I do not share your quasi-religious physicalist beliefs. And, incidentally, neither does Science. The question is open. The problem is in your side. You are not much better than a flat-earther.
However, the close Science looks, the more mysterious intelligence and consciousness become.
Proving that the ignorance you can find in one person is really unlimited. I fear, though, that he is not that much more ignorant than the average person, just more stubborn.
At that time, publications were judged on importance and soundness. Not this "all must be positive" bullshit that currently rules scientific publication.
While I agree, this has the limit that you also need some positive results. How do you publish an important negative result when you have nothing else?
Funny. I am going on 50 and I am still coding as part of my job. Sure, it is advanced stuff and sure, I am also a security expert and consultant (BTW, dirty secret: most of those cannot code at all, same as most of them have no sysadmin or network admin skills), and I am taking full consulting rates for coding. But the customers I do this for are pretty happy because they actually failed to find a cheap, young coder to do that stuff for them and the quality and extras (like documentation) I deliver are a bit better than what they usually get from coders.
The problem is that 30 year old coders routinely still do not have enough experience to do the advanced stuff. Many still struggle with coding itself and forget about understanding systems, networks or security. The other problem is that most coders are just bad and should not have gone into the field in the first place.
Just say "I am a programmer that uses a very fast and highly optimized language that needs advanced skills to master". You will not get anything more across anyways, trying is a waste of time. Even coders in, for example, Java, do not get what C gives you in speed and control, and what, on the other hand, it demands in actual understanding.
There is preservation of the species in the genes? Does not look like it...
I think this stops at "tribe" level, basically the same as the limit of (tenuous, but somewhat there) insight into how things work in the average person. The average person is a moron that understands basically nothing. And then you have those below average and not so much above. Basically 90% of the population has no clue what is going on.
As "AI" is basically a marketing lie (there is no intelligence in machines and it is unclear whether that is even possible), artificial stupidity is all that is available. And even here, Humans are superior.
The danger comes from people manipulating things that are supposed to be true, like video recordings of political figures.
The only danger there is that actually genuine recordings may not be recognized as such. People will just assume "fake" after the first few ones have proven to be.
In the future, there could be many more solo "movie creators" who would, by his/her own effort, create an entire movie. Much like writers writing up a whole novel. It will take out all the middle man like the movie studio. This can only be good for humanity.
Indeed. And music creators can do impressive scores all by themselves. Still requires the creativity and insight as before, nothing will change in that regard. Although as to movies, quite a few "AAA" productions seem to lack that creativity and insight as well. For example, after reading a few reviews, I am not even tempted to view the latest Star Wars movie. It seems to basically be a B-quality generic action flick with some Star Wars decor and references. I can do without that.
I am sick and tired of these bullshit announcements. Usually, you just find somebody that wants to get rich without actually contribution to society or some "journalist: that wants a cheap story. Basically nothing of these predictions comes true in the time-frame announced, if ever.
Indeed. That is an utter fail. Well founded and reasoned negative results are immensely important. At the same time, they are almost impossible to publish. This is damaging science as a whole to a large degree, because everybody has to repeat the failures.
An entirely predictable result from "publish or perish". People publish a lot of irrelevant, marginally incremental and generally boring and worthless papers.
Because actual traders (not the amateurs currently pushing the Bitcoin bubble) know what a bubble is and know that Bitcoin is pure hot air and extremely high risk. Sure, they also fall for bubbes, but not when it is this blatantly obvious. So no, "Wall Street" does not have a trust issue here. They just see what is.
No. The point of the prescription is that wearing contact lenses without regular checks is dangerous. With them, it is very safe, but some complications can creep up on you slowly and when you notice yourself, it is too late. One is that contact lenses reduce the flow of oxygen to the eye. Usually not a problem, but in some cases that means blood vessels start to grow into your lenses. The check-up will catch that early, before you have any impairment. When you notice yourself, the damage is done.
This is still not a reason to require a prescription, as idiots that ignore clear warnings can do damage to themselves in various ways, but it is a reason to have those checks done.
You need that eye checkup to make sure you do not have blood vessels grow into your lenses because of poor oxygenation. When you notice this yourself, the damage is permanent. The check-up is not really expensive. Do yourself a favor and have it done 2 times a year or so.
Lenses can do serious damage to your eyes longer term. Glasses can just give you a headache. The main problem is that the lens in the eye gets its oxygen from the tear-fluid that wets the eye. With a lens in between, that is less and if the oxygen drops below a certain level, blood vessels start to grow into the lens. That causes permanent damage unless caught early. So have a check-up every 6-9 months to be on the safe side. It is not expensive. For me, it is about 20% of what the lenses cost. And my optician actually gives me slightly better prices on the lenses as the cheapest online offer in addition.
Actually, there are some possible complications with contact lenses that creep up on you and that is why you should have your eyes checked every 6-9 months when wearing them. It is not about the strength, it is things like blood vessels starting to grow into your eye lenses because of insufficient oxygen and things like that. The damage is irreversible, but mostly irrelevant when caught early. That is what the tests are for. The adjusting of the strength is also good, but a lot less critical.
Actually, no. The problem is that in some cases the eye does not get enough oxygen and then blood-vessels will grow into the lens. That does permanent damage. Hence you should have a check-up at a qualified optician every 6-9 months or so to catch this (and some other possible complications) early. Overall, if the lenses fit your eyes well, there is no irritation and you do the regular checks, contact lenses are a very safe product, but if they do not fit well and you ignore problems, things can go very wrong. Still no reason to _require_ prescriptions, just to add warnings to the instructions.
You can just buy contact lenses without any prescription. Sure, they come with serious warnings, and the occasional rare moron damages their eyes, but all in all, this works pretty well. And it keeps opticians honest with regards to the prices they charge for check-ups and lenses. So either the US population in general is too dumb to follow instructions and heed warnings or this is a scam to keep prices high. Possibly both.
Slashdot Mirror
I do not share your quasi-religious physicalist beliefs. And, incidentally, neither does Science. The question is open. The problem is in your side. You are not much better than a flat-earther.
However, the close Science looks, the more mysterious intelligence and consciousness become.
Proving that the ignorance you can find in one person is really unlimited. I fear, though, that he is not that much more ignorant than the average person, just more stubborn.
You may be able to sell that as a "survey" paper, but it would probably still be difficult to get it published.
At that time, publications were judged on importance and soundness. Not this "all must be positive" bullshit that currently rules scientific publication.
While I agree, this has the limit that you also need some positive results. How do you publish an important negative result when you have nothing else?
Indeed. These are utterly perverted incentives.
OK, lets start with a simple question: Why do we build machines?
Hahaha, fail! You have lost them already. Most people do not grasp what a "machine" is.
Funny. I am going on 50 and I am still coding as part of my job. Sure, it is advanced stuff and sure, I am also a security expert and consultant (BTW, dirty secret: most of those cannot code at all, same as most of them have no sysadmin or network admin skills), and I am taking full consulting rates for coding. But the customers I do this for are pretty happy because they actually failed to find a cheap, young coder to do that stuff for them and the quality and extras (like documentation) I deliver are a bit better than what they usually get from coders.
The problem is that 30 year old coders routinely still do not have enough experience to do the advanced stuff. Many still struggle with coding itself and forget about understanding systems, networks or security. The other problem is that most coders are just bad and should not have gone into the field in the first place.
Perl has a formal semantics? I think you are confused my friend...
Just say "I am a programmer that uses a very fast and highly optimized language that needs advanced skills to master". You will not get anything more across anyways, trying is a waste of time. Even coders in, for example, Java, do not get what C gives you in speed and control, and what, on the other hand, it demands in actual understanding.
There is preservation of the species in the genes? Does not look like it...
I think this stops at "tribe" level, basically the same as the limit of (tenuous, but somewhat there) insight into how things work in the average person. The average person is a moron that understands basically nothing. And then you have those below average and not so much above. Basically 90% of the population has no clue what is going on.
As "AI" is basically a marketing lie (there is no intelligence in machines and it is unclear whether that is even possible), artificial stupidity is all that is available. And even here, Humans are superior.
The danger comes from people manipulating things that are supposed to be true, like video recordings of political figures.
The only danger there is that actually genuine recordings may not be recognized as such. People will just assume "fake" after the first few ones have proven to be.
In the future, there could be many more solo "movie creators" who would, by his/her own effort, create an entire movie. Much like writers writing up a whole novel. It will take out all the middle man like the movie studio. This can only be good for humanity.
Indeed. And music creators can do impressive scores all by themselves. Still requires the creativity and insight as before, nothing will change in that regard. Although as to movies, quite a few "AAA" productions seem to lack that creativity and insight as well. For example, after reading a few reviews, I am not even tempted to view the latest Star Wars movie. It seems to basically be a B-quality generic action flick with some Star Wars decor and references. I can do without that.
I am sick and tired of these bullshit announcements. Usually, you just find somebody that wants to get rich without actually contribution to society or some "journalist: that wants a cheap story. Basically nothing of these predictions comes true in the time-frame announced, if ever.
Indeed. That is an utter fail. Well founded and reasoned negative results are immensely important. At the same time, they are almost impossible to publish. This is damaging science as a whole to a large degree, because everybody has to repeat the failures.
An entirely predictable result from "publish or perish". People publish a lot of irrelevant, marginally incremental and generally boring and worthless papers.
No harm done.
Because actual traders (not the amateurs currently pushing the Bitcoin bubble) know what a bubble is and know that Bitcoin is pure hot air and extremely high risk. Sure, they also fall for bubbes, but not when it is this blatantly obvious. So no, "Wall Street" does not have a trust issue here. They just see what is.
No. The point of the prescription is that wearing contact lenses without regular checks is dangerous. With them, it is very safe, but some complications can creep up on you slowly and when you notice yourself, it is too late. One is that contact lenses reduce the flow of oxygen to the eye. Usually not a problem, but in some cases that means blood vessels start to grow into your lenses. The check-up will catch that early, before you have any impairment. When you notice yourself, the damage is done.
This is still not a reason to require a prescription, as idiots that ignore clear warnings can do damage to themselves in various ways, but it is a reason to have those checks done.
You need that eye checkup to make sure you do not have blood vessels grow into your lenses because of poor oxygenation. When you notice this yourself, the damage is permanent. The check-up is not really expensive. Do yourself a favor and have it done 2 times a year or so.
Lenses can do serious damage to your eyes longer term. Glasses can just give you a headache. The main problem is that the lens in the eye gets its oxygen from the tear-fluid that wets the eye. With a lens in between, that is less and if the oxygen drops below a certain level, blood vessels start to grow into the lens. That causes permanent damage unless caught early. So have a check-up every 6-9 months to be on the safe side. It is not expensive. For me, it is about 20% of what the lenses cost. And my optician actually gives me slightly better prices on the lenses as the cheapest online offer in addition.
Actually, there are some possible complications with contact lenses that creep up on you and that is why you should have your eyes checked every 6-9 months when wearing them. It is not about the strength, it is things like blood vessels starting to grow into your eye lenses because of insufficient oxygen and things like that. The damage is irreversible, but mostly irrelevant when caught early. That is what the tests are for. The adjusting of the strength is also good, but a lot less critical.
Actually, no. The problem is that in some cases the eye does not get enough oxygen and then blood-vessels will grow into the lens. That does permanent damage. Hence you should have a check-up at a qualified optician every 6-9 months or so to catch this (and some other possible complications) early. Overall, if the lenses fit your eyes well, there is no irritation and you do the regular checks, contact lenses are a very safe product, but if they do not fit well and you ignore problems, things can go very wrong. Still no reason to _require_ prescriptions, just to add warnings to the instructions.
You can just buy contact lenses without any prescription. Sure, they come with serious warnings, and the occasional rare moron damages their eyes, but all in all, this works pretty well. And it keeps opticians honest with regards to the prices they charge for check-ups and lenses. So either the US population in general is too dumb to follow instructions and heed warnings or this is a scam to keep prices high. Possibly both.