3,201 karma · joined May 22, 2012
Previously worked on Augmented Reality (founded Mira)and did VC at Nvidia
josephpmay AT gmail.com
Part of this is that analog vs digital isn’t the right term. Vacuum tubes are completely irrelevant to the point he is trying to make, and confuse the reader.
The point he’s trying to make (which unfortunately I’m unable to explain right now better than he can) is about the emergent properties of systems made up of independnt entities in a rigid form and how this is a type of computing that differs from what we usually think of as computing. The example he have about DNA vs the brain sort of gives an example of this. DNA is coded similarly to computers, and in many ways cells are like computers/programs (that happen to self-propagate according to their software). On the other hand, brains are this other type of “system” computer made up of a combination of independent actors (neuron cells), a regidid but adaptable structure (the physical structure of the brain), inputs, and information sent between the individual actors. This is very similar to a million computer-regulated human systems where we react to information we receive through the platform, and we relay our reaction to the system, and that reaction affects how the system interacts with other individual actors.
But I've also learned a limited amount about the Chinese moral perspective in college, and it can be a useful exercise to examine how someone who doesn't have a Judeo-Christian/Locke moral framework may view this practice.
In some ways, the harvesting of organs from political prisoners can be viewed as the trolley problem. Killing one political prisoner (an 'undesirable' in Chinese society) could save a number of lives of upstanding citizens.
The practice disgusts me personally, but I can see a reasonable argument in support of it.
*not in a therapeutic setting
If a bomb goes off in a subway train or bus, the people in that vehicle die. If an airplane crashes into a building, significantly more people could die.
https://www.vision-box.com/solutions/travel-and-border-contr...
I understand and agree with the fear of it being a slippery slope. I'm concerned about facial recognition becoming a regular part of surveillance in everyday life, and I hope that there is legislation around this TSA rollout that strictly prohibits their database from being used for non-airport related purposes.
Here's how the system is designed to work at full implementation. This is based on a briefing I had about 6 months ago, so I imagine it's still along the lines of what they're planning.
You get to airport security with your cary-on. You walk up to a kiosk to scan your face. When you booked your flight, they essentially did a background check on you, and if it was clean you just walk through to the terminal, with minimally-invasive scanning that doesn't require any stopping or removing anything from your bag.
If something did come up on your background check (mainly a conviction for a violent crime or a pattern of information that suggests possible ties to terrorism... one of the TSA's goals behind this system is do screening based on suspicious activity rather than profiling) you go through what essentially is the TSA experience today.
I’d probably do it. They’re open about what data they collect and what they use it for, which is better than many of the websites I use