You can't have family dynasties if the family dynasts have the same probability to be chosen as everybody else. Expensive campaigning is removed at a stroke, and gerrymandering for House makes no sense because there are no boundaries to gerrymander. Paying legislators ahead of time and expecting a return on investment doesn't work either, because the randomly chosen representatives won't be chosen again next time around.
For electing a president, choose a thousand people at random, hide them away somewhere, and let them find out whom to elect (by majority vote, taking as long time as needed). The candidate could either be among their numbers or from candidates presented by the parties, depending on how you'd like it to work. Same thing with Senators, only within each state. Or have the thousand choose two and let the people vote on them, like it were a referendum.
Not that the system will ever permit it, though. It's incredibly easy to run a campaign against: "Would you want this schmuck to decide your laws?". Appealing to e.g. the Condorcet jury theorem that shows it's the size of the group that makes it good is going to be a lot harder. The image of the uneducated slob deciding a law is much more vivid than that of the wisdom of crowds.
Abiding by the law is - in general - simpler than not doing it.
By the context, I guess you mean "abiding by the law is harder", not simpler? You give examples where disregarding the law is easier, not where abiding by it is.
I think the analogy fails because you can decide to adhere to the law, at least somewhat, while still using the better version. Suppose you purchase a game with a really restrictive DRM system and then download the pirated version afterward. By the letter of the law, you might be doing something wrong, but it's a much less black-and-white matter than deciding to not respect speed limits or stop signs.
A better comparison would be if all cars were mandated to have speed limiters so you couldn't speed no matter what; but then these speed limiters would hiccup once in a while and force your max speed to 20 mph, or your car would fail to start altogether. If you could do an iffy alteration to your car to unset the limiter, then such an unset car would be better than the original. True, a lot of people would do so with the intent to speed, but you can still do it without intending to speed even though it might strictly speaking be illegal to tinker with the mechanism.
If cars were like that, I imagine a lot of drivers would consider it fundamentally stupid. The fact that unlimited cars would be easier to drive would also be a draw even for those who don't intend to speed. So whether or not it's "right" to break DRM, the tighter (and/or less reliable) the DRM, the more attractive the alternative becomes.
Except he may not have said it. Mussolini's corporatism was more guildlike: a sort of authoritarian version of collective bargaining under the power of the state.
Typical base rate fallacy example. Suppose 1% of the users are VPN users. Suppose the service is 97% accurate at classifying VPNers as VPNers and regular users as regular users. What's the probability that a user is a regular user given that the system says he's a VPNer?
Out of 10000 users, there are 100 VPN users. 97 of these will be recognized, 3 not.
There are 9900 ordinary users. 9900*0.03=297 of these will be falsely flagged.
So the probability of a positive being true is 97/(97+297) = 24.6%. The probability that he's a regular user is 75.4% which is not nearly good enough for Netflix.
The alternative voting system was IRV, as used in Australia. Australia, too, has a two-party system, so I don't see what difference that would have made.
Communism isn't the only alternative to unbridled capitalism. How about, er, bridled capitalism? That social democracy thing is pretty popular elsewhere in the world.
What's next. the "Keeping International Terrorist Threats Effectively Neutralized" act? Bonus points if it lets the government rule by decree but everybody votes for it anyway because of the name:)
is to get rid of the mosquitoes directly by using selfish gene elements like segregation distorters. But imagine the "what could possibly go wrong" comments if you tried to even suggest this.
I imagine that happens because getting AI right is very hard and commercial game development is very much a matter of priorities. Unless the AI is *the* major selling point of a game, it gets improved until it's good enough and then the devs focus on other things.
I've heard game AI development phrased as:
1. Cheat.
2. Never let the player catch you cheating.
On the other hand, if an AI specialist comes across an open source game, he can start improving the AI if he feels like it. The game isn't being produced by a definite team for a definite deadline, so progress on non-AI things doesn't get delayed (or sped up, for that matter) by the AI specialist coming across the game and deciding to contribute. Thus (if I'm right about that), an open source game will generally have better AI, since it can afford to do so.
It might be that all that is needed is some kind of limited resource so that people who make consistently bad predictions have their impact weighted down until they no longer affect the combined prediction, and that the wisdom of (thus suitably selected) crowds does the rest.
I think your theory proves too much. If this was true, just about everybody who'd like to be paid according to their work would move to the United States (which has very low taxation rates compared to other industrialized countries), and only the poor would be left in the other first-world nations, after which they wouldn't stay first world for very long. This clearly hasn't happened. If the vicious cycle you speak of exist for countries with high taxation, why hasn't, say, all the Scandinavians jumped ship already? Why didn't all the Americans jump ship in the 1950s when the top marginal income tax rate was 90%?
This is what I don't get: if these EU-wide laws are supposed to be a step forward, why not just have them be minimum standards? Then each country can still be more strict about its net neutrality and no single country will be less neutral than the minimum standard.
Might that suggest that there's a very different reason for these laws to begin with?
Let's see. How about: "Is it entirely Other People's money when it couldn't be made without public resources?"
As for unregulated capitalism...
Sooner or later the wage slaves revolt.
Sooner or later the megacorps aggregate into a monopoly and fix the market.
Sooner or later you drown in pollution.
Then it's IDA time. There's something quite enjoyable to just making the program behave the way you want it to. If you've done it, you know what I'm talking about:-)
Very well, have nominal artificial scarcity for the greedy outliers and effectively post-scarcity of the rest of us. If you can only have 100 Ferraris a year, that's enough for pretty much everybody. If the greedy outliers complain that they can't have the 101st Ferrari, so what? There'll be scarcity for them but the vast majority won't get anywhere near that limit. Perhaps even some of the greedy outliers will become less interested if having 100 Ferraris starts to be considered gaudy.
Crowds can go very wrong or very right. Sounds like we need some control of chaos to keep the worst of degradation from happening if we start wiring brains together:)
Slashdot Mirror
I think I've got a better idea.
Government by random selection.
You can't have family dynasties if the family dynasts have the same probability to be chosen as everybody else. Expensive campaigning is removed at a stroke, and gerrymandering for House makes no sense because there are no boundaries to gerrymander. Paying legislators ahead of time and expecting a return on investment doesn't work either, because the randomly chosen representatives won't be chosen again next time around.
For electing a president, choose a thousand people at random, hide them away somewhere, and let them find out whom to elect (by majority vote, taking as long time as needed). The candidate could either be among their numbers or from candidates presented by the parties, depending on how you'd like it to work. Same thing with Senators, only within each state. Or have the thousand choose two and let the people vote on them, like it were a referendum.
Not that the system will ever permit it, though. It's incredibly easy to run a campaign against: "Would you want this schmuck to decide your laws?". Appealing to e.g. the Condorcet jury theorem that shows it's the size of the group that makes it good is going to be a lot harder. The image of the uneducated slob deciding a law is much more vivid than that of the wisdom of crowds.
By the context, I guess you mean "abiding by the law is harder", not simpler? You give examples where disregarding the law is easier, not where abiding by it is.
I think the analogy fails because you can decide to adhere to the law, at least somewhat, while still using the better version. Suppose you purchase a game with a really restrictive DRM system and then download the pirated version afterward. By the letter of the law, you might be doing something wrong, but it's a much less black-and-white matter than deciding to not respect speed limits or stop signs.
A better comparison would be if all cars were mandated to have speed limiters so you couldn't speed no matter what; but then these speed limiters would hiccup once in a while and force your max speed to 20 mph, or your car would fail to start altogether. If you could do an iffy alteration to your car to unset the limiter, then such an unset car would be better than the original. True, a lot of people would do so with the intent to speed, but you can still do it without intending to speed even though it might strictly speaking be illegal to tinker with the mechanism.
If cars were like that, I imagine a lot of drivers would consider it fundamentally stupid. The fact that unlimited cars would be easier to drive would also be a draw even for those who don't intend to speed. So whether or not it's "right" to break DRM, the tighter (and/or less reliable) the DRM, the more attractive the alternative becomes.
Ah yes, the old BTO vulnerability... where pirated versions are Better Than Original.
I can see that happening. And then I could see headphones that identify themselves as keyboards and do sneaky things.
Except he may not have said it. Mussolini's corporatism was more guildlike: a sort of authoritarian version of collective bargaining under the power of the state.
Typical base rate fallacy example. Suppose 1% of the users are VPN users. Suppose the service is 97% accurate at classifying VPNers as VPNers and regular users as regular users. What's the probability that a user is a regular user given that the system says he's a VPNer?
Out of 10000 users, there are 100 VPN users. 97 of these will be recognized, 3 not.
There are 9900 ordinary users. 9900*0.03=297 of these will be falsely flagged.
So the probability of a positive being true is 97/(97+297) = 24.6%. The probability that he's a regular user is 75.4% which is not nearly good enough for Netflix.
Robbing a bank is so 2015. If you want to truly be the envy of high tech thieves, rob an exchange instead!
The alternative voting system was IRV, as used in Australia. Australia, too, has a two-party system, so I don't see what difference that would have made.
Communism isn't the only alternative to unbridled capitalism. How about, er, bridled capitalism? That social democracy thing is pretty popular elsewhere in the world.
What's next. the "Keeping International Terrorist Threats Effectively Neutralized" act? Bonus points if it lets the government rule by decree but everybody votes for it anyway because of the name :)
is to get rid of the mosquitoes directly by using selfish gene elements like segregation distorters. But imagine the "what could possibly go wrong" comments if you tried to even suggest this.
Tegmark certainly believes so, but YMMV.
I imagine that happens because getting AI right is very hard and commercial game development is very much a matter of priorities. Unless the AI is *the* major selling point of a game, it gets improved until it's good enough and then the devs focus on other things.
I've heard game AI development phrased as:
1. Cheat.
2. Never let the player catch you cheating.
On the other hand, if an AI specialist comes across an open source game, he can start improving the AI if he feels like it. The game isn't being produced by a definite team for a definite deadline, so progress on non-AI things doesn't get delayed (or sped up, for that matter) by the AI specialist coming across the game and deciding to contribute. Thus (if I'm right about that), an open source game will generally have better AI, since it can afford to do so.
Surprisingly and counter to intuition, it doesn't seem like artificial markets need to use real money to work. Play money produces comparable results in many cases.
It might be that all that is needed is some kind of limited resource so that people who make consistently bad predictions have their impact weighted down until they no longer affect the combined prediction, and that the wisdom of (thus suitably selected) crowds does the rest.
... love of "clever" backronyms? They're neither cute nor clever.
I think your theory proves too much. If this was true, just about everybody who'd like to be paid according to their work would move to the United States (which has very low taxation rates compared to other industrialized countries), and only the poor would be left in the other first-world nations, after which they wouldn't stay first world for very long. This clearly hasn't happened. If the vicious cycle you speak of exist for countries with high taxation, why hasn't, say, all the Scandinavians jumped ship already? Why didn't all the Americans jump ship in the 1950s when the top marginal income tax rate was 90%?
This is what I don't get: if these EU-wide laws are supposed to be a step forward, why not just have them be minimum standards? Then each country can still be more strict about its net neutrality and no single country will be less neutral than the minimum standard.
Might that suggest that there's a very different reason for these laws to begin with?
As for unregulated capitalism...
Sooner or later the wage slaves revolt.
Sooner or later the megacorps aggregate into a monopoly and fix the market.
Sooner or later you drown in pollution.
Then it's IDA time. There's something quite enjoyable to just making the program behave the way you want it to. If you've done it, you know what I'm talking about :-)
Very well, have nominal artificial scarcity for the greedy outliers and effectively post-scarcity of the rest of us. If you can only have 100 Ferraris a year, that's enough for pretty much everybody. If the greedy outliers complain that they can't have the 101st Ferrari, so what? There'll be scarcity for them but the vast majority won't get anywhere near that limit. Perhaps even some of the greedy outliers will become less interested if having 100 Ferraris starts to be considered gaudy.
How many dollars does the Linux kernel go for?
Adblock Plus also blocks YouTube ads, so it reduces the amount of data downloaded when video streaming as well.
Crowds can go very wrong or very right. Sounds like we need some control of chaos to keep the worst of degradation from happening if we start wiring brains together :)
Or in Schneier's words: Either everybody spies, or nobody spies.
I make batteries from uranium and then put them in my reactor when they're dead, you insensitive clod!