Objectivism is simply poor understanding of elementary game theory:
1. Zero-Sum market NAP: High profit in the short term, low profit long term.
2. quasi-cooperative governments: High profit in the long term, low profit in the short term.
Without fiat government separated from market and cultural inertia, you won't achieve the 99% cooperation rate you need to achieve cooperative game. Warlords (the guys owning the sov you're in, they may or may not enforce NAP locally) will generally exhibit same behavior as any other players sharing market - they will NOT merge their "means of production" to achieve economies of scale. They'll resort non-cooperative market game (ie constant war), except for occasional mergers where weak join the strong rather than bleed in further conflict.
The goalpost seems pretty reasonable to me, it's probably in there only to prevent spam, so the thresholds are adjusted to spam levels. I get monetization offered almost all the time (8 years old channel), and all I do is just upload random crap and low effort clips/amv edits/obscure playthrough caps every few months.
Never took google on the offer because the numbers (something like 100k views a year?) are miniscule for it to make any sense and annoy people with ads.
The way people get "youtube career" is when some random crap on their channel suddenly explodes, and they seize the opportunity to entertain the audience. Channels where people "work on it" from the start seem comparably rare.
You need to account for that majority (by eyeball count) of mass media is liberal, both online and TV (summary viewership; not just news). This gives a slanted perspective. Even though Buzzfeed and Huffington Post fails their due diligence less on average compared to Breitbart and Drudge Report, far more eyes see it.
The strength of current US right wing is not in traditional neocon media (of the sort one could consider well established). Those just continue their usual bible thumping and climate change denying nobody but old folks pays attention to.
It's more of a "grass-roots" resurgence in young generation, which got Trump elected in the first place. Whether this "grass-roots" is genuine and young people are simply losing trust in DNC as engineered by Clinton-Obama, or astroturfed by russians is up to debate of course.
IMO, it's a bit of storm of in a teacup. The moment DNC reinvents itself under banner of (not obama style faux) social democracy, the kids will be back. From that perspective, Trump was perhaps a reasonable accelerationist strategy for a lot of liberal voters.
First, and most common is "covert racism" - a learned response to life experience, rather than some innate hostility. Lower economic class (read: trump voters) generalize certain groups based on simplified attribute such as ethnicity not because of some inherent racism or ignorance, but simply because their social standing physically exposes them to a class below them (often black, immigrant, poor etc) far more.
Second kind is truly hardwired lizard brain response, clan allegiance, but studies show that the practical effect is far too low to explain observed prevalence.
Last one, and least common (but loud all the more) is racial ideologues. Those just take the two above and find pseudoscientific rationalizations.
Average liberal makes the mistake by thinking it's all the third case, all ideological, and the root causes don't exist. Which in turn completely shuts honest discussion on the topic and addressing the problem rationally as it now turned into shit slinging fest argument about who's the neonazi/who's the neomarxist completely detached from the reality of the subject.
You laugh, but this is how adults (read: game companies) deal with chinese (and brazilian, and russian and romanian...) account sweatshops. Buy many sample quantities from a wow gold vendor, link it back to the bot which farmed it - in case of social spam - date of registration, ip netblocks & phone numbers. This is ridiculously cheap to do. In case of wow, it can be on the order of $1 sample vs $100k banned.
TFA is either zuckerberg admitting he's failing antispam 101, or some sort of lame choir making "boohoo damn chinese" noises again.
I've experimented with subjective moderation in a small forum community (~2000 DAU), back in the day of yore before facebook, when web forums were more relevant.
The "split" idea doesn't work work well for "average "joe" user because of choice paradox - the leeway *confuses* them. Such folks on average hate choices, thats why there are 3 variants of product, not 50.
Thats why a moderator is somehow elected and trusted to make decisions instead, and even tolerated for a bit when he's a bad shepherd.
Formally, we're talking mastrer/slave psychology in leadership and anthrophology. Basically respecting authority is convenient, and only when the (self)appointed authority exhibits egregious levels of operator abuse, replacement will be sought. Reminder that boiling frog and all other personal-social dynamics still apply.
This is also why representative democracy, instead of everyone just choosing their personal representative out of local politicians as their personal president. The latter is utter chaos unless elaborate bottom-up governance culture is build from the start, as seen in various models of social anarchy with strong emphasis on mentor/protege pairing (higher cognitive load), instead of "slaves" band wagoning fiat "slaver" authority we're naturally wired to do - it's simple to use lizard brain for this, but it scales poorly to large social groups.
>These are the same folks that orchestrated the response to 9/11 (not the thing itself mind you) and have gotten us into 8 wars and counting.
What I had *specifically* in mind is alt-right man children on one side with breitbart, and "alt-left" radical chic jezebel/huffpost/vice rags on another. Neither can be taken seriously as they give off strong vibe of clickbait circus meant precisely as a distraction from the broken bipartisan machine. Sure that Trump is obvious, but the way Bernie got sidelined by DNC for bullshit reason like "being too manly, too white" is equal skeleton, worse, if it didnt happen, Trump wouldn't happen either.
Meanwhile, we get gender/race baiting on the left sans juvenile bigotry on the right instead. That is the left/right wing people online *seem* to actually identify with.
As for war hawks who sell stuff to milinduplex, that seems entirely orthogonal to social politics spectrum of the US to me. US sought to aggresively liberate regardless of whom was in the office or representative majority. The only difference seems to be *slight* bias when it comes to painting targets. Neocons seem to like enemies of israel a bit more, fight communism, drill oil etc under guise of patriotism because thats what their voter base likes to hear. And so we get vietnam, iraq, afghanistan...
Whereas neoliberals are more likely to serve highest bidders with more subtle scopes of objective, often coastal big finance. But only as long it can be dressed with high moral ground as an export of liberal democracy - kuwait, balkan, syria, libya, egypt, as they need to cater to the large body of latte sipping - and utterly naive - student voter base.
I'm slightly for liberals in the US, on account of their background level of enacting positive change for ghetto minorities as a matter of populism, still the same shtick they did originally for the Irish vote back in the day. Now just painted brown-black. But as for the rest - they ain't saints, not by a long shot.
> 1984 (gender, race) war is peace freedom is slavery
No shit. The thing I always wondered about, is the (hysterical) left on in the scam? The two sides just seem to ping pong hysteria at each other, a spiral of clickbait titles. The right wing with flavor of they took our jerb populism, and left with smugness of a champagne socialist. Both caricatures seem so common they're not caricatures anymore, and more like redefinition of what left/right is supposed to be now.
Are polar politics just two 1984 countries now? And even if not, is the perception of that being the case a source of universal alienation about politics? Isn't this why a lot of people identify with south park quasi-centrism, even if thats worst outcome, given that it is least likely to enact actual political change in either direction?
If it is just Green and Blue teams of a Byzantine chariot race, who is the emperor. And most important question of all, where is my goddamn Green on Blue secret gay lover porn.
Perfect markets produce "cartel" like this when all participants have near equal production capacity - they'll all gauge the price to maximize profit and minimize output as that is the most optimal nash game. And they can do it with no direct collusion, just market ticker.
However whether amazon is a perfect market with participants of comparable capacity begs question. Real world markets have a stream of newcomers who pull down the majority to their price level and would even refuse to participate in a cartel which would not guarantee same market share they'd have otherwise (see OPEC politics).
Seems like something far simpler is at play - amazon promoting more expensive resellers in search results, because they'll get more of a cut from those.
To cue an obligatory car analogy, cars are not really critical either. Just convenient. The fun part is how convenience transforms into "critical".
Want to get out to hang out with acquaintances? It becomes more than merely inconvenient to not use facebook anymore - it becomes mandatory as imposed by networking effects of culture itself. Just as cars were a convenience at first, but later increasingly became a necessity.
Civilization creates its own addictions and "necessities".
I'm somewhat suspect of the whole "there will be torches and pitchforks, unless our society turns into star trek space communism". You see, the pitchforks happen *only* if there is nothing to eat, until then, humans can be amazingly content with anything.
It's true that the configuration of liberal nation-state won't be able to cope with the socioeconomic realities soon. As it is critically dependent on capitalism-for-all not falling apart. The social contract with liberalism was simple - keep a level playing field on the market. But they're consistently failing to do that for the past 40 years.
Historically, whenever markets shrunk to this point of elitism, it simply resulted in explicit feudalism with patron-pet contract - where a social norm was established the aristocracy had a *duty* to take care of their serfs. In return, they get an explicit guarantee of monopoly (autocratic succession or w/e) - which they already have anyway. But no more lousy plebian upstarts rousing the market out of nowere. Plebians *WILL* agree to such a system of feudo-fascism, when the upward mobility is so low for them anyway this turns out a better deal than the insecurity of post-capitalistic slums.
Meaning, rich people and companies collecting brownie points for building social housing and dispensing uber cheap food, while having a monopoly on extracting some low level value out of such serf population. The good philosopher kings, ya know. Better not think about the far more prevalent bad ones - best model of that would be modern day slumlords. For women, being a houseslave, err, maid or prostitute will become far more common again. For men, they can always pick up a gun and be a cannon fodder for whomever pays the top coin.
> the West sure as hell doesn't need to be glorifying such studies
Because the studies were public, a meta-study could be made approximating the real number of organ harvesting using this as a source. Remove incentives of chinese academia to publish in western academia because "you talk about bad things! therefore you are bad too and we'll have none of that!", and you live in the dark.
It's far more likely one could actually cause harm by knee-jerk "sure as hell doesn't need to be glorifying such studies". Pointing out the issue because it's laid out in clear *is* useful, moral stances that bad things shouldn't be in the public view just because they're bad - definitely isn't.
Benefit from past unethical research as such is fine. Nazi germany also enabled delta-V, thus satellites. If you use GPS, the blood is on your hands. One needs to be careful with it though - sometimes you hear "its ok to do unethical research because innoncent (or ubermench) parties can benefit from it". Which is obviously stupid argument (and one used by nazi researchers sometimes back then).
The whole point is actually provide the causative link to mark a research as unethical.
TFA provided none, just alarmist rambling. "We know they'll kill more people because of the research because they kill people for other reasons, such as the huge sums paid on the hospital grey market" is no proof, not even indirect one as you're equating huge sums for an organ with puny researcher who only does a write up on (medical, not sociopolitical) outcomes of doing that.
Stanford prison toes the line, IMO. The researchers DID provide incentive for shitty things to happen - they promised money to participants to act unethical on their behalf, essentially.
Regardless, this is an interesting discussion of role of free will in capitalism in general - aka is buying product of wage slave labor unethical? Everyone in the supply chain technically agreed to it, buuuut....
Ethics in research (or anywhere) boils down to: Are you incentivizing something unethical by your research? Then yes, your research is unethical - because you're an enabler. (early) Nuclear physics is unethical. Human subject testing (without their consent) is unethical. Even animal subject testing is unethical.
But merely observing something unethical in your study, even if you provided no incentive for it to happen? Crying wolf there smells more like a storm in a teacup at best, hidden motives at worst. For instance, someone NOT wanting for these studies serving as blatant proxy reporting the amount of actual organ harvesting in china.
But always, It's only those who make unethical things *happen* are the unethical ones. Yes, it can be researchers testing on animals, but not researches who report on human animals harming other humans if the research study itself wasn't used as pretext/root cause for that.
The studies were observational of outcomes of transplantations already done, it's not like the study authors incentivized the chinese corrupt hospital system to procure more illegal transplants. Equating them to nazis, who actually butchered people with science as motivator (or pretext) seems more like an alarmist ruse rather than anything to do with ethics.
This boycott won't change anything about unethical transplantations being done because the study is not an incentive for being unethical, they merely piggyback on shitty things which are happening.
More so it is hilarious that "professor of ethics" should be keenly aware of arrows of causality in ethics. Exploiting something for can't otherwise change isn't unethical, on the contrary, it's making the best out of a shitty situation.
The thing on your phone will happily say gummy bear or a sausage is "human". New identities there those can be also trivially conjured by the simplest of generative models, with no tissue or hardware to scan it. See, real, bot-proof biometrics means government authenticated biometrics. A fingerprint scan digitally signed on your ePassport is a pretty decent proof that you're alive somewhere, and probably paying taxes. And our social network overlords are itching to get hands on that data.
That is, until someone dumps a public torrent full of scans of a whole country of real people, along with the CA private key, and hilarity ensues. Reminder that privacy preserving biometric schemes (PIR) exists to avoid catastrophic failures like this, but so far no government has been competent enough to be bothered. Why prevent identity theft, when you can just outlaw it?
I too tend to think this would be super over-engineered and the story sounds BS. But passive, 2 terminal SMT is a place where nobody would look, whereas a huge mux chip actually "does" something and would be more "intuitive" subject of scrutiny if something is taken apart to find out where the signal comes from - and would be much cheaper to manufacture a trojanized one.
The thing reported might be viable though, possibly as a pull resistor for data line and nothing more. Power source is not really an issue with tiny ASICs - we're talking few thousand gates, majority MROM with the malware, and about as smart as a passive RFID tag. Those can run directly from the line. Such a "resistor" can then "blink" the line at very little power cost.
Engineering similair to NFC.
This. Possible need-to-know basis, and whoever got wind of it is gagged. Then, complete fabrication is also plausible, bloomberg isn't what it used to be when it comes to due diligence and impartiality in recent years.
More or less fidelity bond & witness oracle, nothing interesting here (Sia and storj are the more popular implementation of this idea).
TRON however for the most part lacks any sound design, it is similiar to NEO (who also made a bid for bittorrent), LISK, Nano, Maid etc. A hodge-podge of exceptionally poorly designed supernode network architecture, initially (and perhaps indefinitely) controlled by authors, Incentive and economic structure is intentionally obfuscated (it tends to come to light only after "investors" start screeming murder after dump, so just wait until the jig is up).
What a sad end for BitTorrent. Then again, the company is long gone producing anything of use (most innovation came from pre-acquisition utorrent and now is on the side of other clients).
Iridium LEO is bulky in the space (massive constellation of about a hundred birds), but on the ground the can be as small as a GPS receiver.
Just like GPS, pointing *anywhere* on the sky you hit a beam - you hear the packets with a piece of wire (though you need something reasonably directional if you want to transmit). The current issue with iridium is that most of the birds are jurassic 90s tech, low bandwidth and a lot of needless time multiplexing make it kinda suck. Modern birds can do 10-30ms at hundreds of mbits per beam - it is mere 2000-5000km round trip to the bird nearest to you after all.
This is very unlike GEO which is super cost efficient, but also 100,000km round trip. A single bird can cover continent, but you have to aim very precisely with a high gain gear on the ground,
If you restrict yourself to a single driver or small pool of cars, you'll pay significantly more simply because you have no access to much larger market. The only exception to that is "personal driver" arrangements where you cut a deal with someone sharing regular route and you pay em directly, typically work commute. However you still discover those via "ridesharing ads".
As for Uber (or Didi, or whatever top dog is in the area) specifically, those are best when they're dumping VC money (I don't think they do that anywhere in the US anymore). When they stop doing that, they jack up their margin significantly, relying on fools loyal to the "brand". Fools are people who care only about convenience, not cost (or privacy, for that matter). But virtually all drivers use multiple markets ("apps" + "personal driver") available in the area to maximize their own bottom line, and so do the consumers if they are conscious about the cost.
Slashdot Mirror
Objectivism is simply poor understanding of elementary game theory:
1. Zero-Sum market NAP: High profit in the short term, low profit long term.
2. quasi-cooperative governments: High profit in the long term, low profit in the short term.
Without fiat government separated from market and cultural inertia, you won't achieve the 99% cooperation rate you need to achieve cooperative game. Warlords (the guys owning the sov you're in, they may or may not enforce NAP locally) will generally exhibit same behavior as any other players sharing market - they will NOT merge their "means of production" to achieve economies of scale. They'll resort non-cooperative market game (ie constant war), except for occasional mergers where weak join the strong rather than bleed in further conflict.
The goalpost seems pretty reasonable to me, it's probably in there only to prevent spam, so the thresholds are adjusted to spam levels. I get monetization offered almost all the time (8 years old channel), and all I do is just upload random crap and low effort clips/amv edits/obscure playthrough caps every few months.
Never took google on the offer because the numbers (something like 100k views a year?) are miniscule for it to make any sense and annoy people with ads.
The way people get "youtube career" is when some random crap on their channel suddenly explodes, and they seize the opportunity to entertain the audience. Channels where people "work on it" from the start seem comparably rare.
You need to account for that majority (by eyeball count) of mass media is liberal, both online and TV (summary viewership; not just news). This gives a slanted perspective. Even though Buzzfeed and Huffington Post fails their due diligence less on average compared to Breitbart and Drudge Report, far more eyes see it.
The strength of current US right wing is not in traditional neocon media (of the sort one could consider well established). Those just continue their usual bible thumping and climate change denying nobody but old folks pays attention to.
It's more of a "grass-roots" resurgence in young generation, which got Trump elected in the first place. Whether this "grass-roots" is genuine and young people are simply losing trust in DNC as engineered by Clinton-Obama, or astroturfed by russians is up to debate of course.
IMO, it's a bit of storm of in a teacup. The moment DNC reinvents itself under banner of (not obama style faux) social democracy, the kids will be back. From that perspective, Trump was perhaps a reasonable accelerationist strategy for a lot of liberal voters.
There are three kinds of racism.
First, and most common is "covert racism" - a learned response to life experience, rather than some innate hostility. Lower economic class (read: trump voters) generalize certain groups based on simplified attribute such as ethnicity not because of some inherent racism or ignorance, but simply because their social standing physically exposes them to a class below them (often black, immigrant, poor etc) far more.
Second kind is truly hardwired lizard brain response, clan allegiance, but studies show that the practical effect is far too low to explain observed prevalence.
Last one, and least common (but loud all the more) is racial ideologues. Those just take the two above and find pseudoscientific rationalizations.
Average liberal makes the mistake by thinking it's all the third case, all ideological, and the root causes don't exist. Which in turn completely shuts honest discussion on the topic and addressing the problem rationally as it now turned into shit slinging fest argument about who's the neonazi/who's the neomarxist completely detached from the reality of the subject.
https://www.cia.gov/library/ce...
You laugh, but this is how adults (read: game companies) deal with chinese (and brazilian, and russian and romanian...) account sweatshops. Buy many sample quantities from a wow gold vendor, link it back to the bot which farmed it - in case of social spam - date of registration, ip netblocks & phone numbers. This is ridiculously cheap to do. In case of wow, it can be on the order of $1 sample vs $100k banned.
TFA is either zuckerberg admitting he's failing antispam 101, or some sort of lame choir making "boohoo damn chinese" noises again.
I've experimented with subjective moderation in a small forum community (~2000 DAU), back in the day of yore before facebook, when web forums were more relevant.
The "split" idea doesn't work work well for "average "joe" user because of choice paradox - the leeway *confuses* them. Such folks on average hate choices, thats why there are 3 variants of product, not 50.
Thats why a moderator is somehow elected and trusted to make decisions instead, and even tolerated for a bit when he's a bad shepherd.
Formally, we're talking mastrer/slave psychology in leadership and anthrophology. Basically respecting authority is convenient, and only when the (self)appointed authority exhibits egregious levels of operator abuse, replacement will be sought. Reminder that boiling frog and all other personal-social dynamics still apply.
This is also why representative democracy, instead of everyone just choosing their personal representative out of local politicians as their personal president. The latter is utter chaos unless elaborate bottom-up governance culture is build from the start, as seen in various models of social anarchy with strong emphasis on mentor/protege pairing (higher cognitive load), instead of "slaves" band wagoning fiat "slaver" authority we're naturally wired to do - it's simple to use lizard brain for this, but it scales poorly to large social groups.
>These are the same folks that orchestrated the response to 9/11 (not the thing itself mind you) and have gotten us into 8 wars and counting.
What I had *specifically* in mind is alt-right man children on one side with breitbart, and "alt-left" radical chic jezebel/huffpost/vice rags on another. Neither can be taken seriously as they give off strong vibe of clickbait circus meant precisely as a distraction from the broken bipartisan machine. Sure that Trump is obvious, but the way Bernie got sidelined by DNC for bullshit reason like "being too manly, too white" is equal skeleton, worse, if it didnt happen, Trump wouldn't happen either.
Meanwhile, we get gender/race baiting on the left sans juvenile bigotry on the right instead. That is the left/right wing people online *seem* to actually identify with.
As for war hawks who sell stuff to milinduplex, that seems entirely orthogonal to social politics spectrum of the US to me. US sought to aggresively liberate regardless of whom was in the office or representative majority. The only difference seems to be *slight* bias when it comes to painting targets. Neocons seem to like enemies of israel a bit more, fight communism, drill oil etc under guise of patriotism because thats what their voter base likes to hear. And so we get vietnam, iraq, afghanistan...
Whereas neoliberals are more likely to serve highest bidders with more subtle scopes of objective, often coastal big finance. But only as long it can be dressed with high moral ground as an export of liberal democracy - kuwait, balkan, syria, libya, egypt, as they need to cater to the large body of latte sipping - and utterly naive - student voter base.
I'm slightly for liberals in the US, on account of their background level of enacting positive change for ghetto minorities as a matter of populism, still the same shtick they did originally for the Irish vote back in the day. Now just painted brown-black. But as for the rest - they ain't saints, not by a long shot.
> 1984 (gender, race) war is peace freedom is slavery
No shit. The thing I always wondered about, is the (hysterical) left on in the scam? The two sides just seem to ping pong hysteria at each other, a spiral of clickbait titles. The right wing with flavor of they took our jerb populism, and left with smugness of a champagne socialist.
Both caricatures seem so common they're not caricatures anymore, and more like redefinition of what left/right is supposed to be now.
Are polar politics just two 1984 countries now? And even if not, is the perception of that being the case a source of universal alienation about politics? Isn't this why a lot of people identify with south park quasi-centrism, even if thats worst outcome, given that it is least likely to enact actual political change in either direction?
If it is just Green and Blue teams of a Byzantine chariot race, who is the emperor. And most important question of all, where is my goddamn Green on Blue secret gay lover porn.
Perfect markets produce "cartel" like this when all participants have near equal production capacity - they'll all gauge the price to maximize profit and minimize output as that is the most optimal nash game. And they can do it with no direct collusion, just market ticker.
However whether amazon is a perfect market with participants of comparable capacity begs question. Real world markets have a stream of newcomers who pull down the majority to their price level and would even refuse to participate in a cartel which would not guarantee same market share they'd have otherwise (see OPEC politics).
Seems like something far simpler is at play - amazon promoting more expensive resellers in search results, because they'll get more of a cut from those.
To cue an obligatory car analogy, cars are not really critical either. Just convenient. The fun part is how convenience transforms into "critical".
Want to get out to hang out with acquaintances? It becomes more than merely inconvenient to not use facebook anymore - it becomes mandatory as imposed by networking effects of culture itself. Just as cars were a convenience at first, but later increasingly became a necessity.
Civilization creates its own addictions and "necessities".
I'm somewhat suspect of the whole "there will be torches and pitchforks, unless our society turns into star trek space communism". You see, the pitchforks happen *only* if there is nothing to eat, until then, humans can be amazingly content with anything.
It's true that the configuration of liberal nation-state won't be able to cope with the socioeconomic realities soon. As it is critically dependent on capitalism-for-all not falling apart. The social contract with liberalism was simple - keep a level playing field on the market. But they're consistently failing to do that for the past 40 years.
Historically, whenever markets shrunk to this point of elitism, it simply resulted in explicit feudalism with patron-pet contract - where a social norm was established the aristocracy had a *duty* to take care of their serfs. In return, they get an explicit guarantee of monopoly (autocratic succession or w/e) - which they already have anyway. But no more lousy plebian upstarts rousing the market out of nowere. Plebians *WILL* agree to such a system of feudo-fascism, when the upward mobility is so low for them anyway this turns out a better deal than the insecurity of post-capitalistic slums.
Meaning, rich people and companies collecting brownie points for building social housing and dispensing uber cheap food, while having a monopoly on extracting some low level value out of such serf population. The good philosopher kings, ya know. Better not think about the far more prevalent bad ones - best model of that would be modern day slumlords. For women, being a houseslave, err, maid or prostitute will become far more common again. For men, they can always pick up a gun and be a cannon fodder for whomever pays the top coin.
> the West sure as hell doesn't need to be glorifying such studies
Because the studies were public, a meta-study could be made approximating the real number of organ harvesting using this as a source. Remove incentives of chinese academia to publish in western academia because "you talk about bad things! therefore you are bad too and we'll have none of that!", and you live in the dark.
It's far more likely one could actually cause harm by knee-jerk "sure as hell doesn't need to be glorifying such studies". Pointing out the issue because it's laid out in clear *is* useful, moral stances that bad things shouldn't be in the public view just because they're bad - definitely isn't.
Benefit from past unethical research as such is fine. Nazi germany also enabled delta-V, thus satellites. If you use GPS, the blood is on your hands. One needs to be careful with it though - sometimes you hear "its ok to do unethical research because innoncent (or ubermench) parties can benefit from it". Which is obviously stupid argument (and one used by nazi researchers sometimes back then).
The whole point is actually provide the causative link to mark a research as unethical.
TFA provided none, just alarmist rambling. "We know they'll kill more people because of the research because they kill people for other reasons, such as the huge sums paid on the hospital grey market" is no proof, not even indirect one as you're equating huge sums for an organ with puny researcher who only does a write up on (medical, not sociopolitical) outcomes of doing that.
Stanford prison toes the line, IMO. The researchers DID provide incentive for shitty things to happen - they promised money to participants to act unethical on their behalf, essentially.
Regardless, this is an interesting discussion of role of free will in capitalism in general - aka is buying product of wage slave labor unethical? Everyone in the supply chain technically agreed to it, buuuut....
Ethics in research (or anywhere) boils down to: Are you incentivizing something unethical by your research? Then yes, your research is unethical - because you're an enabler. (early) Nuclear physics is unethical. Human subject testing (without their consent) is unethical. Even animal subject testing is unethical.
But merely observing something unethical in your study, even if you provided no incentive for it to happen? Crying wolf there smells more like a storm in a teacup at best, hidden motives at worst. For instance, someone NOT wanting for these studies serving as blatant proxy reporting the amount of actual organ harvesting in china.
But always, It's only those who make unethical things *happen* are the unethical ones. Yes, it can be researchers testing on animals, but not researches who report on human animals harming other humans if the research study itself wasn't used as pretext/root cause for that.
The studies were observational of outcomes of transplantations already done, it's not like the study authors incentivized the chinese corrupt hospital system to procure more illegal transplants. Equating them to nazis, who actually butchered people with science as motivator (or pretext) seems more like an alarmist ruse rather than anything to do with ethics.
This boycott won't change anything about unethical transplantations being done because the study is not an incentive for being unethical, they merely piggyback on shitty things which are happening.
More so it is hilarious that "professor of ethics" should be keenly aware of arrows of causality in ethics. Exploiting something for can't otherwise change isn't unethical, on the contrary, it's making the best out of a shitty situation.
The thing on your phone will happily say gummy bear or a sausage is "human". New identities there those can be also trivially conjured by the simplest of generative models, with no tissue or hardware to scan it. See, real, bot-proof biometrics means government authenticated biometrics. A fingerprint scan digitally signed on your ePassport is a pretty decent proof that you're alive somewhere, and probably paying taxes. And our social network overlords are itching to get hands on that data.
That is, until someone dumps a public torrent full of scans of a whole country of real people, along with the CA private key, and hilarity ensues. Reminder that privacy preserving biometric schemes (PIR) exists to avoid catastrophic failures like this, but so far no government has been competent enough to be bothered. Why prevent identity theft, when you can just outlaw it?
I too tend to think this would be super over-engineered and the story sounds BS. But passive, 2 terminal SMT is a place where nobody would look, whereas a huge mux chip actually "does" something and would be more "intuitive" subject of scrutiny if something is taken apart to find out where the signal comes from - and would be much cheaper to manufacture a trojanized one.
The thing reported might be viable though, possibly as a pull resistor for data line and nothing more. Power source is not really an issue with tiny ASICs - we're talking few thousand gates, majority MROM with the malware, and about as smart as a passive RFID tag. Those can run directly from the line. Such a "resistor" can then "blink" the line at very little power cost. Engineering similair to NFC.
This. Possible need-to-know basis, and whoever got wind of it is gagged. Then, complete fabrication is also plausible, bloomberg isn't what it used to be when it comes to due diligence and impartiality in recent years.
You're not forced into google freemium, but it's indeed unfortunate the option is not particularly user friendly (unlocking boot, flashing ROM).
Still waiting for that one hardware vendor who will ship lineage ROM on a slight margin to cater to your crowd.
http://wiki.tron.network/en/la...
More or less fidelity bond & witness oracle, nothing interesting here (Sia and storj are the more popular implementation of this idea).
TRON however for the most part lacks any sound design, it is similiar to NEO (who also made a bid for bittorrent), LISK, Nano, Maid etc. A hodge-podge of exceptionally poorly designed supernode network architecture, initially (and perhaps indefinitely) controlled by authors, Incentive and economic structure is intentionally obfuscated (it tends to come to light only after "investors" start screeming murder after dump, so just wait until the jig is up).
What a sad end for BitTorrent. Then again, the company is long gone producing anything of use (most innovation came from pre-acquisition utorrent and now is on the side of other clients).
Iridium LEO is bulky in the space (massive constellation of about a hundred birds), but on the ground the can be as small as a GPS receiver.
Just like GPS, pointing *anywhere* on the sky you hit a beam - you hear the packets with a piece of wire (though you need something reasonably directional if you want to transmit). The current issue with iridium is that most of the birds are jurassic 90s tech, low bandwidth and a lot of needless time multiplexing make it kinda suck. Modern birds can do 10-30ms at hundreds of mbits per beam - it is mere 2000-5000km round trip to the bird nearest to you after all.
This is very unlike GEO which is super cost efficient, but also 100,000km round trip. A single bird can cover continent, but you have to aim very precisely with a high gain gear on the ground,
If you restrict yourself to a single driver or small pool of cars, you'll pay significantly more simply because you have no access to much larger market. The only exception to that is "personal driver" arrangements where you cut a deal with someone sharing regular route and you pay em directly, typically work commute. However you still discover those via "ridesharing ads".
As for Uber (or Didi, or whatever top dog is in the area) specifically, those are best when they're dumping VC money (I don't think they do that anywhere in the US anymore). When they stop doing that, they jack up their margin significantly, relying on fools loyal to the "brand". Fools are people who care only about convenience, not cost (or privacy, for that matter). But virtually all drivers use multiple markets ("apps" + "personal driver") available in the area to maximize their own bottom line, and so do the consumers if they are conscious about the cost.