The villain of the movie "Antitrust" has a foundation too, so Bill Gates can stay a bad guy.
Bill Gates is just not a bad guy anymore. What the hell, I feel like I live in an alternative reality. Bill Gates pretty is earnestly trying to make the world a better place and putting his money and i think his time behind that effort.
Where did you go wrong, Bill? He's practically a hippie now but with billions of dollars to drive some pragmatic idealism. Holy shit, I sound like I could be an advocate. It just doesn't work anymore. He's playing a different role now so clearly he's not a guy who could just play one role and stuck.
He is a counter example of what I'm saying but his program resulted from his decision so I'm not sure it counts as the application of tech toward solving problems. It's more like this guy who made billions decided to use his wealth to help solve some important problems.
Thanks for your reply. It's an interesting discussion, and indeed, I get a little fed up when even in academia, translational medicine morphs from meaning "translating theory into practice" to meaning "getting patents and making profitable startups." It's needed, but it can sometimes distort the field and culture when it becomes an ends and not a means.
I'm a little curious as to your definition of techie, because a lot of the discussion really boils down to how you define a techie.
I find my techie friends are more informed and intellectually curious than any other group. I'd put them at about equal to my academic friends in this area.
When you say this, this makes me think your Venn diagram for "technies" and "academics" has no intersection. But ask most any grad student, postdoc, or faculty in an engineering, CS, or applied math department (and increasingly many biology departments), and they'll likely regard themselves as techies.
It seems to me a reasonable definition that a techie is a technophile, particularly one who loves, uses, and improves technology in their daily work and hobbies. But if you restrict your label to Silicon Valley and tech startup types, you're lose most of the amateur techies, the open source people, and the citizen scientists.
Again, it's an interesting discussion, so thanks. (And great to meet you here on Slashdot!)
I meant "Silicon Valley" as a popular representation of what tech's about. It's the easiest thing to point to for the purpose of identifying the problem but the solution, if there even is a problem to solve, will extend way to the communities you mention! I think more nuance would have made my question harder to ask than it already was.
I couldn't agree more with you, though, and now I'm wondering if I sacrificed clarity along with the nuance as a number of people latched on to either "dude, there's already an app for that what the fuck are you talking about?" and the "how can apps possibly feed the hungry?" sort of response but objections I could have addressed with a better formed question, including a broader definition of techie. The hobbyist, the researcher, the open source people, the citizen scientist (that's a cool concept).
IMHO Microsoft is a much different company than it was in the past.
That being said, yeah, to hell with Windows, I'll never change my mind about that.
I still do not like Windows but Microsoft itself seems different. Feels different. I'm not even just talking about open sourcing this or that, I mean they seem less threatening then they once did. They're less powerful but also there seems to be a shift in values. I could be totally off as I know very little about Microsoft, the company. Back in the late '90s, many looked at Microsoft as evil incarnate, with Bill Gates the villain at the help. I took a long break from looking at Slashdot, at least regularly, and recently came back to it, finding far less about kind of scary maneuvers by Microsoft. I'm not even sure when people do post here about Bill Gates is there still that avatar with the Borg get up?
The headline asks a question that is based on a false premise. Techies are doing more than anyone to improve the world. We have gone 70 years without a major war. Why? Two reasons, better communications and nuclear weapons. Both of these are because the techies that built the Internet, launched the comsats, and split the atom. Today, the Internet is bringing literacy and prosperity to the third world. Better solar cells and windmills are bringing us clean energy. Wikipedia is compiling the world's knowledge, and Google is giving us a way to search it instantly.
All of this is being done by us nerds. Who else is doing as much to create a better world? Lawyers? Journalists? Politicians? I don't think so.
Give me a break. I don't really want to go down the path but that line about technology has already save the world is a bit much. For example, it's open for debate whether in a post MAD world that nuclear weapons won't end up being what takes us down in the end. I'm no luddite but the opposite of luddite gets just as tiresome.
More importantly, I wasn't intending to say look over there at the finance people, they're the real heroes. Look at all that brain power focused on what matters. Or look at the trial lawyers. If only we could put our heads together and figure out a way to double the number of trial lawyers. You don't have to defend nerds from comparisons as I at least agree that this IS where the potential is. There's a reason I'm posting this here. One domain or another of tech is where I'd imagine nearly all of us who even glance at Slashdot have thrown their lot in with. There's no attack here, just geniune desire to grok things that I don't currently grok.
Developers and other "geeks," as the OP calls them, aren't ever going to solve cultural problems. And that's where most of the world's problems come from.
I used the word "techie" though I had an owner boss who called himself a geek with pride so it's not necessarily a pejorative, though I'd personally not choose to use that word.
What does the OP actually envision, here? Since that wasn't even alluded to, he sounds just like the over-serious girl from (was it Animal House?): "I don't know how anyone can have a party [or was it a dance?] when there are hungry people in the world!"
I don't have the hubris to envision anything at least on your behalf. It was an earnest question that I really don't know the answer to. Also, I don't think that techies will solve all the problems with apps. Also, tech can extend beyond computing with a computing component. I think that's going to be more and more possible with a lot of exciting possibilities. If there's a problem that's completely beyond the scope of technology then it's not addressable so not what I was talking about. It's not that I think technology by itself will solve everything. I'd be a mis-guided reverse-luddite (is there a word for that ideology?). It's also possible that a piece of an intractable problem is addressable using technology, and it may be that enough brain power focused on a problem someone reframes the problem in a way that you never thought about because maybe you were used to how the people who currently think about those problems for a living are going about it.
If you tally up the number of children that were educated by systems I designed- the number is conservatively above 7 million.
Was it worth it? You're goddamned right it was.
Awesome! Your story is exactly what I'm talking about, why were you paid less than market rate? The market sends price signals (in this case pay) that indicate how much it values various activities relative to each other. The market chose to value what you're doing less than stuff that's a hell of a lot less useful. The market is us each signaling what we value, though big investors get a lot more say then the ordinary person.
It's important to know the difference between shit and shinola. We seem to have this everything that the market does is equally good or bad. The market shouldn't be a religion that we have to tread lightly around. It can be completely fucking, economy collapsing level wrong about something. We've come pretty close, closer then I think people realize a few times.
Thank god for the every day heroes. All the every day heroes, most people really, are what makes this thing work. It's necessary but not sufficient. We have some pretty serious problems so it's odd when a lot of brain power and money is thrown at the mundane stuff that frankly is already being done by every day heroes well enough but if you think that steady as she goes from every day heroes it going to be sufficient then I guess we disagree. Necessary but not sufficient. Do we have crappy world for our kids or a pretty decent one? I think pretty decent's an achievable but it's going to take solving some big problems. If you don't see that I'm not sure what I can say. I see a fucking train is heading down the tracks headed for a crash. It won't necessary derail in one dramatic event, it might just continue to go off the rails in sort of slow motion. You don't notice the change from yesterday to today as that's not how change usually works but at some point the train is completely off the rails and on it's side. Or it could happen faster maybe we're in denial that it's not happening really fast right now, a full on train wreck. Frankly, I'm not sure which is happening.
That's how a billionaire is choosing to spend his retirement and wealth. That's awesome. What the hell ever happened to Bill Gates? I sort of miss the good old days when he was the perfect villian, a good sport, even willing to wear the Borg get-up to make himself even more sinister around here.:-)
There seems to be a definite correlation between technical ability and lack of empathy. It's not totally determinative; there are plenty of technical people who are deeply compassionate. But on average? Probably noticeably less than the population as a whole.
I'm trying to think if that's true? Hmm. Yes, you're probably right but it's likely because it's so dominated by men and we men have less empathy than women. When I read, say, my Facebook feed it's clear that men and women tend to have a different take on things and a different focus. So I don't think it's techies specifically. If more women entered tech I think that would change that. Of course, there's a lot of variation.
Most of us who entered science and academia did so to make the world a better place, and many of us are techies. You'd be amazed at home much coding and tech is required for pretty much every area of science today.
We're writing open source software to solve real problems in science and engineering. We're spending the last of our startups on open access for our papers because it's the right thing to do. We're contributing to open data repositories because sharing data makes all our work better. We're writing free content on blogs, code tutorials, and MOOCs for public outreach, because we view our roles as educators seriously.
Most people in academic endure years of low pay and job uncertainty as postdocs and entry-level faculty--and defer or postpone indefinitely having children and buying that starter home--rather than faster and better-paying paths in industry, IP law, and mathematical finance because we do want to make the world a better place, and we're actively working on it.
So, while I agree with your general feeling, take a look around, and you'll see more techies trying make a difference that you might have realized.
I agree with you. On average, I find my techie friends are more informed and intellectually curious than any other group. I'd put them at about equal to my academic friends in this area. And I should have worded the question with more finesse, forseeing these sort of objections. There's all kinds of good work happening every single day but there's a lot of money and a lot of attention shined on the mundane. So much so that people are losing respect for "Silicon Valley" meaning the tech industry in general. Is that a PR problem or an actual problem? If non-tech public is to techies and their tech as a positive force for good or just a bunch of disruptive assholes who just want to get rich and don't give a fuck if they throw you out of a job in the process. Hyperbole? Of course. But there's a grain of truth whenever a shift starts to happen in perceptions of a group of people.
If you think it's made up problem that's fine, I don't. It's not like I'm not paying as close attention as you are so unless you think I'm an idiot (possible), then you think it's reasonable to come to a different conclusion. I wasn't using black and white thinking here to say no important problems are being solved. And while I agree with Arthur C. Clark about technology, I don't think it actually *is* magic, so I wasn't suggesting "there's an app for that" approach to curing cancer.
Someone who spends their entire life working on just the issue of depositing checks isn't mis-spending their time, either. I've spent more than my share of time on the day-to-day things. It's just is the most important thing right now to, say, "LET'S DISRUPT THE FUCK OUT OF CHECK DEPOSITS"? Or are checks fine, sure, let's incrementally improve it but why the fuck does every little nook and cranny of minutia have to have someone trying to turn it upside down for a buck?
That's the question I'm essentially asking. There are clearly examples of tech being successfully applied to important problems. It's being done every single day by extremely talented and smart people. It just doesn't get the money and attention that BeerMe does. I'm wondering why not?
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?
As with God, one has to ask what kind of morality would lead our descendants to (re)create the pointless cruelty and misery seen in the media.
Well put. Three possibilities of the top of my head:
1. The original developers just set the simulation in motion, learning something about evolution and perhaps entropy.
2. A psychopath has already hacked the Matrix.
3. Another Bank beat BoA to the punch a long time ago or maybe even a different division of BoA (poor internal communication?)
As several here have noted, if it's true, they're likely looking to hack the Matrix for profit. So if the Matrix is our reality, you don't want the banks to grok it. They manipulate reality enough already.
My theory is that people who sense a Matrix are intuitively sensing the presence of spirit so they seek to explain it using a familiar metaphor, a computer generated simulation. That said, I don't need BoA to check into this idea for me, thanks.
I see that investors don't exactly have confidence in BoA at the moment. I'm not sure exactly why. I know that I'm hoping that BoA and all banks work on restoring society's trust. It's unsettling to worry about a whole sector that can bring a lot down with it. Why not save the stoner talk for *after* work and weekends? There's plenty of time to talk about the Matrix then.
Dolphins might be as smart as humans. There are researchers who have claimed this. If humans could actually communicate woth them, we'd soon find out if they follow our politics, can beat us at chess, and hate reality tv... Maybe not but we might gain some perspective.
People didn't take him seriously because he was a bit out there. He said dolphins communicate and as soon as we figure that out the next step will be high level inter-species communication, resulting in dramatic changes akin to contact with extraterrestrials. Interesting guy. I over simplified his views considerably. There's a lot more there.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
I think the odds are much higher that our downfall will be directly at the hands of humans with human cognition behind it. AI as a threat might be the hip project to work on at the Pentagon amongst defense intellectuals but I doubt it's really near the top of the threat list. There's always the possibility that if I had access to a high level brief they'd scare the shit out of me with photos of the terminator factory in Siberia.
Is the fact that an artifact that shouldn't have been found until archeologists had a go at cyberspace, ICQ(!), was found mean something? The data is old? This is some sort of cosmic joke? ICQ, wasn't that already on the way out by end of the '90s?
If you don't mind a personal question, what's the field you trained for? What is it about the job you didn't like? I ask because I'm wondering if you're judging a career path by a bad fit of a job. Most people sooner or later have to extract themselves from a bad fit. Some attribute it to micro (that environment was toxic) and others attribute it to bigger factors (I can't stand cube farms). It'd be worth thinking if you're attributing the bad experience to the right cause. Also, I think there's rarely a case where training or education has one and only one place to start. There are options even if they're only a step away that would be much different and possibly better.
Wow, I wonder if something's changing in society maybe a lessening of ego in some sets of people at least? And how many times have you conceded defeat? Are you really pitching a no hitter? I'd examine that one. Nobody is right that much. Unless there's a factor I'm not considering such as you always enter debates in domains about which you have expert knowledge.
People now have no excuse to choose to go into debt to attend one of these places. If there are still people open to a pitch like this, what else can be done? Sure, go after the colleges but they're like moles. It's buyer beware and take some responsibility. Frankly, I would choose a state university or community college or some other option that enables you to get a decent education without too much debt. It's not worth the crazy debt levels and everyone should now know that the for profit college space is more than a bit sketchy.
It really depends on what you think's important. I'll concede you had me checkmated me on honeybees. So what do you do with the victory? I actually just went to another forum and unwound my position based on my wrong claim about honeybees. I'm actually floored that I've held a completely wrong position for years and I've had multiple discussions involving a lot of hand writing about the bee crises. Educated otherwise rational people never googled this. These are the sort of people who'd google some esoteric detail they weren't quite sure about but never verified something that kept them up at night. I'm not sure the psychology of this but it's interesting.
So what do you do with your victory? Maybe use it as an opportunity to do some good by educating some more people here and elsewhere. I assume your goal isn't to win arguments. It's each person's decision what they want to do. I personally don't see people do what I just did, concede that I lost the argument nor do I see productive use of the upper hand. It makes me wonder if a lot of people are in discussion not for advancing their own and other's knowledge and thus collective decision making power and obviously these are political decisions or if they're in it for ego. It's pretty easy to do some intellectual acrobatics and hand waiving about honeybees and how it's gonna be worse than the alvarez asteroid then ran off before the truth caught up with me.
I read there are 12 species in north america that feed on humans and potential carries of disease. Of course, all 12 don't currently kill humans but those who are thinking in this way normally sort of throw in all the species for good measure. I don't like the you have no respect for____ sort of thing. There may be moronic arguments against your position. Are they who you're going to match your intellect with?
You could choose some serous people who have concerns even about FL and give their positions serious consideration. No offense to you as I think it's human nature but a lot of people take political, scientific, and other positions then frame the opposition as the dumbest people you could possibly find that strung a couple sentences together. Sure, it's like Jay Walking where Jay would talk to dumb fucks, To me it's a cop out.
It's not hard to find smart people who are experts in a domain that take a position that's not yours. It's worth considering why is this guy who's spent years focused on this domain disagree with me? He's smart. He doesn't seem like a nut. Is there something there?
I'd like to say that I'm not even taking a position against wiping out all the mosquitos. That'd be as foolish at this early point as saying let's go for it. Both would be crazy positions to take. I think now you can count on some research being done. Some planning for scenarios. It's going to stay in the national and international discussion because mosquitos are going to keep killing people.
That's serious business. I have the humility to admit that I don't understand the Gaie as I hope you would acknowledge as well. This is a system. It's serious business to kill species. We might end up having declare total war on mosquitos but like any war we need to make sure the intelligence is solid.
Slashdot Mirror
The villain of the movie "Antitrust" has a foundation too, so Bill Gates can stay a bad guy.
Bill Gates is just not a bad guy anymore. What the hell, I feel like I live in an alternative reality. Bill Gates pretty is earnestly trying to make the world a better place and putting his money and i think his time behind that effort.
Where did you go wrong, Bill? He's practically a hippie now but with billions of dollars to drive some pragmatic idealism. Holy shit, I sound like I could be an advocate. It just doesn't work anymore. He's playing a different role now so clearly he's not a guy who could just play one role and stuck.
He is a counter example of what I'm saying but his program resulted from his decision so I'm not sure it counts as the application of tech toward solving problems. It's more like this guy who made billions decided to use his wealth to help solve some important problems.
Thanks for your reply. It's an interesting discussion, and indeed, I get a little fed up when even in academia, translational medicine morphs from meaning "translating theory into practice" to meaning "getting patents and making profitable startups." It's needed, but it can sometimes distort the field and culture when it becomes an ends and not a means.
I'm a little curious as to your definition of techie, because a lot of the discussion really boils down to how you define a techie.
When you say this, this makes me think your Venn diagram for "technies" and "academics" has no intersection. But ask most any grad student, postdoc, or faculty in an engineering, CS, or applied math department (and increasingly many biology departments), and they'll likely regard themselves as techies.
It seems to me a reasonable definition that a techie is a technophile, particularly one who loves, uses, and improves technology in their daily work and hobbies. But if you restrict your label to Silicon Valley and tech startup types, you're lose most of the amateur techies, the open source people, and the citizen scientists.
Again, it's an interesting discussion, so thanks. (And great to meet you here on Slashdot!)
I meant "Silicon Valley" as a popular representation of what tech's about. It's the easiest thing to point to for the purpose of identifying the problem but the solution, if there even is a problem to solve, will extend way to the communities you mention! I think more nuance would have made my question harder to ask than it already was.
I couldn't agree more with you, though, and now I'm wondering if I sacrificed clarity along with the nuance as a number of people latched on to either "dude, there's already an app for that what the fuck are you talking about?" and the "how can apps possibly feed the hungry?" sort of response but objections I could have addressed with a better formed question, including a broader definition of techie. The hobbyist, the researcher, the open source people, the citizen scientist (that's a cool concept).
IMHO Microsoft is a much different company than it was in the past.
That being said, yeah, to hell with Windows, I'll never change my mind about that.
I still do not like Windows but Microsoft itself seems different. Feels different. I'm not even just talking about open sourcing this or that, I mean they seem less threatening then they once did. They're less powerful but also there seems to be a shift in values. I could be totally off as I know very little about Microsoft, the company. Back in the late '90s, many looked at Microsoft as evil incarnate, with Bill Gates the villain at the help. I took a long break from looking at Slashdot, at least regularly, and recently came back to it, finding far less about kind of scary maneuvers by Microsoft. I'm not even sure when people do post here about Bill Gates is there still that avatar with the Borg get up?
The headline asks a question that is based on a false premise. Techies are doing more than anyone to improve the world. We have gone 70 years without a major war. Why? Two reasons, better communications and nuclear weapons. Both of these are because the techies that built the Internet, launched the comsats, and split the atom. Today, the Internet is bringing literacy and prosperity to the third world. Better solar cells and windmills are bringing us clean energy. Wikipedia is compiling the world's knowledge, and Google is giving us a way to search it instantly.
All of this is being done by us nerds. Who else is doing as much to create a better world? Lawyers? Journalists? Politicians? I don't think so.
Give me a break. I don't really want to go down the path but that line about technology has already save the world is a bit much. For example, it's open for debate whether in a post MAD world that nuclear weapons won't end up being what takes us down in the end. I'm no luddite but the opposite of luddite gets just as tiresome. More importantly, I wasn't intending to say look over there at the finance people, they're the real heroes. Look at all that brain power focused on what matters. Or look at the trial lawyers. If only we could put our heads together and figure out a way to double the number of trial lawyers. You don't have to defend nerds from comparisons as I at least agree that this IS where the potential is. There's a reason I'm posting this here. One domain or another of tech is where I'd imagine nearly all of us who even glance at Slashdot have thrown their lot in with. There's no attack here, just geniune desire to grok things that I don't currently grok.
Developers and other "geeks," as the OP calls them, aren't ever going to solve cultural problems. And that's where most of the world's problems come from.
I used the word "techie" though I had an owner boss who called himself a geek with pride so it's not necessarily a pejorative, though I'd personally not choose to use that word.
What does the OP actually envision, here? Since that wasn't even alluded to, he sounds just like the over-serious girl from (was it Animal House?): "I don't know how anyone can have a party [or was it a dance?] when there are hungry people in the world!"
I don't have the hubris to envision anything at least on your behalf. It was an earnest question that I really don't know the answer to. Also, I don't think that techies will solve all the problems with apps. Also, tech can extend beyond computing with a computing component. I think that's going to be more and more possible with a lot of exciting possibilities. If there's a problem that's completely beyond the scope of technology then it's not addressable so not what I was talking about. It's not that I think technology by itself will solve everything. I'd be a mis-guided reverse-luddite (is there a word for that ideology?). It's also possible that a piece of an intractable problem is addressable using technology, and it may be that enough brain power focused on a problem someone reframes the problem in a way that you never thought about because maybe you were used to how the people who currently think about those problems for a living are going about it.
If you tally up the number of children that were educated by systems I designed- the number is conservatively above 7 million.
Was it worth it? You're goddamned right it was.
Awesome! Your story is exactly what I'm talking about, why were you paid less than market rate? The market sends price signals (in this case pay) that indicate how much it values various activities relative to each other. The market chose to value what you're doing less than stuff that's a hell of a lot less useful. The market is us each signaling what we value, though big investors get a lot more say then the ordinary person. It's important to know the difference between shit and shinola. We seem to have this everything that the market does is equally good or bad. The market shouldn't be a religion that we have to tread lightly around. It can be completely fucking, economy collapsing level wrong about something. We've come pretty close, closer then I think people realize a few times.
Thank god for the every day heroes. All the every day heroes, most people really, are what makes this thing work. It's necessary but not sufficient. We have some pretty serious problems so it's odd when a lot of brain power and money is thrown at the mundane stuff that frankly is already being done by every day heroes well enough but if you think that steady as she goes from every day heroes it going to be sufficient then I guess we disagree. Necessary but not sufficient. Do we have crappy world for our kids or a pretty decent one? I think pretty decent's an achievable but it's going to take solving some big problems. If you don't see that I'm not sure what I can say. I see a fucking train is heading down the tracks headed for a crash. It won't necessary derail in one dramatic event, it might just continue to go off the rails in sort of slow motion. You don't notice the change from yesterday to today as that's not how change usually works but at some point the train is completely off the rails and on it's side. Or it could happen faster maybe we're in denial that it's not happening really fast right now, a full on train wreck. Frankly, I'm not sure which is happening.
That's how a billionaire is choosing to spend his retirement and wealth. That's awesome. What the hell ever happened to Bill Gates? I sort of miss the good old days when he was the perfect villian, a good sport, even willing to wear the Borg get-up to make himself even more sinister around here. :-)
There seems to be a definite correlation between technical ability and lack of empathy. It's not totally determinative; there are plenty of technical people who are deeply compassionate. But on average? Probably noticeably less than the population as a whole.
I'm trying to think if that's true? Hmm. Yes, you're probably right but it's likely because it's so dominated by men and we men have less empathy than women. When I read, say, my Facebook feed it's clear that men and women tend to have a different take on things and a different focus. So I don't think it's techies specifically. If more women entered tech I think that would change that. Of course, there's a lot of variation.
Most of us who entered science and academia did so to make the world a better place, and many of us are techies. You'd be amazed at home much coding and tech is required for pretty much every area of science today.
We're writing open source software to solve real problems in science and engineering. We're spending the last of our startups on open access for our papers because it's the right thing to do. We're contributing to open data repositories because sharing data makes all our work better. We're writing free content on blogs, code tutorials, and MOOCs for public outreach, because we view our roles as educators seriously.
Most people in academic endure years of low pay and job uncertainty as postdocs and entry-level faculty--and defer or postpone indefinitely having children and buying that starter home--rather than faster and better-paying paths in industry, IP law, and mathematical finance because we do want to make the world a better place, and we're actively working on it.
So, while I agree with your general feeling, take a look around, and you'll see more techies trying make a difference that you might have realized.
I agree with you. On average, I find my techie friends are more informed and intellectually curious than any other group. I'd put them at about equal to my academic friends in this area. And I should have worded the question with more finesse, forseeing these sort of objections. There's all kinds of good work happening every single day but there's a lot of money and a lot of attention shined on the mundane. So much so that people are losing respect for "Silicon Valley" meaning the tech industry in general. Is that a PR problem or an actual problem? If non-tech public is to techies and their tech as a positive force for good or just a bunch of disruptive assholes who just want to get rich and don't give a fuck if they throw you out of a job in the process. Hyperbole? Of course. But there's a grain of truth whenever a shift starts to happen in perceptions of a group of people.
If you think it's made up problem that's fine, I don't. It's not like I'm not paying as close attention as you are so unless you think I'm an idiot (possible), then you think it's reasonable to come to a different conclusion. I wasn't using black and white thinking here to say no important problems are being solved. And while I agree with Arthur C. Clark about technology, I don't think it actually *is* magic, so I wasn't suggesting "there's an app for that" approach to curing cancer. Someone who spends their entire life working on just the issue of depositing checks isn't mis-spending their time, either. I've spent more than my share of time on the day-to-day things. It's just is the most important thing right now to, say, "LET'S DISRUPT THE FUCK OUT OF CHECK DEPOSITS"? Or are checks fine, sure, let's incrementally improve it but why the fuck does every little nook and cranny of minutia have to have someone trying to turn it upside down for a buck?
That's the question I'm essentially asking. There are clearly examples of tech being successfully applied to important problems. It's being done every single day by extremely talented and smart people. It just doesn't get the money and attention that BeerMe does. I'm wondering why not? 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?
As with God, one has to ask what kind of morality would lead our descendants to (re)create the pointless cruelty and misery seen in the media.
Well put. Three possibilities of the top of my head: 1. The original developers just set the simulation in motion, learning something about evolution and perhaps entropy. 2. A psychopath has already hacked the Matrix. 3. Another Bank beat BoA to the punch a long time ago or maybe even a different division of BoA (poor internal communication?)
As several here have noted, if it's true, they're likely looking to hack the Matrix for profit. So if the Matrix is our reality, you don't want the banks to grok it. They manipulate reality enough already. My theory is that people who sense a Matrix are intuitively sensing the presence of spirit so they seek to explain it using a familiar metaphor, a computer generated simulation. That said, I don't need BoA to check into this idea for me, thanks. I see that investors don't exactly have confidence in BoA at the moment. I'm not sure exactly why. I know that I'm hoping that BoA and all banks work on restoring society's trust. It's unsettling to worry about a whole sector that can bring a lot down with it. Why not save the stoner talk for *after* work and weekends? There's plenty of time to talk about the Matrix then.
I'm assuming uninhabited as the whole prime directive thing actually makes good sense. :-)
You may well be right but could you cite your sources?
Dolphins might be as smart as humans. There are researchers who have claimed this. If humans could actually communicate woth them, we'd soon find out if they follow our politics, can beat us at chess, and hate reality tv... Maybe not but we might gain some perspective.
People didn't take him seriously because he was a bit out there. He said dolphins communicate and as soon as we figure that out the next step will be high level inter-species communication, resulting in dramatic changes akin to contact with extraterrestrials. Interesting guy. I over simplified his views considerably. There's a lot more there. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
I think the odds are much higher that our downfall will be directly at the hands of humans with human cognition behind it. AI as a threat might be the hip project to work on at the Pentagon amongst defense intellectuals but I doubt it's really near the top of the threat list. There's always the possibility that if I had access to a high level brief they'd scare the shit out of me with photos of the terminator factory in Siberia.
Is the fact that an artifact that shouldn't have been found until archeologists had a go at cyberspace, ICQ(!), was found mean something? The data is old? This is some sort of cosmic joke? ICQ, wasn't that already on the way out by end of the '90s?
If you don't mind a personal question, what's the field you trained for? What is it about the job you didn't like? I ask because I'm wondering if you're judging a career path by a bad fit of a job. Most people sooner or later have to extract themselves from a bad fit. Some attribute it to micro (that environment was toxic) and others attribute it to bigger factors (I can't stand cube farms). It'd be worth thinking if you're attributing the bad experience to the right cause. Also, I think there's rarely a case where training or education has one and only one place to start. There are options even if they're only a step away that would be much different and possibly better. Wow, I wonder if something's changing in society maybe a lessening of ego in some sets of people at least? And how many times have you conceded defeat? Are you really pitching a no hitter? I'd examine that one. Nobody is right that much. Unless there's a factor I'm not considering such as you always enter debates in domains about which you have expert knowledge.
People now have no excuse to choose to go into debt to attend one of these places. If there are still people open to a pitch like this, what else can be done? Sure, go after the colleges but they're like moles. It's buyer beware and take some responsibility. Frankly, I would choose a state university or community college or some other option that enables you to get a decent education without too much debt. It's not worth the crazy debt levels and everyone should now know that the for profit college space is more than a bit sketchy.
It really depends on what you think's important. I'll concede you had me checkmated me on honeybees. So what do you do with the victory? I actually just went to another forum and unwound my position based on my wrong claim about honeybees. I'm actually floored that I've held a completely wrong position for years and I've had multiple discussions involving a lot of hand writing about the bee crises. Educated otherwise rational people never googled this. These are the sort of people who'd google some esoteric detail they weren't quite sure about but never verified something that kept them up at night. I'm not sure the psychology of this but it's interesting. So what do you do with your victory? Maybe use it as an opportunity to do some good by educating some more people here and elsewhere. I assume your goal isn't to win arguments. It's each person's decision what they want to do. I personally don't see people do what I just did, concede that I lost the argument nor do I see productive use of the upper hand. It makes me wonder if a lot of people are in discussion not for advancing their own and other's knowledge and thus collective decision making power and obviously these are political decisions or if they're in it for ego. It's pretty easy to do some intellectual acrobatics and hand waiving about honeybees and how it's gonna be worse than the alvarez asteroid then ran off before the truth caught up with me.
I read there are 12 species in north america that feed on humans and potential carries of disease. Of course, all 12 don't currently kill humans but those who are thinking in this way normally sort of throw in all the species for good measure. I don't like the you have no respect for____ sort of thing. There may be moronic arguments against your position. Are they who you're going to match your intellect with? You could choose some serous people who have concerns even about FL and give their positions serious consideration. No offense to you as I think it's human nature but a lot of people take political, scientific, and other positions then frame the opposition as the dumbest people you could possibly find that strung a couple sentences together. Sure, it's like Jay Walking where Jay would talk to dumb fucks, To me it's a cop out. It's not hard to find smart people who are experts in a domain that take a position that's not yours. It's worth considering why is this guy who's spent years focused on this domain disagree with me? He's smart. He doesn't seem like a nut. Is there something there?
I'd like to say that I'm not even taking a position against wiping out all the mosquitos. That'd be as foolish at this early point as saying let's go for it. Both would be crazy positions to take. I think now you can count on some research being done. Some planning for scenarios. It's going to stay in the national and international discussion because mosquitos are going to keep killing people. That's serious business. I have the humility to admit that I don't understand the Gaie as I hope you would acknowledge as well. This is a system. It's serious business to kill species. We might end up having declare total war on mosquitos but like any war we need to make sure the intelligence is solid.