The article may as well have been paid for by Monsanto-Bayer (I would not be at all surprised to find out that it was), it was so obviously tainted all the way from the fake headline onward.
Well, given that buying Monsanto apparently was a really bad deal, they are getting desperate and any last shred of ethics they may have had are going out the window.
Makes research like this even more important. If we just say, yes, we know about Dunning-Kruger, lets move on, the human race will vanish due to suicide by stupidity. There were already a few close calls and several new ones are coming up (climate, renewed risk of nuclear war, the next authoritarian catastrophe are the ones I can see).
The human race urgently needs a way to get the Dunning-Kruger sufferers under control, and in particular make sure they do not get into positions of power. Yes research in the area is still in its infancy.
There is also a secondary effect: Most politicians (and most people) cannot deal with conditional statements, risks, and uncertainty. Hence they select an absolute statement ("for" or "against") and then stick with it at all cost. That makes them hugely susceptible to being manipulated by those that crave money and power (and just do not care how much damage they do) and entirely disconnected from reality. Also, human history is full of really costly mistakes when manipulating the environment with incomplete understanding.
As to "experts", experts have to feed their families too. In fact, some companies make sure their experts are very dependent on keeping their jobs. For example, in the finance industry, they are often given access to cheap loans that are effectively tied to their jobs. And being an expert does not magically make you more truthful or honorable or ethical or charismatic or able to convince people than other people and we know how abysmally bad these other people do in that department. We do try to instill a sense of honor into engineers and scientists during education, but that is mostly window-dressing.
As a result, you can really only trust experts that do not have any specific agenda, except a general sense that the human race should advance and that conditions for everybody should get better. For example, in the consulting field (were I work part of my time), you must make sure the people you ask are vendor-independent and have no problem getting work _and_ are not infested by greedy management or ideology (which pretty much rules out all big players). If you do that, you will likely get honest experts and if you actually listen to them, you will get a good approximation to the truth. Of course, we find that about 2/3 of our customers do not like what we tell them and they do not ask us again.
And that is the other thing: Even if you have a honest, capable expert, many people will not listen, because they think ignoring the truth will make it magically go away. People honestly believe they can dispute hard scientific findings. Just look at, for example, flat-earthers. They are noting else than a religious sect, living in their own parallel universe. No number of actual experts telling the truth can reach them. And you find that mindset widely in politicians, CEOs, religion, "opinion leaders", etc.
I just trust the people that decide what to modify and how not at all. First, they will not have the best interest of the consumer at heart, they will want to maximize profits and, if they can, make people as dependent on _their_ product as they can. So the incentives are already utterly perverted. Second, they will not care about long-term environmental impact, they will care about short-term profits. With the power of modification that comes with GM, that could cause huge disasters that society (not those causing them) will then have to pay for. Now, I know that it is hard to cause such disasters. Most dangerous stuff is not viable in the field. Most modifications are small. But it just takes one instance (e.g. by a bad actor desperately trying to get rich) and we are screwed.
With that, I am very much opposed to GM food production (not research) at this time. Incidentally, this is also my main objection to the nuclear-industrial complex. It is not the tech, it is the people I have a problem with.
The proximity has to be determined by a central server. Hence the app-operators already know where everyone in debt is. The police would just need to ask for the data. Hence I conclude this is for people that the police is _not_ interested in. The only rationale I can see is instilling a sense of being hunted by fellow citizens. You know, the general sense of everybody being out to denunciate everybody that the fascists and stalinists used so much to keep "order".
Completely agree. These numbers are nonsense. And to make it worse, they are easily manipulated up to give the appearance of success or to hide severe problems.
Not that I ever feel sorry for criminals, but him getting elected was the worst thing that could have happened to them.
On some level, I find this completely hilarious. He likely thought that he was invincible now. Looking forward to him trying to pardon himself when he is up personally. He will probably make history as the worst scum to ever be a US president.
One has to wonder whether stupidity is a job requirement for these positions. Even after minimal consultations with actual experts, this person would know that this approach does _not_work.
Actually, speakers electronics are mostly rolled-up copper wire, both electrically and physically. Hence longer cables give you a loss in volume, but not in quality. You can use any cable that can carry the power transmitted and suffer not signal _quality_ degradation.
If you do bad, low-rate MP3, sure. But as soon as you use a high rate MP3, even the best experts cannot identify what is "lossless" and what is the MP3 if the tests are set up properly. Of course, any audiophile magazine will not do proper tests, they do not want to anger their disciples, after all.
Of course, IT security costs money. So what do you do when you already run a hugely profitable online gambling establishment? Right, you get stingy on IT security, so you can rake 0.00001% more cash (or so)!
Seriously, it is time for severe civil and criminal penalties when this happens, and no excuses.
Except for dynamics (which the compressed formats solve), CD audio is way beyond the quality most people can hear. For some reason, a lot of people fall for the scam and pa a lot of money for things that do not at all improve audio quality, like this one here, audio cables for hundreds of dollars, or even very expensive audio-Ethernet cables (which is so far beyond stupid it is staggering). I am sure this scam will also be able to separate victims and their cash.
Indeed. Security is _hard_ and expensive. A level of security where most or all relevant attackers will just go elsewhere can be reached but it takes real effort. And it takes experience, KISS and using pen-tests, potentially bug-bounties (that are higher than what scum like the NSA feeding bug-traders offer), secure architecture and design, having security-aware coders, external security-reviews of architecture, design and implementation, etc.
Expect secure coding to be at the very least to be about 2x as the slap-dash insecure messes usually rolled out these days.
Slashdot Mirror
The article may as well have been paid for by Monsanto-Bayer (I would not be at all surprised to find out that it was), it was so obviously tainted all the way from the fake headline onward.
Well, given that buying Monsanto apparently was a really bad deal, they are getting desperate and any last shred of ethics they may have had are going out the window.
Makes research like this even more important. If we just say, yes, we know about Dunning-Kruger, lets move on, the human race will vanish due to suicide by stupidity. There were already a few close calls and several new ones are coming up (climate, renewed risk of nuclear war, the next authoritarian catastrophe are the ones I can see).
The human race urgently needs a way to get the Dunning-Kruger sufferers under control, and in particular make sure they do not get into positions of power. Yes research in the area is still in its infancy.
There is also a secondary effect: Most politicians (and most people) cannot deal with conditional statements, risks, and uncertainty. Hence they select an absolute statement ("for" or "against") and then stick with it at all cost. That makes them hugely susceptible to being manipulated by those that crave money and power (and just do not care how much damage they do) and entirely disconnected from reality. Also, human history is full of really costly mistakes when manipulating the environment with incomplete understanding.
As to "experts", experts have to feed their families too. In fact, some companies make sure their experts are very dependent on keeping their jobs. For example, in the finance industry, they are often given access to cheap loans that are effectively tied to their jobs. And being an expert does not magically make you more truthful or honorable or ethical or charismatic or able to convince people than other people and we know how abysmally bad these other people do in that department. We do try to instill a sense of honor into engineers and scientists during education, but that is mostly window-dressing.
As a result, you can really only trust experts that do not have any specific agenda, except a general sense that the human race should advance and that conditions for everybody should get better. For example, in the consulting field (were I work part of my time), you must make sure the people you ask are vendor-independent and have no problem getting work _and_ are not infested by greedy management or ideology (which pretty much rules out all big players). If you do that, you will likely get honest experts and if you actually listen to them, you will get a good approximation to the truth. Of course, we find that about 2/3 of our customers do not like what we tell them and they do not ask us again.
And that is the other thing: Even if you have a honest, capable expert, many people will not listen, because they think ignoring the truth will make it magically go away. People honestly believe they can dispute hard scientific findings. Just look at, for example, flat-earthers. They are noting else than a religious sect, living in their own parallel universe. No number of actual experts telling the truth can reach them. And you find that mindset widely in politicians, CEOs, religion, "opinion leaders", etc.
And that is just the problem: Greed makes people blind. (Well, more blind that they are already as a matter of routine.)
I just trust the people that decide what to modify and how not at all. First, they will not have the best interest of the consumer at heart, they will want to maximize profits and, if they can, make people as dependent on _their_ product as they can. So the incentives are already utterly perverted. Second, they will not care about long-term environmental impact, they will care about short-term profits. With the power of modification that comes with GM, that could cause huge disasters that society (not those causing them) will then have to pay for. Now, I know that it is hard to cause such disasters. Most dangerous stuff is not viable in the field. Most modifications are small. But it just takes one instance (e.g. by a bad actor desperately trying to get rich) and we are screwed.
With that, I am very much opposed to GM food production (not research) at this time. Incidentally, this is also my main objection to the nuclear-industrial complex. It is not the tech, it is the people I have a problem with.
Thanks. That does make sense.
The proximity has to be determined by a central server. Hence the app-operators already know where everyone in debt is. The police would just need to ask for the data. Hence I conclude this is for people that the police is _not_ interested in. The only rationale I can see is instilling a sense of being hunted by fellow citizens. You know, the general sense of everybody being out to denunciate everybody that the fascists and stalinists used so much to keep "order".
Completely agree. These numbers are nonsense. And to make it worse, they are easily manipulated up to give the appearance of success or to hide severe problems.
Indeed. 25% is pretty extreme from its effects. In addition, 25% is at best a short-term estimate. Long term it will be far, far worse.
Can't it be both? Sure, it takes somebody utterly blinded by his own light for that, but Trump seems to qualify.
Not that I ever feel sorry for criminals, but him getting elected was the worst thing that could have happened to them.
On some level, I find this completely hilarious. He likely thought that he was invincible now. Looking forward to him trying to pardon himself when he is up personally. He will probably make history as the worst scum to ever be a US president.
Gates said that? Wow, I thought he never said anything smart. Turns out he did.
Actually, the article specifically discusses indications why the gum disease is likely the cause and not just an effect.
And likely nobody else.
One has to wonder whether stupidity is a job requirement for these positions. Even after minimal consultations with actual experts, this person would know that this approach does _not_work.
There is a trove of sites with "hard" data that the earth is flat. Cui bono?
Actually, speakers electronics are mostly rolled-up copper wire, both electrically and physically. Hence longer cables give you a loss in volume, but not in quality. You can use any cable that can carry the power transmitted and suffer not signal _quality_ degradation.
Yes, right before they pulverize ;-)
Yes, that is pretty funny.
If you do bad, low-rate MP3, sure. But as soon as you use a high rate MP3, even the best experts cannot identify what is "lossless" and what is the MP3 if the tests are set up properly. Of course, any audiophile magazine will not do proper tests, they do not want to anger their disciples, after all.
They do not. The only thing making a difference is your imagination.
So you think audiophiles are not idiots? Are you one of them?
Tube amps are cool for a lot of reasons, but audio quality is not one of them.
Of course, IT security costs money. So what do you do when you already run a hugely profitable online gambling establishment? Right, you get stingy on IT security, so you can rake 0.00001% more cash (or so)!
Seriously, it is time for severe civil and criminal penalties when this happens, and no excuses.
Except for dynamics (which the compressed formats solve), CD audio is way beyond the quality most people can hear. For some reason, a lot of people fall for the scam and pa a lot of money for things that do not at all improve audio quality, like this one here, audio cables for hundreds of dollars, or even very expensive audio-Ethernet cables (which is so far beyond stupid it is staggering). I am sure this scam will also be able to separate victims and their cash.
Indeed. Security is _hard_ and expensive. A level of security where most or all relevant attackers will just go elsewhere can be reached but it takes real effort. And it takes experience, KISS and using pen-tests, potentially bug-bounties (that are higher than what scum like the NSA feeding bug-traders offer), secure architecture and design, having security-aware coders, external security-reviews of architecture, design and implementation, etc.
Expect secure coding to be at the very least to be about 2x as the slap-dash insecure messes usually rolled out these days.