Search for something on Twitter. 99% of it is marketing crap - filled with a dozen hashtags, and probably auto-generated. Real posts by real people are rare - and they're the only ones worth engaging with. Pity there's no way I can filter my stream/results to only get such tweets:(
Cancer therapy drugs avoid the prisoner's dilemma because they are profitable to develop and sell, and so are the rational choice for a company. This is because if a company were to develop antibiotic drugs and only sell them to those who can pay the huge costs for it (like cancer drugs), people would call for their blood and their situation would be untenable. Their image would be mud, and somehow or the other, people will find a way to get the molecules to poorer people for cheap.
Cancer drugs avoid this because vastly fewer people get cancer than bacterial infections, and a company is not seen as a monster for not providing cheap cancer drugs to a very few people. But with the number of people needing anti-biotics numbering in the billions, there's no way a pharma company can justify not selling them cheaply and to poor people around the world.
Bottom line: No country in the world is 100% libertarian including the US. When the greater good vastly outweighs the benefits of a single entity, the property rights of that entity will be infringed upon.
Antibiotic drugs create the prisoner's dilemma because the rational decision for an individual company is not to develop them due to unprofitability. And in this case, everyone following individual self interest leads to a diminishing of the greater good.
Most people reading my response and who know what the prisoner's dilemma is, would immediately know what I mean. As such, I gain zero benefit from taking the considerable effort of explaining how it applies to this scenario specifically for you.
Maybe if you were to pay me for my time, I can educate you on the subject. Otherwise, it's not worth it. If that's unsatisfying to you, well...such is life.
I would think this is an obvious approach. Of course this is a public issue - and one that is extremely unprofitable for private corporations to tackle. But I don't understand - is the average American opposed to government funded research into antibiotics? If so, why?
Buying Manhattan by itself couldn't be called colonialism. The real problem with colonialism is the eventual suppression of human rights, murder etc. Without human rights violations, there would be no problem with colonialism.
Let me put in this way. I'm an Indian (as in India - the east. Not native American). The British were a problem only because there were human rights violations. Let's say the British instead had democratic elections and people freely chose a British national to govern instead of an Indian, I would have absolutely no problems with that. That would not be called colonialism.
As long as there are no human rights violations, there's no complaint. And tech companies are not engaging in that kind of thing.
If people give up their data willingly, that is not colonialism. Colonialism dealt with the forcible removal of people's rights. When it's voluntary, no one has any business complaining. It's not hard to understand.
I bought an Android One phone to get regular updates. It took more than 6 months for Google to roll it out to my device. I was expecting an update within 2 weeks of the announcement at Google I/O. They've changed the wording on their website, but at the time it was:
"Android One devices receive the latest version of Android directly from Google. When a new update is released, it can take up to two weeks to reach your device.
So Google broke their promise big time. I wouldn't advise anyone to get an Android One phone.
Well, there are no network effects that I'm aware of so I guess it shouldn't be a problem. A better product will be used cause there are no switching costs. Unlike say switching from Facebook to something else even if the alternative is better. In the latter scenario, a better product will not automatically get social media users cause the value of a social network increases with the number of existing users alone.
I don't see the same effect for video streaming services.
It's brilliant. I hate twitch - the bandwidth is terrible, I can't choose the resolution, the interface is slow. Youtube is smooth and works seamlessly.
And yet we have data that doesn't fit neatly in a single model. Hence the need or quest for unified theories in the first place. I mean...the current state of physics depends on a lot of data that doesn't fit a single framework.
And let's not even get started on dark matter. The entire concept was evolved to account for discrepancies in data that didn't fit existing models. If we can get a theory that not only explains everything we already know, but which also has a convenient explanation of what dark matter was meant to explain, that would be awesome.
Sure, a lot of theories might be crap. But it's worth popping them out nevertheless because the good ones can change the way we look at the world forever.
I disagree. We have lots and lots of data. What we need more is a coherent framework to put it all together. The data from the LHC is so vast that processing it is a herculean task. More frameworks, more ideas will help make sense from all of it.
That's just terminology. All of mathematics is "storytelling". The fact is that physics desperately needs ideas more than anything else. And we need them in a flood. Who cares what terminology is used? Let people make ideas and follow them. Some may pan out. Most won't. So what?
If some people don't want to call it "science", let them. It doesn't matter.
When a theory seems interesting, you can't just give up on it saying "Oh, there's no way to test it!". Who knows? Down the line when it's fully fleshed out, it might make predictions that can be tested. It might have a much more elegant explanation of existing patchwork theories. Ultimately you have to ask yourself whywe do physics. We don't do it to stick to some ideal standard. We do it for fun, for ourselves. To satisfy our craving for understanding.
Curiosity is a much bigger motivation that will not be arrested simply because someone points out that a theory can't be tested at this time. Every development, every idea, every thought is useful in some way or the other. If not directly, then indirectly. Ideas that are developed now can be used decades later in a new theory. We have to lay the seeds, bring out all the wayward theories and develop all the conceivable mathematical tools.
No, I don't consider any of this wasted effort at all.
There is no reason for an AI to kill us. Biological life forms created via evolution have the instinct for self preservation, to view threats both emotional and physical, and have been programmed to respond to those threats.
AI created by us will have no such impulses. No ego. No self preservation instinct (since we won't program them to, and it serves to purpose). So what on earth can be the reason for them to kill us? The only reason I can think of is if some human being specifically programs them to do so.
I'm not saying that a human being will never program an AI to kill us. I'm saying that assuming that AI will eventually kill us and to view it as a foregone conclusion is illogical.
And yet/. hates Microsoft for having it's 'Monopoly'
Google gives them "free" shiny. And wow, do they sound like whiny little bitches when someone says anything bad about them.
If Google gives us free shinies, that means it's good for us. As a consumer, I will support Google because I get free shinies. What's wrong with that? The customer is happy.
it takes a wise person to realize that some things should not be done.
Mm...nope. Not for me. As a person who loves tech, I want to do EVERYTHING possible in tech. No matter the consequences, no matter the danger, I want to see it happen. The tech is an end in and of itself.
Nah, I'm pretty much a barbarian when it comes to art. If you show me a printed reproduction and told me it's the real thing, I'd fall for it hook line and sinker. And so would, I suspect, the overwhelming majority of people who go to museums.
Same for sculptures etc. Do a double blind test to check if people can figure out which is the real and which is the fake and well over 99% of people would fail!
Slashdot Mirror
Search for something on Twitter. 99% of it is marketing crap - filled with a dozen hashtags, and probably auto-generated. Real posts by real people are rare - and they're the only ones worth engaging with. Pity there's no way I can filter my stream/results to only get such tweets :(
Cancer therapy drugs avoid the prisoner's dilemma because they are profitable to develop and sell, and so are the rational choice for a company. This is because if a company were to develop antibiotic drugs and only sell them to those who can pay the huge costs for it (like cancer drugs), people would call for their blood and their situation would be untenable. Their image would be mud, and somehow or the other, people will find a way to get the molecules to poorer people for cheap.
Cancer drugs avoid this because vastly fewer people get cancer than bacterial infections, and a company is not seen as a monster for not providing cheap cancer drugs to a very few people. But with the number of people needing anti-biotics numbering in the billions, there's no way a pharma company can justify not selling them cheaply and to poor people around the world.
Bottom line: No country in the world is 100% libertarian including the US. When the greater good vastly outweighs the benefits of a single entity, the property rights of that entity will be infringed upon.
Antibiotic drugs create the prisoner's dilemma because the rational decision for an individual company is not to develop them due to unprofitability. And in this case, everyone following individual self interest leads to a diminishing of the greater good.
Most people reading my response and who know what the prisoner's dilemma is, would immediately know what I mean. As such, I gain zero benefit from taking the considerable effort of explaining how it applies to this scenario specifically for you.
Maybe if you were to pay me for my time, I can educate you on the subject. Otherwise, it's not worth it. If that's unsatisfying to you, well...such is life.
Because of the Prisoner's dilemma. This is basic game theory, and not some astounding revelation.
I would think this is an obvious approach. Of course this is a public issue - and one that is extremely unprofitable for private corporations to tackle. But I don't understand - is the average American opposed to government funded research into antibiotics? If so, why?
His engineering teacher had asked the class to make projects. What excuse would you have to carry the same thing into a federal court building?
Buying Manhattan by itself couldn't be called colonialism. The real problem with colonialism is the eventual suppression of human rights, murder etc. Without human rights violations, there would be no problem with colonialism.
Let me put in this way. I'm an Indian (as in India - the east. Not native American). The British were a problem only because there were human rights violations. Let's say the British instead had democratic elections and people freely chose a British national to govern instead of an Indian, I would have absolutely no problems with that. That would not be called colonialism.
As long as there are no human rights violations, there's no complaint. And tech companies are not engaging in that kind of thing.
If people give up their data willingly, that is not colonialism. Colonialism dealt with the forcible removal of people's rights. When it's voluntary, no one has any business complaining. It's not hard to understand.
Edit: They still promise the above in their "Timing for Software Updates" section in the following link: https://support.google.com/and...
I bought an Android One phone to get regular updates. It took more than 6 months for Google to roll it out to my device. I was expecting an update within 2 weeks of the announcement at Google I/O. They've changed the wording on their website, but at the time it was:
"Android One devices receive the latest version of Android directly from Google. When a new update is released, it can take up to two weeks to reach your device.
So Google broke their promise big time. I wouldn't advise anyone to get an Android One phone.
Well, there are no network effects that I'm aware of so I guess it shouldn't be a problem. A better product will be used cause there are no switching costs. Unlike say switching from Facebook to something else even if the alternative is better. In the latter scenario, a better product will not automatically get social media users cause the value of a social network increases with the number of existing users alone.
I don't see the same effect for video streaming services.
It's brilliant. I hate twitch - the bandwidth is terrible, I can't choose the resolution, the interface is slow. Youtube is smooth and works seamlessly.
And yet we have data that doesn't fit neatly in a single model. Hence the need or quest for unified theories in the first place. I mean...the current state of physics depends on a lot of data that doesn't fit a single framework.
And let's not even get started on dark matter. The entire concept was evolved to account for discrepancies in data that didn't fit existing models. If we can get a theory that not only explains everything we already know, but which also has a convenient explanation of what dark matter was meant to explain, that would be awesome.
Sure, a lot of theories might be crap. But it's worth popping them out nevertheless because the good ones can change the way we look at the world forever.
But none of this really matters. No one is stopping another from doing "real science" if they wish. Everyone does what they enjoy. Everyone is happy!
I disagree. We have lots and lots of data. What we need more is a coherent framework to put it all together. The data from the LHC is so vast that processing it is a herculean task. More frameworks, more ideas will help make sense from all of it.
That's just terminology. All of mathematics is "storytelling". The fact is that physics desperately needs ideas more than anything else. And we need them in a flood. Who cares what terminology is used? Let people make ideas and follow them. Some may pan out. Most won't. So what?
If some people don't want to call it "science", let them. It doesn't matter.
When a theory seems interesting, you can't just give up on it saying "Oh, there's no way to test it!". Who knows? Down the line when it's fully fleshed out, it might make predictions that can be tested. It might have a much more elegant explanation of existing patchwork theories. Ultimately you have to ask yourself whywe do physics. We don't do it to stick to some ideal standard. We do it for fun, for ourselves. To satisfy our craving for understanding.
Curiosity is a much bigger motivation that will not be arrested simply because someone points out that a theory can't be tested at this time. Every development, every idea, every thought is useful in some way or the other. If not directly, then indirectly. Ideas that are developed now can be used decades later in a new theory. We have to lay the seeds, bring out all the wayward theories and develop all the conceivable mathematical tools.
No, I don't consider any of this wasted effort at all.
There is no reason for an AI to kill us. Biological life forms created via evolution have the instinct for self preservation, to view threats both emotional and physical, and have been programmed to respond to those threats.
AI created by us will have no such impulses. No ego. No self preservation instinct (since we won't program them to, and it serves to purpose). So what on earth can be the reason for them to kill us? The only reason I can think of is if some human being specifically programs them to do so.
I'm not saying that a human being will never program an AI to kill us. I'm saying that assuming that AI will eventually kill us and to view it as a foregone conclusion is illogical.
Ads pay for my web hosting. Everyone wins. I win, the readers of my blog win, and the advertisers win. What's the problem here?
And yet /. hates Microsoft for having it's 'Monopoly'
Google gives them "free" shiny. And wow, do they sound like whiny little bitches when someone says anything bad about them.
If Google gives us free shinies, that means it's good for us. As a consumer, I will support Google because I get free shinies. What's wrong with that? The customer is happy.
it takes a wise person to realize that some things should not be done.
Mm...nope. Not for me. As a person who loves tech, I want to do EVERYTHING possible in tech. No matter the consequences, no matter the danger, I want to see it happen. The tech is an end in and of itself.
The comment to which mine was a response. It had nothing to do with museums.
Well, a fake then. There are some incredibly well done copies of famous paintings.
Nah, I'm pretty much a barbarian when it comes to art. If you show me a printed reproduction and told me it's the real thing, I'd fall for it hook line and sinker. And so would, I suspect, the overwhelming majority of people who go to museums.
Same for sculptures etc. Do a double blind test to check if people can figure out which is the real and which is the fake and well over 99% of people would fail!
I didn't say the art museum can't do what it likes now did I?