Please moderate the Parent GP posts correctly by verifying the truth of those posts before you moderate up or down.
It is easy:
1. Go to the slashdot summary. There are three links in that article. Verify that the third link is to this article.
2. Scroll down in that article to, about the 17th paragraph, which begins "It turns out approximately 14 percent of the more than 7,400 study participants hadn't "
3. Compare that paragraph and next to the quoted paragraphs in the GP post to confirm that they match, confirming that the GP truthfully quotes an article linked in the/. summary.
4. Read the sentence in the parent post which states "Please kindly refrain from making up random bullshit and pretending you are quoting the article". Because in the previous step you have verified that the GP accurately quotes a linked article, yet the Parent emphatically and profanely states the opposite, conclude that the author of the parent post is a troll.
5. Moderate the parent post accordingly. It belongs at -1, Troll, down with the goatse posts.
6. Moderate the GP at least back up to what it default to when originally posted at, +2. Unless, using our own judgment, you can find a compelling reason otherwise to object to its content.
7. Consider moderating this post up as you see fit. In the humble opinion of its author, it makes a helpful point: with little effort moderators can improve/. by assessing the truth or falsity of posts before assigning mod points.
The summary is misleading because it omits mention that the randomization errors were inconsequential. The study conclusion remains the same when the improperly randomized subjects are excluded.
from the linked article:
It turns out approximately 14 percent of the more than 7,400 study participants hadn't been assigned randomly to either the Mediterranean diet or a low-fat one. When couples joined the study together, both had been picked to follow the same diet. At one of the 11 participating study sites, the lead investigator had assigned the same diet to an entire village and didn't tell the rest of the investigators.
"This affected only a small part of the trial," says Martínez González. When the researchers reanalyzed the data excluding the nonrandomized people, the results were the same, he adds.
"sparked by articles in The Wall Street Journal that raised questions about the company's technology and practices."
Those articles were written by John Carreyrou who is interviewed about Theranos by Nick Gillespie in this video. The video also provides a lot of background information. I was already familiar with the story but still found the video fascinating.
It is widely regarded by historians that The Great Leap resulted in tens of millions of deaths. A lower-end estimate is 18 million, while extensive research by Yu Xiguang suggests the death toll from the movement is closer to 55.6 million. Historian Frank Dikötter asserts that "coercion, terror, and systematic violence were the foundation of the Great Leap Forward" and it "motivated one of the most deadly mass killings of human history".
Odd that an editor would put "leap forward" in the title of an article about China. Was he trying to be funny?
The story is about an issue that is completely irrelevant.
It doesn't matter whether the "RND" function is ideally random in a mathematical sense. It only matters whether the "random" number generated is independent of the identities of the people applying to be admitted.
With no intention of diminishing the importance of your statement; that is blindingly obvious. There are two other excellent points raised by others in the comments here: that imperfect randomness does not make the process manipulable by immigration candidates and that sort order of assigned imperfect random numbers can itself be perfectly random.
The story is mis-reported as a scandal; there is in fact no scandal whatsoever. So who made up the fake news? Tom Cordoso is the author of the original story at the Globe and Mail which the Gizmodo article linked in the Slashdot summary cites. Cordoso quotes Université de Montréal computer-science professor Pierre L’Ecuyer as saying “Anything would be better” [Than the Excel random number generator] but, crucially, Cordoso omits the context of that comment. Was L’Ecuyer referring to its suitability for this particular method and application, or was he commenting on its suitability for general use, including, for example cryptography? In neither the Gizmodo nor Globe and Mail articles can I find any mention of an expert unambiguously expressing judgment on the immigration randomization method specifically. A close reading suggests that the criticism originates with the journalist, and that he deceptively implies it to be the opinion of experts.
Some enterprising citizen journalist should contact the cited experts and ask them 1) Did their comments refer to general usage of the Excel random number generator or specifically to the immigration randomization methodology. 2) What is their opinion of the immigration randomization methodology 3) Do they agree with the points made here about it being a nothingburger 4) Have they read the Globe and Mail article, if so do they believe that their comments were wrongly contextualized.
If anyone does that, it would be nice to see a followup article here on Slashdot.
Suppose some of my buddies and I pooled our money together and bought the U.S. Congress for one billion dollars. We then pay congress to enact a law which transfers a 100 billion dollars from the U.S. Treasury to us. We would earn 100 times what we invested, which is an excellent return, so this would be a fantastic business plan.
Would it work? Probably not. It is too overt and brazen, just intolerably offensive. Judges would find some law which disallowed it or, if none actually existed, would detect some applicable penumbras and emanations. Also, the public would be outraged, and nothing terrifies incumbent politicians more than the prospect of not being re-elected. Futhermore, the fact that this is not known to have ever actually occurred suggests that it is not feasible.
But suppose we tweak the plan just slightly. Under the previous plan, Congress would confiscate currency from the public and transfer it to me. Under the new plan, Congress instead confiscates property from the public, in the form of extended intellectual property rights, and transfers it to me.
Would that work? Certainly. Why? Because people are idiots; They are easily befuddled by a direct transfer of wealth from the public to a small group who has paid to influence Congress, if the form of the wealth transferred is any more abstract than cash.
Generally, with any scheme where corporations make monetary contributions to politicians in exchange for those politicians using the coercive powers of government to transfer wealth from the public to the corporations, the form of that wealth must be abstract and represent a sacred political cause. For example, allegedly to protect the environment, Congress enacted law governing ethanol mandates and agriculture price supports instead directly handing taxpayer cash over to agribusiness. Targeted tax breaks are the stand-by when executives and lobbyists are too uncreative to finesse a compelling custom rationale.
Politicians of both major political parties are in the same business, accepting money from special interests in exchange for giving them larger sums of taxpayer money. The only difference between the parties are their justifications. Whereas right-wing taxpayers like to hear things like "We gave these millionaires and billionaires your money to help the economy", left-wing taxpayer prefer rationales such as, "We gave these millionaires and billionaires your money to save the environment."
I thought this was really good coverage of Holmes and the Theranos story: Here, Nick Gillespie interviews John Carreyrou, the investigative reporter from the Wall Street Journal who broke the Theranos scam story and has a new book out about it called Bad Blood.
"The depth of science...is even more impressive than that for tobacco and health in 1964"
That is from the 1988 Surgeon General's Report on Nutrition Health which identified reduction of fat consumption as "The No. 1 dietary priority of the nation"
There you have it. Stated directly by the government officials setting the policy, the policy was based on what they believed to be strong science.
The scientists were very clear that there was no research supporting the policy recommendation.
Collectively, they most certainly were not. Almost all print and broadcast coverage of the issue in that era stated that dietary fats were harmful and cited scientists and scientific research.
Look, I was around at the time arguing with everyone I knew, telling them the anti-fat stuff was bunk. And they all argued back, telling me that I was wrong because the science supported their side. That was what the government said, what the scientists which it cited said and what Time Magazine and other mainstream news outlets reported. Now some dipshit on Slashdot is telling me that never happened.
Any scientific organizational leader that doesn't make policy based on scientific research is incompetent.
FTFY
That is a demonstrably false statement. Not basing policy on scientific research can demonstrate competence.
Consider that the United States obesity epidemic has been caused by a government policy to promote carbohydrate consumption and discourage fat consumption. That policy was based on scientific research. Those government officials who based that policy on research are incompetent and any (hypothetical) government officials who did not base public policy on that scientific research would have acted competantly.
It was always obvious to a many that the policy and science were wrong. My father was a biophysicist and he always knew government anti-fat propaganda was based on junk science. There is nothing extraordinary about that. His standard for judging scientific conclusions was the formerly-conventional strong inference standard.
Those who knew better and spoke up at the time of the anti-fat propaganda were shouted down by people such as yourself, wielding precisely the same argument which you now make. There is a staggering cost in money, lives and well-being of obeying your faulty logic. You and your ilk have oceans of blood on your hands.
It looks like small short-range electric and hybrid fixed-wing aircraft will be the vanguard of the coming revolution in autonomous electric aircraft. Teslarati has a good rundown of the players in that space. (IMHO the all-electric Eviation prototype is beautiful.)
The energy density of lithium cells is terrible compared to liquid hydrocarbon fuels, but the simplicity, reliability and lower operating cost of an electric motor and batteries over a combustion engine is the driver. They might never compete with turbojets for long-distance flights, but they can still capture a large proportion of the market by dominating shorter range commutes.
A new peer-reviewed paper by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg published in the Global Policy journal measures the actual impact of all significant climate promises made ahead of the Paris climate summit.
So what are the Democrats going to do if they fail to preserve net neutrality and then the internet apocalypse which they forecast fails to materialize?
Given that the cost of state-of-the-art fab is about $20 billion and that China is behind, a $47 billion investment is not a threat. EE times reports that by 2020 a state-of-the-art fab will cost about $20 billion and wikipedia says that TSMC predicts the same.
There is a reason why semiconductor giants such as ARM, Nvidia, AMD, Broadcom, Qualcomm and even super-rich Apple are fabless; State-of-the-art fabs are insanely hard. The successes here, such as Intel, have generations of accumulated in-house expertise and have spent decades attracting, training and retaining the best experts in the world. Not to mention the elusive engineering management culture necessary for that. Maybe it is impossible to enter at that level and you have to evolve your way there over decades.
So China needs to build a modern fab, but also fund the R&D to get to that point and fund development of modern CPU architectures so they have something to make. By the time China succeeds with all of that, if they can, they might be at least a generation behind.
Finally, it's not like the world would be made worse-off by increased state-of-the-art semiconductor manufacturing capacity. More better chips are a good thing.
That works around two of the show-stopper bugs intrinsic to Hyperloop.
First, it's a barf train. Providing no external visual reference frame in combination with acceleration is the perfect recipe for inducing nausea. Barfing is also a chain reaction between passengers. To transport humans the pods would need to be equipped with vomit bilge pumps.
Second, the unmitigated potential for absolute legality. The shockwave from a tube rupture would obliterate all capsules en-route, killing all passengers aboard.
There is also the problem that nobody knows how to make an vacuum-sealed expansion joint the diameter of the Hyperloop tube, which is required for above-ground tubes. However, it should work for subterranean tunnels which don't have the problem with expanding with air temperature increases and warming from sunlight.
That is exactly how the Wall Street racket works, by selling fake expertise on the basis of reputation.
Musk's disrespect for Wall-Street is certainly warranted. Analysts claim to possess expert knowledge which will yield higher returns, when really their returns are worse than a dumb strategy such as ETFs. Retrospective comparisons of analysts picks to passive investment show analysts perform worse.
Investment firms are a scam. Do not be a sucker and a victim. Read about investment from someone who is not trying to extract money from you.
That Musk moved the price of Tesla shares by blowing off analysts just shows how many idiot investors there are. When idiots sell their Tesla stock because Musk hurt the feelings of the con artists, the smart move is to buy Tesla.
It's better to not have a job than one that doesn't pay a living wage.
That is your opinion. In the opinion of some who seek a supplementary income, a job with is lesser rate of pay is acceptable.
A student who lives at home, a retiree with a pension, a housewife with free time while her kids are in the school each want to earn some additional cash in their free time. You demand that they be denied the right to some jobs which they would voluntarily accept.
This is why conservatives and libertarians regard leftism as inherently fascist; Leftists such as yourself seek the power of government to impose their own preferences on others, under threat violence, fines, and incarceration.
You should be free to accept or decline a job offer as you see fit. You should not be entrusted with the power to govern, because you will use that power to deny that same freedom to others.
Keep in mind that the basis of comparison here is studio executives. It seems like a pretty terrible way of picking blockbusters, so we should not be surprised if an AI outperforms that. The alpha male gets to green-light movies because as the alpha that is his prerogative, not because he has the best ability at that task.
Executives usually achieve and maintain their status by being the most successful at insider politicking and corporate infighting. That is not the same thing as being good at predicting box-office success. Especially in mature industries. We do see successful executive wunderkinder with insight, vision and skill in new markets because those talents are required to exploit a disruptive technology. Elon Musk and Steve Jobs are examples. But that's not typically the film business, and the exceptions (John Lasseter and Steve Jobs at Pixar) only re-enforce the point.
For any talent, we usually see a few extreme statistical outliers. A reasonable approach would be to find, by testing, those with extreme talent at predicting box-office success and compare their performance to that of both executives and to AI.
1. While it seems that banning Chinese citizens from participating in U.S. based high-tech research should work to restrict Chinese espionage, it would also curtail domestic research by barring brilliant Chinese scientists and engineers from working to their full potential in the U.S. It is trade-off, with no reason a priori to believe that it works to the U.S. advantage.
2. You do not have to be Chinese to spy on the U.S.
3. It is an expression of the same misguided impulse which resulted in Japanese internment camps during WWII; broad discrimination alleged on the basis of race and motivated by nationalism .
4. Importing the best and the brightest from China (and the rest of the world) is a great way for the U.S. to keep ahead.
5. Chinese Communism sucks ass. Any sensible Chinese citizen who spends time in the U.S. will realize that, as chaotic and nonsensical (see: Donald, Hillary) as is our system of Democracy, it is so much better than the Chinese dictatorial kleptocracy and their emperor-for-life. You are not going to get a lot of loyalty to China among Chinese in the U.S. because most of them hate the government of China.
6. I would be fine with secret, heightened scrutiny and monitoring of some foreign nationals (Chinese, Russian) who work in the U.S. and who have access to secret information. But only if there is indeed a greater risk of espionage among that group than among white American-born employees who will sell out their own nation for a bribe.
That is why some of us believe that de-extinction is the ethical choice.
The U.S. has vast tracts of undeveloped wilderness under federal and state ownership. Additionally, the nation is substantially over-farmed because of that rediculous corn ethanol mandate. There is certailnly space for them.
We should bring some of these great creatures back in North America to undo some of the harm humankind has already done.
Were the CIA serious about IT security it would reward white hats who successfully broke in and penalize those inside the organization who failed to protect against that. Instead, they penalize white hats and there is little to no accountability within government agencies.
That is not a radical idea, it is the convention outside of government. We know that private companies offer bounties. Those of us who work for companies know that usually someone within the company who screws up is disadvantaged for that.
Slashdot Mirror
That is an extremely gracious response!
Looks like an honest error, I apologize for calling you a troll.
I clicked on that dot by your handle and marked you as a friend.
Please moderate the Parent GP posts correctly by verifying the truth of those posts before you moderate up or down.
It is easy:
1. Go to the slashdot summary. There are three links in that article. Verify that the third link is to this article.
2. Scroll down in that article to, about the 17th paragraph, which begins "It turns out approximately 14 percent of the more than 7,400 study participants hadn't "
3. Compare that paragraph and next to the quoted paragraphs in the GP post to confirm that they match, confirming that the GP truthfully quotes an article linked in the /. summary.
4. Read the sentence in the parent post which states "Please kindly refrain from making up random bullshit and pretending you are quoting the article". Because in the previous step you have verified that the GP accurately quotes a linked article, yet the Parent emphatically and profanely states the opposite, conclude that the author of the parent post is a troll.
5. Moderate the parent post accordingly. It belongs at -1, Troll, down with the goatse posts.
6. Moderate the GP at least back up to what it default to when originally posted at, +2. Unless, using our own judgment, you can find a compelling reason otherwise to object to its content.
7. Consider moderating this post up as you see fit. In the humble opinion of its author, it makes a helpful point: with little effort moderators can improve /. by assessing the truth or falsity of posts before assigning mod points.
The summary is misleading because it omits mention that the randomization errors were inconsequential. The study conclusion remains the same when the improperly randomized subjects are excluded.
from the linked article:
It turns out approximately 14 percent of the more than 7,400 study participants hadn't been assigned randomly to either the Mediterranean diet or a low-fat one. When couples joined the study together, both had been picked to follow the same diet. At one of the 11 participating study sites, the lead investigator had assigned the same diet to an entire village and didn't tell the rest of the investigators.
"This affected only a small part of the trial," says Martínez González. When the researchers reanalyzed the data excluding the nonrandomized people, the results were the same, he adds.
"sparked by articles in The Wall Street Journal that raised questions about the company's technology and practices."
Those articles were written by John Carreyrou who is interviewed about Theranos by Nick Gillespie in this video. The video also provides a lot of background information. I was already familiar with the story but still found the video fascinating.
Additionally, Carreyrou has a new book out about Theranos, Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup. Have not read that, but it gets 5/5 stars with currently 257 customer reviews at Amazon.
China's Ambitions To Power the World's Electric Cars Took a Huge Leap Forward This Week
Not to be confused with the Great Leap Forward:
It is widely regarded by historians that The Great Leap resulted in tens of millions of deaths. A lower-end estimate is 18 million, while extensive research by Yu Xiguang suggests the death toll from the movement is closer to 55.6 million. Historian Frank Dikötter asserts that "coercion, terror, and systematic violence were the foundation of the Great Leap Forward" and it "motivated one of the most deadly mass killings of human history".
Odd that an editor would put "leap forward" in the title of an article about China. Was he trying to be funny?
The story is about an issue that is completely irrelevant.
It doesn't matter whether the "RND" function is ideally random in a mathematical sense. It only matters whether the "random" number generated is independent of the identities of the people applying to be admitted.
With no intention of diminishing the importance of your statement; that is blindingly obvious. There are two other excellent points raised by others in the comments here: that imperfect randomness does not make the process manipulable by immigration candidates and that sort order of assigned imperfect random numbers can itself be perfectly random.
The story is mis-reported as a scandal; there is in fact no scandal whatsoever. So who made up the fake news? Tom Cordoso is the author of the original story at the Globe and Mail which the Gizmodo article linked in the Slashdot summary cites. Cordoso quotes Université de Montréal computer-science professor Pierre L’Ecuyer as saying “Anything would be better” [Than the Excel random number generator] but, crucially, Cordoso omits the context of that comment. Was L’Ecuyer referring to its suitability for this particular method and application, or was he commenting on its suitability for general use, including, for example cryptography? In neither the Gizmodo nor Globe and Mail articles can I find any mention of an expert unambiguously expressing judgment on the immigration randomization method specifically. A close reading suggests that the criticism originates with the journalist, and that he deceptively implies it to be the opinion of experts.
Some enterprising citizen journalist should contact the cited experts and ask them 1) Did their comments refer to general usage of the Excel random number generator or specifically to the immigration randomization methodology. 2) What is their opinion of the immigration randomization methodology 3) Do they agree with the points made here about it being a nothingburger 4) Have they read the Globe and Mail article, if so do they believe that their comments were wrongly contextualized.
If anyone does that, it would be nice to see a followup article here on Slashdot.
Suppose some of my buddies and I pooled our money together and bought the U.S. Congress for one billion dollars. We then pay congress to enact a law which transfers a 100 billion dollars from the U.S. Treasury to us. We would earn 100 times what we invested, which is an excellent return, so this would be a fantastic business plan.
Would it work? Probably not. It is too overt and brazen, just intolerably offensive. Judges would find some law which disallowed it or, if none actually existed, would detect some applicable penumbras and emanations. Also, the public would be outraged, and nothing terrifies incumbent politicians more than the prospect of not being re-elected. Futhermore, the fact that this is not known to have ever actually occurred suggests that it is not feasible.
But suppose we tweak the plan just slightly. Under the previous plan, Congress would confiscate currency from the public and transfer it to me. Under the new plan, Congress instead confiscates property from the public, in the form of extended intellectual property rights, and transfers it to me.
Would that work? Certainly. Why? Because people are idiots; They are easily befuddled by a direct transfer of wealth from the public to a small group who has paid to influence Congress, if the form of the wealth transferred is any more abstract than cash.
Generally, with any scheme where corporations make monetary contributions to politicians in exchange for those politicians using the coercive powers of government to transfer wealth from the public to the corporations, the form of that wealth must be abstract and represent a sacred political cause. For example, allegedly to protect the environment, Congress enacted law governing ethanol mandates and agriculture price supports instead directly handing taxpayer cash over to agribusiness. Targeted tax breaks are the stand-by when executives and lobbyists are too uncreative to finesse a compelling custom rationale.
Politicians of both major political parties are in the same business, accepting money from special interests in exchange for giving them larger sums of taxpayer money. The only difference between the parties are their justifications. Whereas right-wing taxpayers like to hear things like "We gave these millionaires and billionaires your money to help the economy", left-wing taxpayer prefer rationales such as, "We gave these millionaires and billionaires your money to save the environment."
I thought this was really good coverage of Holmes and the Theranos story: Here, Nick Gillespie interviews John Carreyrou, the investigative reporter from the Wall Street Journal who broke the Theranos scam story and has a new book out about it called Bad Blood.
Not true.
Horseshit.
"The depth of science...is even more impressive than that for tobacco and health in 1964"
That is from the 1988 Surgeon General's Report on Nutrition Health which identified reduction of fat consumption as "The No. 1 dietary priority of the nation"
There you have it. Stated directly by the government officials setting the policy, the policy was based on what they believed to be strong science.
The scientists were very clear that there was no research supporting the policy recommendation.
Collectively, they most certainly were not. Almost all print and broadcast coverage of the issue in that era stated that dietary fats were harmful and cited scientists and scientific research.
Look, I was around at the time arguing with everyone I knew, telling them the anti-fat stuff was bunk. And they all argued back, telling me that I was wrong because the science supported their side. That was what the government said, what the scientists which it cited said and what Time Magazine and other mainstream news outlets reported. Now some dipshit on Slashdot is telling me that never happened.
Any scientific organizational leader that doesn't make policy based on scientific research is incompetent.
FTFY
That is a demonstrably false statement. Not basing policy on scientific research can demonstrate competence.
Consider that the United States obesity epidemic has been caused by a government policy to promote carbohydrate consumption and discourage fat consumption. That policy was based on scientific research. Those government officials who based that policy on research are incompetent and any (hypothetical) government officials who did not base public policy on that scientific research would have acted competantly.
It was always obvious to a many that the policy and science were wrong. My father was a biophysicist and he always knew government anti-fat propaganda was based on junk science. There is nothing extraordinary about that. His standard for judging scientific conclusions was the formerly-conventional strong inference standard.
Those who knew better and spoke up at the time of the anti-fat propaganda were shouted down by people such as yourself, wielding precisely the same argument which you now make. There is a staggering cost in money, lives and well-being of obeying your faulty logic. You and your ilk have oceans of blood on your hands.
It looks like small short-range electric and hybrid fixed-wing aircraft will be the vanguard of the coming revolution in autonomous electric aircraft. Teslarati has a good rundown of the players in that space. (IMHO the all-electric Eviation prototype is beautiful.)
The energy density of lithium cells is terrible compared to liquid hydrocarbon fuels, but the simplicity, reliability and lower operating cost of an electric motor and batteries over a combustion engine is the driver. They might never compete with turbojets for long-distance flights, but they can still capture a large proportion of the market by dominating shorter range commutes.
from parent:
...we should be carefully, rationally, constructing the best possible estimates of the cost of global warming under various scenarios
from Bjorn Lomborg:
A new peer-reviewed paper by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg published in the Global Policy journal measures the actual impact of all significant climate promises made ahead of the Paris climate summit.
So what are the Democrats going to do if they fail to preserve net neutrality and then the internet apocalypse which they forecast fails to materialize?
Given that the cost of state-of-the-art fab is about $20 billion and that China is behind, a $47 billion investment is not a threat. EE times reports that by 2020 a state-of-the-art fab will cost about $20 billion and wikipedia says that TSMC predicts the same.
There is a reason why semiconductor giants such as ARM, Nvidia, AMD, Broadcom, Qualcomm and even super-rich Apple are fabless; State-of-the-art fabs are insanely hard. The successes here, such as Intel, have generations of accumulated in-house expertise and have spent decades attracting, training and retaining the best experts in the world. Not to mention the elusive engineering management culture necessary for that. Maybe it is impossible to enter at that level and you have to evolve your way there over decades.
So China needs to build a modern fab, but also fund the R&D to get to that point and fund development of modern CPU architectures so they have something to make. By the time China succeeds with all of that, if they can, they might be at least a generation behind.
Finally, it's not like the world would be made worse-off by increased state-of-the-art semiconductor manufacturing capacity. More better chips are a good thing.
Second, the unmitigated potential for absolute lethality.
That works around two of the show-stopper bugs intrinsic to Hyperloop.
First, it's a barf train. Providing no external visual reference frame in combination with acceleration is the perfect recipe for inducing nausea. Barfing is also a chain reaction between passengers. To transport humans the pods would need to be equipped with vomit bilge pumps.
Second, the unmitigated potential for absolute legality. The shockwave from a tube rupture would obliterate all capsules en-route, killing all passengers aboard.
There is also the problem that nobody knows how to make an vacuum-sealed expansion joint the diameter of the Hyperloop tube, which is required for above-ground tubes. However, it should work for subterranean tunnels which don't have the problem with expanding with air temperature increases and warming from sunlight.
" respected Wall Street analysts...."
That is exactly how the Wall Street racket works, by selling fake expertise on the basis of reputation.
Musk's disrespect for Wall-Street is certainly warranted. Analysts claim to possess expert knowledge which will yield higher returns, when really their returns are worse than a dumb strategy such as ETFs. Retrospective comparisons of analysts picks to passive investment show analysts perform worse.
Investment firms are a scam. Do not be a sucker and a victim. Read about investment from someone who is not trying to extract money from you.
That Musk moved the price of Tesla shares by blowing off analysts just shows how many idiot investors there are. When idiots sell their Tesla stock because Musk hurt the feelings of the con artists, the smart move is to buy Tesla.
Thus, in the long term it grows the economy by circulating that money through the economy.
Economics for morons.
It's better to not have a job than one that doesn't pay a living wage.
That is your opinion. In the opinion of some who seek a supplementary income, a job with is lesser rate of pay is acceptable.
A student who lives at home, a retiree with a pension, a housewife with free time while her kids are in the school each want to earn some additional cash in their free time. You demand that they be denied the right to some jobs which they would voluntarily accept.
This is why conservatives and libertarians regard leftism as inherently fascist; Leftists such as yourself seek the power of government to impose their own preferences on others, under threat violence, fines, and incarceration.
You should be free to accept or decline a job offer as you see fit. You should not be entrusted with the power to govern, because you will use that power to deny that same freedom to others.
Keep in mind that the basis of comparison here is studio executives. It seems like a pretty terrible way of picking blockbusters, so we should not be surprised if an AI outperforms that. The alpha male gets to green-light movies because as the alpha that is his prerogative, not because he has the best ability at that task.
Executives usually achieve and maintain their status by being the most successful at insider politicking and corporate infighting. That is not the same thing as being good at predicting box-office success. Especially in mature industries. We do see successful executive wunderkinder with insight, vision and skill in new markets because those talents are required to exploit a disruptive technology. Elon Musk and Steve Jobs are examples. But that's not typically the film business, and the exceptions (John Lasseter and Steve Jobs at Pixar) only re-enforce the point.
For any talent, we usually see a few extreme statistical outliers. A reasonable approach would be to find, by testing, those with extreme talent at predicting box-office success and compare their performance to that of both executives and to AI.
Here are some reasons why I am against that:
1. While it seems that banning Chinese citizens from participating in U.S. based high-tech research should work to restrict Chinese espionage, it would also curtail domestic research by barring brilliant Chinese scientists and engineers from working to their full potential in the U.S. It is trade-off, with no reason a priori to believe that it works to the U.S. advantage.
2. You do not have to be Chinese to spy on the U.S.
3. It is an expression of the same misguided impulse which resulted in Japanese internment camps during WWII; broad discrimination alleged on the basis of race and motivated by nationalism .
4. Importing the best and the brightest from China (and the rest of the world) is a great way for the U.S. to keep ahead.
5. Chinese Communism sucks ass. Any sensible Chinese citizen who spends time in the U.S. will realize that, as chaotic and nonsensical (see: Donald, Hillary) as is our system of Democracy, it is so much better than the Chinese dictatorial kleptocracy and their emperor-for-life. You are not going to get a lot of loyalty to China among Chinese in the U.S. because most of them hate the government of China.
6. I would be fine with secret, heightened scrutiny and monitoring of some foreign nationals (Chinese, Russian) who work in the U.S. and who have access to secret information. But only if there is indeed a greater risk of espionage among that group than among white American-born employees who will sell out their own nation for a bribe.
That is why some of us believe that de-extinction is the ethical choice.
The U.S. has vast tracts of undeveloped wilderness under federal and state ownership. Additionally, the nation is substantially over-farmed because of that rediculous corn ethanol mandate. There is certailnly space for them.
We should bring some of these great creatures back in North America to undo some of the harm humankind has already done.
Were the CIA serious about IT security it would reward white hats who successfully broke in and penalize those inside the organization who failed to protect against that. Instead, they penalize white hats and there is little to no accountability within government agencies.
That is not a radical idea, it is the convention outside of government. We know that private companies offer bounties. Those of us who work for companies know that usually someone within the company who screws up is disadvantaged for that.
The world record holder for underwater breath-holding is German.
Maybe the Bajau are under-represented entrants in the contest.
Hilary and the DNC actively promoted Trump, because they thought he was the easiest candidate to beat.
He was the easiest to beat. And she still lost.