They are cutting themselves out of market reach by excluding consumers. Their success or failure depends entirely upon whether organizations, wealthy individuals, or municipalities will order large lots. People with deep pockets don't spend on impulse, and they're just as likely to create their own solution as invest in this one.
I don't know whether these guys are cutting themselves off from the market. But I do know that the deepest pockets, the Feds do buy on impulse. There's vast sums of money available for disaster recovery and piddling amounts available for disaster preparation (aside from terrorism, which does seem to consume an inordinate amount of disaster preparedness money). If these guys can store a large number of these units and ship them for a large scale disaster, then they could get a piece of that action, which might generate a profit.
But how often do Katrina scale disasters happen in the wealthier parts of the world? I'm not really seeing the need here.
Last month is genuinely recent. That's when ISIS burned around 45 people. Then they stuck it on YouTube. They've also are in the process of committing genocide and allegedly selling human organs on the black market.
No where in the world is a bastion of righteousness.
What was the point of making that observation? I find it interesting how people are more concerned about a light case of hypocrisy in the US than a vile organization like ISIS. It's a pretty remarkable case of moral blindness.
Why should I be kidding? If people can't be interested enough to show up at the voting booth, then they aren't interested enough to vote seriously or knowledgeably. I see voluntary voting as superior to mandatory voting for what should be obvious reasons.
Also keep in mind that voting is not just voting for the US President or equivalent positions in other countries. It's also voting for a host of other offices and ballots, depending on the region. Someone who can't be bothered to think about the most well known contests on the ballot, is just going to be random noise when it comes to the smaller issues being voted on.
With voter turnout this epically low, we are at the point where all the eligible voters who don't vote could band together and elect a president and VP who aren't even on the ticket. Whether or not mandatory voting would help is unclear, but voter disenfranchisement doesn't help anyone and neither do all the various voter suppression methods that we see in each election cycle. Something should be done to push back.
I disagree. I find voter disfranchisement, which just means allowing the clueless to stay away from the voting booth, is very compelling as a useful tool of democracy. There's no reason to push back when the system is working just fine. It's worth noting here that Obama was elected in large part by such clueless voters, so of course, it's in the interests of his political interests and belief system to force these people to vote.
but tell that to people who, on the basis of Facebook posts by other people of the licensees page, have to defend their license at licensing board hearing.
Note that all of your examples have experts on all sides of the argument. If evidence doesn't matter, then there's enough expert testimony to back that cigarettes aren't harmful for your health and that vaccines cause autism. Because experts.
Your example disagreements have definite conclusions, because there was copious evidence supporting one side of the argument. For example, there was a three orders of magnitude drop in US measles cases right after the introduction of the measles vaccine. And similar drops can be seen in other countries as respective vaccines are introduced. And the side effects of these diseases can be just as dire as autism, the alleged side effect of vaccination. There is a very straightforward argument to be made for continuing vaccination, even if it did cause autism due to the people whose lives are saved from these diseases.
Similarly, there is very strong evidence over large numbers of people that smoking harms people, both the smokers and people who are exposed to high levels of second hand smoke.
The special features of these debates is that one doesn't need to listen to the experts. One can study the evidence directly.
What I think is dishonest here is the assertion that the evidence for the claims of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) is just as strong as the two examples you gave and just as easy to examine to confirm. It isn't. After all, we don't measure directly any weather or climate phenomena before about 150 years ago. Every is estimated via paleoclimate proxies. And these estimates are very subjective, dependent on how they are manipulated. For example, the first reconstruction of global mean temperature over the past millenium which eliminated the Medieval Warm Period, the "Hockey Stick", by Mann and Jones, turned out to have a serious statistical error, which conveniently caused even random noise to be transformed to the desired "hockey stick" shape, most of the millennium being nearly flat except for a sharp rise in temperature at the end in the Industrial Age. What is particularly interesting is that after this research was called into question, within a few years, supposedly independent research had been released showing the same shape.
Where else in science, would scientists work so hard to recover a broken result? I'd say economics which has long been held captive by a variety of special interests. In most fields, bad research would be a warning sign to look hard at the problem and carefully reevaluate the original claim, rather than rush through new analyses to back the original claim.
And then we have the second tenuous claim, that it is catastrophic. The evidence for this is laughable. A particular notorious example are the claims of extreme weather. They come in two variants. The first are claims that various special cases of weather are due to global warming. These are inherently dishonest both because it is nearly impossible to show that any single incident of weather was made worse by global warming. One shows correlation by looking at lots of data. Even the instrument period of the past 150 years often doesn't have enough data to back these claims.
The second approach is to study the models and make predictions from those, though not couched as such. So it is claimed that say, tornadoes are 33% stronger in terms of damage inflicted than they used to be, or there are more hurricanes, when what is really meant is that the researcher is extrapolating from a model, rather than reality, and no one has a clue yet whether the hypothesized effect occurs because the necessary data isn't yet present.
My view is that in climate research, we have a real life demonstration that experts are not evidence.
This isn't just a few places in the US getting pissed, it's pretty much every country they've started up business in.
So what? There's a lot of taxi oligopolies out there. Just because people are "pissed" doesn't mean that I should care.
Look, if you want to drive people around and get paid for it, there are things you have to do as a result. You need to carry insurance which covers your passengers. You need to prove your drivers are competent. You need to keep your vehicle maintained. You need to pay taxes on your income. You need to know who you're employing or contracting with. You're using the public roadways to make a profit, so some of that should go back to the public to help maintain the roadways.
I'm quite aware of the schemes used to protect established taxi companies. I just don't think those are worth the bother.
But what you're not accepting is that you're looking for evidence in the wrong place.
[...]
In both cases, I won't trust some random person on a forum over the people who have invested their lives in the topic.
You start with evidence and then dwell on experts. Experts aren't evidence. And there are plenty of skeptics and lukewarmers also investing their lives in the topic. What makes your people more relevant than those other people?
Climate change, like medicine, is serious enough a topic that it's above this level of discourse.
No, to the contrary, climate change like medicine is serious enough that you have to know the facts before you commit, if only to understand what behaviors may help or hinder your treatment. Also, you have knowledge that the doctor doesn't have. They do make mistakes or even deliberate pump up their bills. It's not Doc's body or wallet at stake, but yours.
Similar, it isn't the climate researchers' climate or economy at stake, but everyone's climate and economy at stake. The stakes are too big just to take particular expert advice on faith.
You bring up good points. The actual "moonshot", the Apollo program wasn't a good example of how to do a moonshot due to the huge risks and jumps that NASA took. They had their reasons, but it was a tremendous gamble that might not have paid off. And really, if you're speaking of moonshots in the Apollo sense where you don't have the same urgency or the same willingness to gamble a considerable amount of effort on getting it right the first time, then you're doing it wrong.
Is it that they want to kill competition or is it that they want Uber to abide by the same laws and regulations and pay the same taxes and fees that they do?
I don't have any problems with Uber not following the same laws and regulations, the same taxes and fees as established oligopolies do. But then I don't have any problem with the established oligopolies not having to follow that crap either.
These laws aren't put into place to restrict competition, as much as they are for consumer protection.
I don't buy it. Maybe that was the intent at one time. It's just barrier to entry now.
How many news articles have you read about Uber drivers raping or otherwise assaulting riders -- I can think of several off hand in the last year. How many news articles have you read about legally licensed cabbies doing the same?
I guess Uber doesn't buy better press. Last I checked, rape was illegal in the countries mentioned in the story. Maybe these localities should enforce existing law, assuming there actually is a problem to worry about.
I think you are missing the point. The point is that there are ways to mitigate the risk. There are approaches to learning and innovating that do not involve "build it and watch it implode". In fact, most of the innovation and learning that is not done by SV hipsters is done by incremental experimentation, not by watching something crash and burn.
I don't think so. Everyone who has any exposure to Silicon Valley knows stories. Mine is that I was friends with someone who involved with a start up run by a couple of Stanford grads that was given $70 million to provide services for virtual ISPs. The business case was remarkably weak, the organization was structured badly (their billing system was built and operated by a contractor and most of the staff was for show), and the leadership seemed more interested in the weekly parties than in running a business. Sure, I wouldn't have learned anything from that failure, but I bet a lot of really gullible people did.
Googling around, I see that a number of the leadership also moved on to other things. So the failure didn't really hurt them either (assuming it actually was failure from their point of view). Maybe they learned to plan or something.
But just because people do dumb stuff in Silicon Valley doesn't invalidate the claim. If you're doing something where failure just isn't that costly, then you should be aggressive enough to fail on a regular basis. That's even more so when you expect a variety of failures to happen during normal operation.
The "energy kite" of the story just isn't that expensive a prototype. It's also something that you would expect to fail every now and then even under normal operation. If they aren't breaking a few of them, then they aren't really exploring the envelope in which this vehicle operates or how to detect and recover from such failures.
It is not reasonable to expect people to not touch dead or sick people and it is absurd to think that proper hand washing would prevent the transmission of Ebola.
Sure, it's reasonable. And proper hand washing doesn't have to completely prevent transmission, it just has to help reduce new transmissions to below the point where exponential growth in infections occurs. Through these means, exponential growth of Ebola has ceased in West Africa.
Yes everyone knows they set out with failure in mind with the Moon landing.
You are right. They didn't. But failure was a really high likelihood at various parts of the program. For example, I've heard that the odds of losing at least part of the crew on Apollo 11, the first landing on the moon, were estimated at about a third, prior to the mission. Failure was a possible and way too likely outcome despite the "failure is not an option" mantra.
The problem was not that Apollo program had a better solution to "moonshots" than "fail early, fail often", but rather that they couldn't do that. The program could have been made a bit more incremental and resilient to failure, but in the end, you're either landing people on the Moon or you're not. There are huge jumps in technology and risk taking that Apollo just couldn't avoid.
No, drinkypoo got it right. If you can't afford to fail, then you're doing it wrong. And $5 billion losses are way outside Silicon Valley's comfort zone. They'd be dumb to commit that kind of money to a high risk "moonshot". The actual money range for initial projects is probably more on the range of a few thousand dollars to a few million dollars.
There are many ways to fail and few ways to succeed, thus it is better to learn what to do than what not to do. Failure simply slaps people upside the head and makes them think before trying again. Failure is a learning experience if you didn't plan ahead in the first place.
Here's the rub. You can never plan ahead enough to eliminate failure. Sometimes the cost of planning is not worth the cost of the failure you avoid.
Further, there are many scenarios where failing is not an option (e.g., medical, military, and space ventures). Failure in these areas is seen as a shameful mark worthy of criticism, lawsuits, retaliation, etc. more than it is a learning experience.
Not even a little bit. Failure happens all the time in medicine, military, and space ventures. It doesn't even make sense to assume that these areas where failure is or should be rare. For example, you will eventually die, which indicates that no matter how good or competent medical care is, it will always fail in the end. Military ventures are usually chock full of failure, merely because there are rival parties trying their hardest to make you fail. And every space vehicle has gone through a period of high failure rate in the beginning.
Failure might not be an "option", but it is always present. Learning how to deal with failure rather than engaging in meaningless "shaming" is essential to success in these areas.
You learn no more from failure than you learn from success.
You learn different things from failures than you do from success. For example, a lot of areas such as every scenario you mentioned above, have recurrent failures. So if you analyze existing failures, you might be able to avoid or mitigate these failures in the future. You can't learn that from the successes, only from the failures.
I'll just point out here that once again, I'm not given a reason to change my opinion on global warming. Sure, it's going to take some pretty solid evidence (that thing that's been missing from your posts this entire time). After all, there's been considerable malfeasance and consistent exaggeration over the past twenty years concerning the extent and impact of global warming. It would be immoral to just accept evidence without a close examination of it.
But lately, even that has been scarce. There are a bunch of people eager to lecture me on how I refuse to accept evidence without providing even a scrap of evidence for their positions. You are far from alone in this. I don't see the point in this. It's not how science is done. It's not how one convinces me.
But then we have people like duck_rifted, who you have characterized as holding opinions he is not knowledgeable about. He's living counter example that people are capable rational actors.
I've been hammering away at the weak spot of his arguments about climate science, lack of evidence. He won't make even a rudimentary claim for why he has an opinion on global warming or why he thinks I'll never change my opinion.
So let's discuss that here as well. Where is the evidence that he is a rational actor? He's still talking after all and not presenting even a scrap of support for the many assertions he makes.
After all, there isn't exactly one way bad/stupid/irrational manifests, so why would a few billion peoples all manifest in more or less the same way?
Why wouldn't it?
I have a thermodynamics argument for that. Having everyone's stupidity/whatever manifest in the same way is a bit like having all the molecules in a cup suddenly sink to the bottom half of the cup. Possible but extremely unlikely.
Further, neither scenario makes an assumption about the rationality of people. For scenario A, people can simply not care that much about climate change either because they're ignorant of its effects, or because they are aware of its effects and just aren't that impressed by them.
I need evidence to support the assertion that I don't want to teach climate science, which isn't my field, to somebody who thinks the majority of work in the field is wrong?
Yes.
I couldn't teach algebra to you if you thought it's wrong. You'd just argue with me from the moment when I tell you what a variable is.
What is the evidence for your assertion?
I need evidence to support that you're not a god?
Silly straw man. We both know this isn't even remotely a problem.
So, what you're saying is that it would take hundreds of thousands of dollars over several years for the opinion you want me to believe to be empirical. In other words, you just decided what you want to be true, and you expect nature to conform to that.
Climate researchers don't work for free.
I didn't say that I'm not knowledgeable about it. I said that it's not my field.
Then where's the evidence that you are knowledgeable?
Slashdot Mirror
They are cutting themselves out of market reach by excluding consumers. Their success or failure depends entirely upon whether organizations, wealthy individuals, or municipalities will order large lots. People with deep pockets don't spend on impulse, and they're just as likely to create their own solution as invest in this one.
I don't know whether these guys are cutting themselves off from the market. But I do know that the deepest pockets, the Feds do buy on impulse. There's vast sums of money available for disaster recovery and piddling amounts available for disaster preparation (aside from terrorism, which does seem to consume an inordinate amount of disaster preparedness money). If these guys can store a large number of these units and ship them for a large scale disaster, then they could get a piece of that action, which might generate a profit.
But how often do Katrina scale disasters happen in the wealthier parts of the world? I'm not really seeing the need here.
So I should dig the hole deeper by mandating that everyone votes? I don't get the point of this argument.
100 years is relatively recent.
Last month is genuinely recent. That's when ISIS burned around 45 people. Then they stuck it on YouTube. They've also are in the process of committing genocide and allegedly selling human organs on the black market.
No where in the world is a bastion of righteousness.
What was the point of making that observation? I find it interesting how people are more concerned about a light case of hypocrisy in the US than a vile organization like ISIS. It's a pretty remarkable case of moral blindness.
"Relatively recent" is 1916. Nobody responsible for that is still alive. You falsely equate atrocities a century ago with ongoing atrocities today.
What makes your people more relevant than those other people?
What are "my people"?
A tool that isn't working isn't what I would call a useful tool.
I don't throw away tools just because they're imperfect.
it takes $25K for one single mid level engineer to just write some code for a few weeks, see if he can break through the most likely failure points.
No, it doesn't.
Why should I be kidding? If people can't be interested enough to show up at the voting booth, then they aren't interested enough to vote seriously or knowledgeably. I see voluntary voting as superior to mandatory voting for what should be obvious reasons.
Also keep in mind that voting is not just voting for the US President or equivalent positions in other countries. It's also voting for a host of other offices and ballots, depending on the region. Someone who can't be bothered to think about the most well known contests on the ballot, is just going to be random noise when it comes to the smaller issues being voted on.
With voter turnout this epically low, we are at the point where all the eligible voters who don't vote could band together and elect a president and VP who aren't even on the ticket. Whether or not mandatory voting would help is unclear, but voter disenfranchisement doesn't help anyone and neither do all the various voter suppression methods that we see in each election cycle. Something should be done to push back.
I disagree. I find voter disfranchisement, which just means allowing the clueless to stay away from the voting booth, is very compelling as a useful tool of democracy. There's no reason to push back when the system is working just fine. It's worth noting here that Obama was elected in large part by such clueless voters, so of course, it's in the interests of his political interests and belief system to force these people to vote.
but tell that to people who, on the basis of Facebook posts by other people of the licensees page, have to defend their license at licensing board hearing.
I don't know. Will that take a long time or not?
Experts aren't evidence!
Note that all of your examples have experts on all sides of the argument. If evidence doesn't matter, then there's enough expert testimony to back that cigarettes aren't harmful for your health and that vaccines cause autism. Because experts.
Your example disagreements have definite conclusions, because there was copious evidence supporting one side of the argument. For example, there was a three orders of magnitude drop in US measles cases right after the introduction of the measles vaccine. And similar drops can be seen in other countries as respective vaccines are introduced. And the side effects of these diseases can be just as dire as autism, the alleged side effect of vaccination. There is a very straightforward argument to be made for continuing vaccination, even if it did cause autism due to the people whose lives are saved from these diseases.
Similarly, there is very strong evidence over large numbers of people that smoking harms people, both the smokers and people who are exposed to high levels of second hand smoke.
The special features of these debates is that one doesn't need to listen to the experts. One can study the evidence directly.
What I think is dishonest here is the assertion that the evidence for the claims of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) is just as strong as the two examples you gave and just as easy to examine to confirm. It isn't. After all, we don't measure directly any weather or climate phenomena before about 150 years ago. Every is estimated via paleoclimate proxies. And these estimates are very subjective, dependent on how they are manipulated. For example, the first reconstruction of global mean temperature over the past millenium which eliminated the Medieval Warm Period, the "Hockey Stick", by Mann and Jones, turned out to have a serious statistical error, which conveniently caused even random noise to be transformed to the desired "hockey stick" shape, most of the millennium being nearly flat except for a sharp rise in temperature at the end in the Industrial Age. What is particularly interesting is that after this research was called into question, within a few years, supposedly independent research had been released showing the same shape.
Where else in science, would scientists work so hard to recover a broken result? I'd say economics which has long been held captive by a variety of special interests. In most fields, bad research would be a warning sign to look hard at the problem and carefully reevaluate the original claim, rather than rush through new analyses to back the original claim.
And then we have the second tenuous claim, that it is catastrophic. The evidence for this is laughable. A particular notorious example are the claims of extreme weather. They come in two variants. The first are claims that various special cases of weather are due to global warming. These are inherently dishonest both because it is nearly impossible to show that any single incident of weather was made worse by global warming. One shows correlation by looking at lots of data. Even the instrument period of the past 150 years often doesn't have enough data to back these claims.
The second approach is to study the models and make predictions from those, though not couched as such. So it is claimed that say, tornadoes are 33% stronger in terms of damage inflicted than they used to be, or there are more hurricanes, when what is really meant is that the researcher is extrapolating from a model, rather than reality, and no one has a clue yet whether the hypothesized effect occurs because the necessary data isn't yet present.
My view is that in climate research, we have a real life demonstration that experts are not evidence.
that would cover one engineer for long enough to set up his dev environment
And sometimes that is all you need.
This isn't just a few places in the US getting pissed, it's pretty much every country they've started up business in.
So what? There's a lot of taxi oligopolies out there. Just because people are "pissed" doesn't mean that I should care.
Look, if you want to drive people around and get paid for it, there are things you have to do as a result. You need to carry insurance which covers your passengers. You need to prove your drivers are competent. You need to keep your vehicle maintained. You need to pay taxes on your income. You need to know who you're employing or contracting with. You're using the public roadways to make a profit, so some of that should go back to the public to help maintain the roadways.
I'm quite aware of the schemes used to protect established taxi companies. I just don't think those are worth the bother.
Besides that kind of failure never happens, so why would we ever need to learn about it?
But what you're not accepting is that you're looking for evidence in the wrong place.
[...]
In both cases, I won't trust some random person on a forum over the people who have invested their lives in the topic.
You start with evidence and then dwell on experts. Experts aren't evidence. And there are plenty of skeptics and lukewarmers also investing their lives in the topic. What makes your people more relevant than those other people?
Climate change, like medicine, is serious enough a topic that it's above this level of discourse.
No, to the contrary, climate change like medicine is serious enough that you have to know the facts before you commit, if only to understand what behaviors may help or hinder your treatment. Also, you have knowledge that the doctor doesn't have. They do make mistakes or even deliberate pump up their bills. It's not Doc's body or wallet at stake, but yours.
Similar, it isn't the climate researchers' climate or economy at stake, but everyone's climate and economy at stake. The stakes are too big just to take particular expert advice on faith.
You bring up good points. The actual "moonshot", the Apollo program wasn't a good example of how to do a moonshot due to the huge risks and jumps that NASA took. They had their reasons, but it was a tremendous gamble that might not have paid off. And really, if you're speaking of moonshots in the Apollo sense where you don't have the same urgency or the same willingness to gamble a considerable amount of effort on getting it right the first time, then you're doing it wrong.
Is it that they want to kill competition or is it that they want Uber to abide by the same laws and regulations and pay the same taxes and fees that they do?
I don't have any problems with Uber not following the same laws and regulations, the same taxes and fees as established oligopolies do. But then I don't have any problem with the established oligopolies not having to follow that crap either.
These laws aren't put into place to restrict competition, as much as they are for consumer protection.
I don't buy it. Maybe that was the intent at one time. It's just barrier to entry now.
How many news articles have you read about Uber drivers raping or otherwise assaulting riders -- I can think of several off hand in the last year. How many news articles have you read about legally licensed cabbies doing the same?
I guess Uber doesn't buy better press. Last I checked, rape was illegal in the countries mentioned in the story. Maybe these localities should enforce existing law, assuming there actually is a problem to worry about.
I think you are missing the point. The point is that there are ways to mitigate the risk. There are approaches to learning and innovating that do not involve "build it and watch it implode". In fact, most of the innovation and learning that is not done by SV hipsters is done by incremental experimentation, not by watching something crash and burn.
I don't think so. Everyone who has any exposure to Silicon Valley knows stories. Mine is that I was friends with someone who involved with a start up run by a couple of Stanford grads that was given $70 million to provide services for virtual ISPs. The business case was remarkably weak, the organization was structured badly (their billing system was built and operated by a contractor and most of the staff was for show), and the leadership seemed more interested in the weekly parties than in running a business. Sure, I wouldn't have learned anything from that failure, but I bet a lot of really gullible people did.
Googling around, I see that a number of the leadership also moved on to other things. So the failure didn't really hurt them either (assuming it actually was failure from their point of view). Maybe they learned to plan or something.
But just because people do dumb stuff in Silicon Valley doesn't invalidate the claim. If you're doing something where failure just isn't that costly, then you should be aggressive enough to fail on a regular basis. That's even more so when you expect a variety of failures to happen during normal operation.
The "energy kite" of the story just isn't that expensive a prototype. It's also something that you would expect to fail every now and then even under normal operation. If they aren't breaking a few of them, then they aren't really exploring the envelope in which this vehicle operates or how to detect and recover from such failures.
It is not reasonable to expect people to not touch dead or sick people and it is absurd to think that proper hand washing would prevent the transmission of Ebola.
Sure, it's reasonable. And proper hand washing doesn't have to completely prevent transmission, it just has to help reduce new transmissions to below the point where exponential growth in infections occurs. Through these means, exponential growth of Ebola has ceased in West Africa.
Yes everyone knows they set out with failure in mind with the Moon landing.
You are right. They didn't. But failure was a really high likelihood at various parts of the program. For example, I've heard that the odds of losing at least part of the crew on Apollo 11, the first landing on the moon, were estimated at about a third, prior to the mission. Failure was a possible and way too likely outcome despite the "failure is not an option" mantra.
The problem was not that Apollo program had a better solution to "moonshots" than "fail early, fail often", but rather that they couldn't do that. The program could have been made a bit more incremental and resilient to failure, but in the end, you're either landing people on the Moon or you're not. There are huge jumps in technology and risk taking that Apollo just couldn't avoid.
No, drinkypoo got it right. If you can't afford to fail, then you're doing it wrong. And $5 billion losses are way outside Silicon Valley's comfort zone. They'd be dumb to commit that kind of money to a high risk "moonshot". The actual money range for initial projects is probably more on the range of a few thousand dollars to a few million dollars.
There are many ways to fail and few ways to succeed, thus it is better to learn what to do than what not to do. Failure simply slaps people upside the head and makes them think before trying again. Failure is a learning experience if you didn't plan ahead in the first place.
Here's the rub. You can never plan ahead enough to eliminate failure. Sometimes the cost of planning is not worth the cost of the failure you avoid.
Further, there are many scenarios where failing is not an option (e.g., medical, military, and space ventures). Failure in these areas is seen as a shameful mark worthy of criticism, lawsuits, retaliation, etc. more than it is a learning experience.
Not even a little bit. Failure happens all the time in medicine, military, and space ventures. It doesn't even make sense to assume that these areas where failure is or should be rare. For example, you will eventually die, which indicates that no matter how good or competent medical care is, it will always fail in the end. Military ventures are usually chock full of failure, merely because there are rival parties trying their hardest to make you fail. And every space vehicle has gone through a period of high failure rate in the beginning.
Failure might not be an "option", but it is always present. Learning how to deal with failure rather than engaging in meaningless "shaming" is essential to success in these areas.
You learn no more from failure than you learn from success.
You learn different things from failures than you do from success. For example, a lot of areas such as every scenario you mentioned above, have recurrent failures. So if you analyze existing failures, you might be able to avoid or mitigate these failures in the future. You can't learn that from the successes, only from the failures.
I'll just point out here that once again, I'm not given a reason to change my opinion on global warming. Sure, it's going to take some pretty solid evidence (that thing that's been missing from your posts this entire time). After all, there's been considerable malfeasance and consistent exaggeration over the past twenty years concerning the extent and impact of global warming. It would be immoral to just accept evidence without a close examination of it.
But lately, even that has been scarce. There are a bunch of people eager to lecture me on how I refuse to accept evidence without providing even a scrap of evidence for their positions. You are far from alone in this. I don't see the point in this. It's not how science is done. It's not how one convinces me.
But then we have people like duck_rifted, who you have characterized as holding opinions he is not knowledgeable about. He's living counter example that people are capable rational actors.
I've been hammering away at the weak spot of his arguments about climate science, lack of evidence. He won't make even a rudimentary claim for why he has an opinion on global warming or why he thinks I'll never change my opinion.
So let's discuss that here as well. Where is the evidence that he is a rational actor? He's still talking after all and not presenting even a scrap of support for the many assertions he makes.
After all, there isn't exactly one way bad/stupid/irrational manifests, so why would a few billion peoples all manifest in more or less the same way?
Why wouldn't it?
I have a thermodynamics argument for that. Having everyone's stupidity/whatever manifest in the same way is a bit like having all the molecules in a cup suddenly sink to the bottom half of the cup. Possible but extremely unlikely.
Further, neither scenario makes an assumption about the rationality of people. For scenario A, people can simply not care that much about climate change either because they're ignorant of its effects, or because they are aware of its effects and just aren't that impressed by them.
I need evidence to support the assertion that I don't want to teach climate science, which isn't my field, to somebody who thinks the majority of work in the field is wrong?
Yes.
I couldn't teach algebra to you if you thought it's wrong. You'd just argue with me from the moment when I tell you what a variable is.
What is the evidence for your assertion?
I need evidence to support that you're not a god?
Silly straw man. We both know this isn't even remotely a problem.
So, what you're saying is that it would take hundreds of thousands of dollars over several years for the opinion you want me to believe to be empirical. In other words, you just decided what you want to be true, and you expect nature to conform to that.
Climate researchers don't work for free.
I didn't say that I'm not knowledgeable about it. I said that it's not my field.
Then where's the evidence that you are knowledgeable?