Yes it is directly too. There's no reason not to cure people even if it is permanent because there's no single injection that cures anyone of everything. To use your example, just because you cured HepC, doesn't mean the person won't be back for more when he gets HepB or AIDS.
We can start about the poor struggling MIC's profitability once people stop lining up for cures.
The world is not black and white. Just because this wasn't some engineering mistake, doesn't automatically make it some huge conspiracy. The reality was probably somewhere in the middle:
Engineer proposes something, likely nothing to do with ads in the first place, something aligns well with Google's business model and how it would block adblockers so it gets fast tracked to production, someone realises the backlash may cost market share and they roll it all back.
People have the freedom to shop for food they can afford and big gov says no....snip... Will the gov say what can be sold?
You don't understand the government at all do you? Big gov (not at all big gov) is preserving your choice in what you eat, not reducing it. All the while somehow it seems to have passed you that the government very much already says what can and can't be sold.
Will the cost of all that gov approval be passed on with a new fresh produce, meats and fruit tax?
That super expensive (not really) banana in your store already has that cost applied to it. Guess what, it wasn't significant.
Maybe it's me, but there doesn't seem to be any relevance whatsoever.
It's you. You're just not the same nerd as those of us interested in socio-economic patterns, especially those that affect my ability to be a food nerd.
You joke, but IKEA sells beer, with a pop cap on the the top. Instructions indicate that you need to use a bottle opener but do you think you get one when get the bottle? noooooo.
And Entrope wrote nothing but ad hominem attacks, deliberately not addressing the point which was made but instead choosing to dismiss the point based entirely on the person who made it.
Shame on your for disgracing your low UID with such anti-intellectualism. Give that account to a real nerd.
I thought this was America, where people have choice and freedom to choose what they want to eat. If they are choosing unhealthy shit, that's their choice.
Indeed. It's also my choice to walk to mars. The fact that I am unable to do it apparently isn't a consideration for your argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There will still be some supermarket if there is a demand.
And you just failed economics.... And failed to read the summary.
You must not be from around Chicago... Everybody knows that the city AND the state are on the brink of bankruptcy
Interesting. This exact argument has often been used to justify why poor 3rd world shitholes should continue to pollute unabated because it's "cheaper". My my how Chicago has fallen.
The discussion is about at least coercing them to seek out and delete anti-vax posts.
Err no. That's not the discussion either. The discussion is about not promoting these in people's feed, not suggesting them to interest groups, and not allowing the algorithms to target specific people interested in vaccine controversies.
I used the word "echo chamber" for a reason.
First of all, good luck banning stupidity.
Causal error. I didn't say you should ban stupidity. In fact I didn't say you should ban anything. I just pointed out that creating an echo chamber of stupidity and promoting it on a global platform is not a good thing.
Secondly, who's going to define what's stupid?
We don't need to free the world of all stupidity. Let's just start with the obvious gross stupidities.
This is the result of freedom of speech. It's a Good Thing.
Freedom of speech is a good thing. Freedom of requiring a global platform with an audience of billions to grant you your own echo chamber where you can radicalise your stupidity is not a good thing.
The correct system name is hydrogen oxide. Technically it would be hydrogen monoxide in chemical speak. The clever hoax is dihydrogen monoxide, but I've never heard dihydrogen oxide before, not sure that is technically correct.
Personally I've taken to calling it hydroxylic acid since that's technically also correct and has the word acid in it so it freaks people out even more.
How about if we just let everyone speak, and let the listeners decide for themselves who to believe?
This is something that worked well before we provided a global platform for like minded stupid people to build stupid echo-chambers and amplify their stupidity.
Facebook should not be the arbiter of what is "true".
Whether or not something is true is a different question about whether we should continue to permit something objectively false.
Indeed. What we need is our own little group of like minded tech people with our own site with our own news and our own comments sections. Being mostly tech people and nerds we will finally be free from idiocy and we will never see a stupid comments by stupid people again.
*Scrolls up the comments on vaccinations*. *Scrolls down the comments on vaccinations*.
My point was more that the danger of the risk of monoculture was mitigated by the monoculture being open source.
And my point was that this is completely wrong. The availability of source code and the ability to fork something doesn't change that the monoculture in question ends up with significant power and sway to drive standards rather than the reverse.
We're seeing this already. Chrome's underlying engine is open source and yet the W3C has started to adopt whatever Chrome does because it's already in active use.
To some extend, development always drives standards. Someone develops a new thing, then it's standardized, then others can develop to the standard. That's not the danger that monoculture presents.
Disagree. Someone *proposes* a new thing and then it is standardised. What happened in the day (and what is happening now) is that someone proposes something, develops something, the web adopts said something, and the standards body is sitting there hamstrung with no option other than to adopt said something in the next standard. That is the danger that a monoculture presents. To say otherwise ignores the mistakes of IE6 and ignores what is going on right now.
That's not really true at all. If IE6 were open sourced than people could have either chosen to standardize based on that implementation, or at least implemented an IE6-compatible rendering mode.
Good. You finally agreed with me (though in a roundabout way) that a monoculture destroys standardisation and even with open source puts an incredible amount of power in the hands of whomever runs the core project.
Or someone could have made a fork of IE6 with more standards-compliant rendering.
So what are we saying: "Fork the code, do something that breaks the way the monoculture developed internet works, and hope for adoption?" That isn't a winning strategy. That's not even a "I want to play this game" strategy.
Also, MS wouldn't have had the motivation to create IE the way they did if it were open source. They were intentionally perpetuating vendor-lock-in, and that was the real problem.
Ahem... You should really look at Google, Chromium, and the business practices that are going on. Open source does nothing to prevent vendor lockin. When the competition is perpetually in catchup mode you are still locked in regardless of the availability of source code.
We'll stop calling this autopilot when you stop calling a plane's autopilot autopilot.
It is just drivers assist, just like every other car manufacturer puts in their high end vehicles.
Why not simply write: "I have driven neither a Tesla nor a modern high end vehicle from any other manufacturer." It would hide your ignorant conclusion.
The guy's name is Randy Whitfield. Based on his resume he's at least got a statistical background and a paper or two to his name and he seems to have been completely silent since the last 80s.
The NHTSA study had it's flaws, but this guy needed to cut 90% of the data to get to his conclusion and the first 6 pages of his report seem to be a legal hit piece and a whine about the NHTSA not happily just handing over everything they've done and refusing to talk to him after he sued them (surprise).
But ad hominem aside what we really need is a *current* dataset opened up and analysed.
Their report and the Ars article describe the statistically inappropriate decisions in the NHTSA study.
While introducing a lot of inappropriate analysis themselves. In order to decide that autopilot was bad he (not they, QCS is only one guy) discarded 90% of the available data which resulted in something which completely failed statistical significance tests. So forgive me for not following the outrage here.
Now what really should happen is that Tesla should open up all their *current* data. They have over a billion miles of data now to work with and that may actually be usable to draw a valid conclusion.
1. Make it more expensive. You heard me right "green" is NOT free, it's actually much more expensive than current alternatives
You don't say! Green is more expensive? Man it sounds like you DEFINITELY need to mandate it then otherwise no one will do anything and we'll happily crap on our own future health and survival because hey, gotta save that dollar man!
2. Spend lots of money on revamping, renewing, changing technology.
No. I'm simply pointing out that the issues in Chicago are multifaceted.
No you weren't. If you were then you really need to learn to write. Start by not emphasizing your incredible disagreement using carefully selected all-caps. You can then continue by not saying if they "really" wanted to make a difference they'd do something else.
And to add to that, the only reason why Chernobyl was as hard to shut down properly as it was, was because that reactor type used graphite as a moderator.
Yes and no. Yes modern reactors are inherently safer, but no their test specifically put the reactor in a position it was never allowed to go into. They could have happily shut the reactor down if they didn't have 5x less than the minimum required number of control rods inserted (a conscious decision they made during their demonstration of stupidity supreme).
I like referencing this case during safety system reviews at refineries and chemical plants. Operations always insist that they need the ability to bypass any safety system if they actually need to. My answer to them is depending on the case a strict no, the whole point of the safety system is to take over control. You can restart your chemical plant tomorrow. Regardless of how important you think it is, it's not as important as your lives.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes it is directly too. There's no reason not to cure people even if it is permanent because there's no single injection that cures anyone of everything. To use your example, just because you cured HepC, doesn't mean the person won't be back for more when he gets HepB or AIDS.
We can start about the poor struggling MIC's profitability once people stop lining up for cures.
The world is not black and white. Just because this wasn't some engineering mistake, doesn't automatically make it some huge conspiracy. The reality was probably somewhere in the middle:
Engineer proposes something, likely nothing to do with ads in the first place, something aligns well with Google's business model and how it would block adblockers so it gets fast tracked to production, someone realises the backlash may cost market share and they roll it all back.
People have the freedom to shop for food they can afford and big gov says no. ...snip...
Will the gov say what can be sold?
You don't understand the government at all do you? Big gov (not at all big gov) is preserving your choice in what you eat, not reducing it. All the while somehow it seems to have passed you that the government very much already says what can and can't be sold.
Will the cost of all that gov approval be passed on with a new fresh produce, meats and fruit tax?
That super expensive (not really) banana in your store already has that cost applied to it. Guess what, it wasn't significant.
Maybe it's me, but there doesn't seem to be any relevance whatsoever.
It's you. You're just not the same nerd as those of us interested in socio-economic patterns, especially those that affect my ability to be a food nerd.
Near where I live, there's a produce store that is always jam-packed full of people.
Sounds like there's not enough produce stores in your area. I wonder if TFA is related to this.
Going to McDonalds is just less effort, and very tasty.
Taste bud deterioration. That's the reason cheap and horrible food is popular in America.
McDonalds is a lot of things, but tasty is not one of them.
You joke, but IKEA sells beer, with a pop cap on the the top. Instructions indicate that you need to use a bottle opener but do you think you get one when get the bottle? noooooo.
Just because we're talking about the same topic does not make it a dupe. They are discussing different aspects of the same situation.
And Entrope wrote nothing but ad hominem attacks, deliberately not addressing the point which was made but instead choosing to dismiss the point based entirely on the person who made it.
Shame on your for disgracing your low UID with such anti-intellectualism. Give that account to a real nerd.
I thought this was America, where people have choice and freedom to choose what they want to eat. If they are choosing unhealthy shit, that's their choice.
Indeed. It's also my choice to walk to mars. The fact that I am unable to do it apparently isn't a consideration for your argument.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There will still be some supermarket if there is a demand.
And you just failed economics. ... And failed to read the summary.
You must not be from around Chicago... Everybody knows that the city AND the state are on the brink of bankruptcy
Interesting. This exact argument has often been used to justify why poor 3rd world shitholes should continue to pollute unabated because it's "cheaper". My my how Chicago has fallen.
The discussion is about at least coercing them to seek out and delete anti-vax posts.
Err no. That's not the discussion either. The discussion is about not promoting these in people's feed, not suggesting them to interest groups, and not allowing the algorithms to target specific people interested in vaccine controversies.
I used the word "echo chamber" for a reason.
First of all, good luck banning stupidity.
Causal error. I didn't say you should ban stupidity. In fact I didn't say you should ban anything. I just pointed out that creating an echo chamber of stupidity and promoting it on a global platform is not a good thing.
Secondly, who's going to define what's stupid?
We don't need to free the world of all stupidity. Let's just start with the obvious gross stupidities.
Trust people to decide for themselves
Yeah just look where that got us: https://www.who.int/news-room/...
Who knows what new technology will allow authorities to uncover what you were doing years ago...
I am suddenly concerned about an internet meme: https://me.me/i/the-fbi-is-wat...
This is the result of freedom of speech. It's a Good Thing.
Freedom of speech is a good thing.
Freedom of requiring a global platform with an audience of billions to grant you your own echo chamber where you can radicalise your stupidity is not a good thing.
That's a new one.
The correct system name is hydrogen oxide. Technically it would be hydrogen monoxide in chemical speak. The clever hoax is dihydrogen monoxide, but I've never heard dihydrogen oxide before, not sure that is technically correct.
Personally I've taken to calling it hydroxylic acid since that's technically also correct and has the word acid in it so it freaks people out even more.
How about if we just let everyone speak, and let the listeners decide for themselves who to believe?
This is something that worked well before we provided a global platform for like minded stupid people to build stupid echo-chambers and amplify their stupidity.
Facebook should not be the arbiter of what is "true".
Whether or not something is true is a different question about whether we should continue to permit something objectively false.
Non-tech people weren't ready for the internet.
Indeed. What we need is our own little group of like minded tech people with our own site with our own news and our own comments sections. Being mostly tech people and nerds we will finally be free from idiocy and we will never see a stupid comments by stupid people again.
*Scrolls up the comments on vaccinations*.
*Scrolls down the comments on vaccinations*.
Well that didn't work.
gasoline because everybody will put it in baggies and huff it
Funny you should say that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Mind you the latest craze is those people in those communities are huffing avgas with all of it's leaded goodness.
My point was more that the danger of the risk of monoculture was mitigated by the monoculture being open source.
And my point was that this is completely wrong. The availability of source code and the ability to fork something doesn't change that the monoculture in question ends up with significant power and sway to drive standards rather than the reverse.
We're seeing this already. Chrome's underlying engine is open source and yet the W3C has started to adopt whatever Chrome does because it's already in active use.
To some extend, development always drives standards. Someone develops a new thing, then it's standardized, then others can develop to the standard. That's not the danger that monoculture presents.
Disagree. Someone *proposes* a new thing and then it is standardised. What happened in the day (and what is happening now) is that someone proposes something, develops something, the web adopts said something, and the standards body is sitting there hamstrung with no option other than to adopt said something in the next standard. That is the danger that a monoculture presents. To say otherwise ignores the mistakes of IE6 and ignores what is going on right now.
That's not really true at all. If IE6 were open sourced than people could have either chosen to standardize based on that implementation, or at least implemented an IE6-compatible rendering mode.
Good. You finally agreed with me (though in a roundabout way) that a monoculture destroys standardisation and even with open source puts an incredible amount of power in the hands of whomever runs the core project.
Or someone could have made a fork of IE6 with more standards-compliant rendering.
So what are we saying: "Fork the code, do something that breaks the way the monoculture developed internet works, and hope for adoption?" That isn't a winning strategy. That's not even a "I want to play this game" strategy.
Also, MS wouldn't have had the motivation to create IE the way they did if it were open source. They were intentionally perpetuating vendor-lock-in, and that was the real problem.
Ahem... You should really look at Google, Chromium, and the business practices that are going on. Open source does nothing to prevent vendor lockin. When the competition is perpetually in catchup mode you are still locked in regardless of the availability of source code.
We'll stop calling this autopilot when you stop calling a plane's autopilot autopilot.
It is just drivers assist, just like every other car manufacturer puts in their high end vehicles.
Why not simply write: "I have driven neither a Tesla nor a modern high end vehicle from any other manufacturer." It would hide your ignorant conclusion.
The guy's name is Randy Whitfield. Based on his resume he's at least got a statistical background and a paper or two to his name and he seems to have been completely silent since the last 80s.
The NHTSA study had it's flaws, but this guy needed to cut 90% of the data to get to his conclusion and the first 6 pages of his report seem to be a legal hit piece and a whine about the NHTSA not happily just handing over everything they've done and refusing to talk to him after he sued them (surprise).
But ad hominem aside what we really need is a *current* dataset opened up and analysed.
Their report and the Ars article describe the statistically inappropriate decisions in the NHTSA study.
While introducing a lot of inappropriate analysis themselves. In order to decide that autopilot was bad he (not they, QCS is only one guy) discarded 90% of the available data which resulted in something which completely failed statistical significance tests. So forgive me for not following the outrage here.
Now what really should happen is that Tesla should open up all their *current* data. They have over a billion miles of data now to work with and that may actually be usable to draw a valid conclusion.
1. Make it more expensive. You heard me right "green" is NOT free, it's actually much more expensive than current alternatives
You don't say! Green is more expensive? Man it sounds like you DEFINITELY need to mandate it then otherwise no one will do anything and we'll happily crap on our own future health and survival because hey, gotta save that dollar man!
2. Spend lots of money on revamping, renewing, changing technology.
Errr... Good.
No. I'm simply pointing out that the issues in Chicago are multifaceted.
No you weren't. If you were then you really need to learn to write. Start by not emphasizing your incredible disagreement using carefully selected all-caps. You can then continue by not saying if they "really" wanted to make a difference they'd do something else.
And to add to that, the only reason why Chernobyl was as hard to shut down properly as it was, was because that reactor type used graphite as a moderator.
Yes and no. Yes modern reactors are inherently safer, but no their test specifically put the reactor in a position it was never allowed to go into. They could have happily shut the reactor down if they didn't have 5x less than the minimum required number of control rods inserted (a conscious decision they made during their demonstration of stupidity supreme).
I like referencing this case during safety system reviews at refineries and chemical plants. Operations always insist that they need the ability to bypass any safety system if they actually need to. My answer to them is depending on the case a strict no, the whole point of the safety system is to take over control. You can restart your chemical plant tomorrow. Regardless of how important you think it is, it's not as important as your lives.