Early research in electronic computers, and early integrated circuits were driven heavily by military spending, and later gov't space exploration. Although they didn't directly invent much of it, they drove contractor R&D because they were buying.
One could say that they were created in the process of solving specific problems, like making missile electronics smaller rather than "direct" research into smaller electronics.
In that sense I agree with TFA: innovations usually come about from trying to solve specific problems. But the military and NASA were also trying to solve specific problems when computer and chip innovations came about.
Thus, it's not gov't versus private R&D, but rather how innovation comes about in EITHER.
But it's hard to know if things would be different without basic research into physics and biology. These are often helpful in explaining why experiments show what they show. If you know why something works, you have better ideas for how to improve it.
As far as patents, I agree with TFA's premise that patents are too heavy-handed.
But if I know nothing about the possible length of the line, and I consider all other possible line lengths and their probabilities, I get the feeling it just all cancels out
Again, run a little simulation with different line sizes. Most will get it approximately right using the halving rule.
because I wasn't just randomly planted in a line. In reality I'm actually the product of all the people and events in front of me in the line.
But you didn't control any of them. You're just along for the ride. Essentially, random, from your perspective.
It's premature to conclude they are allowing such in order to jack up the membership numbers.
If they only care about the bottom line, and customers with fake docs are paying their fees, then they have little incentive to do anything about it as long as a big expense doesn't come up.
Why assume a political motivation when it just may be old fashioned greed?
Quality/accuracy auditing takes money. There's usually a brake-even point where the savings from catching problems is less than the cost of auditing as more auditors are added. We'd need more info to know where the break-even point is.
I suspect it may not be a real problem as long as they check credentials when an expensive procedure or treatment is done, such as surgery or an expensive medication.
Before such, as long as the "fakes" pay their insurance fees, they are not a (significant) cost drain to the system.
In short, fraud happening on the enrollment end may not be a practical problem.
It doesn't require causality, only the assumption that we are not "special" in place and time, per all existence-pondering beings, UNLESS we have evidence we are special. We don't. (Other than knowing life cannot survive in certain conditions/areas.)
Fully 100% agreed, but what's the chance of us being that "some species"? Low.
Regarding your hat example. Assuming nobody knows what hats others got other than it's either a white or blue hat, then if you got a blue hat, it's reasonable to assume there are more blue hats than white. Sure, the white-hat guy got it wrong using our extrapolation technique. But we are not likely to be THAT guy.
No it doesn't. As I've said, we weren't sprinkled into this universe from the outside, to occupy by chance one of a finite number of species "slots". We emerged from inside the universe at whatever position in the list of intelligent species we are at. We couldn't "happen to be" first or last or in the middle or anywhere other than where we are.
This doesn't mean anything clear to me.
What's special about humans that I should only be looking at where they end up?
You'll come to the same conclusion with ANY species with enough scenario runs.
You might as well stand in a field and fret over why one particular blade of grass is here and not there.
If we were "on" a blade of grass with no other visible blade of grass nearby, it would be a statistically valid assumption that IF there are other blades of grass, they are probably similarly isolated. The majority of blades making that assumption (extrapolating their known surroundings) would get it approximately RIGHT.
If most grass is in fields of grass, then most blades will see neighbors. Those outside of such fields will get it wrong, but a given blade is unlikely be one of those. (In practice, Earth kind of has a mix.)
We don't know how the "grass grows" in our universe yet, other than our immediate vicinity. We CAN make rough statistical extrapolations based on that limited info.
Why are you using the word "only"? That's kind of loading the question up.
Note how there are FAR more people asking the question in the 7B part of the example. Yes, the 500 askers got the wrong answer. It's a statistical question, not an absolute one; some will indeed get the answer wrong. That's not a "problem".
If you looked at slices from the entire curve from beginning to end, the majority got the answer generally right using the "doomsday argument" assumption (although I don't like the word "doomsday" as explained in another section).
We are simply MORE LIKELY to be right by assuming we are NOT early.
This is rubbish because the person in question is inextricably a product of the very time they were born in
I'm not sure what you mean by that. We are product of space AND time, both future and past. The future affects the total number of ponderers.
Note that I wouldn't call it the "doomsday scenario" because there are scenarios that limit population that are not necessarily bad or cruel. Humanity may decide to stop reproducing and "upload" the existing individuals into software, for example. Thus, there would be few or no new ponderers.
That a lucky few will be the lucky few is not news.
It's as likely to be us as it is to be anyone else.
That may statistically be true, but that's a different issue. That being statistically true does not change my original statement. It's not a contradiction of it.
That's the point! There's nothing notable about us, either.
Incorrect. We appear to be "early" and "lonely", i.e. at an unusual position (if we assume our future and/or the universe is highly populated.)
It was literally bound to happen to someone
I fully fully realize that. It's just that Occam's Razor says it's more likely that something limits the future population of ponderers rather than we HAPPEN to be the early birds. Run a bunch of little simulations of different scenarios and you will eventually agree with me.
The radiation of the early universe would probably prevent more complex life. Also, the heavier elements enable much of our biology and technology, and early star systems had very little heavy elements.
Would you take that bet? Try to assume you have no emotional connection to the longer-term survival of the human race, would you take the bet that you* are simply one of the 8% early birds (versus something limits future population of ponderers)? At what odds?
* Or some other being in the same condition/knowledge
I don't get your "not themselves" argument. The average ponderer will NOT be at the edges of the curve.
Re: "Someone has to be" - True, but it's UNLIKELY that "someone" is us. I'm not saying there's any certainty, just a probability.
What are the chances of me picking that card?
No, because most likely "that card" has nothing notable about it.
whoever ended up in our "place" would be having the same thoughts.
But there would be fewer in that spot. Your swap is invalid.
then come to the erroneous conclusion that something in the future must limit it.
Why it is erroneous? The average ponderer would be roughly in the middle of any boom or population curve. They may not even consider the condition of having some neighbors a "paradox". But those hypothetical beings are NOT us.
There generally are 3 probabilistic "forces" at work (for lack of a better word): Fermi paradox, Copernican Principle, and Anthropic Principle. The early universe probably wouldn't support intelligent life and so the Anthropic Principle keeps us from directly observing it (or having a chance to).
If they were truly intelligent species then they wouldn't be going around trying to conquer each other.
Most species may be reasonably cooperative, but it takes only one or a few jerk species to ruin it for everyone else. The first "wave" may be normal species, but eventually the aggressive ones would either push their way through, or "enjoy" causing mass chaos out of habit or religion. Hitlers happen.
And I don't think our current state of space technology is a good baseline for comparison. I imagine automation will make self-sustained and self-repairing colonies much easier in the future.
And, we already have nuclear propulsion technology, we just need more practice harnessing it. After a few thousand years of practice we should get pretty good at it.
This could help explain the Fermi Paradox: we are simply early-birds. However, this then creates a Copernican Paradox: it's unlikely that we are the earliest or latest: the chance of being on the edges of the bell curve is low (or even a roughly rectangular curve). We are more likely to be approximately in the middle.
This could mean if there were a lot of intelligent species, they'd probably conquer each other. Thus, a middle-age universe would be a hostile place. A curve of universal intelligent population would thus be an initial spike and then a drop-off as aggressive species or machines spread and kill.
This would make our existence at this time less "special": we are merely part of the early population boom (spike) before nasty happens and reduces the population of the universe. Doesn't bode well for the future, though.
If the future were about humans spreading and populating the universe, we'd more likely be one of those mass spreaders (as a randomly selected intelligent being in space and time). We are not. (Hell, we may not even survive ourselves, let alone aliens.)
Better hope Copernicus is wrong and we are in a lucky or special place or time.
At first it looks like you can do wonderful things, like send messages faster than light or travel back in time. BUT when you look at the details or actually try it, there's always a catch that limits the usefulness.
Me thinks Quantum Mechanics was designed by Oracle lawyers: it looks like you got a great big powerful database...until you go to use it and find out the contract does something ridiculous like count "transaction" as each table cell read, NOT per query, filling your license quota the first week*.
Reminds me of a joke:
Q: "What's the difference between Larry Ellison and God?"
A: "God doesn't think he's Larry Ellison."
Maybe he does.
* Hypothetical example only based on patterns of more complex actual examples. Don't sue my tail off.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you know any good static-based systems?
Early research in electronic computers, and early integrated circuits were driven heavily by military spending, and later gov't space exploration. Although they didn't directly invent much of it, they drove contractor R&D because they were buying.
One could say that they were created in the process of solving specific problems, like making missile electronics smaller rather than "direct" research into smaller electronics.
In that sense I agree with TFA: innovations usually come about from trying to solve specific problems. But the military and NASA were also trying to solve specific problems when computer and chip innovations came about.
Thus, it's not gov't versus private R&D, but rather how innovation comes about in EITHER.
But it's hard to know if things would be different without basic research into physics and biology. These are often helpful in explaining why experiments show what they show. If you know why something works, you have better ideas for how to improve it.
As far as patents, I agree with TFA's premise that patents are too heavy-handed.
Wordpress has had plenty of vulnerabilities also. You just got to patch quickly when vulnerabilities are found.
Again, run a little simulation with different line sizes. Most will get it approximately right using the halving rule.
But you didn't control any of them. You're just along for the ride. Essentially, random, from your perspective.
It's premature to conclude they are allowing such in order to jack up the membership numbers.
If they only care about the bottom line, and customers with fake docs are paying their fees, then they have little incentive to do anything about it as long as a big expense doesn't come up.
Why assume a political motivation when it just may be old fashioned greed?
It's a hurricane, so we use the Sqwerty scale instead.
Is that from an "eye" witness?
Quality/accuracy auditing takes money. There's usually a brake-even point where the savings from catching problems is less than the cost of auditing as more auditors are added. We'd need more info to know where the break-even point is.
I suspect it may not be a real problem as long as they check credentials when an expensive procedure or treatment is done, such as surgery or an expensive medication.
Before such, as long as the "fakes" pay their insurance fees, they are not a (significant) cost drain to the system.
In short, fraud happening on the enrollment end may not be a practical problem.
It doesn't require causality, only the assumption that we are not "special" in place and time, per all existence-pondering beings, UNLESS we have evidence we are special. We don't. (Other than knowing life cannot survive in certain conditions/areas.)
Fully 100% agreed, but what's the chance of us being that "some species"? Low.
Regarding your hat example. Assuming nobody knows what hats others got other than it's either a white or blue hat, then if you got a blue hat, it's reasonable to assume there are more blue hats than white. Sure, the white-hat guy got it wrong using our extrapolation technique. But we are not likely to be THAT guy.
This doesn't mean anything clear to me.
You'll come to the same conclusion with ANY species with enough scenario runs.
If we were "on" a blade of grass with no other visible blade of grass nearby, it would be a statistically valid assumption that IF there are other blades of grass, they are probably similarly isolated. The majority of blades making that assumption (extrapolating their known surroundings) would get it approximately RIGHT.
If most grass is in fields of grass, then most blades will see neighbors. Those outside of such fields will get it wrong, but a given blade is unlikely be one of those. (In practice, Earth kind of has a mix.)
We don't know how the "grass grows" in our universe yet, other than our immediate vicinity. We CAN make rough statistical extrapolations based on that limited info.
Why are you using the word "only"? That's kind of loading the question up.
Note how there are FAR more people asking the question in the 7B part of the example. Yes, the 500 askers got the wrong answer. It's a statistical question, not an absolute one; some will indeed get the answer wrong. That's not a "problem".
If you looked at slices from the entire curve from beginning to end, the majority got the answer generally right using the "doomsday argument" assumption (although I don't like the word "doomsday" as explained in another section).
We are simply MORE LIKELY to be right by assuming we are NOT early.
Addendum
I'm not sure what you mean by that. We are product of space AND time, both future and past. The future affects the total number of ponderers.
Note that I wouldn't call it the "doomsday scenario" because there are scenarios that limit population that are not necessarily bad or cruel. Humanity may decide to stop reproducing and "upload" the existing individuals into software, for example. Thus, there would be few or no new ponderers.
That a lucky few will be the lucky few is not news.
That may statistically be true, but that's a different issue. That being statistically true does not change my original statement. It's not a contradiction of it.
Incorrect. We appear to be "early" and "lonely", i.e. at an unusual position (if we assume our future and/or the universe is highly populated.)
I fully fully realize that. It's just that Occam's Razor says it's more likely that something limits the future population of ponderers rather than we HAPPEN to be the early birds. Run a bunch of little simulations of different scenarios and you will eventually agree with me.
That's because they know their statistics.
The radiation of the early universe would probably prevent more complex life. Also, the heavier elements enable much of our biology and technology, and early star systems had very little heavy elements.
Would you take that bet? Try to assume you have no emotional connection to the longer-term survival of the human race, would you take the bet that you* are simply one of the 8% early birds (versus something limits future population of ponderers)? At what odds?
* Or some other being in the same condition/knowledge
I don't get your "not themselves" argument. The average ponderer will NOT be at the edges of the curve.
Re: "Someone has to be" - True, but it's UNLIKELY that "someone" is us. I'm not saying there's any certainty, just a probability.
No, because most likely "that card" has nothing notable about it.
But there would be fewer in that spot. Your swap is invalid.
Why it is erroneous? The average ponderer would be roughly in the middle of any boom or population curve. They may not even consider the condition of having some neighbors a "paradox". But those hypothetical beings are NOT us.
If Microsoft were honest, that's what their comments would look like.
There generally are 3 probabilistic "forces" at work (for lack of a better word): Fermi paradox, Copernican Principle, and Anthropic Principle. The early universe probably wouldn't support intelligent life and so the Anthropic Principle keeps us from directly observing it (or having a chance to).
Because the alternative is that we are either a rare fluke, or something unknown usually limits the duration or spread of civilizations.
Occam's Razor leads to the Fermi Paradox.
Yip! One can make probabilistic assumptions using a sample size of only one.
Statistics 102.
The hard part is making sure we are not ignoring some key factor or assumption, not so much the math.
Well, apply Occam's Razor:
1. We are "special" (among the very first), or
2. We are roughly average in time and something about the future limits the population of intelligent beings (or at least self-pondering individuals).
Most species may be reasonably cooperative, but it takes only one or a few jerk species to ruin it for everyone else. The first "wave" may be normal species, but eventually the aggressive ones would either push their way through, or "enjoy" causing mass chaos out of habit or religion. Hitlers happen.
And I don't think our current state of space technology is a good baseline for comparison. I imagine automation will make self-sustained and self-repairing colonies much easier in the future.
And, we already have nuclear propulsion technology, we just need more practice harnessing it. After a few thousand years of practice we should get pretty good at it.
This could help explain the Fermi Paradox: we are simply early-birds. However, this then creates a Copernican Paradox: it's unlikely that we are the earliest or latest: the chance of being on the edges of the bell curve is low (or even a roughly rectangular curve). We are more likely to be approximately in the middle.
This could mean if there were a lot of intelligent species, they'd probably conquer each other. Thus, a middle-age universe would be a hostile place. A curve of universal intelligent population would thus be an initial spike and then a drop-off as aggressive species or machines spread and kill.
This would make our existence at this time less "special": we are merely part of the early population boom (spike) before nasty happens and reduces the population of the universe. Doesn't bode well for the future, though.
If the future were about humans spreading and populating the universe, we'd more likely be one of those mass spreaders (as a randomly selected intelligent being in space and time). We are not. (Hell, we may not even survive ourselves, let alone aliens.)
Better hope Copernicus is wrong and we are in a lucky or special place or time.
Quantum Mechanics is a Great Tease.
At first it looks like you can do wonderful things, like send messages faster than light or travel back in time. BUT when you look at the details or actually try it, there's always a catch that limits the usefulness.
Me thinks Quantum Mechanics was designed by Oracle lawyers: it looks like you got a great big powerful database...until you go to use it and find out the contract does something ridiculous like count "transaction" as each table cell read, NOT per query, filling your license quota the first week*.
Reminds me of a joke:
Q: "What's the difference between Larry Ellison and God?"
A: "God doesn't think he's Larry Ellison."
Maybe he does.
* Hypothetical example only based on patterns of more complex actual examples. Don't sue my tail off.