The teacher is a person who has knowledge of something important to the student and is in the service of imparting that knowledge. This is not a symmetrical situation, unlike working with coworkers who sometimes teach you and sometimes you them, in the class the flow always goes from the teacher to the student. Taken to the extreme, knowledge is sacred and if its transmission allows the student to survive and progress in their lives it needs a structure to direct that flow. The "archetypal" structure is always the teacher being above in the sense of respectful address, and that is so because it helps the whole process. Think of Pythagoras teaching his disciples the secrets of mathematics -- they can't address him with yo!. Respect for teacher is simply a pattern that has evolved among humans as optimal.
All this to say, I bet where students have and show less respect for their teacher, they learn less.
You can say that she would have been better than Trump but unlike predictions of future this one is unverifiable in principle. I believe -- and likewise can't prove it -- that she would have been far worse. She tried to compare herself with Macron after he won, but she's nothing like Macron. My very strong impression is that Macron wants to serve, and Hillary wanted to rule. I believe she has a deep seated psychological need to control the world for the sake of her self. Everything she has done points out to it, including her initial Hillary-universe-centric slogan "I'm with her." Trump despite his own set of major issues I believe essentially also wants to serve.
And the historical pattern is that people who wanted to rule rather than to serve, if they eventually got hold of power, were the worst leaders. Fortunately the powers of the U.S. President are limited, but he or she can still do a lot of damage. Of all the "contestants" Hillary was the most intensely driven by that passion to rule and so was, in my view, the worst possible candidate to be President.
Krugman had said the market would crash immediately on Nov 9 if Trump had won and would never recover. An MIT professor Simon Johnson, a former chief economist of the IMF, said on Oct 29, "A big adverse surprise – like the election of Donald Trump in the US – would likely cause the stock market to crash and plunge the world into recession."
All I'm saying is, these are complex events, and the pattern has been that what what experts and lay people alike have said will "obviously" happen when it comes to Trump has been consistently wrong. I think we need to pause and look at things differently if we want to guess more accurately what will happen during his term.
From what I've read, China's internal dynamics prevent it from ever being what the US and Europe is/are in global terms. Every time China opens to the world, like it's been doing now, its coastal regions become very prosperous due to all the trade but the vast inland area remains unbearably poor in comparison. Then someone like Mao comes along, raises the army of a million peasants, takes over the country, redistributes the wealth (and poverty) and shuts it off. Then after some decades of peace the country slowly opens again and the cycle repeats.
Btw I came to the US as a grad student a long time ago and I can assure you the laptop ban would not have stopped me. Though it does make going back to Europe much more difficult in my mind, thinking the laptop could be stolen. I wonder if we can disassemble our laptops and just carry all the parts separately. I think at least I'll bring my disk drive with me.
Fair enough. I'd only like to point out that the sense of doom being around the corner has been present in this country since at least the Great Depression and possibly much longer (I watched HBO's John Adams and they captured that feeling well too), certainly in the 50s and 60s and so on -- but it never really materializes. Even if the inflow and outflow of smart people change by 10-20% (I admit haven't looked up the trends) I imagine we'll still be far from a net negative. I may be wrong too but hoping things self correct in a good way.
You're making a prediction about the future -- you are asserting what *will* happen. Barring any psychic abilities you may have, which I wouldn't deny, the question is how do you know. Yours is not a trivial prediction, and many major non-trivial predictions regarding Trump have turned out to be false: from his inevitable loss in the elections through Paul Krugman's forecast that if Trump wins "the stock market will crash and will *never* recover" and so on. So what gives rise to the absolute certainty of this upcoming brain drain?
Both do, they are both successful human institutions. Had the church never stepped back from Spanish Inquisition people would have revolted and that would have been the end of it. The only difference is that of scale. Sciences that can do experiments massively and quickly are the fastest to correct. Quantum physics is faster to correct than astronomy. Notice that medical science is not that fast and authorities rule to a higher degree. Even slower with psychology. Church concerns the psychological and the spiritual -- and that's not abstract, it's how you go to work, how you talk to your kids, and so on -- and it takes the longest time to correct because the "measurements" of the outcomes are the hardest to make. But they happen, people act on them, and in principle it's the same kind of self-correction.
Macron is a good man and hacks revealing what he was doing had no impact on his standing. Hillary hacked emails had nothing surprising in them except they confirmed our intuitive perception of her as a person and a politician was correct.
Your example even if taken at face value shows the Catholic Church was not against science but against specific ideas which they thought could seriously threaten their position in society. But that is true of every human institution, from university departments and various bureaucracies all the way up to the government. Ignaz Semmelweis got slapped down pretty hard by the medical community of the time for saying doctors should wash hands between patients, or even after performing an autopsy and before examining the live patient after. They ridiculed him and thought asking doctors to wash hands was undignified. Even today's scientific institutions are not immune to that. Science is sometimes miserably wrong but self corrects in the long run, you could say the Church does the same.
I wouldn't describe the Bible as purely of work of fiction -- at the very least many anthropologists believe Jesus (Yeshua) was a real person who had followers and was crucified. The Old Testament contains instructions as to what to do when a person has a skin rash and whether they should be put in quarantine or wash or burn their clothes. Those were real things for the times. But I consider that angle irrelevant, I'd describe the Bible as a blueprint for the inner workings of human psyche. I certainly would not accept that planet Earth and all the species were created in 6 days. If that offends someone that's their problem. Apparently that doesn't offend the Catholic Church though.
The "Young Earth" theory of 6,000 years old planet is a relatively recent development, when people impressed by the advances in science and particularly physics and with too much time on their hands started looking for "clues" in the Bible for the Earth's age.
Reality is that Bible is completely unconcerned with "how old the Earth is" because at the time it was written the Earth's age was completely irrelevant to the lives of most people. (That's true today too.) The Bible and the sacred texts in other religions are only concerned with the psychological -- the idea being to guide you through making everyday decisions in your life. (Of course a lot of people pervert this principle -- the Young Earthers being one example -- but that's a different story.) The Bible is a catalog of archetypes and has no interest in knowledge of the objective universe for its own sake.
The originator of the Big Bang theory was in fact a Catholic priest, a Belgian I think, except he gave it a boring name, the British physicist who mocked him called his theory Big Bang, and the name stayed. It's nicely documented in the movie Hawking with Benedict Cumberbatch.
Fake news? American Thinker is the second link and it's not any more fake than CNN (not a high bar though). The article links to the original research for their sources, e.g. 'Michael Jerrett, Ph.D., a University of California member of the air pollution researcher club sponsored by the EPA, admitted in a symposium conducted by the California Air Resources Board on February 26, 2010 that he couldn't find an air pollution effect in California, but less than a year later he tortured the data to show a minor "association."'
That said, I don't mind if we use slightly stricter measures to reduce pollution, faulty research or not.
Exactly right. Many Bremainers and Clintonies were/are quite arrogant whereas this guy seems like a good guy. On top of it he looks very French. Stated policy goals play a part but we mostly vote for the person we like as another human being.
The component part of the licensing, that is. I imagine if you are mass manufacturing a specific device and need mostly *some* CPU functionality for performance and battery life you can avoid paying for the parts you don't need, as opposed to buying "bulk" CPU functionality. So this might be a way to pack more processing power in the device for the same cost. The only question is how the mostly theoretical RISC-V design will hold against the well baked Intel and Arm architectures that have had so many real life special use cases baked into them over the decades.
There's no evidence of any sort to support that line of thinking of what would have been, as far as I know. What you're saying is possible in principle, but so are infinite number of other things.
I will agree. He is still deserving of compassion as he was shooting for the stars (in a very unpoetic way that working for Uber I imagine to be) without wanting to harm anyone and he fell because he didn't know how to read the signs. Reminds me of a story of a newly minted NBA player who found the training so intense that he started pissing blood. For him that was enough and he quit the whole thing, fame and fortune be damned. Had he pushed anyway, he would have been sort of like this Uber engineer. Except it's much easier to know something is wrong when it's one day physically obvious than when a dark cloud creeps in on you gradually. Hence the compassion, and a warning for others in similar position to check in on themselves frequently. And maybe to spend some time contemplating on what they really want from life.
I mean if they are all fully developed and active and safe like in the 50s comics then maybe, but until then the vast majority of people would say no thank you. And you can't get far when most people say no thank you. Kind of like with VR.
... but then I figured *living* people could use this technology so they don't have to spend time on Facebook, with their avatars doing the heavy lifting for them! If it catches on, the majority of users could have such avatars talking to one another and save significant time to the society. You'd only log in to Facebook every couple of months to tweak some settings if necessary and make sure it's smooth going.
Good point, though I think it's a specific subcategory of 3D modelling where viewing in VR would pay off. It would have to be some case where stakes are high and you can catch in VR something that you can't on the screen and it makes all the difference. Don't quite know what that is though (but sounds niche).
I'm less convinced re gaming, VR is optional there.
That will be when it helps you make decisions better than you do without it. What kind of decisions are better made with a VR headset on your head vs. having one or more 2D displays in front of you? Training/simulation seems to be an almost established niche, but beyond that I can think of anything.
I'd say whatever contributes to that 200K cycle you mentioned. I could be wrong but I imagine those factors are not well understood.
Also I wonder how on-clock we believe these cycles have been coming in the past. Have they all been well within that 15% estimated drift of today? 15% doesn't sound like much for a system so incredibly complex. I may be wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
The teacher is a person who has knowledge of something important to the student and is in the service of imparting that knowledge. This is not a symmetrical situation, unlike working with coworkers who sometimes teach you and sometimes you them, in the class the flow always goes from the teacher to the student. Taken to the extreme, knowledge is sacred and if its transmission allows the student to survive and progress in their lives it needs a structure to direct that flow. The "archetypal" structure is always the teacher being above in the sense of respectful address, and that is so because it helps the whole process. Think of Pythagoras teaching his disciples the secrets of mathematics -- they can't address him with yo!. Respect for teacher is simply a pattern that has evolved among humans as optimal.
All this to say, I bet where students have and show less respect for their teacher, they learn less.
You can say that she would have been better than Trump but unlike predictions of future this one is unverifiable in principle. I believe -- and likewise can't prove it -- that she would have been far worse. She tried to compare herself with Macron after he won, but she's nothing like Macron. My very strong impression is that Macron wants to serve, and Hillary wanted to rule. I believe she has a deep seated psychological need to control the world for the sake of her self. Everything she has done points out to it, including her initial Hillary-universe-centric slogan "I'm with her." Trump despite his own set of major issues I believe essentially also wants to serve.
And the historical pattern is that people who wanted to rule rather than to serve, if they eventually got hold of power, were the worst leaders. Fortunately the powers of the U.S. President are limited, but he or she can still do a lot of damage. Of all the "contestants" Hillary was the most intensely driven by that passion to rule and so was, in my view, the worst possible candidate to be President.
Krugman had said the market would crash immediately on Nov 9 if Trump had won and would never recover. An MIT professor Simon Johnson, a former chief economist of the IMF, said on Oct 29, "A big adverse surprise – like the election of Donald Trump in the US – would likely cause the stock market to crash and plunge the world into recession."
All I'm saying is, these are complex events, and the pattern has been that what what experts and lay people alike have said will "obviously" happen when it comes to Trump has been consistently wrong. I think we need to pause and look at things differently if we want to guess more accurately what will happen during his term.
From what I've read, China's internal dynamics prevent it from ever being what the US and Europe is/are in global terms. Every time China opens to the world, like it's been doing now, its coastal regions become very prosperous due to all the trade but the vast inland area remains unbearably poor in comparison. Then someone like Mao comes along, raises the army of a million peasants, takes over the country, redistributes the wealth (and poverty) and shuts it off. Then after some decades of peace the country slowly opens again and the cycle repeats.
Btw I came to the US as a grad student a long time ago and I can assure you the laptop ban would not have stopped me. Though it does make going back to Europe much more difficult in my mind, thinking the laptop could be stolen. I wonder if we can disassemble our laptops and just carry all the parts separately. I think at least I'll bring my disk drive with me.
Fair enough. I'd only like to point out that the sense of doom being around the corner has been present in this country since at least the Great Depression and possibly much longer (I watched HBO's John Adams and they captured that feeling well too), certainly in the 50s and 60s and so on -- but it never really materializes. Even if the inflow and outflow of smart people change by 10-20% (I admit haven't looked up the trends) I imagine we'll still be far from a net negative. I may be wrong too but hoping things self correct in a good way.
You're making a prediction about the future -- you are asserting what *will* happen. Barring any psychic abilities you may have, which I wouldn't deny, the question is how do you know. Yours is not a trivial prediction, and many major non-trivial predictions regarding Trump have turned out to be false: from his inevitable loss in the elections through Paul Krugman's forecast that if Trump wins "the stock market will crash and will *never* recover" and so on. So what gives rise to the absolute certainty of this upcoming brain drain?
Both do, they are both successful human institutions. Had the church never stepped back from Spanish Inquisition people would have revolted and that would have been the end of it. The only difference is that of scale. Sciences that can do experiments massively and quickly are the fastest to correct. Quantum physics is faster to correct than astronomy. Notice that medical science is not that fast and authorities rule to a higher degree. Even slower with psychology. Church concerns the psychological and the spiritual -- and that's not abstract, it's how you go to work, how you talk to your kids, and so on -- and it takes the longest time to correct because the "measurements" of the outcomes are the hardest to make. But they happen, people act on them, and in principle it's the same kind of self-correction.
Macron is a good man and hacks revealing what he was doing had no impact on his standing. Hillary hacked emails had nothing surprising in them except they confirmed our intuitive perception of her as a person and a politician was correct.
Macron wants to serve. Hillary wanted to rule.
In other threads you are more likely to learn something useful.
Your example even if taken at face value shows the Catholic Church was not against science but against specific ideas which they thought could seriously threaten their position in society. But that is true of every human institution, from university departments and various bureaucracies all the way up to the government. Ignaz Semmelweis got slapped down pretty hard by the medical community of the time for saying doctors should wash hands between patients, or even after performing an autopsy and before examining the live patient after. They ridiculed him and thought asking doctors to wash hands was undignified. Even today's scientific institutions are not immune to that. Science is sometimes miserably wrong but self corrects in the long run, you could say the Church does the same.
I wouldn't describe the Bible as purely of work of fiction -- at the very least many anthropologists believe Jesus (Yeshua) was a real person who had followers and was crucified. The Old Testament contains instructions as to what to do when a person has a skin rash and whether they should be put in quarantine or wash or burn their clothes. Those were real things for the times. But I consider that angle irrelevant, I'd describe the Bible as a blueprint for the inner workings of human psyche. I certainly would not accept that planet Earth and all the species were created in 6 days. If that offends someone that's their problem. Apparently that doesn't offend the Catholic Church though.
The "Young Earth" theory of 6,000 years old planet is a relatively recent development, when people impressed by the advances in science and particularly physics and with too much time on their hands started looking for "clues" in the Bible for the Earth's age.
Reality is that Bible is completely unconcerned with "how old the Earth is" because at the time it was written the Earth's age was completely irrelevant to the lives of most people. (That's true today too.) The Bible and the sacred texts in other religions are only concerned with the psychological -- the idea being to guide you through making everyday decisions in your life. (Of course a lot of people pervert this principle -- the Young Earthers being one example -- but that's a different story.) The Bible is a catalog of archetypes and has no interest in knowledge of the objective universe for its own sake.
The originator of the Big Bang theory was in fact a Catholic priest, a Belgian I think, except he gave it a boring name, the British physicist who mocked him called his theory Big Bang, and the name stayed. It's nicely documented in the movie Hawking with Benedict Cumberbatch.
Fake news? American Thinker is the second link and it's not any more fake than CNN (not a high bar though). The article links to the original research for their sources, e.g. 'Michael Jerrett, Ph.D., a University of California member of the air pollution researcher club sponsored by the EPA, admitted in a symposium conducted by the California Air Resources Board on February 26, 2010 that he couldn't find an air pollution effect in California, but less than a year later he tortured the data to show a minor "association."'
That said, I don't mind if we use slightly stricter measures to reduce pollution, faulty research or not.
and I still do but I'm slowly accepting there's some wisdom in forcing the software we all rely on to be transparent.
Exactly right. Many Bremainers and Clintonies were/are quite arrogant whereas this guy seems like a good guy. On top of it he looks very French. Stated policy goals play a part but we mostly vote for the person we like as another human being.
The component part of the licensing, that is. I imagine if you are mass manufacturing a specific device and need mostly *some* CPU functionality for performance and battery life you can avoid paying for the parts you don't need, as opposed to buying "bulk" CPU functionality. So this might be a way to pack more processing power in the device for the same cost. The only question is how the mostly theoretical RISC-V design will hold against the well baked Intel and Arm architectures that have had so many real life special use cases baked into them over the decades.
There's no evidence of any sort to support that line of thinking of what would have been, as far as I know. What you're saying is possible in principle, but so are infinite number of other things.
Current belief is that most adults of the time died of trauma.
I will agree. He is still deserving of compassion as he was shooting for the stars (in a very unpoetic way that working for Uber I imagine to be) without wanting to harm anyone and he fell because he didn't know how to read the signs. Reminds me of a story of a newly minted NBA player who found the training so intense that he started pissing blood. For him that was enough and he quit the whole thing, fame and fortune be damned. Had he pushed anyway, he would have been sort of like this Uber engineer. Except it's much easier to know something is wrong when it's one day physically obvious than when a dark cloud creeps in on you gradually. Hence the compassion, and a warning for others in similar position to check in on themselves frequently. And maybe to spend some time contemplating on what they really want from life.
I mean if they are all fully developed and active and safe like in the 50s comics then maybe, but until then the vast majority of people would say no thank you. And you can't get far when most people say no thank you. Kind of like with VR.
That's the risk I'm willing to take.
... but then I figured *living* people could use this technology so they don't have to spend time on Facebook, with their avatars doing the heavy lifting for them! If it catches on, the majority of users could have such avatars talking to one another and save significant time to the society. You'd only log in to Facebook every couple of months to tweak some settings if necessary and make sure it's smooth going.
Good point, though I think it's a specific subcategory of 3D modelling where viewing in VR would pay off. It would have to be some case where stakes are high and you can catch in VR something that you can't on the screen and it makes all the difference. Don't quite know what that is though (but sounds niche).
I'm less convinced re gaming, VR is optional there.
That will be when it helps you make decisions better than you do without it. What kind of decisions are better made with a VR headset on your head vs. having one or more 2D displays in front of you? Training/simulation seems to be an almost established niche, but beyond that I can think of anything.
I'd say whatever contributes to that 200K cycle you mentioned. I could be wrong but I imagine those factors are not well understood.
Also I wonder how on-clock we believe these cycles have been coming in the past. Have they all been well within that 15% estimated drift of today? 15% doesn't sound like much for a system so incredibly complex. I may be wrong.