Again, you may want to look for more meaningful numbers to support that belief. The numbers you're using to support that assertion couldn't be less useful.
It would be more useful to look at the number of people who actually support Trumps views, rather than the number of people who signed an obscure petition. For your own sanity, I'd recommend against further investigation.
You seem to hate both free speech and the free market. Would you prefer regulation that banned boycotts and forced retailers to carry products? Or would you rather we self-censure and don't respond to ideas we find disagreeable and force ourselves to fund speech with which we disagree?
Someone trying to prevent Amazon to carry Trump products.
Really? Are they going to raid the warehouse? Blockade their supply lines? You're being overly dramatic. This is a bog-standard boycott. If you didn't know, the boycott is a popular means by which a group can exercise their freedom of speech, and the finest example of the free market working ideally.
The idea is actually to prevent people from buying Trump products. Don't be naive.
In turn, I'll ask you not to be foolish. Everyone knows that it's impossible to prevent people from buying and selling those products. As you know, Trump product manufacturers can sell via their own outlets even if they find no third-party retailers willing to carry them. That's the absolute worst case, of course, as there are endless retail outlets through which manufactures can offer their wares. Equally, there is a pretty low limit to the number of retail outlets that a boycott can effectively target. No one in their right mind thinks this is an attempt to prevent the sale of Trump-related products.
It's very obviously a political statement. One that doesn't come without risk! You may remember the Chick-fil-A boycott, back in 2012, that backfired as conservatives came out in support of the restaurant chain in response to the boycott, resulting in record-breaking sales.
See, the way to fight against speech you don't like is with speech of your own. (You can start your own petition in support of Trump stuff, for example.) You don't do it by opposing free speech or (more mildly) trying to limit the means by which a people can express their views.
We call it a boycott. Boycotts are a means by which a people can exercise their right to speak, as well as participate more fully in the free market. You'll find that boycotts have been employed for centuries, for various reasons, across the entire political spectrum. It's an old tradition. Here in the US, they go back well before the revolution. We've never been without them.
As for public shaming, that's really what decides what ideas are and are not accepted by a society. Some beliefs, actions, and ideas are taboo because we, collectively, feel that they are harmful. We hold to others because we, collectively, feel they are important. We're careful with our language around children and scold others when they don't. We work hard to support our families and denigrate the lazy and unmotivated who do not.
Our values change over time as our society changes. You can believe those changes are for the better or for the worst, but it's not something that an individual has much influence over. All we can do is participate in the free exchange of ideas. Boycotts are part of that process.
Can you image the uproar from leftists if some Christian fundamentalists had written to Amazon requesting that products associated with, say, transsexuals be pulled from sale?
How would that be any different from the current right-wing outrage over this petition?
This is what we call the "free exchange of ideas". You offer up ideas that I dislike, I offer my own ideas. If Amazon caves to consumer pressure on this issue, you're under no obligation to support them by shopping there. If Amazon gave in to your example demand, I'm equally free to pull my support and shop elsewhere. Our differing ideas will either coexist or one will dominate the other in the great marketplace of ideas, leaving the other to fade in to obscurity. Regardless, society will have changed in some way. It's how it's always been, and likely always will be.
Who's trying to stop you (or anyone else) from buying Trump stuff? They can sell that stuff through any retailer that is willing to carry those products or through any outlets they control. You, in turn, can buy from those outlets.
A pharmacy chain a few years back stopped carrying tobacco products. Should they have been forced to continue to carry and sell those products? Did that prevent you, or any one else, from buying those products? Of course not.
So, why should Amazon be obligated to carry Trump products? Aren't they free to carry whatever legal products they want, and to not carry any products they don't want to sell? If Amazon believes its in their best interest to carry Trump stuff, they're free to do so. If Amazon doesn't think carrying those products is in their best interest, they're free to drop those offerings from their site. Customers, equally, are free to shop elsewhere if they find either decision distasteful. That's all part of the free exchange of ideas. Speech, of course, is never without consequences. In this case, consumers will speak with their wallets, producers with their merchandise, and retailers will respond to the wants and needs of their customers.
Attempting to do the same anywhere else (especially in my space), is simply an attempt to exert control over others and -that- is an act of intolerance.
Ridiculous. To express my disapproval is not the same as silencing your voice. To petition a private company as a means to express your viewpoint is no different. As Amazon is free to carry whatever products they want, to consider that carrying those products is equivalent to supporting to those ideas is perfectly reasonable. It's the basic idea behind every boycott. (Would you have us dispense with those entirely? Wouldn't that be a terrifying suppression of free speech?)
To say "I won't buy your products as long as you support x" is not intolerance as you're under no obligation to underwrite speech with which you disagree by supporting the company that enables said speech to further disseminate. Tolerance does not mean "you must pay to support my ideas, regardless of your beliefs". You'd have us believe that by not funding your message, we're being intolerant.
Amazon's customers are saying "we don't want to pay you to provide a platform for these ideas". That's not intolerance. That's not saying "I want to prevent Trump from sharing his ideas" (he's free to do so on whatever platforms he controls) it's saying "I don't want to pay you to promote ideas I dislike." Amazon is free to continue to carry those products and their message if they're willing to accept the natural social and potential financial cost the comes from supporting those ideas. Speech is never free from social consequences, nor should it ever be. How else would ideas compete?
If you are right and his ideas are so repugnant, then those ideas will simply die in the open air. To quote a well-know political commentator, "Sunlight kills bacteria."
This is all part of that process. People aren't perfectly rational actors, after all. Ideas die when they become socially unacceptable, not because they're shown to be objectively wrong, harmful, or whatever. Alternative ideas and dissent constitute the "sunlight" in your metaphor.
But there is! The two situations are not in any way comparable. We can look at it a few different ways:
The obvious first: Prop 8 was about further marginalizing a minority group, depriving them of the same rights that other people enjoyed, and codifying that in to law. This petition is about a private group of people asking a private company to stop carrying the products of another private company because they believe the practices of said entity to be harmful. For comparison, imagine a petition asking Apple to stop using conflict materials contrasted with a group seeking to amend the constitution to deny Mormons the right to vote. One is about preventing harm and improving the lives of a marginalized group, the other is about actively causing harm to a minority group.
Boiled down a bit further, this is the difference between preventing harm and causing harm. Regardless of your particular moral philosophy, I'll bet that preventing harm trumps causing harm most of the time.
For you libertarians, the two aren't even remotely comparable. The case before us is just the invisible hand of the free market at work. If it's in Amazon's best interest to drop those products, they will. In the case of Prop 8, the government has no business deciding who should and shouldn't marry; they should focus exclusively on marriage as a contract between two consenting parties. It's the liberty of the free market vs the tyranny of big government. One is freedom, the other is oppression. You can't equate them.
I'm deeply skeptical. It's obviously outside my personal experience, and this is the first time I've seen anyone report feeling unsafe because they were male -- terrified of... something?... roving bands of violent misandrists?
You're the only person I've ever encountered who claims to have difficult going out because of perceived animosity toward males. I'm having a lot of trouble trying to even imagine what that would be like. The image I have in my head is a sea of women wandering the streets of Portland, nary a man in sight -- I doubt that's terribly accurate. Needless to say, it's not a problem I've run across personally, or heard about from others.
Perhaps someone else could chime in who's had a similar experience and offer their perspective.
It's hard to go out in public in some cities and not be glared at for being male.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the glares you claim to receive are completely unrelated to you being male.
I'm not sure how to feel about this. On one hand, you suffer personally. That's unfair. On the other hand, keeping you shut-in may very well benefit your community.
I'll be the first in line the instant that becomes an actual, rather than purely imaginary, problem.
Please spare me the only valid point the MRA's have ever made. We've heard it already. We're with you there. It's just that you come with some much other nonsense. It's not worth diving in to the septic tank to retrieve that pearl.
Those who we normally think of as privileged who support it can claim whatever they like but the truth is they do so out of sense of guilt
Nonsense.
Azealia Banks a black woman can say anything she wants under these new rules.
Also nonsense. You'll find plenty of [insert your personal boogiemen] who condemn and reject comments like that, including her own.
It's true that sometimes who makes a particular comment matters as much as the comment itself (think: context). Sometimes, like the case you state here, the 'who' doesn't matter.
More specifically, Twitter is a private company. They can allow or not allow any nonsense they want. Equally, we, as individuals, are free to accept or reject those comments and to express our feelings about Twitters decision.
Impotently whining about imaginary problems, however, probably won't get you anywhere. If you want social change, even if it's to revert back to an earlier time, you're going to need to do more than just complain about how things are now. You'll need to convince others that your viewpoint is correct. If what you've written is all you can offer, you're going to have a very difficult time finding a receptive audience outside a few right-leaning internet forums.
What is your approach to building a strong AI then? We are waiting for your reply.
I don't have one. Of course, neither does anyone else. That said, beating on long disproved approaches isn't exactly going to get us anywhere.
Computationalism is as dead as spontaneous generation. You don't need an alternative to find out that something doesn't work, and is never going to work. You'd have us repeat the same failure over and over rather than work toward finding a new approach because... you can't personally think of any alternative so the provably wrong approach must be correct?
In other news, the amount of progress into AI research depends on what fronts you judge the progress and there have been numerous steps forward but none of them have resulted in C3P0 style robots because that is not the goal.
Oh, okay. You're an idiot. We're talking about strong AI here. That's the subject. All that other stuff is not in any way related to strong AI, and it is well known that it can not lead to strong AI.
, Deep Blue did not beat Kasparov and no IBM's Watson
Neither of which have anything to do with Strong AI. Worse they are extremely special purpose and use a hybrid of traditional algorithms and machine learning techniques. They're about as far from strong AI as you can get -- and have fuck all to do with computationalism. Are you just repeating bullshit you read on some Kurzweil fan site?
we know for instance, that the processing "program" of the human brain uses the same functional unit that is repeated over and over and is adapted [...] patterns and sequences of patterns between inputs and outputs.
Yeah, you're deeply confused. You seem to believe we have a far greater understanding of the brain and how it functions than we actually do. It's not your fault. I blame movies and TV shows.
Don't even bother to answer unless you have actual points to make with cited references
Yeah, there's a reason you didn't provide those to support your load of horse shit. It's because you don't even have the faintest understanding about the topic, and there isn't a paper out there that could lend even a tiny bit of credibility to your nonsense.
College students are poor, and their data is very important to them. A lost drive could be difficult to replace, to say nothing of the potential to find countless hours of work lost forever. Any normal person would want to identify the owner and return the drive.
To the Slashdot cynics: Considering all the factors surrounding the drives, don't you think that someone who was already well-aware of the risks of accessing drives of dubious origin would consider the threat minimal? A risk so low that it's better to act as a humanitarian, on the (very high) chance that it would save some poor student a lot of trouble? Wouldn't they hope their fellow students would act similarly, disregarding the pitifully minimal risk to try to return the drive, should they have been the one who had lost one?
I still have my z10, my wife and I each got one the day it was released. I don't see any compelling reason to upgrade. They're still supporting and updating it, after all. The kicker, as you point out, is the UI. Why no one has thought to copy it is beyond me. (Even BB! No peek, for example, on the Priv. Insanity.) I could probably adapt to an Android handset, but every time I try one it feels like I've stepped back in time.
My wife was seduced by the Classic and upgraded. It's a very nice phone, feels very high-quality. The keyboard and trackpad, however, are what really pushed her over. She uses her phone heavily for work, and it's made her dramatically more productive. That's always been the area where BB shines. It would be interesting to see if other players (my money would be on MS here) could compete on that front.
I know they're not 'cool' and that they're struggling to find their place in the new mobile landscape, but the devices themselves are fantastic. They're certainly not the garbage Slashdotters have made them out to be.
You can safely read the article. It is indeed a robot that looks like Scarlett Johansson. It can move its arms, grab things, make a range of awkward facial expressions, etc. You won't be disappointed.
Well, when I say it looks like her, I'm just guessing. I'm not very familiar with the actress. The article does provide a photo for comparison, and the robot looks a bit better. (With some exceptions, of course. Those hands are the stuff of nightmares.) It's possible that Mr. Ma used a younger version of her for reference.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps you're not familiar with the concept of a boycott.
Why, exactly, do you think boycotts happen?
Again, you may want to look for more meaningful numbers to support that belief. The numbers you're using to support that assertion couldn't be less useful.
It would be more useful to look at the number of people who actually support Trumps views, rather than the number of people who signed an obscure petition. For your own sanity, I'd recommend against further investigation.
You seem to hate both free speech and the free market. Would you prefer regulation that banned boycotts and forced retailers to carry products? Or would you rather we self-censure and don't respond to ideas we find disagreeable and force ourselves to fund speech with which we disagree?
Someone trying to prevent Amazon to carry Trump products.
Really? Are they going to raid the warehouse? Blockade their supply lines? You're being overly dramatic. This is a bog-standard boycott. If you didn't know, the boycott is a popular means by which a group can exercise their freedom of speech, and the finest example of the free market working ideally.
The idea is actually to prevent people from buying Trump products. Don't be naive.
In turn, I'll ask you not to be foolish. Everyone knows that it's impossible to prevent people from buying and selling those products. As you know, Trump product manufacturers can sell via their own outlets even if they find no third-party retailers willing to carry them. That's the absolute worst case, of course, as there are endless retail outlets through which manufactures can offer their wares. Equally, there is a pretty low limit to the number of retail outlets that a boycott can effectively target. No one in their right mind thinks this is an attempt to prevent the sale of Trump-related products.
It's very obviously a political statement. One that doesn't come without risk! You may remember the Chick-fil-A boycott, back in 2012, that backfired as conservatives came out in support of the restaurant chain in response to the boycott, resulting in record-breaking sales.
See, the way to fight against speech you don't like is with speech of your own. (You can start your own petition in support of Trump stuff, for example.) You don't do it by opposing free speech or (more mildly) trying to limit the means by which a people can express their views.
No I'm afraid of rational things
Do you have an example? Ah, there it is!
like being jumped by some crazy SJW's partner or getting sucker punched(by the same group) because I said the wrong thing(in their eyes) in public.
No, no. An example of a rational fear. This isn't any different than being terrified to go out for fear you'll be abducted by hostile aliens.
We call it a boycott. Boycotts are a means by which a people can exercise their right to speak, as well as participate more fully in the free market. You'll find that boycotts have been employed for centuries, for various reasons, across the entire political spectrum. It's an old tradition. Here in the US, they go back well before the revolution. We've never been without them.
As for public shaming, that's really what decides what ideas are and are not accepted by a society. Some beliefs, actions, and ideas are taboo because we, collectively, feel that they are harmful. We hold to others because we, collectively, feel they are important. We're careful with our language around children and scold others when they don't. We work hard to support our families and denigrate the lazy and unmotivated who do not.
Our values change over time as our society changes. You can believe those changes are for the better or for the worst, but it's not something that an individual has much influence over. All we can do is participate in the free exchange of ideas. Boycotts are part of that process.
Can you image the uproar from leftists if some Christian fundamentalists had written to Amazon requesting that products associated with, say, transsexuals be pulled from sale?
How would that be any different from the current right-wing outrage over this petition?
This is what we call the "free exchange of ideas". You offer up ideas that I dislike, I offer my own ideas. If Amazon caves to consumer pressure on this issue, you're under no obligation to support them by shopping there. If Amazon gave in to your example demand, I'm equally free to pull my support and shop elsewhere. Our differing ideas will either coexist or one will dominate the other in the great marketplace of ideas, leaving the other to fade in to obscurity. Regardless, society will have changed in some way. It's how it's always been, and likely always will be.
Who's trying to stop you (or anyone else) from buying Trump stuff? They can sell that stuff through any retailer that is willing to carry those products or through any outlets they control. You, in turn, can buy from those outlets.
A pharmacy chain a few years back stopped carrying tobacco products. Should they have been forced to continue to carry and sell those products? Did that prevent you, or any one else, from buying those products? Of course not.
So, why should Amazon be obligated to carry Trump products? Aren't they free to carry whatever legal products they want, and to not carry any products they don't want to sell? If Amazon believes its in their best interest to carry Trump stuff, they're free to do so. If Amazon doesn't think carrying those products is in their best interest, they're free to drop those offerings from their site. Customers, equally, are free to shop elsewhere if they find either decision distasteful. That's all part of the free exchange of ideas. Speech, of course, is never without consequences. In this case, consumers will speak with their wallets, producers with their merchandise, and retailers will respond to the wants and needs of their customers.
Attempting to do the same anywhere else (especially in my space), is simply an attempt to exert control over others and -that- is an act of intolerance.
Ridiculous. To express my disapproval is not the same as silencing your voice. To petition a private company as a means to express your viewpoint is no different. As Amazon is free to carry whatever products they want, to consider that carrying those products is equivalent to supporting to those ideas is perfectly reasonable. It's the basic idea behind every boycott. (Would you have us dispense with those entirely? Wouldn't that be a terrifying suppression of free speech?)
To say "I won't buy your products as long as you support x" is not intolerance as you're under no obligation to underwrite speech with which you disagree by supporting the company that enables said speech to further disseminate. Tolerance does not mean "you must pay to support my ideas, regardless of your beliefs". You'd have us believe that by not funding your message, we're being intolerant.
Amazon's customers are saying "we don't want to pay you to provide a platform for these ideas". That's not intolerance. That's not saying "I want to prevent Trump from sharing his ideas" (he's free to do so on whatever platforms he controls) it's saying "I don't want to pay you to promote ideas I dislike." Amazon is free to continue to carry those products and their message if they're willing to accept the natural social and potential financial cost the comes from supporting those ideas. Speech is never free from social consequences, nor should it ever be. How else would ideas compete?
If you are right and his ideas are so repugnant, then those ideas will simply die in the open air. To quote a well-know political commentator, "Sunlight kills bacteria."
This is all part of that process. People aren't perfectly rational actors, after all. Ideas die when they become socially unacceptable, not because they're shown to be objectively wrong, harmful, or whatever. Alternative ideas and dissent constitute the "sunlight" in your metaphor.
I've had some alcohol so
I believe that ...
There's no counterpoint to be had
But there is! The two situations are not in any way comparable. We can look at it a few different ways:
The obvious first: Prop 8 was about further marginalizing a minority group, depriving them of the same rights that other people enjoyed, and codifying that in to law. This petition is about a private group of people asking a private company to stop carrying the products of another private company because they believe the practices of said entity to be harmful. For comparison, imagine a petition asking Apple to stop using conflict materials contrasted with a group seeking to amend the constitution to deny Mormons the right to vote. One is about preventing harm and improving the lives of a marginalized group, the other is about actively causing harm to a minority group.
Boiled down a bit further, this is the difference between preventing harm and causing harm. Regardless of your particular moral philosophy, I'll bet that preventing harm trumps causing harm most of the time.
For you libertarians, the two aren't even remotely comparable. The case before us is just the invisible hand of the free market at work. If it's in Amazon's best interest to drop those products, they will. In the case of Prop 8, the government has no business deciding who should and shouldn't marry; they should focus exclusively on marriage as a contract between two consenting parties. It's the liberty of the free market vs the tyranny of big government. One is freedom, the other is oppression. You can't equate them.
Feel free to add your own.
I'm deeply skeptical. It's obviously outside my personal experience, and this is the first time I've seen anyone report feeling unsafe because they were male -- terrified of ... something? ... roving bands of violent misandrists?
Are you also afraid of ghosts and UFO's?
You're reading an awful lot in such a tiny amount of text. I'll stand by that paranoid and delusional bit.
Right, because sexism/racism is power + prejudice. It's impossible to be sexist against men just like it is impossible to be racist against white.
If you got all that from my comment, you're both paranoid and delusional. There's nothing I can do to help you. Good luck.
You're the only person I've ever encountered who claims to have difficult going out because of perceived animosity toward males. I'm having a lot of trouble trying to even imagine what that would be like. The image I have in my head is a sea of women wandering the streets of Portland, nary a man in sight -- I doubt that's terribly accurate. Needless to say, it's not a problem I've run across personally, or heard about from others.
Perhaps someone else could chime in who's had a similar experience and offer their perspective.
Cool story, bro. Just one problem: it had absolutely nothing to do with "anti-abuse laws".
It's hard to go out in public in some cities and not be glared at for being male.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the glares you claim to receive are completely unrelated to you being male.
I'm not sure how to feel about this. On one hand, you suffer personally. That's unfair. On the other hand, keeping you shut-in may very well benefit your community.
I'll be the first in line the instant that becomes an actual, rather than purely imaginary, problem.
Please spare me the only valid point the MRA's have ever made. We've heard it already. We're with you there. It's just that you come with some much other nonsense. It's not worth diving in to the septic tank to retrieve that pearl.
Those who we normally think of as privileged who support it can claim whatever they like but the truth is they do so out of sense of guilt
Nonsense.
Azealia Banks a black woman can say anything she wants under these new rules.
Also nonsense. You'll find plenty of [insert your personal boogiemen] who condemn and reject comments like that, including her own.
It's true that sometimes who makes a particular comment matters as much as the comment itself (think: context). Sometimes, like the case you state here, the 'who' doesn't matter.
More specifically, Twitter is a private company. They can allow or not allow any nonsense they want. Equally, we, as individuals, are free to accept or reject those comments and to express our feelings about Twitters decision.
Impotently whining about imaginary problems, however, probably won't get you anywhere. If you want social change, even if it's to revert back to an earlier time, you're going to need to do more than just complain about how things are now. You'll need to convince others that your viewpoint is correct. If what you've written is all you can offer, you're going to have a very difficult time finding a receptive audience outside a few right-leaning internet forums.
Alienating every voting bloc in America
They ... they're ... Oh my god...
What is your approach to building a strong AI then? We are waiting for your reply.
I don't have one. Of course, neither does anyone else. That said, beating on long disproved approaches isn't exactly going to get us anywhere.
Computationalism is as dead as spontaneous generation. You don't need an alternative to find out that something doesn't work, and is never going to work. You'd have us repeat the same failure over and over rather than work toward finding a new approach because ... you can't personally think of any alternative so the provably wrong approach must be correct?
In other news, the amount of progress into AI research depends on what fronts you judge the progress and there have been numerous steps forward but none of them have resulted in C3P0 style robots because that is not the goal.
Oh, okay. You're an idiot. We're talking about strong AI here. That's the subject. All that other stuff is not in any way related to strong AI, and it is well known that it can not lead to strong AI.
, Deep Blue did not beat Kasparov and no IBM's Watson
Neither of which have anything to do with Strong AI. Worse they are extremely special purpose and use a hybrid of traditional algorithms and machine learning techniques. They're about as far from strong AI as you can get -- and have fuck all to do with computationalism. Are you just repeating bullshit you read on some Kurzweil fan site?
we know for instance, that the processing "program" of the human brain uses the same functional unit that is repeated over and over and is adapted [...] patterns and sequences of patterns between inputs and outputs.
Yeah, you're deeply confused. You seem to believe we have a far greater understanding of the brain and how it functions than we actually do. It's not your fault. I blame movies and TV shows.
Don't even bother to answer unless you have actual points to make with cited references
Yeah, there's a reason you didn't provide those to support your load of horse shit. It's because you don't even have the faintest understanding about the topic, and there isn't a paper out there that could lend even a tiny bit of credibility to your nonsense.
If we're going to ever develop a true artificial general intelligence, we're going to have to model it after our neocortex. This is a good start.
A good start? They've been at that for ~40 years. We're still at the 'poke it with a stick' phase. Color me skeptical.
That seems incredibly likely to me as well.
College students are poor, and their data is very important to them. A lost drive could be difficult to replace, to say nothing of the potential to find countless hours of work lost forever. Any normal person would want to identify the owner and return the drive.
To the Slashdot cynics: Considering all the factors surrounding the drives, don't you think that someone who was already well-aware of the risks of accessing drives of dubious origin would consider the threat minimal? A risk so low that it's better to act as a humanitarian, on the (very high) chance that it would save some poor student a lot of trouble? Wouldn't they hope their fellow students would act similarly, disregarding the pitifully minimal risk to try to return the drive, should they have been the one who had lost one?
I still have my z10, my wife and I each got one the day it was released. I don't see any compelling reason to upgrade. They're still supporting and updating it, after all. The kicker, as you point out, is the UI. Why no one has thought to copy it is beyond me. (Even BB! No peek, for example, on the Priv. Insanity.) I could probably adapt to an Android handset, but every time I try one it feels like I've stepped back in time.
My wife was seduced by the Classic and upgraded. It's a very nice phone, feels very high-quality. The keyboard and trackpad, however, are what really pushed her over. She uses her phone heavily for work, and it's made her dramatically more productive. That's always been the area where BB shines. It would be interesting to see if other players (my money would be on MS here) could compete on that front.
I know they're not 'cool' and that they're struggling to find their place in the new mobile landscape, but the devices themselves are fantastic. They're certainly not the garbage Slashdotters have made them out to be.
Why there isn't the same level of excitement for anti-aging, as, say, colonizing Mars, is very difficult to understand.
Going to Mars excites the imagination of young and old, rich and poor. Like the moon landing, everyone gets to participate.
A cure for aging is a boon only to a select few who can afford it. It's a terrifying nightmare for those at the bottom who cannot.
You can safely read the article. It is indeed a robot that looks like Scarlett Johansson. It can move its arms, grab things, make a range of awkward facial expressions, etc. You won't be disappointed.
Well, when I say it looks like her, I'm just guessing. I'm not very familiar with the actress. The article does provide a photo for comparison, and the robot looks a bit better. (With some exceptions, of course. Those hands are the stuff of nightmares.) It's possible that Mr. Ma used a younger version of her for reference.