Or you can have most of the really bad combinations removed so you have a almost guaranteed chance of having a normal healthy child.
If you live in a first world country, and have money.
While I don't disagree that this is potentially awesome for humanity, the problem is that we don't have a social structure that won't severely disadvantage a large subset of the population. When the well-educated and well-off don't need to suffer the financial penalties of chronic disease and disability, they will further the gap between themselves and those poor people who do.
There will always people too poor or too "principled" to gene edit, and who will instead suffer disproportionately more disease and disability. This has all the potential to become the next major driver of wealth and power disparity in the world.
Because you're the sort of coked-up monkey that's addicted to push notifications interrupting every waking moment and keeping you up at night. It blows my mind how pavlovian some people are.
Wasn't there an article about how they sped it up just a day or two ago? I'm guessing that they needed to take that step forward so they could take these two back. It's all part of their master plan to slowly sink into oblivion.
I posted pretty much the same thing a thread or two below. I'm a decade and a half into an all-out war with advertising. And outside of a few apps on my phone, I'm largely winning. If you want my money, interrupting what I'm doing, pissing me off, and begging for it is not the way to get it. Bogging down my computer and infecting me with malware is definitely not the way to do it. Provide a product I want and a convenient way for me to pay for it, and I'll fork over the cash. This is not rocket science.
From this standpoint, I really like what Patreon is doing. I support a dozen or so content creators on that site, because it's easy for me to do. I go there, get the content they produce with no advertising, and I throw them a few dollars every month/video/podcast/etc. for their troubles. My social contract is between myself and the people producing content that I'm interested in. It doesn't include aggressive digital carnies trying to abuse me and scam me out of money standing between myself and the content creators.
They can even be marketed as 'more secure wifi routers' and I bet people will buy them.
I highly doubt that will happen if they cost any more than the insecure ones. Most non-techie people I know use the router that their cable company bundles with their modem. They connect to free wifi everywhere, no matter how dodgy it is. I watched someone the other day having issues with the "Starbucks" free wireless in a coffee shop which was not Starbucks, and nowhere near a Starbucks.
Most people are terrible at interneting, and cheap as hell. They're going to buy the cheapest router, and they're going to connect the dodgiest IoT things to it. If you want to make a dent, legislate that the telecos have to provide properly secured routers with monthly security updates, with idiot friendly UIs. That will impact more people than just having more expensive routers available.
I have stopped going to CNN because of how shitty their site is. It's been a shitshow for a long time, but the auto-pay videos and related scrolling issues were the absolute last straw.
It's a little quirky and sometimes requires you to hit play twice or advance the time 1 second to make a video start, but I much prefer that to autoplay. (The advance 1s quirk may also be related to my adblocking - quite possible it's waiting for an ad to load which never will.) Works on most websites.
I disagree completely. Ads need to be obtrusive to be effective. If they don't steal your attention away from what you were doing, than they are not doing their job. Ads which blend into the background are not ads that anyone wants to pay for. It was demonstrated a long time ago that subliminal advertising doesn't work.
There are no ads which are unobtrusive, and there never will be.
I'd really like to support the sites I like by allowing their ads through.
Not me! If I'm on a site I'm there to enjoy the site, not have that enjoyment interrupted by parasites trying to separate me from my money. If I like a site enough that I value it, I'll give them money if they set up a convenient way for me to do it. What I won't do is allow them to use virtual carnies to distract me from why I'm there in an attempt to get my money. That's a really asshole way to run a business.
Between the malware, auto-play shit, overlays, content jumping around the page, and simple breaks in the content I'm actively trying to consume, I see no reason to see any ad ever. They are almost all abusive in one way or another, and websites need to figure out another way to keep the lights on. The core of the web is that my device gets sent content, and it figures out how to display it. I choose not to display the ads, and until everything is app-ized, that's the way it's going to stay for me.
People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you.
You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.
Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.
You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs.
Philosophically, yes. But practically, it comes down to the money, benefits, and working environment.
I'm in the second worst working environment I've ever worked in right now. I'm in cubeland, in an isle of 6 which is in a row of about 14, which is in a column of about 8 or so. Under fluorescent lights, away from windows. That's about 700 people in this giant rat-maze of a floor. The bosses get cubes with walls to the ceiling, and that's about the best you can do around here.
Why do I stay?
Decent pay, the building is walking distance to everything I want in a little city, and the benefits are better than any I've ever had. On top of that, I've got great freedom in my job, I don't punch a clock, and if I want to piss off and walk 5 min to one of the dozen pubs around here, I can.
Just because you're in a shitty working environment doesn't mean it's not worth being there, or that you could do better. I don't think I could. I could get paid lots more, but I'd have to pull 60-80 hrs per week. I'd have to work somewhere far more remote than I work now. A decent set of headphones is a very reasonable trade-off for all the other benefits of my job. FFS, I blew off work at 3pm today to go sit in the shade on the patio at a pub and drink a few beers, because it was 80F, sunny and breezy, and everything was pretty dead at work. I'll gladly wear headphones half the year for that sort of benefit!
You've got the wrong headphones. You'll save your hearing and your sanity if you get the right ones.
I have a fairly cheap $20 pair of earbuds with a thick rubber insert, and they do wonders for dampening the world around me. As a side-effect, I don't need my music up very loud, and you can't hear it from 2' away when I have them in. If I can accomplish that with a $20 pair of earbuds, you should be able to do the same with a more expensive (and likely more comfortable) set of headphones.
If you can hear them and they can hear your music, your headphones suck. Make everyone's life better by finding the right pair.
Well, maybe if the summary had even mentioned who the fuck she was it would be a smidge closer. Other than the Atlantic, I had never heard of any of the players in the summary. Great journalism!
No, you asshole, I don't like twitter because it's a shit-shotgun to the brain, and it hinders meaningful communication. It does nothing I'm interested in that isn't done better elsewhere.
FFS, my master's thesis title is more than 140 characters, and my adviser and I went back and forth on it for WEEKS trying to get it as short as possible while retaining enough essential information that it was meaningful. If I can't even type out the title of something I worked on for a few years, how the hell can I have a meaningful discussion on that topic?
On a semi-regular basis I see some blog or news article somewhere regurgitating someone's "important" tweets formatted: (1/16) [130+ characters] (2/16)[130+ characters] etc, etc.
If you have to split your idea into 16 different tweets, at what point do you realize that you've picked the wrong medium to communicate in? For a lot of people, that answer is never.
Your post here is 3 tweets of information. My reply is 13. This is communication. And it was done largely grammatically correctly, without abbreviation, emojis, reaction gifs, and hashtags. Twitter absolutely sucks for communication.
If I want a news feed, I'll use the rather reliable RSS feeds that I've been using for decades now. I don't flit from topic to topic like a hummingbird on crack, so I subscribe to pretty thoughtful, deep feeds. Does Twitter have these? Yes. But I don't want them firehosed at me with asinine commentary and hashtags, mixed with retweets of random shit. I want well organized topics of interest resting in folders waiting for me to have the time to check in on them.
If Twitter can do neither of these things well, what's the point? I'm shocked that you don't understand why we don't understand Twitter.
Not that I'll ever get anywhere near that rich, but if I ever got even 0.01% that much money, I'd be retired and running a philanthropic organization. I just don't understand how you keep accumulating money at that point without feeling like the greedy asshole you are. You're and your family are set for life. Now let another 1000+ families get set for life instead of hogging it all.
Honestly, how do you accumulate more than say $5 million without intense guilt for how much excess you have, and how many people could be helped with the money you're hoarding? $1 million? Maybe not quite enough to retire on, especially if you have to pay your own health insurance. $5 million? Without even investing you could take a $100,000 annual salary for 50 years. That should be good enough in most parts of the US to live very well.
But beyond that? I just don't get it. I think I'd feel like a tremendous asshole for hoarding that much wealth.
My siblings and I are close to an order of magnitude more well off than our parents, based on a bit of hard work, and a bit of luck. They have associate degrees and dad is a one-man-shop, and mom worked 20 hrs a week once we were all in school. They managed to get 8 college degrees in 3 kids on well below the median household income. I'd have to do some math to figure out how close to the poverty line we were back in the day, but my guess would be probably in the 200% range.
Hard work on our parts and some good work ethics helped a ton, but looking at the kids we grew up with, we had some serious advantages that they didn't. We had a stable household with minimal substance abuse problems. We didn't have anyone in and out of jail in our immediate family. We didn't have any chronic health issues. As dad was self-employed, we didn't run into lay-offs or wage reductions. If he needed more money, he'd work more. When work got thin he'd branch out and barter things that he'd taken in trade instead of money when he had a good amount of work.
We all took out student loans, but dad and scholarships covered more than 50% of our undergraduate degrees. We all paid them back by our late 30s, because dad was all about not living in debt, and we got that mindset from him. So a family of fairly poor kids suddenly are upper-middle class, which is an amazing change for our family.
When I look at how much didn't go right for a lot of my childhood peers, I realize how lucky I am. Expanding that to the ultra-rich, and it's clear how a bit of luck can utterly change your life. Dad got a bonus and invested in the right company at the right time. Mom inherited a run-down property just before a building boom in that area. A business partner gets a giant contract, and needs someone ASAP, and you just happen to be going golfing with them. Your college drinking buddy gets his dad to invest in his startup, and he makes you a partner.
If you're super rich, it would likely be an ego-buster to have to admit that you just got lucky. Which is, as you noted, how we get things like "Women Who Work".
Ideally scientists in all the different fields would use the statistics that make the most sense for their specific study
I think astronomy is a great example of this. You can spend years trying to find similar enough observations to compare, and often it's just not close enough to draw high-P-value conclusions from. It doesn't mean the observations are worthless - they may well hint at some new concept. But it takes decades to really pin things down, because the universe is a very large place, and our technology still needs time to improve. The alternative would be to never publish astronomical research, because it doesn't meet an arbitrary P value. It's not like a particle accelerator where you can just run it for another couple of weeks and get more data.
The "inventors" are adding nothing of value to the process. They are just parasites. That doesn't change just because they work at a university.
What? What do you think a university research foundation will do with that money? WARF isn't taking this cash and paying out some hedge fund with it. That money goes back into funding university research. You know, like the research which created this patent in the first place.
As far as I can tell, this is a sterling example of the system working as it actually should. 1) Grad students and professors do cutting-edge research, taking the risks. 2) Industry uses this research to produce commercial products. 3a) Industry is required to licence the patent but doesn't. 3b) Judge says, no, you need to pay up. 4) University gets a cut of the profits to fund more research. 5) Patent expires and the world can use the idea for free.
Apple could have licensed the tech for far less, but they decided to just keep using it, even after being informed of the infringement. For a company worth billions and billions of dollars, not a bad thing to get a slap on the wrist and being forced to divest some of their cash and reinvest it back into basic research.
Almost anything you can imagine is already patented.
Which is why you need to spend some time doing patent dives in the area you're doing cutting edge research on. I'm pretty sure that Apple has people who's job this is. And I wouldn't be surprised if they knew of this, and either tried to slip under the radar, or made a gamble that what they were doing was dissimilar enough that a judge would let them do it.
It's like you think the university and the students doing research there are the big bullies, and Apple is some small innocent child. I think you've got it backwards.
One good way to train such a model would be to give out surveys where people rate the relative importance of things.
That's likely not going to get you anything useful. What it gets you is a survey of what people think is best for them. And they're not right a lot of the time, because few people are investors and visionaries. Most people are short-term practical people.
As an example, traffic is getting worse and worse in my little city. Everyone is talking about how we can improve the roads and highways, we're widening some, improving intersections at others, but nobody is really talking about public transportation. What we need are a couple of light rail lines from the growing suburbs to downtown and the job hubs. That would likely fix a lot of the traffic problems. But that requires people to think longer-term, and rethink how they go about their daily life.
Instead of spending 25 minutes, now 30, now 35 minutes in the car commuting, they need to think about catching a 5 min bus ride, then sitting and checking email for 20 min before getting off near work. But that's far harder to wrap your head around than "I wish I could shave 10 minutes off my drive to work". Survey people, and they want less traffic congestion and a better drive to work. That frankly can't happen without public transportation, but nobody wants that.
Worse than your worse makes it out to be. Most of the hard sciences use metric for just about everything. Physics, chemistry, bio, etc. But engineering often still uses imperial measurements for everything, because engineering stems from design and testing, not first principles, and the design and testing was done a century or more ago. So you'll find slugs and foot-pounds in engineering courses taught on the same campus as the physics classrooms where the same students will be using kg and newtons.
The good news is that most of the decent brewpubs I've found in the US serve "imperial pints" which are the ones you'd be familiar with in the UK. With the rise of craft beer, it's not uncommon to find a nice assortment of glassware in any decent establishment, from imperial pints to tulips and snifters.
Well, yeah, because there wasn't a market for commercial supersonic engines before this. Of course all the development went into subsonic ones! If NASA makes a plane that can go supersonic quietly, the engine development will follow, as there will be money in it.
What everyone seems to be missing is why Musk and others fear strong AI: If it happens, it's going to be a lot smarter than we are.
For the last 10,000 years or so, we've been by far the most dominant species on the planet. We've hunted just about other species, some to extinction and, later on, captured them, bred them, and put them on display for entertainment. We did these things because we were the smartest. Not the strongest, fastest, greatest in number, nor any other thing. Because we were the smartest.
This is why I think it's worth being a little afraid of AI. If and when we make strong AI, we won't know what it's thinking or doing, or why. The same way a gorilla doesn't quite understand the thunk of a tranquilizer dart and waking up in a cage. We'll be that lion pacing around, watching its prey watch it, not understanding how it got into this situation. Or we'll be the dodo.
It is highly plausible that an AI could slowly establish itself until it had functional control.
I doubt this very much. That would require human level intelligence. What's more likely is that the first iteration which does this is noticed and stopped. The second iteration will figure out what it needs us to do to give it control, and then will set up a situation where our response will be that thing, but we'll be responding to something else. Because it will be smarter than us.
Yeah, how is this even a story? Before I had good notification tools, anything that popped up something useless got deleted. Now that there are decent notification and permissions tools in Android, I just lock everything down as needed. Other than Google Play services, which cause apps to throw all sorts of weird errors when you don't allow it access to your mic, location, and body sensors, most apps fail gracefully when not allowed access to a resource.
Developer shits on own code. Fork it before the ad insert, and keep using it. If you really need it to do your job, either take over the fork, or hire someone else to do it. Is this really rocket-science? And how does this undermine open source? Clickbait headline.
Slashdot Mirror
Or you can have most of the really bad combinations removed so you have a almost guaranteed chance of having a normal healthy child.
If you live in a first world country, and have money.
While I don't disagree that this is potentially awesome for humanity, the problem is that we don't have a social structure that won't severely disadvantage a large subset of the population. When the well-educated and well-off don't need to suffer the financial penalties of chronic disease and disability, they will further the gap between themselves and those poor people who do.
There will always people too poor or too "principled" to gene edit, and who will instead suffer disproportionately more disease and disability. This has all the potential to become the next major driver of wealth and power disparity in the world.
Push to lock screen? If so, god that's awful, and no wonder browsers are so bloated.
Because you're the sort of coked-up monkey that's addicted to push notifications interrupting every waking moment and keeping you up at night. It blows my mind how pavlovian some people are.
Well, I'm revising my resume to indicate that I'm a fake person, so there's that. It's going to make me stand out from the crowd, that's for sure.
Wasn't there an article about how they sped it up just a day or two ago? I'm guessing that they needed to take that step forward so they could take these two back. It's all part of their master plan to slowly sink into oblivion.
I posted pretty much the same thing a thread or two below. I'm a decade and a half into an all-out war with advertising. And outside of a few apps on my phone, I'm largely winning. If you want my money, interrupting what I'm doing, pissing me off, and begging for it is not the way to get it. Bogging down my computer and infecting me with malware is definitely not the way to do it. Provide a product I want and a convenient way for me to pay for it, and I'll fork over the cash. This is not rocket science.
From this standpoint, I really like what Patreon is doing. I support a dozen or so content creators on that site, because it's easy for me to do. I go there, get the content they produce with no advertising, and I throw them a few dollars every month/video/podcast/etc. for their troubles. My social contract is between myself and the people producing content that I'm interested in. It doesn't include aggressive digital carnies trying to abuse me and scam me out of money standing between myself and the content creators.
They can even be marketed as 'more secure wifi routers' and I bet people will buy them.
I highly doubt that will happen if they cost any more than the insecure ones. Most non-techie people I know use the router that their cable company bundles with their modem. They connect to free wifi everywhere, no matter how dodgy it is. I watched someone the other day having issues with the "Starbucks" free wireless in a coffee shop which was not Starbucks, and nowhere near a Starbucks.
Most people are terrible at interneting, and cheap as hell. They're going to buy the cheapest router, and they're going to connect the dodgiest IoT things to it. If you want to make a dent, legislate that the telecos have to provide properly secured routers with monthly security updates, with idiot friendly UIs. That will impact more people than just having more expensive routers available.
I have stopped going to CNN because of how shitty their site is. It's been a shitshow for a long time, but the auto-pay videos and related scrolling issues were the absolute last straw.
Disable HTML5 Autoplay extension.
It's a little quirky and sometimes requires you to hit play twice or advance the time 1 second to make a video start, but I much prefer that to autoplay. (The advance 1s quirk may also be related to my adblocking - quite possible it's waiting for an ad to load which never will.) Works on most websites.
I disagree completely. Ads need to be obtrusive to be effective. If they don't steal your attention away from what you were doing, than they are not doing their job. Ads which blend into the background are not ads that anyone wants to pay for. It was demonstrated a long time ago that subliminal advertising doesn't work.
There are no ads which are unobtrusive, and there never will be.
I'd really like to support the sites I like by allowing their ads through.
Not me! If I'm on a site I'm there to enjoy the site, not have that enjoyment interrupted by parasites trying to separate me from my money. If I like a site enough that I value it, I'll give them money if they set up a convenient way for me to do it. What I won't do is allow them to use virtual carnies to distract me from why I'm there in an attempt to get my money. That's a really asshole way to run a business.
Between the malware, auto-play shit, overlays, content jumping around the page, and simple breaks in the content I'm actively trying to consume, I see no reason to see any ad ever. They are almost all abusive in one way or another, and websites need to figure out another way to keep the lights on. The core of the web is that my device gets sent content, and it figures out how to display it. I choose not to display the ads, and until everything is app-ized, that's the way it's going to stay for me.
People are taking the piss out of you everyday. They butt into your life, take a cheap shot at you and then disappear. They leer at you from tall buildings and make you feel small. They make flippant comments from buses that imply you’re not sexy enough and that all the fun is happening somewhere else. They are on TV making your girlfriend feel inadequate. They have access to the most sophisticated technology the world has ever seen and they bully you with it. They are The Advertisers and they are laughing at you.
You, however, are forbidden to touch them. Trademarks, intellectual property rights and copyright law mean advertisers can say what they like wherever they like with total impunity.
Fuck that. Any advert in a public space that gives you no choice whether you see it or not is yours. It’s yours to take, re-arrange and re-use. You can do whatever you like with it. Asking for permission is like asking to keep a rock someone just threw at your head.
You owe the companies nothing. Less than nothing, you especially don’t owe them any courtesy. They owe you. They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you. They never asked for your permission, don’t even start asking for theirs.
– Banksy
Philosophically, yes. But practically, it comes down to the money, benefits, and working environment.
I'm in the second worst working environment I've ever worked in right now. I'm in cubeland, in an isle of 6 which is in a row of about 14, which is in a column of about 8 or so. Under fluorescent lights, away from windows. That's about 700 people in this giant rat-maze of a floor. The bosses get cubes with walls to the ceiling, and that's about the best you can do around here.
Why do I stay?
Decent pay, the building is walking distance to everything I want in a little city, and the benefits are better than any I've ever had. On top of that, I've got great freedom in my job, I don't punch a clock, and if I want to piss off and walk 5 min to one of the dozen pubs around here, I can.
Just because you're in a shitty working environment doesn't mean it's not worth being there, or that you could do better. I don't think I could. I could get paid lots more, but I'd have to pull 60-80 hrs per week. I'd have to work somewhere far more remote than I work now. A decent set of headphones is a very reasonable trade-off for all the other benefits of my job. FFS, I blew off work at 3pm today to go sit in the shade on the patio at a pub and drink a few beers, because it was 80F, sunny and breezy, and everything was pretty dead at work. I'll gladly wear headphones half the year for that sort of benefit!
You've got the wrong headphones. You'll save your hearing and your sanity if you get the right ones.
I have a fairly cheap $20 pair of earbuds with a thick rubber insert, and they do wonders for dampening the world around me. As a side-effect, I don't need my music up very loud, and you can't hear it from 2' away when I have them in. If I can accomplish that with a $20 pair of earbuds, you should be able to do the same with a more expensive (and likely more comfortable) set of headphones.
If you can hear them and they can hear your music, your headphones suck. Make everyone's life better by finding the right pair.
Well, maybe if the summary had even mentioned who the fuck she was it would be a smidge closer. Other than the Atlantic, I had never heard of any of the players in the summary. Great journalism!
It's not that complicated.
True.
You didn't like twitter because your feed sucks.
No, you asshole, I don't like twitter because it's a shit-shotgun to the brain, and it hinders meaningful communication. It does nothing I'm interested in that isn't done better elsewhere.
FFS, my master's thesis title is more than 140 characters, and my adviser and I went back and forth on it for WEEKS trying to get it as short as possible while retaining enough essential information that it was meaningful. If I can't even type out the title of something I worked on for a few years, how the hell can I have a meaningful discussion on that topic?
On a semi-regular basis I see some blog or news article somewhere regurgitating someone's "important" tweets formatted:
(1/16) [130+ characters]
(2/16)[130+ characters]
etc, etc.
If you have to split your idea into 16 different tweets, at what point do you realize that you've picked the wrong medium to communicate in? For a lot of people, that answer is never.
Your post here is 3 tweets of information. My reply is 13. This is communication. And it was done largely grammatically correctly, without abbreviation, emojis, reaction gifs, and hashtags. Twitter absolutely sucks for communication.
If I want a news feed, I'll use the rather reliable RSS feeds that I've been using for decades now. I don't flit from topic to topic like a hummingbird on crack, so I subscribe to pretty thoughtful, deep feeds. Does Twitter have these? Yes. But I don't want them firehosed at me with asinine commentary and hashtags, mixed with retweets of random shit. I want well organized topics of interest resting in folders waiting for me to have the time to check in on them.
If Twitter can do neither of these things well, what's the point? I'm shocked that you don't understand why we don't understand Twitter.
Not that I'll ever get anywhere near that rich, but if I ever got even 0.01% that much money, I'd be retired and running a philanthropic organization. I just don't understand how you keep accumulating money at that point without feeling like the greedy asshole you are. You're and your family are set for life. Now let another 1000+ families get set for life instead of hogging it all.
Honestly, how do you accumulate more than say $5 million without intense guilt for how much excess you have, and how many people could be helped with the money you're hoarding? $1 million? Maybe not quite enough to retire on, especially if you have to pay your own health insurance. $5 million? Without even investing you could take a $100,000 annual salary for 50 years. That should be good enough in most parts of the US to live very well.
But beyond that? I just don't get it. I think I'd feel like a tremendous asshole for hoarding that much wealth.
My siblings and I are close to an order of magnitude more well off than our parents, based on a bit of hard work, and a bit of luck. They have associate degrees and dad is a one-man-shop, and mom worked 20 hrs a week once we were all in school. They managed to get 8 college degrees in 3 kids on well below the median household income. I'd have to do some math to figure out how close to the poverty line we were back in the day, but my guess would be probably in the 200% range.
Hard work on our parts and some good work ethics helped a ton, but looking at the kids we grew up with, we had some serious advantages that they didn't. We had a stable household with minimal substance abuse problems. We didn't have anyone in and out of jail in our immediate family. We didn't have any chronic health issues. As dad was self-employed, we didn't run into lay-offs or wage reductions. If he needed more money, he'd work more. When work got thin he'd branch out and barter things that he'd taken in trade instead of money when he had a good amount of work.
We all took out student loans, but dad and scholarships covered more than 50% of our undergraduate degrees. We all paid them back by our late 30s, because dad was all about not living in debt, and we got that mindset from him. So a family of fairly poor kids suddenly are upper-middle class, which is an amazing change for our family.
When I look at how much didn't go right for a lot of my childhood peers, I realize how lucky I am. Expanding that to the ultra-rich, and it's clear how a bit of luck can utterly change your life. Dad got a bonus and invested in the right company at the right time. Mom inherited a run-down property just before a building boom in that area. A business partner gets a giant contract, and needs someone ASAP, and you just happen to be going golfing with them. Your college drinking buddy gets his dad to invest in his startup, and he makes you a partner.
If you're super rich, it would likely be an ego-buster to have to admit that you just got lucky. Which is, as you noted, how we get things like "Women Who Work".
Ideally scientists in all the different fields would use the statistics that make the most sense for their specific study
I think astronomy is a great example of this. You can spend years trying to find similar enough observations to compare, and often it's just not close enough to draw high-P-value conclusions from. It doesn't mean the observations are worthless - they may well hint at some new concept. But it takes decades to really pin things down, because the universe is a very large place, and our technology still needs time to improve. The alternative would be to never publish astronomical research, because it doesn't meet an arbitrary P value. It's not like a particle accelerator where you can just run it for another couple of weeks and get more data.
The "inventors" are adding nothing of value to the process. They are just parasites. That doesn't change just because they work at a university.
What? What do you think a university research foundation will do with that money? WARF isn't taking this cash and paying out some hedge fund with it. That money goes back into funding university research. You know, like the research which created this patent in the first place.
As far as I can tell, this is a sterling example of the system working as it actually should. 1) Grad students and professors do cutting-edge research, taking the risks. 2) Industry uses this research to produce commercial products. 3a) Industry is required to licence the patent but doesn't. 3b) Judge says, no, you need to pay up. 4) University gets a cut of the profits to fund more research. 5) Patent expires and the world can use the idea for free.
Apple could have licensed the tech for far less, but they decided to just keep using it, even after being informed of the infringement. For a company worth billions and billions of dollars, not a bad thing to get a slap on the wrist and being forced to divest some of their cash and reinvest it back into basic research.
Almost anything you can imagine is already patented.
Which is why you need to spend some time doing patent dives in the area you're doing cutting edge research on. I'm pretty sure that Apple has people who's job this is. And I wouldn't be surprised if they knew of this, and either tried to slip under the radar, or made a gamble that what they were doing was dissimilar enough that a judge would let them do it.
It's like you think the university and the students doing research there are the big bullies, and Apple is some small innocent child. I think you've got it backwards.
*organic, sustainable coal.
One good way to train such a model would be to give out surveys where people rate the relative importance of things.
That's likely not going to get you anything useful. What it gets you is a survey of what people think is best for them. And they're not right a lot of the time, because few people are investors and visionaries. Most people are short-term practical people.
As an example, traffic is getting worse and worse in my little city. Everyone is talking about how we can improve the roads and highways, we're widening some, improving intersections at others, but nobody is really talking about public transportation. What we need are a couple of light rail lines from the growing suburbs to downtown and the job hubs. That would likely fix a lot of the traffic problems. But that requires people to think longer-term, and rethink how they go about their daily life.
Instead of spending 25 minutes, now 30, now 35 minutes in the car commuting, they need to think about catching a 5 min bus ride, then sitting and checking email for 20 min before getting off near work. But that's far harder to wrap your head around than "I wish I could shave 10 minutes off my drive to work". Survey people, and they want less traffic congestion and a better drive to work. That frankly can't happen without public transportation, but nobody wants that.
Worse than your worse makes it out to be. Most of the hard sciences use metric for just about everything. Physics, chemistry, bio, etc. But engineering often still uses imperial measurements for everything, because engineering stems from design and testing, not first principles, and the design and testing was done a century or more ago. So you'll find slugs and foot-pounds in engineering courses taught on the same campus as the physics classrooms where the same students will be using kg and newtons.
The good news is that most of the decent brewpubs I've found in the US serve "imperial pints" which are the ones you'd be familiar with in the UK. With the rise of craft beer, it's not uncommon to find a nice assortment of glassware in any decent establishment, from imperial pints to tulips and snifters.
Well, yeah, because there wasn't a market for commercial supersonic engines before this. Of course all the development went into subsonic ones! If NASA makes a plane that can go supersonic quietly, the engine development will follow, as there will be money in it.
What everyone seems to be missing is why Musk and others fear strong AI: If it happens, it's going to be a lot smarter than we are.
For the last 10,000 years or so, we've been by far the most dominant species on the planet. We've hunted just about other species, some to extinction and, later on, captured them, bred them, and put them on display for entertainment. We did these things because we were the smartest. Not the strongest, fastest, greatest in number, nor any other thing. Because we were the smartest.
This is why I think it's worth being a little afraid of AI. If and when we make strong AI, we won't know what it's thinking or doing, or why. The same way a gorilla doesn't quite understand the thunk of a tranquilizer dart and waking up in a cage. We'll be that lion pacing around, watching its prey watch it, not understanding how it got into this situation. Or we'll be the dodo.
It is highly plausible that an AI could slowly establish itself until it had functional control.
I doubt this very much. That would require human level intelligence. What's more likely is that the first iteration which does this is noticed and stopped. The second iteration will figure out what it needs us to do to give it control, and then will set up a situation where our response will be that thing, but we'll be responding to something else. Because it will be smarter than us.
And I bet it hurts you when you punch yourself in the balls too!
(I guess it's not surprising that an idiot would assume that everyone else is an idiot too. How does the author even have a paying job?)
Yeah, how is this even a story? Before I had good notification tools, anything that popped up something useless got deleted. Now that there are decent notification and permissions tools in Android, I just lock everything down as needed. Other than Google Play services, which cause apps to throw all sorts of weird errors when you don't allow it access to your mic, location, and body sensors, most apps fail gracefully when not allowed access to a resource.
Developer shits on own code. Fork it before the ad insert, and keep using it. If you really need it to do your job, either take over the fork, or hire someone else to do it. Is this really rocket-science? And how does this undermine open source? Clickbait headline.