berries and tubers or whatever. Lots of meat, lots and lots of fat, very little carbs.
Actually, it was the right balance of carbs, as was found before agriculture, and later, the vast industrialised agribusiness, made carbs so cheap you could fill half the plate with them, and then a long advertising campaign convinced everyone that this was the "right balance".
You only have to do low carb for about 3 days to realise what a massive public health shot in the foot we've had. And that's before we even get into any of the various other chronic conditions people may be suffering due to a unnaturally high carb diet combined with an unnaturally low fat intake.
Slashdot Mirror
As a bus person, I would agree, but in the end, they are really not a great technology. It is like the train system, eventually, after privatisation was supposed to make it more efficient, and ticket prices kept going up and up, you come to wonder that its problem isn't mismanagement, inefficient government, greedy corporations, nor old tech, it is just that it is a Victorian technology and concept.
The city I'm in used to have a big tram network, and you have to wonder why they got rid of it all those years ago.
Anyway, I imagine a a vast taxi network, cheaper because there is no driver, and like public transport in that you only pay for what you use, no need to buy the machine, and with so many available in a city that there is often one just 5 minutes away from you, and can be used for long and short journeys, door to door, or with a changeover somewhere for intercity routes. Each car is in use like a jet airliner is used to maximise its cost, rather than it sitting parked for most of its life.
When I'm 80, I want an app for that.
It needs something like the FAA to investigate crashes openly and come down hard on companies. I flew in a helicopter the other day, and googling its registration brought up its accident history. There has to be a lot of process and money put into making this stuff, which nobody would spend on normal software. And that might be a good thing for the industry overall, as too many health and safety critical devices are not well tested. Robot killer car crashes on the other hand generate headlines.
Over 100 years on, the automobile becomes even truer to it's name.
Nice!
Indeed, and in one sense it focusses the scrutiny and energy of the law and of the safety bodies, from millions of drivers down to a few companies. I hope this means the authorities can then afford to spend nearly as much time investigating crashes as say, when an airliner goes down.
Open the pod bay doors HAL. Yes, that needed an off button. It is difficult though because many malfunctions will kill very quickly. Even without a computer. Mechanical failure in a helicopter? Software means more things can go wrong. But I trust Google ius so highly motivated to track our every move, that they will take safety very seriously. **cough** It'll need some kind of official accident investigation authority to come down hard and fast and demand all logs and investigate openly and with high technical acumen each accident, and laws which say the companies have to turn over all their source code and specs.
But normal cars are so dangerous to self and others and yet we put up with that risk daily. So what if road death rates go up from 3 to 4 or 5 per hundred thousand? Albania's is like, 30. We often choose speed over safety.
Just send the old people who managed to survive a stay in a British NHS hospital.
I was going to ask whether USB3 was any better for ZFS. Anyway gave up wondering and went with a Thunderbolt enclosure instead. Unfortunately it costs more. But ZFS is free.
Thanks! I was wondering.
I think they are simple to tease out the complex counterintuitive irrational process we go through when making ethical decisions in real life. Which is why in his lectures he puts up a simple scenario, and most people say yeees, and then he slightly changes it, and suddenly people say nooooo, and then he slightly changes it again (you can stop the train by pushing a fat man onto the track) and people are like, oh wait we reverse our choice again. In real life we probably use a little bit of all sorts of stuff, and smoosh it together.
The topic reminded me of a guy who'd gone to Rome but found it hard to cross the road because all the car drivers were insane, so he found shelter in the middle of a bunch of nuns who were crossing.
True. The philosophical bullshit is just for people to figure out who to blame after your system goes wrong. As long as it isn't you, then you can go back to figuring out how to improve it.
Or a rock from space. Say it was heading for Tokyo (9 million) and the best you manage is to divert it to land on Nairobi (3 million). I think the Kenyans would be rightly annoyed.
IIRC there was the concept of the "curtain". You have to imagine that after pulling or not putting the lever, you immediately become one of the participants, one of the passengers or one of the children, but you don't know which one you'll be.
And in a wider sense, do we say that democracy is merely the most satisfaction for the most people? Or is that a tyranny by the majority? If 9 out of 10 people don't like gays, is it ok to oppress them because the wider majority thinks they should be sacrificed? What little I could follow of his thought experiments was looking at this issue of whether ethics is just adding up numbers, or whether it was about principles. But then on principles, do you never lie even if that might cause someone's death, like Nazis at the door asking is you're hiding Jewish kids?
True, otherwise the opposite scenario, the train is going to hit the children, but you can pull a lever to divert it over a ravine...
There is also two meanings of innocent here, innocent because they are young children, and innocent because they were just in the wrong place (maybe the track is broken and it would slide the train onto them as they sit nearby...)
But even those subtleties, the larger the numbers get the more abstract it becomes, and each person's individual context stops being considered, so in the end, it becomes a question of numbers...
Actually I wondered that as I was posting, but couldn't imagine myself ever buying such a vehicle.
"We call it the Kobayashi Maru mechanism. The vehicle superstructure disintegrates by timed popping of 50 explosive bolts..."
IIRC the second track is disused, or a variation, there are repair men working on the other track. Something like that. As one of the replies says, the point is whether it is ethical given that you are causing them to die when the situation, on its own, would not have killed them.
Another example, four people are sick and going to die, but you could save them by killing one healthier person. Like say, people stranded in a boat on the ocean, where without food and fluid the weakest will die, and they are the majority, but the youngest and strongest blood bag, and er, tastiest, would make it. IIRC in the Sandel series he mentioned this scenario having happened, and it was one of those things where the survivors simply never talk about it.
A further issue is that they may choose the er, living blood bag of food option because they have wives and children back home who need them.
I'm reminded of Michael Sandel's televised series on ethics.
If you could stop a runaway train from going over a ravene, by pulling a lever, thus saving 300 people, but the lever sent the train down a different track on which 3 children were playing, what do you do?
Somehow, involving innocents seems to change the ethical choices. You're no longer just saving the most lives, but actively choosing to kill innocent bystanders.
I find it a bit odd how it seems very rational to maintain that the brain and nervous system is all we are, at the end of the day, so all our complex human behaviours, intelligence, and emotions, are purely the result of a physical machine running, and death is a physical and complete end, yet as soon as we imagine that this machine could run in the dark, ie. we'll all still be talking to each other, interacting, going about our day, just there would be no sentience to experience any of these events, as soon as we imagine there might not be any sentience, it sounds depressing. Sentience and experiencing existence are so primary, my body could be here going about its normal day, yet unless I am sentient and experiencing it, it would seem like complete death, I "would not exist", even though the physical body would still be just the same, so strange how sentience is primary, yet generally philosophy and science in the modern age doesn't concern itself much with sentience itself, perhaps because it is so hard to even know how to define it or how to study it.
Like, if you could give someone a choice, you can either be a real piece of meat, a human organism in the real physical world, with high intelligence and ability to manipulate your environment, with the catch that you won't be sentient, you'll experience none of it, OR you could be purely a sentience, and free to dream any experience you want, just without any body or physicality or means of interacting with the real world, which would you choose?
And I think there is an odd catch with both of those, namely, that they are both eternally lonely.
There is video of the, what was it, McGovern hearing or some name like that, I can't remember, but you can watch Robert Lustig who has spoken a lot about this.
Well what quantities are you saying? I guess an implicit thing is that fat is very satiating. So "eat as much as you want" doesn't lead to overdoing it. I eat lots compared to a "low fat" diet, but I don't put on weight.
Also they are rethinking the cholesterol. The link between what you eat and the cholesterol in the blood is weak, and cholesterol rushes to the scene of damage in an artery, but it doesn't cause the damage. I don't know, just saying this is unresolved stuff.
It is also called "ancestral health" because you're interested in what people thrive on, not just what the guys stuck in a drought with nothing walking left to eat can obtain just to stay alive day to day.
They aren't banned. Paleo "hacks" are often experimenting with figuring out how much of which kinds of tubers and carbs may be beneficial.
What is banned is consuming the large quantities of carbs that the average person eats.
And yes they would have eaten chocolate cake if they could obtain it. In the absence of chocolate cake, there are Africans today who get into a little raft and paddle around in the dark trying to catch crocodiles.
Well I said "good natural fats" and this seems to be a big part of the whole low carb, banting, primal, paleo movement's message.
AFAIK, good fats here means omega 3, fish oil fats, coconut oil, macadamia nuts, grassfed animal fat, more coconut oil, grassfed butter, grassfed cream, etc.
The first point seems to be, fat is not bad, because that's a big part of the ordinary public message, "fat baaad! fat make you faaat! fat give u um chest pain!" and that's pretty much wrong, actually lots of fats protect the body.
Once people are over that fat-bad message, and aren't counting calories and thinking that they will stay healthy by eating the potato but skipping the bit of butter on top, then there is a long list of stuff regarding good fats, and knowing the difference between crap fried in crap, and good grass-fed butter and cream and animal fats and egg yolks.
But I only started down this path late in life so if I drop dead with a heart attack anyway, there is no way for me to know now what caused it. But eating good fats, lots of good fats, and generally for what it is worth, finding I feel so much better for it, is as much as I have to go on.
Same here. Tried it and found it works really well. Closer to hunter gatherer ancestors 300,000 years ago who ran down a large animal and then ate practically the whole thing, supplemented with berries and tubers or whatever. Lots of meat, lots and lots of fat, very little carbs.
Actually, it was the right balance of carbs, as was found before agriculture, and later, the vast industrialised agribusiness, made carbs so cheap you could fill half the plate with them, and then a long advertising campaign convinced everyone that this was the "right balance".
You only have to do low carb for about 3 days to realise what a massive public health shot in the foot we've had. And that's before we even get into any of the various other chronic conditions people may be suffering due to a unnaturally high carb diet combined with an unnaturally low fat intake.