I could see a 15-30% reduction in the amount of wasted power, but the overall power waste is probably ~10% so reducing the overall waste by 30% would be rather impressive.
Its all about cost. Thicker wires will also reduce losses, (as will coaxial cables etc. How does the cost of this compare to the cost of other methods of waste reduction?
The number of ways this can go wrong is nearly endless. But I expect that people will find themselves using them anyway as the system makes them more convenient than the alternative. People will tell themselves that they don't have any privacy anyway, and that hacks are rare and only happen to other people.
I think you can. Their business model is simple, and if you are paying for the service you are a "customer". In too many other cases (google, FB etc), you are the product.
Yes, but there was a time when the idea of carrying a tracking device with you all the time would have been considered unthinkable as well.
The problem is that there are so many attacks on privacy that trying to resist any one starts to feel pointless. Its too easy for people to tell themselves that each additional attack isn't really changing things that much, so they might as well give in in order to get the benefits. I won't be surprised to find that most people will have continuous audio and video, and possibly medical surveillance in the next decade or so - each individual step having seemed reasonable but the endpoint being terrifying.
I thought the "code of conduct" was usually something managers thought sounded good, and which had as much use as vision statements and lists of core values.
Yes, brought to you by the people who don't realize that sticking "DANGER" signs on everything doesn't actually make people safer.
Of course its rarely about actual risk and more about lawsuit avoidance (we warned you that this site contains substances known to cause cancer), or simply scoring political points with stupid voters.
I'm assuming that we will soon have radiation trifoils everywhere because there is detectable radiation everywhere.
This and similar stories make it sound like there is a real market for a breakthrough dating app that actually works at matching people. Its hard - but maybe no harder than self-driving cars and computers that teach themselves to play go.
Maybe humans are getting involved too early in the process. Really - people can be extremely shallow and pick partners based on the wrong sort of things.
Some sort of multi-person optimization might work - it doesn't just try to match individuals but looks at entire sets of matches that will make the most people the happiest. (OK, where's my $B for a startup idea).
I agree with you, but I think the problem is deeper. Capitalism (or really free-market) doesn't "think" anything. Its just a optimization engine for profits / economic output. Sometimes that is a really good thing - cars, pencils, and microwave ovens are surprisingly cheap. Other times, as you mention, pollution, and other externalities are not correctly costed.
Worse, maximizing profits is really not in the public interest. Executing everyone at retirement age would increase total economic output, but I'm really not in favor of it.
Separately free market isn't perfect. Discrimination is inefficient, but not so inefficient that it can't survive for a long time in the market.
I wouldn't say "physics is settled" even though a lot of specific questions in physics are settled. What is meant by the climate science is "settled"?
That CO2 levels are increasing: Yes, settled, lots of very good measurements.
That human activity has a significant effect on climate: Poorly phrased question, what is "significant'? There are models that show a range of effects, most showing effects that are large compared to the variations since the last ice age.
What we should do to mitigate those effects isn't science. Science provides options. For example, science can tell you your increased risk of cancer if you smoke. It can't tell you whether or not that is more important than the enjoyment you get out of smoking. I know several scientists who do smoke (fully aware of the risks).
Its the very vague "science is settled" phrase that I object to. It feels like a political statement of certainty. We don't have certainty - and don't need certainty in order to make good policy. We don't have certainty in most other policy inputs.
We really aren't disagreeing in any significant way here, except for the words used, but words are important. At some level disagreements over the meaning of words or phrases can't go anywhere, so there is probably no reason to continue.
I see a real risk in this technology: imagine the effect of doing a good fake of a political candidate sexually abusing a child. There might be lots of denials, but it would be difficult to completely reject. With our current level of concern (rational or not) about abuse of children, it would gather a lot of attention, and even risk prison for the victim.
The alternative of making fake child porn (eg no real children involved) is illegal, but I don't think represents as much of a risk
I think the problem is that the images can be presented as real. You may not care if someone draws an insulting cartoon of you, but migt care about a video that appears to show you doing something horribly embarrassing (like buying a windows phone if you are an Apple fanboy), and then distributes that in a way that will make people believe it actually happened.
If its sexual, than for many people that is worse. Would you really be comfortable with your friends seeing a video that looks like you are engaging in sexual acts of a type, and with people you wouldn't normally interact with?
Of course taken a step further it could show you engaging in illegal activity - something that could lose you your job or even freedom.
What argument do you think I am making? Several people seem to think that I'm arguing against taking action now - I'm not (read my posts).
I'm just arguing that the science isn't "settled", eg that there is still a lot that isn't known. There is very little science that I consider "settled" - yes, that the earth is round and orbits the sun. Newtonian mechanics in the parameter space where it is applicable. Same for E&M. These are all topics that are "settled" and where I think it is pointless to apply additional research funding unless something utterly unexpected turns up. I don't put climate science in that category.
I don't know what people mean when they say climate science is "settled" - that seems to mean that its finished, done, nothing more to learn, we have certainty. What does it mean?
I see it as an attempt to claim scientific certainty where none exists in order to achieve a political goal (reduce CO2 emissions). I agree with the goal, but not with making false scientific statements about the state of our understanding of climate. (which IMHO is the IPCC report - there is strong evidence that human activity has a significant effect on climate, with rather large error bars on exactly what the effects will be, but generally they look significantly negative).
Its not a problem of who does the programming. The basic problem is the AI confusing correlation and causation. So historical bias that shows up as a correlation can result in continued or increase bias.
If you go to a high tech company you are likely to see a high percentage of young White and Asian males. That could lead to an AI correlating those attributes with programming skill, and giving a bias in favor of those groups, rather than just ignoring race and age, and hiring the most qualified.
An additional problem is that even if race, age, gender etc are not included in the training set, machine learning can pull out the correlations of those with other parameters, and still decide based on these (now hidden) variables.
This isn't the result of some dark conspiracy to put bias in the system, just a result of statistical correlations in training sets. (this may also be an important cause in some human bias - but that is a bigger question).
I wish staff were paid better. I always try to tip according to local custom, but when traveling itâ(TM)s difficult. Often guidebooks are unclear and sometimes expectations for visitors at different than for locals. Some places it confuses the staff, sometimes itâ(TM)s an insult.
Iâ(TM)m generally in favor of policies that reduce emissions in an economically sensable way while we learn more.
I want the scientific research to continue because there is still a lot that isnâ(TM)t understood and because there is more to climate science than AGW.
I think people are assuming things Iâ(TM)m not saying. My point is a out certainty and the role of science in society. I view the IPCC reports as the best infi we have and as good input to the political process
This is so bizarre. Iâ(TM)ve never said that w am opposed to reducing emissions. Iâ(TM)m completely for it. I just want to keep science separate from politics. Reducing CO2 emissions is my personal political view, and despite being a scientist, my political view is no more important than anyone elseâ(TM)s.
If I were a climate scientist then my opinion on the effects of human activity on climate should get lots of weight, but I would still not have any additional political rights.
This is probably too subtle for social media.
I think human activity is causing climate change
I think that is a bad thing
I think we should reduce co2 emission and that is how I vote.
But.... I donâ(TM)t claim certainty - that is almost never true In science. I believe we need to keep funding climate science.
I think on social media everyone is so used to us vs them that itâ(TM)s impossible to make subtle points.
I'm arguing that science provides information as input to policy, but science does not itself form policy. Science can tell you that smoking increases your chance of dying of cancer, but it has no place deciding that cigarettes should be illegal.
The best science (the IPCC report in my opinion) indicates that human CO2 emission is causing significant environmental changes with large economic and other costs. That is as far as science goes. It can't say what we should do - it only gives options.
You really don't want scientists setting policy. That isn't their job.
Sure, people have misused all sorts of arguments in the past. I"m arguing for the importance of continued research because there are a lot of unknowns. That is separate from climate POLICY which should (of course) be based on the best information we have now. (anything else is silly - why would you based policy on anything other than the best information??).
Somehow my argument that we don't know everything about climate is being interpreted as our not knowing enough to guide policy. I've never said or implied that.
What assertions do you think I'm making? I've not said that I think the current IPCC models are wrong, just that the work should continue because there is a lot that isn't yet known.
CERN investigated (and may still be doing so) the effects of cosmic rays on climate. I haven't paid a lot of attention to that work in the last few years - if they have concluded that there is no significant impact, that checks off one more unknown. Work should continue to see what else if anything is missing in the models.
There was a nature paper a couple of years back that didn't show the expected isotope ratio in atmospheric CO2, indicating that the turnover rate with the biosystem is faster than had been thought - that is important information to put in the models.
Good question: does NOAA do its own satellites? I don't know if NASA just provides launch services them (as it does for some) or actually builds the instruments.
My only point is that its OK to separate NOAA and NASA functions as long as the functions are still funded and done.
I also don't see anyone arguing that we shouln't base decisions on the best scientific information we have at the moment, while continuing to study.
My objection is only to the term "settled" which implies that we know all the answers and there is nothing left o study.
It would be absurd to ignore what is already known, or to wait for "certainty" (which never happens in science) when we make policy decisions - though I know there are people who have suggested that (but not me)
Slashdot Mirror
I could see a 15-30% reduction in the amount of wasted power, but the overall power waste is probably ~10% so reducing the overall waste by 30% would be rather impressive.
Its all about cost. Thicker wires will also reduce losses, (as will coaxial cables etc. How does the cost of this compare to the cost of other methods of waste reduction?
Or "Child Kidnapper"
The number of ways this can go wrong is nearly endless. But I expect that people will find themselves using them anyway as the system makes them more convenient than the alternative. People will tell themselves that they don't have any privacy anyway, and that hacks are rare and only happen to other people.
Generating controversy is a great way to get free advertising.
Personally, I don't care, there are all sorts of horrible things in games and movies. People know the difference between fantasy and reality.
I think you can. Their business model is simple, and if you are paying for the service you are a "customer". In too many other cases (google, FB etc), you are the product.
Yes, but there was a time when the idea of carrying a tracking device with you all the time would have been considered unthinkable as well.
The problem is that there are so many attacks on privacy that trying to resist any one starts to feel pointless. Its too easy for people to tell themselves that each additional attack isn't really changing things that much, so they might as well give in in order to get the benefits. I won't be surprised to find that most people will have continuous audio and video, and possibly medical surveillance in the next decade or so - each individual step having seemed reasonable but the endpoint being terrifying.
I thought the "code of conduct" was usually something managers thought sounded good, and which had as much use as vision statements and lists of core values.
Yes, brought to you by the people who don't realize that sticking "DANGER" signs on everything doesn't actually make people safer.
Of course its rarely about actual risk and more about lawsuit avoidance (we warned you that this site contains substances known to cause cancer), or simply scoring political points with stupid voters.
I'm assuming that we will soon have radiation trifoils everywhere because there is detectable radiation everywhere.
This and similar stories make it sound like there is a real market for a breakthrough dating app that actually works at matching people. Its hard - but maybe no harder than self-driving cars and computers that teach themselves to play go.
Maybe humans are getting involved too early in the process. Really - people can be extremely shallow and pick partners based on the wrong sort of things.
Some sort of multi-person optimization might work - it doesn't just try to match individuals but looks at entire sets of matches that will make the most people the happiest. (OK, where's my $B for a startup idea).
I agree with you, but I think the problem is deeper. Capitalism (or really free-market) doesn't "think" anything. Its just a optimization engine for profits / economic output. Sometimes that is a really good thing - cars, pencils, and microwave ovens are surprisingly cheap. Other times, as you mention, pollution, and other externalities are not correctly costed.
Worse, maximizing profits is really not in the public interest. Executing everyone at retirement age would increase total economic output, but I'm really not in favor of it.
Separately free market isn't perfect. Discrimination is inefficient, but not so inefficient that it can't survive for a long time in the market.
I wouldn't say "physics is settled" even though a lot of specific questions in physics are settled. What is meant by the climate science is "settled"?
That CO2 levels are increasing: Yes, settled, lots of very good measurements.
That human activity has a significant effect on climate: Poorly phrased question, what is "significant'? There are models that show a range of effects, most showing effects that are large compared to the variations since the last ice age.
What we should do to mitigate those effects isn't science. Science provides options. For example, science can tell you your increased risk of cancer if you smoke. It can't tell you whether or not that is more important than the enjoyment you get out of smoking. I know several scientists who do smoke (fully aware of the risks).
Its the very vague "science is settled" phrase that I object to. It feels like a political statement of certainty. We don't have certainty - and don't need certainty in order to make good policy. We don't have certainty in most other policy inputs.
We really aren't disagreeing in any significant way here, except for the words used, but words are important. At some level disagreements over the meaning of words or phrases can't go anywhere, so there is probably no reason to continue.
I see a real risk in this technology: imagine the effect of doing a good fake of a political candidate sexually abusing a child. There might be lots of denials, but it would be difficult to completely reject. With our current level of concern (rational or not) about abuse of children, it would gather a lot of attention, and even risk prison for the victim.
The alternative of making fake child porn (eg no real children involved) is illegal, but I don't think represents as much of a risk
I think the problem is that the images can be presented as real. You may not care if someone draws an insulting cartoon of you, but migt care about a video that appears to show you doing something horribly embarrassing (like buying a windows phone if you are an Apple fanboy), and then distributes that in a way that will make people believe it actually happened.
If its sexual, than for many people that is worse. Would you really be comfortable with your friends seeing a video that looks like you are engaging in sexual acts of a type, and with people you wouldn't normally interact with?
Of course taken a step further it could show you engaging in illegal activity - something that could lose you your job or even freedom.
What argument do you think I am making? Several people seem to think that I'm arguing against taking action now - I'm not (read my posts).
I'm just arguing that the science isn't "settled", eg that there is still a lot that isn't known. There is very little science that I consider "settled" - yes, that the earth is round and orbits the sun. Newtonian mechanics in the parameter space where it is applicable. Same for E&M. These are all topics that are "settled" and where I think it is pointless to apply additional research funding unless something utterly unexpected turns up. I don't put climate science in that category.
I don't know what people mean when they say climate science is "settled" - that seems to mean that its finished, done, nothing more to learn, we have certainty. What does it mean?
I see it as an attempt to claim scientific certainty where none exists in order to achieve a political goal (reduce CO2 emissions). I agree with the goal, but not with making false scientific statements about the state of our understanding of climate. (which IMHO is the IPCC report - there is strong evidence that human activity has a significant effect on climate, with rather large error bars on exactly what the effects will be, but generally they look significantly negative).
Its not a problem of who does the programming. The basic problem is the AI confusing correlation and causation. So historical bias that shows up as a correlation can result in continued or increase bias.
If you go to a high tech company you are likely to see a high percentage of young White and Asian males. That could lead to an AI correlating those attributes with programming skill, and giving a bias in favor of those groups, rather than just ignoring race and age, and hiring the most qualified.
An additional problem is that even if race, age, gender etc are not included in the training set, machine learning can pull out the correlations of those with other parameters, and still decide based on these (now hidden) variables.
This isn't the result of some dark conspiracy to put bias in the system, just a result of statistical correlations in training sets. (this may also be an important cause in some human bias - but that is a bigger question).
I wish staff were paid better. I always try to tip according to local custom, but when traveling itâ(TM)s difficult. Often guidebooks are unclear and sometimes expectations for visitors at different than for locals. Some places it confuses the staff, sometimes itâ(TM)s an insult.
So much easier if staff were paid reasonably.
When have I said or suggested that we take no action? Really? How do you get that from my posts?
Iâ(TM)m generally in favor of policies that reduce emissions in an economically sensable way while we learn more.
I want the scientific research to continue because there is still a lot that isnâ(TM)t understood and because there is more to climate science than AGW.
I think people are assuming things Iâ(TM)m not saying. My point is a out certainty and the role of science in society. I view the IPCC reports as the best infi we have and as good input to the political process
This is so bizarre. Iâ(TM)ve never said that w am opposed to reducing emissions. Iâ(TM)m completely for it. I just want to keep science separate from politics. Reducing CO2 emissions is my personal political view, and despite being a scientist, my political view is no more important than anyone elseâ(TM)s.
If I were a climate scientist then my opinion on the effects of human activity on climate should get lots of weight, but I would still not have any additional political rights.
This is probably too subtle for social media.
I think human activity is causing climate change
I think that is a bad thing
I think we should reduce co2 emission and that is how I vote.
But.... I donâ(TM)t claim certainty - that is almost never true In science. I believe we need to keep funding climate science.
I think on social media everyone is so used to us vs them that itâ(TM)s impossible to make subtle points.
The way I see it, policy should be based on the best available science, but that is different from saying that science sets policy.
If we can't elect politicians who are able to understand the scientific input and act on it, the that is our mistake.
I'm arguing that science provides information as input to policy, but science does not itself form policy. Science can tell you that smoking increases your chance of dying of cancer, but it has no place deciding that cigarettes should be illegal.
The best science (the IPCC report in my opinion) indicates that human CO2 emission is causing significant environmental changes with large economic and other costs. That is as far as science goes. It can't say what we should do - it only gives options.
You really don't want scientists setting policy. That isn't their job.
Sure, people have misused all sorts of arguments in the past. I"m arguing for the importance of continued research because there are a lot of unknowns. That is separate from climate POLICY which should (of course) be based on the best information we have now. (anything else is silly - why would you based policy on anything other than the best information??).
Somehow my argument that we don't know everything about climate is being interpreted as our not knowing enough to guide policy. I've never said or implied that.
What assertions do you think I'm making? I've not said that I think the current IPCC models are wrong, just that the work should continue because there is a lot that isn't yet known.
CERN investigated (and may still be doing so) the effects of cosmic rays on climate. I haven't paid a lot of attention to that work in the last few years - if they have concluded that there is no significant impact, that checks off one more unknown. Work should continue to see what else if anything is missing in the models.
There was a nature paper a couple of years back that didn't show the expected isotope ratio in atmospheric CO2, indicating that the turnover rate with the biosystem is faster than had been thought - that is important information to put in the models.
Good question: does NOAA do its own satellites? I don't know if NASA just provides launch services them (as it does for some) or actually builds the instruments.
My only point is that its OK to separate NOAA and NASA functions as long as the functions are still funded and done.
I also don't see anyone arguing that we shouln't base decisions on the best scientific information we have at the moment, while continuing to study.
My objection is only to the term "settled" which implies that we know all the answers and there is nothing left o study.
It would be absurd to ignore what is already known, or to wait for "certainty" (which never happens in science) when we make policy decisions - though I know there are people who have suggested that (but not me)
See the CERN cloud project which is looking at cosmic ray effects on climate