PurpleBoxDragon

>What makes Google a target for litigation here?

Under laws that are selectively enforced, either drawing the ire of the ones in charge of enforcement or drawing the ire of the general public enough they pressure the ones in charge of enforcement to act. In either case, what draws ire could be actions largely unrelated to the laws themselves and may be based on actions that people generally would not support making illegal. This is a flaw with selective enforcement, and why I support ending selective enforcement.

It depends upon what the decisions made are. At a certain point it will reach the level that voters will want it to be controlled by politics, and likely the control will be tighter than if they hadn't crossed whatever line motivated voters to push for control.

The US already enforced some laws on its citizens as they travel regardless if the behavior is legal overseas. These tend to be done to actions that are deemed the worst of the worst. Minor crimes are not enforced globally.

At what point is supporting and working with China going to cross that line, given many of their current actions against unpopular groups?

>A company complying with the laws of the country it does business in seems fairly uncontroversial to me, even if you may not agree with those laws.

Depends on what those laws are. Imagine if Google was deliberately helping out with some genocide to make a dollar? And given some stories coming from China, that isn't exactly a what-if situation.

>Do you want your companies to be extensions of US foreign policy?

They have to be extensions of US morals to the extent voters don't push for them to be punished for not being so. That's a byproduct of using democracy.

I just realized I worded that poorly. I meant that games like Zelda and Metroid do support it, other games don't because there isn't much to randomize (such as platformers, given these tools generally can't create random levels, just swap item locations).

My favorite are randomized speed runs, where everyone gets the same randomized version and have to speed run it against each other. Normally these are done as real time races and the results of the randomization aren't known to the player until they start. Not all games support it (think games like Zelda and Metroid where you have to collect powerups to push get past obstacles to collect more powerups to get past more obstacles). The randomizer has to make sure the game is still beatable (so no locking a required item behind an obstacle that requires the item). It is also an area that TAS can't help and it has more to do with strategy than physical perfect button presses. Also, since every time you uncover a new randomized item it changes what is the most potential optimized path, it require a deeper knowledge of the game compared to speed running where there is normally a given optimized path that people compete against.

But what happens when we pass laws in our country that takes away the job in another when there is no realistic chance of them implementing some safety net to help? For example, when western countries put pressure on east Asian sweat shops to stop using child labor, they did, but the local governments didn't offer anything to help the children who depended upon those jobs to have enough to feed themselves, and as such many of the children transitioned into even more dangerous jobs or worse.

It would be nice if their government made up for the gap, but int he real world we have to deal with the possibilities they won't. So one has to deal with the ramifications of their choices that shouldn't and wouldn't happen in a good world but do happen in our world.

What about the time that workers were literally gunned down for not allowing themselves to be taken advantage of. Once you look at historical examples, these crazy things people are saying end up being less crazy than what historically has happened.

So, what happens when a worker signs such an agreement and it is upheld under arbitration?

>the first amendment should protect them

The First Amendment has had many exceptions made for cases the founding fathers could not foresee and even cases they could but didn't consider the long term implications of. This could be just as valid as other exceptions. It'll be up the Supreme Court to decide.

>When you have very specific lingo, it’s extremely easy to circumvent the law. You want to keep the law vague and open so you have lots of maneuver room to prosecute. This assumes you trust the government, which when compared with companies I 97% do. Bruce Schneier’s latest book, “Click Here to Kill”, makes the same point [1].

Companies don't have a monopoly on force that the government does. This greatly changes how you calculate who the law should favor. I much prefer specific laws instead of laws that are selectively applied to whomever the government decides to target, because there is a long history of showing a very evil nature in how they pick targets.

>From an economics standpoint the ideal labor force is slavery.

How so?

A happily paid worker with their own free time isn't likely to revolt and kill you. Even an unhappy worker who hates you will just quit. Is your calculations forgetting to count such costs?

And a machine that replaces a person is far far more efficient. So machines backed by human operators/fixers/etc. end up outperforming humans, and free humans will have far better education possibilities.

>From an economics standpoint there is no point to the elderly they should be killed off once they are no longer viable laborers.

You are clearly zeroing out the cost of having all non-elderly realize this will be their fate as well. That seem an arbitrary cost to zero out and makes the results of your calculations unusable.

>Children are only useful if they show potential slave labor ability

A free child that is educated has a much higher return on investment on average.

>otherwise should be killed in adolescence if there are obvious shortcomings

Once again completely ignoring the costs of taking such a course of action.

I'm not really having any confidence in your models.

>But calling that a "choice" is like saying the mafioso holding a gun to your head is giving you the freedom to decide to follow his orders.

Yes, but hunger, not Amazon, is the one holding the threat over the person, and as of yet we have not found a way to change these fundamental aspects of nature/reality. You aren't going to remove threat, you are going to just make it become realized. Think of how some areas where child labor was reduced but the reasons behind children working weren't fixed resulted in children turning to far more dangerous and illegal labor that would near universally be considered a far worse option than sweat shop work.

In general isn't it better to be given a choice instead of having a decision forced upon you? Because even if we consider from our view that one choice is worse, other people may value things differently and may be in different situations that apply different weights to the options.

If we really think that someone is too incompetent to make a choice and remove the choice from them, then don't we have some duty to help them out?

For example, I want a child to go to school, not a job, and think them too incompetent to make the decision of which is better for them. In removing the option to work, I then have a duty to support them if they were needing the job to live (which is done by specific welfare for children or their parents).

What about the photons that penetrate your clothes and then bounce off your skin? Am I free to capture those and do with them what I wish? What about applying the same to the photons bouncing off your child?

But you can never really know if A causes B or not. You can only create models, some that have A causing B and others than only have them correlated, and get rid of models as you find contradicting data.

What actually causes a ball to drop to the ground when I release it? We don't know. The best model (that I know of) is the bending of space time, but that isn't the real answer and may one day be overturned just as the older idea of mass attracts mass.

I guess the question is, are we sure enough of our model to be able to trust the airplane isn't going to drop to the ground like the ball does, and how do we achieve equivalent certainty in the biological sciences.

>what are you goals?

I'm personally a fan of the 'make a better model to have a better model and let someone else figure out the application' model, but that one is harder to get funding for.

>correlation without any strongly proven causality

How would one really prove causality or does it even matter. When I think of science, I try to think of it like how I think of physics, where we create a model that best describes the evidence but which doesn't have any guarantee of being how things really work.

Take Newtonian gravity. It is a pretty good model that describes a lot of basic interactions. Given a state at a given moment in time, it lets us determine things going forward or backwards (though for more complex physics, backwards stops working because of assumptions and estimates in the model). But at the same time, it is wrong. More complex physics shows there is a model that fits even more experimental data which contradicts what we thought was happening in the Newtonian model. Mass doesn't attract mass. Mass bends space time and impacts objects traveling through it in such a way that it appears mass attracts mass (though even this may end up being wrong and something else entirely is at play).

So, is it really important to describe why a ball falls to the ground when I release it, or is it good enough to have a system that describes the interactions enough that I can apply it to problems? If I solve a problem, say what angle and what speed I need to throw a ball to get over fence, does it really matter if I think the ball falls back to earth because mass attracts mass or because mass bends spacetime? Or is it just important for my equations to be accurate enough that any error is less than what is innate in applying the solution to real life (measuring the exact height of the fence, throwing at an exact angle).

What does applying a similar mind set in something dealing with vastly more complicated systems, such as in medicine, looks like?

>It seems to me you just have to run your NN on pairs of doctored and undoctored images, and create a separation of concern between scene continuity and object recognition.

This may fix this problem, but what other visual issues will we uncover that might be fixable with the right kind of training but which we haven't yet accounted for.

For example, we see so many optical illusions because of how our eyes and brain (and the neurons between them) work. These are often times caused by our sensation or perception incorrectly picking up data, but on purpose (well, as much purpose as an evolved system could have). For example, how neurons in the eye exaggerate differences in brightness or how we are overly sensitive to perceiving faces so that we see them even where they don't exist. What impact does the lack of these have on an artificial vision system? For starters, it would likely indicate the system wouldn't recognize the optical illusion unless trained for it, but are there any other impacts that we need to take into consideration, especially when considering having human lives depending upon the system?

>who are not trained to recognize the general category of mammals / animals

Does such a human exist? Other than perhaps someone blind from birth who had their sight restored, I don't think you could fine such a person give how conditioned we are to recognize animals, perhaps even on a biological level. Closest I can think of is animals that are camouflaged, and I think we would see many humans making mistakes on those. I've definitely have, especially with regards to insects that look like plants. But those animals specifically evolved to throw off predator detection systems.

Perhaps the first question we should answer is if our closest primate relatives have this same behavior among their adolescence? Especially given to what extent adolescence is a social construct and not biological (which seems to clash with the idea this is found to happen in all societies, probably an interesting point to look more into).

Their business model is that they sell papers (or access to a website, or get ad views).

They can do this by reporting facts, but generally it is easier to do this by reporting stuff people want to read, which includes facts and non-facts and things that may or may not be factual. This also generally involves summaries which aren't factually true as they drop relevant details, but which are close enough that people tend to tolerate them (see any reporting on a scientific paper ever).

Also, an "an anonymous source said X" could be factual, but the implication is that X has some level of truth when the only known fact is that in reference to that X was said by an anonymous source.

I see economics in the same place as psychology and sociology. There is real science, but the results are so impactful to politics that the science cannot withstand the political pressure generated by those who want to treat these as political tools instead of scientific fields of research.

>we throw the so called "law" of supply and demand into the garbage bin

This is like throwing away the law of conservation of energy because you found a perpetual motion machine instead of checking inside the machine for batteries.

For example, are we considering how the impact of workers too scared or financially unstable to leave their current job impacts supply? Or how outsourcing jobs, hiring people who can't legally work, and other such changes impact supply?

I don't think it is solved because any solution needs to be very long term, and having politicians or even much of the population care about the long term is not a solved problem.

Nuclear power gives us far too much ability to borrow from tomorrow to pay for today, same as with coal. That's why it is, in practice even if not in theory, not an adequate solution to our energy demands.

>public fear from misinformation

Or just a different view on risks.

The risk is much lower, but the worst case is much worse. In my personal view it is far better to use alternatives whose worse case scenario is nowhere near as bad, such as solar, wind, and geothermal.

So they basically have an armed militia stealing from civilians, with the protection of the government. How did we handle this last time?

>If you want to go off on flights of fancy, then anything is possible, but there's no way to say anything useful about it.

I would guess, though I could be completely wrong, that a civilization that both had access to far more advanced 'sci-fi' level technology and wanted to broadcast it's existence would also have an understanding of the technology other civilizations would have access to and would choose to broadcast using numerous 'ancient' technologies that more privatize civilizations could pick up on.

When we sent probes out into space to broadcast ourselves, we realized we couldn't just write a message in English and as such tried to send numerous different ways of conveying information, some linguistic and some not.

It shouldn't be. If anything, it should be treated as theft and the towing company treated accordingly.

Have the individuals involved charged with auto theft and have the entire company seized under civil forfeiture since they are making money off of auto theft. Basically give the company the same treatment that a poor minority would get by the legal system if they tried the same.

Also allow the use of force in defense of property wrongfully seized.

And as long as you aren't of the wrong demographic. Laws that are selectively enforced allow racism and sexism to flourish among the police. In consistent enforcement of a law should be a valid defense of violating the law, and a very cheap one to employ.

>I may be naive in saying this, but I believe the law is made with good intentions in mind.

I disagree. This law was made with the intention of being selectively enforced. This is never a good intention.