Services... more services... all aiming for world-domination while us plebs key in their data.
Public 'social' impact matters little. In fact, let me correct that -- public 'anti-social' impact matters little -- many (maybe most) social posts are vacuous posing. Their net benefit to society is negative.
How about 'IRL (in real life) public social impact'? Does anything measure it? Also, I'd like to know the impact of my local network. About the unknown barista who makes good coffee (not *says* he makes good coffee). Something like pagerank applied to my local friends, pals, colleagues, their reputation and the reputation and rules of thumb they assign to our local live. And not as an online service. Maybe like diaspora. Running on my phone.
Hmm, a lot of people have private views that confront others. This engineer's views, for instance, are shared by almost the entire male population of Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. Would it not be better to engage with a Saudi Arabian engineer -- at least then, there is the prospect of him modulating or even changing his personal views in the long term? Rather, what often happens is the teasing out someone's private thoughts, with a view of excluding them from your community?
If engagement is better, why are statements like the above not commonplace in rules of conduct?
The only reason for exclusion I would make are members who refuse to execute group dealings on an equal basis. For instance, if the Saudi engineer refused to correspond with group members with female names.
I would also avoid explicit mention of cis, trans, queer terminology in codes of conduct. Simply have a call for tolerance, kindness, engagement and executing group dealings on an equal basis.
You're more correct than you know. Consumer side bots = intelligent agents! The old dream of a digital butler that pursues your interests while you're otherwise engaged. The funny thing is Facebook is the right company to build them.
All these business bots just outsource the cognitive burden to us users
I'm concerned about ALI - arrogant lack of intelligence. ALI in Teslas which kill their drivers. And ALI in Musk, who was responsible for cars that killed drivers, and whose company waited for its first fatality before issuing an update to slow cars to a stop when the driver is not paying attention (or is incapacitated).
Maybe he trusted and liked Tesla, and wanted to help them. In some way, maybe he even wanted to break through their disbelief and apathy at his complaint -- perhaps by noting how far it veered before correcting itslef. Or maybe, he just forgot to turn off the dangerous autopilot POS system which lulls you the diver into apathy, and then arbitrarily kills you.
Seriously, how many lives will be lost before autopilot starts slowing the car down to a safe stop, honking and flashing when it knows when driver is disengaged. For all it knows, maybe the driver had a heart attack behind the wheel and died !!!
Instead, Tesla knowlingly lets loose a misguided weapon on the roads.
Uber was speeding 3 mph. Safety driver was looking at lap. Second safety driver was dispensed with. Uber software is known for dangerous bugs (read article on them in MIT review 2 years ago). Though possible for a human, the Uber made no attempt to brake. Kinetic energy due to the excess speed was 17% of impact energy. Braking would have reduced it further. A second safety driven could have called attention. Sticking to speed limit and braking would both have reduced impact energy substantially and may have given the woman valuable reaction time.
The Uber was doing 3mph over the limit (that's 17% more kinetic energy according to someone). Yet the police chief was quick to excuse it, and also the safety driver who seemed to be ignoring her job. The chief who made the statememt also served in California. It'd be good to vet her links to Uber, just to ensure undue influence didn't take place.
Or virtually do as the Greeks did. Have the architect stand underneath his monument as the supports are taken away. Have them cross poorly lit streets... In a simulation.
Afterthought: why are these bloody cars even on the streets? Simulate the conditions in software first... poorly lit streets, pedestrians, kids, police redirecting traffic...
"If the patient is not convinced of the seriousness of the illness, and that taking the medication is absolutely necessary . . . no elaborate scheme of pill taking monitoring will help."
Not really. People procrastinate, change their mind, flip-flop, reverse decisions and revert again, on a second-by-second basis.
There is a public health benefit to monitoring compliance with TB medication.
And think of it from the individual's perspective. For whatever reason, you've already done the hard yards -- you made the time, located the drugs, opened the blister packing, texted the secret phone number. So now popping the pill is a trivial job - the hard work's already done.
Nathan Freed Wessler, staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, put it succinctly. "At the end of the day, this tactic unavoidably risks getting information about totally innocent people."
And? How is that a problem? There is still a burden of proof before you are judged guilty, or even detained for questioning.
How is this different from the police requisitioning surveillance camera tapes after a crime? The tapes have the faces of innocent passers-by too. This is just the digital equivalent. Google (and the phone companies) have a 'surveillance camera' of sorts running. It's the police's job to sift through the data to find patterns that eventually deliver justice to the aggrieved.
Why make their job more difficult?
America - you have bigger problems. Don't make so much fuss over nothing.
There is a difference between GMOs and cross-bred plants. For one thing, in cross-breeding you have to go past a gatekeeper (the two species must actually cross). In GMOs you do not. Also, the longer periods involved in crossing would tend to make problems more apparent.
Agree with all you said but I think your corn reaction could be a lifetime worth of systemic damage caused by eating plain, non-GMO corn. Unlike us, the original Americans knew corn is harmful without processing. Please google https://www.google.com/search?...
We poisoned the food instead. But don't worry, they say this poison is friendly. Friendly to us, our bodies, our guys, our microbiome, our unborn children, to plants and insects we need to survive, to our ecology.
This is mummification from ancient Egypt all over again, just at a slightly more detailed level.
All this can do is preserve the connections between neurons. But that's not all there is to consciousness. Beyond the connectome, there may be 'software' differences within neurons that contribute to consciousness and learning. This technology does not preserve this -- instead, brain DNA degrades and any complexity present there is lost.
Last year, scientists found a surprising amount of genetic diversity in each individual brain neuron. This year, scientists observed neurons passing genetic material, packaged in a virus-like shell, to neighbouring neurons.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the opposite actually. How'd you figure that ?
Services ... more services... all aiming for world-domination while us plebs key in their data.
Public 'social' impact matters little. In fact, let me correct that -- public 'anti-social' impact matters little -- many (maybe most) social posts are vacuous posing. Their net benefit to society is negative.
How about 'IRL (in real life) public social impact'? Does anything measure it? Also, I'd like to know the impact of my local network. About the unknown barista who makes good coffee (not *says* he makes good coffee). Something like pagerank applied to my local friends, pals, colleagues, their reputation and the reputation and rules of thumb they assign to our local live. And not as an online service. Maybe like diaspora. Running on my phone.
Hmm, a lot of people have private views that confront others. This engineer's views, for instance, are shared by almost the entire male population of Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. Would it not be better to engage with a Saudi Arabian engineer -- at least then, there is the prospect of him modulating or even changing his personal views in the long term? Rather, what often happens is the teasing out someone's private thoughts, with a view of excluding them from your community?
If engagement is better, why are statements like the above not commonplace in rules of conduct?
The only reason for exclusion I would make are members who refuse to execute group dealings on an equal basis. For instance, if the Saudi engineer refused to correspond with group members with female names.
I would also avoid explicit mention of cis, trans, queer terminology in codes of conduct. Simply have a call for tolerance, kindness, engagement and executing group dealings on an equal basis.
You're more correct than you know. Consumer side bots = intelligent agents! The old dream of a digital butler that pursues your interests while you're otherwise engaged. The funny thing is Facebook is the right company to build them.
All these business bots just outsource the cognitive burden to us users
"This figure does not include Apple's third-party suppliers or manufacturers".
That's like saying Facebook runs on renewables, except for its data centres.
I'm concerned about ALI - arrogant lack of intelligence. ALI in Teslas which kill their drivers. And ALI in Musk, who was responsible for cars that killed drivers, and whose company waited for its first fatality before issuing an update to slow cars to a stop when the driver is not paying attention (or is incapacitated).
Bravo, well said.
Maybe he trusted and liked Tesla, and wanted to help them. In some way, maybe he even wanted to break through their disbelief and apathy at his complaint -- perhaps by noting how far it veered before correcting itslef. Or maybe, he just forgot to turn off the dangerous autopilot POS system which lulls you the diver into apathy, and then arbitrarily kills you.
Seriously, how many lives will be lost before autopilot starts slowing the car down to a safe stop, honking and flashing when it knows when driver is disengaged. For all it knows, maybe the driver had a heart attack behind the wheel and died !!!
Instead, Tesla knowlingly lets loose a misguided weapon on the roads.
Uber was speeding 3 mph. Safety driver was looking at lap. Second safety driver was dispensed with. Uber software is known for dangerous bugs (read article on them in MIT review 2 years ago). Though possible for a human, the Uber made no attempt to brake. Kinetic energy due to the excess speed was 17% of impact energy. Braking would have reduced it further. A second safety driven could have called attention. Sticking to speed limit and braking would both have reduced impact energy substantially and may have given the woman valuable reaction time.
Actually, I take that back. Forget golive! The bridge was still being constructed. See this video for an explain:
https://youtu.be/Q2A1wS09p0k?t...
> "You're right. But you fail to realise that this takes time."
It shouldn't -- to borrow an IT turn of phrase, it should be in hypercare status so soon after golive.
Everyone knows that the most dangerous phase of a change is after the change is either implemented or rolled back.
The engineer who noticed the crack may just have been a member of the public.
"The 11-year old company reported revenue of $1.11 billion ..."
They have revenues? How? Who pays them a billion a year?
The Uber was doing 3mph over the limit (that's 17% more kinetic energy according to someone). Yet the police chief was quick to excuse it, and also the safety driver who seemed to be ignoring her job. The chief who made the statememt also served in California. It'd be good to vet her links to Uber, just to ensure undue influence didn't take place.
Or virtually do as the Greeks did. Have the architect stand underneath his monument as the supports are taken away. Have them cross poorly lit streets... In a simulation.
Afterthought: why are these bloody cars even on the streets? Simulate the conditions in software first... poorly lit streets, pedestrians, kids, police redirecting traffic...
You have a point. Sure, people can use dynamic DNS, but ISP restrictions prevent an ecosystem of peers growing naturally.
Another reason: viable decentralised social network software isn't there. I tried a couple @home social networks, including Elgg. It didn't work well.
"If the patient is not convinced of the seriousness of the illness, and that taking the medication is absolutely necessary . . . no elaborate scheme of pill taking monitoring will help."
Not really. People procrastinate, change their mind, flip-flop, reverse decisions and revert again, on a second-by-second basis.
There is a public health benefit to monitoring compliance with TB medication.
And think of it from the individual's perspective. For whatever reason, you've already done the hard yards -- you made the time, located the drugs, opened the blister packing, texted the secret phone number. So now popping the pill is a trivial job - the hard work's already done.
Nathan Freed Wessler, staff attorney with the ACLU's Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, put it succinctly. "At the end of the day, this tactic unavoidably risks getting information about totally innocent people."
And? How is that a problem? There is still a burden of proof before you are judged guilty, or even detained for questioning.
How is this different from the police requisitioning surveillance camera tapes after a crime? The tapes have the faces of innocent passers-by too. This is just the digital equivalent. Google (and the phone companies) have a 'surveillance camera' of sorts running. It's the police's job to sift through the data to find patterns that eventually deliver justice to the aggrieved.
Why make their job more difficult?
America - you have bigger problems. Don't make so much fuss over nothing.
https://blog.bulletproof.com/h... I highly recommend listening to this man. Zone out for the first five minutes of ads... Its worth it believe me
Thanks ... your's is an insightful post
There is a difference between GMOs and cross-bred plants. For one thing, in cross-breeding you have to go past a gatekeeper (the two species must actually cross). In GMOs you do not. Also, the longer periods involved in crossing would tend to make problems more apparent.
See https://gmoanswers.com/ask/ple... for how the GM industry views this.
"their very own walled garden"
Or mausoleum.
nixtamalization
Agree with all you said but I think your corn reaction could be a lifetime worth of systemic damage caused by eating plain, non-GMO corn. Unlike us, the original Americans knew corn is harmful without processing. Please google https://www.google.com/search?...
We poisoned the food instead. But don't worry, they say this poison is friendly. Friendly to us, our bodies, our guys, our microbiome, our unborn children, to plants and insects we need to survive, to our ecology.
Like Casper, the friendly ghost.
This is mummification from ancient Egypt all over again, just at a slightly more detailed level.
All this can do is preserve the connections between neurons. But that's not all there is to consciousness. Beyond the connectome, there may be 'software' differences within neurons that contribute to consciousness and learning. This technology does not preserve this -- instead, brain DNA degrades and any complexity present there is lost.
Last year, scientists found a surprising amount of genetic diversity in each individual brain neuron. This year, scientists observed neurons passing genetic material, packaged in a virus-like shell, to neighbouring neurons.