There's so much direct evidence that Trump and Putin are are allies that I think it's well beyond just spin. Russia is a dystopia run by a handful of rich people, while normal people live grim, miserable lives. Putin took a weak hand, making it strong by supporting right wing populists in the the U.S. and Europe.
His model is the dictator of a country where the oligarchs live like kings, while the regular people live in abject poverty. I think that in time we will learn the full extent of Trump's ties with Putin but it may not be until it's too late.
If they saw the writing on the wall, would they make good on what they've been threatening since the cessation of the Korean War? I get the feeling that they're always in fight or flight mode anyway and an existential threat, making them feel cornered might incite them to lash out. I'm not saying it's a reason the U.S. shouldn't fund this project. I have no idea. I just hope those that do have an idea tend to things through well.
Many people call the rain forests of the Amazon Basin the lungs of the earth. That hasn't stopped us (human beings) from slashing and burning it mercilessly for decades. If the inherent beauty of system and the species won't motivate us to stop, would preservation of what's left help with some of the environmental existential threats that face us? I'm not sure that the oxygen leakage is really an existential threat but it doesn't sound like an ideal trend, especially when combined with other factors. The overall sense I get is steady decline until we start really feeling it and wake up. It's not hard to imagine a perfect storm, and it's not impossible to imagine a semi-friendly wake up call such as people noticing it's actually getting harder to breathe, degrading to gasping for oxygen.
Point taken. Ok, perhaps my post was alarmist. It wasn't the content I was reacting to as much as the general state od the world. Probably not useful thing to do.
If this doesn't do it, you most likely don't have kids yet or never want them. And you somehow think the rest of your life will be free of hard consequences from the environment. The alternative is that you think something more basic will get you such as war or famine.
I suspect Zuckerberg is the first person to seriously think he could cure, prevent or manage all diseases for just $3 billion.
He doesn't think that, and he didn't say that. The quote about "curing all diseases" is taken out of context. If you look at what he actually said, it is clear that he meant that as an aspiration for all of humanity over the next century, not just for his project. So the headline, summary, and TFA are yet more examples of garbage journalism. They are are more than just distorted and misleading, they are outright lies.
''
The statement of intent is to cure all diseases within a decade. I doubt he meant his $3 billion alone would do the trick or even that he'd stop at $3 billion. That is not chump change so even if it's only $3 billion toward medical research that helps make some progress, then that's good. Normally when people say we're going to get somewhere far away or solve some massive problems, they don't plan to write a check and forget about the whole thing, they plan to stay engaged and they expect some help. I assume he didn't say I'm gonna get it done for you all. I got this one.
Yes, but this is so horrific it defies comprehension. I doubt many people have the appropriate sheer horror reaction to this as the mind protests us from reality to a certain degree. It's important to know it's happening and maybe it'll sink in.
Meanwhile, if tou ad this to the story of the handful of probably mind numbingly useless website they have in their top level domain, available to the people, you start to see a picture and maybe feel it some of what it deserves.
North Korea is a hellhole. I don't care how many web sites they have. I do care about millions essentially enslaved and starved by that atrocious, autocratic government of the Kims.
I don't think many people would disagree with you that it's a hellhole but things like this make it easier for people to understand. It's not easy to comprehend what it's like to live in a true, card carrying hell hole.
That means next year he starts Kindergarten. I just assumed Kindergarten involved a lot of playing, not to mention time outdoors. I'm concerned as 4 isn't that much different than 5, and I can see that learning and play aren't entirely separate for him. Often, when he's learning well he's in the zone playing. It's how I think adults learn best.
Little boys focus the most energy on learning whatever interests them the most, say, dinosaurs, monster trucks, and insects. Then they'll add something to the list, maybe drop something maybe not.
I wouldn't wish a space station falling out of sky on my worst enemy. We are all in this together. That's the truth. Now hide under the couch until the debris clears.:-)
Google is one of the largest privately owned surveillance machines in the world and you call this a good thing??? Just because they give you searches doesn't make it all alright.
Yeah, that's the thing I have noticed is that people tend to have black or white thinking at least in discussion. Things are rarely that simple as here's the good side of the ledger and here's the bad. Personally, I would not put google on the bad side of the ledger but I think putting them on the good side would be a mistake as well. They use the info they gather to serve us relevant ads, and then they provide us service in return. Are there substantial costs to privacy? Yes. I have a hard time making the call on which side it falls though as it's hazy and gray to me.
GP could not have designed systems to educate 7 million children without the technology we have today. Was that technology designed and marketed with the goal of educating children? No, but that's the beauty of advancing technology which you are missing.
If a project expands our base of knowledge or makes technology more affordable we will see other applications grow out of it, regardless of what the short term goal of the initial project was,
I agree with this. So BeerMe in the process of developing the app ends used to created GoodFoodWaste, Foodbank+, optimal cold (for the beer) tech is used to make refrigeration more efficient. The BeerMe staff' even met some battery guys at a pub one night, concluding that the key to keeping the beer flowing was keeping the juice flowing, inspiring a partnership between BatteryX and BeerMe. Then they decided we need to partner with WeedMe to really take this to the next level.
The honest truth is maybe I am slightly ashamed of how little I've contributed to the well being of human society with mundane business services. I feel proud of having helped many businesses and non-profit organizations that had problems amenable to our solutions. I feel proud of that but overall do I think I made the world a better place? No. I'm trying to be honest here. I really try.
If I had your list of tangible accomplishments I'd feel pretty proud That's a cool list. I'm not ashamed but I'm not shout it from the roof tops about it,
If you read what Marmot7 said in the post not any commentary or anything just what's attributed to me, do you see where I say nothing good's happening. If I said that it was absolutely not my intent. I know about the accomplishments. My point, though not made with finesse I'll grant, was that there seems to be a mis-allocation of resources and that's what it comes down to. I've not proposed technical or public policy solutions, I'm listening and probing, something by disagreeing sharply but my feeling is of a person who's earnestly trying to learn more about this topic as I think it's ALREADY IS and and will continue to be part of the solution. There are just some things that are puzzling to me given that we have some very serious problems that are little attention or perhaps inept attention, which can be worse,
As for my work, for the last 5 years I've worked in an SaaS platform that's pretty good and businesses buy it and have good success in making certain things work better and marginally more efficient. I don't want to see you on how great it is right now as it's not great enough to be worth bragging about here nor am spectacularly proud of it so I want to rant and rave here. So far in my working life, I've contributed a lot on the micro scale but I'm not super inspired by me.:-)
Isn't Venture Capital throwing money at a problem with the hope of solving it and making money? Why is throwing money at BeerMe, DriveMe, FeedMe, etc., a reasonable idea but throwing money at a more important problem not acceptable or likely to work?
Solving a problem does not inherently make you money. Creating a solution customers are willing and able to spend money on will make you money. By giving $10 to a starving poor person I could solve that hunger (at least temporarily), but I am unlikely to see a return on that "investment". Finding a way to make a better tasting ketchup, on the other hand, could make a lot of money, regardless of whether tastier ketchup is a more important than feeding starving people.
Venture capital is not charity. Wealthy people can certainly choose to start a foundation (like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) instead of investing in a VC firm if solving "important" problems is their goal. If they choose investing, however, return on investment is likely the goal.
There are a lot of VC funded companies solving very important problems, but the reason they were funded almost certainly was because they could show a potential return on investment. Social good could have been a factor, but very few companies (or possibly no companies) are funded by VC's as a charity case.
Just in case the assumption behind this response was that I'm a total-fucking-moron-without-the-slightest-clue (I don't rule out that possibility that describes me accurately), I thought I'd clarify that I realize that investors invest money to earn a return. I'm with you on that.
It's worth noting that in my question and in any of my comments, I don't really claim that any sort of attempt to to hard sell VC's to make funding charity cases as their investment strategies. First of all, my knowledge of what they do is somewhat limited. I don't presume to know the solution to this problem. I'm not even sure that funding "charity" cases is the way to go even if it were somehow lucrative. I presume nothing. We live in interesting times. I am beyond thinking I know shit. The collective consciousness of Slashdot know a whole lot more than I do and I've tapped into a bit with this question. It does have that feeling of a sort of mind merge. The collective brain bower in this sort of over-mind light (compared to the larger over mind). That is, this site is a way to extend your own intelligence beyond it's normal bounds. Other spaces do the same thing. Huffpo does not... Usually.
Oh, you know, people had their techie projects a partial list here of a few: http://www.history.com/news/hi...
Even crows use technology so while it may appear I only meant apps, some of the cool stuff on just on random list of the Roman tech industry's accomplishments. Though my original post tried to cover a few areas, I guess it wasn't clear that I didn't just mean apps. You can't really actually build aqueducts though, you know, maybe some day.
I agree with all this and that's sort of part of what I was getting at with my question. Some of the problems are market failures and there's no obvious way to directly profit from working on the problem so if we are going to spend money it'll likely be through the political process. . The government's likely to be the one investing in technology directed at these problems. Even if it's contractors doing the work, the funding comes from the government. Certain domains, such as military get plenty of resources, but other critical domains do not. I'm not even suggesting that our military spending is bad, by the way. I'll forever be grateful to ARPA (DARPA) for inventing the Internet.:-)
Yeah, but my point is more having to do with political will rather than a lack of monetary or technical resources. And some of the solutions don't even require technology -- just effort (and thus money).
As I pointed out, the political issues are greater than just that of political will. It requires all governments in all countries respect human rights, minority rights, and uphold the rule of law. It requires removing government corruption where it exists. And then it requires a ground-up push from The People to push their political masters to prioritize and push solutions to these big issues.
Technology can somewhat help when it comes to implementation, but you have to have the political will first. Without the political will, no amount of technology is going to help, now matter how great the ideas are. If you have a corrupt government that isn't interested in fighting poverty in minority populations in their country (and perhaps has a vested interest in oppressing those people), technology and ideas aren't going to fix it on their own.
Yaz
I agree with you and that's part of my question above where I mentioned policy wonks but I should have mentioned politics directly. This is part of what puzzles me as how we end up with the political priorities we have as I don't get the feeling they match what the *people* want. I realize we live in a Republic so it's consent to govern and once in Washington, representatives make all sorts of decisions that don't have anything to do with the interests of the people in their district much less people in general. How could that be true with all the money inputs into the system? There's massive distortion. That was intended as part of what I'm puzzled about, so we have this system and people routinely claim to be reformers BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT yet nobody delivers.
Mr. Smith types usually get relegated to making symbolic gestures, which is something. But the real work is done behind closed doors dealing with people who are willing to put cash on the barrelhead. That's not a formula for even approximating the will of the people. There's a lot of policies, massive programs, that prominent people on the right and the left rail against but the the policies keep running zombie style even though everyone knows they're broken. They have money behind them and inertia. I have no clue what the solution to this is at all. Some people say take all money out of politics other than some modest public funds. How could there not be loopholes in this thing that would allow organizations to route around the regulations and find a way spend those dollars for policy influence.
Slashdot Mirror
There's so much direct evidence that Trump and Putin are are allies that I think it's well beyond just spin. Russia is a dystopia run by a handful of rich people, while normal people live grim, miserable lives. Putin took a weak hand, making it strong by supporting right wing populists in the the U.S. and Europe.
His model is the dictator of a country where the oligarchs live like kings, while the regular people live in abject poverty. I think that in time we will learn the full extent of Trump's ties with Putin but it may not be until it's too late.
Maybe it wasn't for fun: https://www.amazon.com/Plot-Ha...
If they saw the writing on the wall, would they make good on what they've been threatening since the cessation of the Korean War? I get the feeling that they're always in fight or flight mode anyway and an existential threat, making them feel cornered might incite them to lash out. I'm not saying it's a reason the U.S. shouldn't fund this project. I have no idea. I just hope those that do have an idea tend to things through well.
Cosmic
Many people call the rain forests of the Amazon Basin the lungs of the earth. That hasn't stopped us (human beings) from slashing and burning it mercilessly for decades. If the inherent beauty of system and the species won't motivate us to stop, would preservation of what's left help with some of the environmental existential threats that face us? I'm not sure that the oxygen leakage is really an existential threat but it doesn't sound like an ideal trend, especially when combined with other factors. The overall sense I get is steady decline until we start really feeling it and wake up. It's not hard to imagine a perfect storm, and it's not impossible to imagine a semi-friendly wake up call such as people noticing it's actually getting harder to breathe, degrading to gasping for oxygen.
Point taken. Ok, perhaps my post was alarmist. It wasn't the content I was reacting to as much as the general state od the world. Probably not useful thing to do.
If this doesn't do it, you most likely don't have kids yet or never want them. And you somehow think the rest of your life will be free of hard consequences from the environment. The alternative is that you think something more basic will get you such as war or famine.
I suspect Zuckerberg is the first person to seriously think he could cure, prevent or manage all diseases for just $3 billion.
He doesn't think that, and he didn't say that. The quote about "curing all diseases" is taken out of context. If you look at what he actually said, it is clear that he meant that as an aspiration for all of humanity over the next century, not just for his project. So the headline, summary, and TFA are yet more examples of garbage journalism. They are are more than just distorted and misleading, they are outright lies.
'' The statement of intent is to cure all diseases within a decade. I doubt he meant his $3 billion alone would do the trick or even that he'd stop at $3 billion. That is not chump change so even if it's only $3 billion toward medical research that helps make some progress, then that's good. Normally when people say we're going to get somewhere far away or solve some massive problems, they don't plan to write a check and forget about the whole thing, they plan to stay engaged and they expect some help. I assume he didn't say I'm gonna get it done for you all. I got this one.
Yes, but this is so horrific it defies comprehension. I doubt many people have the appropriate sheer horror reaction to this as the mind protests us from reality to a certain degree. It's important to know it's happening and maybe it'll sink in. Meanwhile, if tou ad this to the story of the handful of probably mind numbingly useless website they have in their top level domain, available to the people, you start to see a picture and maybe feel it some of what it deserves.
North Korea is a hellhole. I don't care how many web sites they have. I do care about millions essentially enslaved and starved by that atrocious, autocratic government of the Kims.
I don't think many people would disagree with you that it's a hellhole but things like this make it easier for people to understand. It's not easy to comprehend what it's like to live in a true, card carrying hell hole.
It's too depressing to read most of the time. And we never meet the heroic cool characters... Yet.
That means next year he starts Kindergarten. I just assumed Kindergarten involved a lot of playing, not to mention time outdoors. I'm concerned as 4 isn't that much different than 5, and I can see that learning and play aren't entirely separate for him. Often, when he's learning well he's in the zone playing. It's how I think adults learn best. Little boys focus the most energy on learning whatever interests them the most, say, dinosaurs, monster trucks, and insects. Then they'll add something to the list, maybe drop something maybe not.
China Confirms Its Space Station Is Falling Back to Earth
Given that they just launched Tiangong-2 a few days ago, it might have been nice to clarify that it's Tiangong-1 which is falling to Earth.
That's extraordinary. Doesn't China have a Public Relations Department?
I wouldn't wish a space station falling out of sky on my worst enemy. We are all in this together. That's the truth. Now hide under the couch until the debris clears. :-)
You ignored the comments about google
Google is one of the largest privately owned surveillance machines in the world and you call this a good thing??? Just because they give you searches doesn't make it all alright.
Yeah, that's the thing I have noticed is that people tend to have black or white thinking at least in discussion. Things are rarely that simple as here's the good side of the ledger and here's the bad. Personally, I would not put google on the bad side of the ledger but I think putting them on the good side would be a mistake as well. They use the info they gather to serve us relevant ads, and then they provide us service in return. Are there substantial costs to privacy? Yes. I have a hard time making the call on which side it falls though as it's hazy and gray to me.
I've come back to read a little more of the post or the hackaday site. It's a pretty cool thing you have going on there.
GP could not have designed systems to educate 7 million children without the technology we have today. Was that technology designed and marketed with the goal of educating children? No, but that's the beauty of advancing technology which you are missing.
If a project expands our base of knowledge or makes technology more affordable we will see other applications grow out of it, regardless of what the short term goal of the initial project was,
I agree with this. So BeerMe in the process of developing the app ends used to created GoodFoodWaste, Foodbank+, optimal cold (for the beer) tech is used to make refrigeration more efficient. The BeerMe staff' even met some battery guys at a pub one night, concluding that the key to keeping the beer flowing was keeping the juice flowing, inspiring a partnership between BatteryX and BeerMe. Then they decided we need to partner with WeedMe to really take this to the next level.
Just to clarify do you think it's acceptable to insult people?
The honest truth is maybe I am slightly ashamed of how little I've contributed to the well being of human society with mundane business services. I feel proud of having helped many businesses and non-profit organizations that had problems amenable to our solutions. I feel proud of that but overall do I think I made the world a better place? No. I'm trying to be honest here. I really try.
If I had your list of tangible accomplishments I'd feel pretty proud That's a cool list. I'm not ashamed but I'm not shout it from the roof tops about it,
If you read what Marmot7 said in the post not any commentary or anything just what's attributed to me, do you see where I say nothing good's happening. If I said that it was absolutely not my intent. I know about the accomplishments. My point, though not made with finesse I'll grant, was that there seems to be a mis-allocation of resources and that's what it comes down to. I've not proposed technical or public policy solutions, I'm listening and probing, something by disagreeing sharply but my feeling is of a person who's earnestly trying to learn more about this topic as I think it's ALREADY IS and and will continue to be part of the solution. There are just some things that are puzzling to me given that we have some very serious problems that are little attention or perhaps inept attention, which can be worse, As for my work, for the last 5 years I've worked in an SaaS platform that's pretty good and businesses buy it and have good success in making certain things work better and marginally more efficient. I don't want to see you on how great it is right now as it's not great enough to be worth bragging about here nor am spectacularly proud of it so I want to rant and rave here. So far in my working life, I've contributed a lot on the micro scale but I'm not super inspired by me. :-)
Isn't Venture Capital throwing money at a problem with the hope of solving it and making money? Why is throwing money at BeerMe, DriveMe, FeedMe, etc., a reasonable idea but throwing money at a more important problem not acceptable or likely to work?
Solving a problem does not inherently make you money. Creating a solution customers are willing and able to spend money on will make you money. By giving $10 to a starving poor person I could solve that hunger (at least temporarily), but I am unlikely to see a return on that "investment". Finding a way to make a better tasting ketchup, on the other hand, could make a lot of money, regardless of whether tastier ketchup is a more important than feeding starving people.
Venture capital is not charity. Wealthy people can certainly choose to start a foundation (like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) instead of investing in a VC firm if solving "important" problems is their goal. If they choose investing, however, return on investment is likely the goal.
There are a lot of VC funded companies solving very important problems, but the reason they were funded almost certainly was because they could show a potential return on investment. Social good could have been a factor, but very few companies (or possibly no companies) are funded by VC's as a charity case.
Just in case the assumption behind this response was that I'm a total-fucking-moron-without-the-slightest-clue (I don't rule out that possibility that describes me accurately), I thought I'd clarify that I realize that investors invest money to earn a return. I'm with you on that. It's worth noting that in my question and in any of my comments, I don't really claim that any sort of attempt to to hard sell VC's to make funding charity cases as their investment strategies. First of all, my knowledge of what they do is somewhat limited. I don't presume to know the solution to this problem. I'm not even sure that funding "charity" cases is the way to go even if it were somehow lucrative. I presume nothing. We live in interesting times. I am beyond thinking I know shit. The collective consciousness of Slashdot know a whole lot more than I do and I've tapped into a bit with this question. It does have that feeling of a sort of mind merge. The collective brain bower in this sort of over-mind light (compared to the larger over mind). That is, this site is a way to extend your own intelligence beyond it's normal bounds. Other spaces do the same thing. Huffpo does not... Usually.
Oh, you know, people had their techie projects a partial list here of a few: http://www.history.com/news/hi... Even crows use technology so while it may appear I only meant apps, some of the cool stuff on just on random list of the Roman tech industry's accomplishments. Though my original post tried to cover a few areas, I guess it wasn't clear that I didn't just mean apps. You can't really actually build aqueducts though, you know, maybe some day.
I agree with all this and that's sort of part of what I was getting at with my question. Some of the problems are market failures and there's no obvious way to directly profit from working on the problem so if we are going to spend money it'll likely be through the political process. . The government's likely to be the one investing in technology directed at these problems. Even if it's contractors doing the work, the funding comes from the government. Certain domains, such as military get plenty of resources, but other critical domains do not. I'm not even suggesting that our military spending is bad, by the way. I'll forever be grateful to ARPA (DARPA) for inventing the Internet. :-)
Yeah, but my point is more having to do with political will rather than a lack of monetary or technical resources. And some of the solutions don't even require technology -- just effort (and thus money).
As I pointed out, the political issues are greater than just that of political will. It requires all governments in all countries respect human rights, minority rights, and uphold the rule of law. It requires removing government corruption where it exists. And then it requires a ground-up push from The People to push their political masters to prioritize and push solutions to these big issues.
Technology can somewhat help when it comes to implementation, but you have to have the political will first. Without the political will, no amount of technology is going to help, now matter how great the ideas are. If you have a corrupt government that isn't interested in fighting poverty in minority populations in their country (and perhaps has a vested interest in oppressing those people), technology and ideas aren't going to fix it on their own.
Yaz
I agree with you and that's part of my question above where I mentioned policy wonks but I should have mentioned politics directly. This is part of what puzzles me as how we end up with the political priorities we have as I don't get the feeling they match what the *people* want. I realize we live in a Republic so it's consent to govern and once in Washington, representatives make all sorts of decisions that don't have anything to do with the interests of the people in their district much less people in general. How could that be true with all the money inputs into the system? There's massive distortion. That was intended as part of what I'm puzzled about, so we have this system and people routinely claim to be reformers BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT yet nobody delivers.
Mr. Smith types usually get relegated to making symbolic gestures, which is something. But the real work is done behind closed doors dealing with people who are willing to put cash on the barrelhead. That's not a formula for even approximating the will of the people. There's a lot of policies, massive programs, that prominent people on the right and the left rail against but the the policies keep running zombie style even though everyone knows they're broken. They have money behind them and inertia. I have no clue what the solution to this is at all. Some people say take all money out of politics other than some modest public funds. How could there not be loopholes in this thing that would allow organizations to route around the regulations and find a way spend those dollars for policy influence.