comrade_ogilvy

I would argue that many more people monitoring can encourage the fear of making the wrong call. "Hey, someone smarter and more experienced than me should makes sense of this." "Hey, the smart new guy is supposed to be watching this. I will look more closely later."

What you want is two or three people really in charge, where the individuals are empowered to say: "I am totally confused. If someone cannot explain what is going on to me so that I understand, I am starting shutdown procedures, immediately. Do YOU know exactly what is going on?"

Yours is the correct viewpoint: it is incompatible with human cognition.

If an alert system is not perceived as highly reliable in directing positive action, then the humans involved will inevitably disable the alert system, either by pulling out a screwdriver or rewriting their mental rubrics to ignore the messages as noise.

Knight Capital is just the finance version of Three Mile Island and Deepwater Horizon -- the means to mitigate or prevent disaster were on hand, but the people in charge just dithered by the kill switch because they were confused. Well, if the people in charge are confused, that is a reason to start the emergency procedures.

These are pros who are paid very well to have a clue. It is not silly if "acting stupidly" is described in writing, such that all parties adequately understand when the hammer is likely to come down. I am sure a lot of traders push the envelope and "drive 71 in a 65 mph zone". But it still not silly to give the guy driving 81 a ticket.

>It seems to me that these kinds of discussions tend to conflate forced government surveillence with voluntarily giving your information to other people (such as Facebook).

They are inexorably linked together, but we must speak precisely.

If the gov't convinced Facebook to sell its archive of data to the NSA for $1, would it be okay? Because the law as it exists says, yes, FB is free to sell its corporate intellectual property to anyone including the NSA. Ditto Mastercard. Ditto AT&T. etc. etc.

We have no guarantee of privacy simply because nowhere is it written that we any legal right to privacy. Maybe the problem is not solvable. But trying to solve this as simply a gov't that needs a better kind of leash is surely a doomed effort.

Yes, the act of making an apology will be perceived as implying that the speaker is more than willing to help improve the situation, regardless of how we got there, thus what you said.

>> I'm surprised that you agree w/ the conclusion of the review that segregating talent into higher and lower achieving groups is bad.

>I think it's bad too, and here's why: The teachers & staff in charge of the less-performers will do less to help them. Won't push them as hard. Generally just not care(as much). I think it's better for the under-performers to see the strong-performers and understand those kids are not magically-smarter, they just work hard and it's completely possible for the under-performers to be like them if they try to mimic their study habits.

The error is labeling children to put them into tidy categories. Whether the 9-year-old is two years behind in math or two years ahead in math is still taking the mindset that the children are like farm animals we should measure with "calipers" and compare to others in same age segregated litter.

What is important is that their existing skills are correctly assessed, and then the appropriate lessons provided to move forward. The only reason people are graduating from HS without solid skill in arithmetic is they are being pushed forward on a relentless educational conveyor belt. The basics should have been mastered when they were 9 or 10 or 11.

>"We need to get class-A performance up to get more funding or raise our GPA average so our Class-A looks better to those affluent parents to send their kids to! Hmm, billy & mandy aren't too bright and are lowering the average. We could help them to be better, or we could just move them to the Class-C group; thus eliminating their scores from Class-A's GPA average."

In the real world, the opposite is more likely to be true. Why a student is a high achiever is, from the school's point of view, largely a mystery -- 99% likely it has everything to do with the parents and very little to do with the school itself. The school is capable of shoving many, many students through a standard curriculum. That suggests shooting for near the median and ignoring both the low and high outliers.

"Enforcing a low ceiling" is a very bias conclusion, with no logical support provided here.

The school system as we know it is a mass education "factory" system. There is and always will be cracks for students to fall through. Furthermore, it is not clear that the system ever served top students very well -- I emphasize issues around the "ceiling" is not actually new.

How to deal with those cracks in the system is a complex topic. But that hardly matters for purposes of this discussion because...

The school system is under intense pressure to produce results in the form of standardized test scores. What are they supposed to do? They focus on inching up the scores of those below the median, of course.

That has exactly nothing to do with "enforcing a low ceiling". The school system simply no longer cares about the brightest students, while the taxpaying voters are clamoring for those average test scores to climb. Individual teachers would love to care, but they are generally not allowed to until those scores go up first.

What is likely to be true is the pharmaceuticals will allow a conscious choice among a menu of tradeoffs, on a daily basis.

Such tradeoffs might be possible now, for those with sufficient discipline, but switching between very different ones is too hard.

>>What assumption does atheism make? None.

>Atheism makes the assumption there is no God (read creator).

>Creationism makes the assumption there is a creator.

No. You are using the word "assumption" incorrectly.

In the scientific sense, I am using both the hypothesis that the creator exists and that the hypothesis creator does not exist to interpret the data of the world, comparing the results, and choosing the one as being more logical and likely. I assume nothing, though, being an inherently imperfect being, I recognize I must make some educated guesses to interpret the data before me -- but that is necessary for employing either hypothesis in the real world.

In a subtle sense, one could say that any hypothesis is a "working assumption" or a "tentative assumption". But, no, it is not the same as a just plain "assumption" as found in any dictionary.

It may be true that some people cut this short this process by making assumptions from the get go. But that is not intrinsic to atheism. Arguably, it is not even intrinsic to theism.

Thanks for all the info!

It seems possible that torturing animals for days on end could be fatal to the victim. I hesitate to suggest to try adding doses of sleep to this diabolic regimen, for fear it would be attempted.

It is not the neurons themselves, but the the glial cells that keep those very large and (potentially) active neurons healthy. Presumably the glial cells must partially shut down in order to physically shrink, thus the neurons must notch down their activity as well.

Probably not. If a lot of energy is being used in the clean up process, then the need for sleep is most likely driven by the physical advantages of sleep, not the advantage of using less energy or similar.

Note this quote: "Cells in the brain, probably the glial cells which keep nerve cells alive, shrink during sleep. This increases the size of the interstitial space, the gaps between brain tissue, allowing more fluid to be pumped in and wash the toxins away."

Neurons are powerful cells that are so active that they cannot even keep themselves healthy. The glial cells are there to help. If the glial cells are shrinking and (presumably) partially shutting down in order to efficiently clean out the brain, then sleep is an efficient engineering solution -- you are trading off having a super-active brain for ~16 hours at the cost of a less effective brain for ~8 hours.

There may be less efficient solutions that allow for 24 hours semi-wakefulness, we might be able to tune the total activity of the brain down for continuous operation, but being in a groggy half-asleep state all day is probably not what you were hoping for.

Heck, how to classify even existing living and breathing specimens is not always clear. Genetic sequencing has resolved some, but not all, such questions.

Fundamentally, there is no obvious and unambiguous definition of "species". It is a functional definition that is highly useful, but it is not exactly predictive is every case under the sun. There will always be confusion on the margins, because the natural world is sometimes messy that way.

But those are not any kind of axiom, because neither is a self-evident or clearly correct version of truth.

Two poor examples of an axiom are not "on the same level" as axioms.

>Either of those axioms requires an assumption, and once you make such an assumption, everything else is filtered through that lens.

What assumption does atheism make? None.

From the cosmologists' point of view, it is not clear that the cause of our observable universe need be available to our study within that observable universe. There is no assumption being made; it is simply an unanswered question, about which we are unsure we will ever have a useful answer.

False equivalency.

It was only the House Reps who were claiming the moral authority to hold a gun to the head of our economy, in order to squeeze concessions that they cannot possibly win by any normal legislative procedure.

Senator Reid could choose to do so. He does not, because it would be stupidly disruptive to create a crisis for a debt ceiling.

Your examples demonstrate the point, because the Persians, Arabs, and Mongols did not conquer in the colonialist model common to Western powers.

The closest would be the rapacious Mongols, who burned much and built little. That is not exactly colonialism either.

The Arabs did not really have any kind of empire to call their own until the Caliphate, and that was not colonial conquest either.

The ancient Persians invented the concept of empire, and were greatly influenced by the benign tendencies of Zoroastrianism. They preferred light taxes and light tribute, and good roads to promote trade. (For a point of comparison, when the great and mighty Rome's legions attempted to elbow in on the remnant on the Persian empire, the Parthians, the legions were utterly annihilated. Rome learned its lesson.)

>The leverage you can get is fantastic, and the interest payments are generally similar to what you'd be paying in rent anyway.

Careful.

The interest payments are only one piece of the puzzle, albeit a big one. A renter does not need to pay maintenance/upkeep, taxes, and (sometimes) utilities.

For a single family home, these later items could be in the ballpark of $1000 per month (sometimes less, sometimes more).

Not really. That is not intrinsic to the reform movement. That is the educational system responding to political pressure. The reformers have to play the game by the rules as they exist in the moment. If the standardized cookie cutter test results become the coin of the realm, then every kind change will be justified by test results, whether the proponents think that is a useful idea or not.

While a radical departure from the old school methods, Montessori is not intrinsically "progressive". It is built on the idea that there is a clear curriculum with the very big difference being children are primarily responsible for choosing from that menu of options, trusted that their own interests are an adequate guide.

Someone who definitely falls outside the progressive reformers would be John Holt, yet he passionately argues along similar lines as what Kubrick is saying here.

Holt: "... the human animal is a learning animal; we like to learn; we are good at it; we don't need to be shown how or made to do it. What kills the processes are the people interfering with it or trying to regulate it or control it."

By modern definitions, Holt is not even exactly "homeschooling". More accurately, he advocates what would be called "Unschooling" -- the idea that home life observing adults is a more than powerful enough motivator for young children to acquire basic skills.

Right. Actually doing the exercise or actually eating the vegetables is at worse a minor nuisance, that on most days has enough immediate positives that it is self-reinforcing. Once we have the running shoes on, we probably find ourselves happy with the choice 30 minutes later some 99%+ of the time. Ditto the clean vegetables sitting on the counter.

The problem comes at the "meta" level, bargaining with ourselves whether we feel like going to the gym, so we hem and haw over putting the shorts and shoes on. Allowing this self-bargaining process to become involved is adding mostly negative emotional energy in a way that does not pay a useful dividend.

Presumably the relief valve has value in cutting short certain kinds of excuses. "Fine. If I am outside with my shoes and gear on, I do not have to go to the gym. Just getting the shoes on is easy enough, right? Once I am outside, maybe I will want to stroll around the block. But I can decide that once I am outside and ready -- no sense in dawdling now."

Bingo.

Bill Gate entered the upper class based on birth. His own efforts brought him yet higher. But Bill Gates proves exactly nothing about how hard working people move into the upper class, because he never ever did so himself.

If it only applies to 1 in a million, it is not even demonstrably useful information about the upper class itself.

From a matter of plain definitions, Bill Gates started in the upper class from the moment of his birth. His circumstance did not require him to work a single day, in order to live comfortably for his entire life; ergo, he is upper class.

It may be true he rose from "upper class" to "very upper class" based on 99.9% his own achievement, but it is a non-argument regarding the ossification of the aristocracy in general. Guessing about the other 99% of the aristocracy based on the particulars of the most extreme 1% of the aristocracy is not logical.

The beauty of a systems approach is that it takes vastly less willpower. It is very counter-intuitive to most people: "Gee, doing that every day, that sounds so hard. I can barely get exercise twice a week; therefore exercising every single day must be much harder." Nope. Quite the opposite.

Hard is deciding every day whether you feel like going for a walk by arguing with yourself over whether you will feel better afterwards. That is effort spent with no satisfying payoff.

I don't get the complaint either.

It is comparable to white rice in preparation time and comparable to brown rice in flavor and nutrition. As someone raised on lots of rice at the dinner table, I think it puts rice to shame.

No, it is not truly a simple substitute to a sophisticated foody, there are positives and negatives, of course.

And it is pricier. Let's not kid ourselves. Most of us to actually cook at home are saving so much money relative to typical American eaters, that the price point is completely irrelevant. If you not eating 20 home cooked meals a week, do not talk me about price. (Yes, I do eat 20 home cooked meals some weeks.)

Some people seem very impressed with themselves for dismissing quinoa as trendy. But I know food well enough to decide for myself, and quinoa is a very attractive addition to my pantry.

That's nice, but the problem is that "selling out" has strong pejorative connotations, while being completely vague.

Does Bill Gates have a positive moral duty to all those "stakeholders" employed at MS, until the day he is carted onto his deathbed? Obviously not. What would that duty actually mean in concrete terms? I have no idea. In fact, at some point, trying to hold on and control the company is in the disinterest of stakeholders, as Gates' personal interest and abilities wane.

TFA is pretty vague too. I do not sell anything particularly wrong with selling a company at 10% of what you could have gotten several years later. A "measly" 2-3 million dollars in a bank account buys you a lot of freedom. Diminishing marginal returns means that another 10 or 20 or even 30 million buys you less happiness than you might think.

It does not work that way. The finite Easy Oil is the proverbial tip of the iceberg. The price point just trends upwards after the relatively easy material is successfully mined/drilled -- there is plenty more, it is just harder and harder to get to.

There is a small amount of oil that can be pumped at less than $10 per barrel. There is a moderate amount of oil that can be pumped at $20 per barrel, and that will disappear in the foreseeable future. At $50 per barrel, there is a lot of fossil fuel material. At $100 per barrel, there is vastly more. At $200 per barrel, we do not know because no one will care until the 23rd century, but the problem will probably be the environmental damage, not the availability.

I have often wondered if the CO2 is really the most dangerous ecological experiment we are applying to this planet at this point in history. It is, after all, a plant nutrient that eventually goes away over time. 3.5 billion years ago this planet was covered with methane and O2 was a trace poison to most existing life, until plant forms devoured the carbon and farted out O2 we all love. We are doing many kinds of "terraforming" on a planet wide scale, and CO2 is but one example.

But to effectively retool our economy requires a non-CO2 source of abundant power. I am not sure that nuclear as we know it now would fit the bill, because of the various construction and infrastructure costs. Using less is probably more practical then re-inventing nuclear power (iteratively improving nuclear power would still have value).

Well, for one thing, the "impossible" comes with large error bars and thus is difficult to trust, even those trained in the sciences (or, perhaps, ESPECIALLY for those trained in the sciences). At least the pragmatic buys time, if nothing else.

>For example, if the skies of tomorrow are filled with inexpensive drones, it's grossly cost-ineffective to fight with long range guided missiles.

Perhaps. But human dogfighting skills will prove even more worthless in that future, relative to the guided missiles.

Keep in mind that even if the tenured faculty of yesteryear do not disappear, the numbers are likely to not do better than flat.

Consider the numbers...

A successful professor, who brings in the grant money, can supervise 10-30 graduate students towards their PhDs over the course of their career. Others will supervise fewer, but that is because the money is scant.

The bottom line is that if you are not obviously one of the top 10% students of your program, you are second string. Half the first string players are having trouble finding a professorship. What are your odds?