99052882514569

>how can we find 1.5t in the budget

Central bank ≠ treasury.

>How does this exonerate him if he has no lawyer to go thru the procedural efforts?

Because police would likely not even contact him in the first place once they see that there's nothing extraordinary about his movements.

I am of the opinion that the very concept of commissioned sales is cancerous, because of the obvious perverse incentives it sets up. Whenever I am forced to buy form commissioned salespeople (car, furniture/mattress, insurance, interacting with an 'advisor' at my bank), I can never take that salesperson's advice at face value. I always wonder if I'm the mark in some institutionalized or just regular straight-up con. I will (and sometimes do) pay extra to avoid the feeling of needing a shower after such 'interactions'.

>It might be the case and even likely that Hohn does not achieve the first step, but if he can convince a few large investors the effect will be much bigger than 5.01%.

No, not a few. Most.

>If "just", say, 10% jump on board, what then?

Then it'll make little or no difference.

>Your argument does not show that it won't go up, but only that it won't go from 5% to 15% but rather find some balance at, say, 8%. Mission accomplished, coal is now at a disadvantage compared to what it was before.

Or it will settle at 5.01% due to the fact that a middle eastern sovereign wealth fund or two will be bigger than all investors who sign up to this scheme put together.

>And considering that coal is not doing well (and thus has to offer higher rates), much of that money will be invested elsewhere. Sure, some will still be invested in coal but less than it would be if you didn't do that.

But that has nothing to do with global warming or ethics of coal. It's mostly due to natural gas becoming so much more economical, which is mostly due to the shale gas revolution. It's a huge benefit to the planet, but mostly an incidental one. Of course politicians and energy companies will still use it to pat themselves on the back very very publicly.

>This type of argument pops up often: "but there is a small counteracting effect, so it will balance out to not do anything". No, it does not work like that.

Depends on the scale of the pro-acting effect. My guess is that the effect of 'ethical investment' due to ethics/global warming alone, and not due to fundamentals of energy markets that have to do with prices of natural gas, will be close to zero. If I'm wrong, it'll only be because a majority of investors who would have otherwise invested in coal (important distinction) jump on board this campaign, or close to a majority.

It's self-correcting. At 6%, more interest will be shown by other sources of funding, who will then enter the game and lower the interest rate as a result.

The world is awash with capital right now, money sitting around idle, looking for a place to be invested. Just look at how much money is being thrown at startups, how low interest rates are for countries who were bankrupt or on the verge of bankruptcy <10 years ago. This scheme is guaranteed to fail right now. Maybe in another credit crunch it has a chance?

I don't recall any anger. Hacker News is in the 'focus on facts' phase of responding to mass panic, and I believe we won't move on to the 'resignation' phase anytime soon.

If it inconveniences a lot fewer drivers than the number of cyclists and public transit users who benefit, then it's a clear-cut and uncontroversial net win, isn't it?

>people with disabilities, older people with problems with walking, pregnant women

Are precisely the kinds of people less likely to be able to drive. Accessible and convenient public transit is a better option for them, provided of course that it's accessible and convenient throughout their journey - that means sidewalks, intersections, transit stops, building access, etc.

If families with 4 kids don't need a vehicle at all, it's a huge financial benefit for them. Here in Canada a mini-boat on wheels large enough to accommodate such a family is friggin' expensive. Cities tend to have free or very cheap tickets for kids, so if you can get away with doing commutes by transit and have a Corolla for weekend errands and groceries that you don't have to shove all 4 into, you win $1000s every year.

King St. in Toronto is a kind of hybrid project[0] where cars have local access, but must turn either right or left at a bunch of intersections. On-street parking is gone. It's been a resounding success specifically for local businesses, which is interesting (and not surprising to me, but opposite of what you say happened in Chicago). More comparable climate to Chicago too.

[0] https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning-development/...

It's you. That half the world has no better healthcare system than Iran is a sad reflection on the state of healthcare in world, not an implication that Iran's dilapidated and overstretched healthcare system\* is a good one. Combine that with their authoritarian government with zero communications skills and no credibility due to being habitual liars, and we should place no stock in their reassurances/projections, and very little stock even in their hard-to-fuck-up stats like # of deaths.

\* I should say this is anecdata, based on comments by several Iranian friends and acquaintances.

These numbers have been revised substantially upwards in the last few decades. I think the estimates were closer to 10-15 million in early 2000s.

I don't think that calling the numbers unreliable implies incompetence or even worse, malice, on the part of the reporting country. It's simply difficult as shit to come up with reliable stats on something very new in the middle of an outbreak. Think of how many people aren't even noticing that they have the virus, and thus will never be counted as infected. This is just as true in Milan or California as it is in Wuhan. All numbers are noisy and subject to substantial revision. It is, however, quite clear that this virus is not as serious as SARS or especially MERS. It can still kill millions if it infects hundreds of millions though, so that's just a comment on whether you, individually, should worry about getting it.

Asking if it's 'bad' is an excellent starting point for an ethics discussion. It reveals pre-existing biases and emotional responses to a topic, which must be taken into account as a pre-requisite to any rational discussion. You cannot get dispassionate without first examining the passions.

They tried the drug using brother, that didn't work out too great. So they decided to go with the drug dealing brother[0] instead.

[0] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/globe-investiga...

Yep, add a layer of salt in winter and the plates are often completely, 100% not readable even if you're standing 2 feet from them in broad daylight, leaning over to try to discern the characters.

It's not legal. Your plates have to be legible. But much like many other portions of the Traffic Act, it's unenforced, so it's not really a "law" per se, more like a suggestion.

Stickers that didn't even stick right (very poor adhesive). This from a premier who ran a sticker and decal company.

That's immaterial, because your potential adversary isn't going to want to find out what your nuclear rules of engagement really are. Possessing nuclear weapons raises the threshold for putting the invasion on the table quite dramatically. And if there is a war, nuclear weapons limit its scope quite quickly.

Just think of how many Indian and Pakistani lives have been saved because the two countries stepped back when shit was about to get real. Like, three times now. All because of nukes. Unless one of them truly commits to invading and losing millions of lives, their wars are guaranteed to peter out as border skirmishes.

I don't see how normalizing or not normalizing it will have any effect whatsoever on its proliferation. No country acquires nuclear weapons to actually use them. Instead, it is (rightly) viewed as a great deterrent/insurance against being invaded and overrun.

Or drop charges. This is clearly a what-if that's been taken into account, the implication being that these people either are in fact military intelligence or otherwise very valuable, or don't exist at all.

You are guessing that they are guessing, and don't in fact know that. Your opinion has the right to exist, but I'll choose to believe that they identified actual military intelligence officers using methods they're not going to tell us about, to send a strong message to China (whether these specific officers are guilty of these specific offences is immaterial, the outing itself is the message).

I think their point is that with such a high reproduction number, the impact of anyone slipping through is amplified so much that reduction in travel alone will not do much to stop the spread.

You're being a little hard on the Bible.

>The cost savings comes from the fact that instead of having to hire independent auditors to verify the paper trail, the blockchain serves as an immutable audit log and can be verified programmatically.

I don't know enough about the financial industry to know if a real actual problem is being solved here. I do assume that any bank in this industry is already required by law to keep a record of all transactions, and that it's all digitally processed and stored. You'd have to hire an auditor to verify the blockchain software too, and even on the ongoing basis, to audit the infrastructure to make sure it hasn't been improperly modified.

>Domain knowledge, while useful is not a necessity - I'm fine with contacting a specific domain expert for help and even pay for his or her services(with my own money at that),

Nah, it's the other way around. Specifically in this domain, innovation is definitely driven by domain experts (researchers, medical equipment manufacturers), and they contract out or hire technical expertise as they need it.

>To put it as question: do I really need to explain how open source works in theory and practice on a place like hackernews?

Your definition of open source is much too narrow and does not include what these researchers meant by it.

>Especially given that most of the world's infrastructure in practice runs thanks to the collaboration of millions who have built most of what we use in their "spare time" as you call it.

Certainly not in medicine.

>Same applies to DNN's(if not more so) - take any large DNN with the papers, data set and code to the author and ask them to give an explanation as to why it works as well as it does while it performs terribly on a different data set, even a similar one. "Well yeah, it's curve fitting which works here but doesn't work there". Why? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You've identified the precise reason why all this "machine learning" stuff has been such a dud when it comes to medicine. That is not good enough and never will be, particularly the "works so well on the dataset you overfitted on while performing so terribly on other datasets".

>My rant concerns a different problem - if you have such data and you want to share it, just go ahead and do. 1 of every 10000 might do something useful with it but we aren't talking about nuclear experiments where something can blow up, are we? Worst case scenario someone's cpu or gpu might overheat, big deal. Just ditch the entire bureaucracy crap, we have enough of that as it is in our daily lives.

They spell out the reasons for requiring a data sharing agreement in the data sharing agreement itself. They want you to cite it, they don't want you to sell it, they want you to confirm that you understand you're getting a dataset with no warranties, FDA approvals, etc.

And as I said before, the chances of you doing something useful with it may be 1/10000, but the chances of you doing something useful with it while not being motivated enough to sign a simple agreement and wait for the download link is essentially 0.

That 8-point "General Interference with Organizations and Production" list sounds like ~50% of city councillors on every council in North America.

>Yes, a dataset like that would be very interesting and I would happily play around with it for a few weeks and see what I can come up with.

Spare-time tinkerers aren't really the intended audience here:

>>The neuro data set will allow researchers to test their models with data from additional machine types, new sequence types, and different coil configurations that were not present in the previously released fastMRI knee data set. Radiologists also look for different diagnostic properties (such as contrast in texture between different neural tissue) in brain MRIs. These differences present an interesting and challenging machine learning problem to solve and will help researchers develop models that generalize to more clinical settings.

It's unlikely in the extreme that anyone in that audience will be stopped by a simple data sharing agreement. And it's also unlikely in the extreme that anyone outside that audience will know what to do with a bunch of raw k-space MR datasets. Domain knowledge is an absolute necessity with this data.

>It could start erasing a ton of subtle abnormalities and this would not be possible to check for since the original scan will be lower quality.

Radiologists are notoriously conservative for that very reason. Dreamy-eyed image processing and computer vision researchers have been trying to get radiologists to abandon some of their caution for many decades. All in vain. "Hard pass", they say most of the time. The dream usually doesn't get as far as their malpractice insurers, but it certainly dies there if it makes it that far.

Haha "yet". Removing human doctors from the process is sci-fi, and not really 'hard' sci-fi either, as it stands now. Lawyers and CEOs will be far easier to automate.

Rather than dreaming about that, the focus should definitely be on "clinical decision support", i.e. "something useful that will save a radiologist some time and won't just get in the way". Not too many examples of that exist right now. Even speech-to-text is not a solved problem in their domain.

"IIRC the vast majority of the cost of an MRI is the amortized cost of the imager"

This is certainly false for clinical MR imaging in Canada. The biggest component is the cost of interpreting the scan, i.e. the radiologist's time.

"regular full-body MRI scans for preventative healthcare could be feasible."

What's the point? What are you looking for? What is the false positive rate on that? Screening for the sake of screening is a mirage[0].

[0] https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/a-skeptical-look-at-screeni...