3,746 karma · joined January 11, 2008
Literally ANYONE who moves into your old house will have access to your bank statements, credit card bills, tax forms, auto registration and who knows what else. And it will all come plaintext and unencrypted!
It's effectively mass subsidization for bad behavior at the expense of people who are altruistic. I don't see how it can be a winning strategy in the long run.
For just a second, let's set aside our hopes and idealism, because I do realize how distasteful this world view may be.
If the best hope for the environment is that altruistic people suffer a disadvantage so that everyone (including defectors who don't want to help anyone and only help themselves) can win, how is that not a strong long term advantage for anti-social behavior?
"Great, don't take that plane ride, stop burning fossil fuels. More for me until we run out! I can even afford to have more kids because I don't care how impactful they are, while you responsibly go extinct."
Feels like a losing battle, and not a fun way to lose either. I suspect that we all know, despite our hopes, that eight billion people will not decide to collectively give up their own happiness for the betterment of billions of strangers they aren't related to.
I honestly don’t understand what this statement even means.
Are you saying that recycling technology is so cheap, efficient and easily deployed that government is the only obstacle to better waste management?
If that’s the claim, it’s audacious to say the least. Where’s your evidence to back it up?
If there's a competing platform that hobbyists can tinker with, the ecosystem can improve quite rapidly, especially when the competing platform is completely closed and hobbyists basically are locked out and have no alternative.
Solar is already far cheaper than coal for new installations, and the price is still falling.
If everyone who was soliciting was like Doctors without Borders, there wouldn't be a problem. That's a worthy cause.
The problem is the scammers, not DWB. The fact that you think it's legitimate causes trying to get support that are the problem and not the scammers makes my head spin.
In the era where calling someone on the phone is cheap and highly optimized, getting a phone call is not a signal for quality.
But back in the 1980s that wouldn’t have been the case. If a human being picked up the phone and called you, you would be more inclined to listen to them, simply because you knew it was expensive for them to call and it happened infrequently. Phone spam didn’t become a thing until much later.
They will fail if they go after the highest margin customers. Nvidia has every advantage and every motivation to keep those customers. They would need a trillion dollars in capital to have a chance imho.
It would be like trying to go after Intel in the early 2000s by trying to target server cpus, or going after the desktop operating system market in the 90s against Microsoft. Its aiming for your competition where they are strongest and you are weakest.
Their only chance to disrupt is to try to get some of the customers that Nvidia doesn’t care about, like consumer level inference / academic or hobbyist models. Intel failed when they got beaten in a market they didn’t care about, i.e mobile / small power devices.
In that case, someone at high risk for HIV infection could be prevented from getting treatment because of the study protocol. The ethical solution, which the authors of the study chose, was to provide the highest standard of care as the placebo - in this case it was Truvada.
Since the treatment was actually even more effective than the existing standard of care, it was a home run success. Their conclusion is even stronger than it would be if they used a non pharmaceutical placebo, so in retrospect their decision was clearly correct.
South Africa has a double digit prevalence rate of HIV. Quite possibly many women get it the very first time they have sex, with their husband to be.
If they get it, is it just their fault and society should not make any effort to prevent that from happening or help them if they do get it?
In fact you don’t even need sugar. Carbon dioxide and water alone are sufficient. Plants produce their entire biomass using nothing but carbon dioxide, water, sunlight and trace elements from soil.
Amino acids and proteins don’t occur without life. Living creatures have the ability to synthesize all amino acids and proteins from simpler compounds.
The entire point of genetic engineering is to try to engineer people at the cellular level. A fanciful example would be modifying human metabolism to be more similar to those of birds that consume most of their calories in the form of simple sugars. Humans can't eat a diet of 100% sugar and remain healthy, but other animals can. It may be possible to change that fact, if we know how to edit our genes.
If an AI is intelligent enough and capable enough to displace a biological species, then the paradox remains. The question just becomes, why hasn’t the galaxy already been colonized by robots instead of biological organisms?
That's probably the biggest reason I think that Society (with a capital S) should rein in Apple a bit. They have a lot of power and money over the consumer, but on top of that they have no obligation to provide transparency and truthfulness. Given how dependent people are on their phones, I think it's perfectly fair for the state to step in and say that the power imbalance between consumers and Apple should be equalized a bit.
You've lost me here. How does working at a startup make it any more difficult to do this than working at a bank or hospital? For that matter, would you discourage someone from pursuing basic research at a university or a doctorate degree because that doesn't directly advance a political agenda?
So what? Why be so terrified of failure? I think it's better if kids learn to be brave, and pick themselves up in life after they stumble. Living life in utter fear of failing at anything seems like a terrible way for your children to start off life. Besides for which few things are better learning experiences than trying to start your own company.
And who knows. They might even succeed beyond their wildest dreams, as some do.
I’ve founded failed startups. I don’t regret a single one of them. I’ve worked at failed startups and big companies and I learned more and had more fun at the startups than I ever did at a big company.
The point is, if you try to found a company, you don’t have to make a billion dollars to consider it a success. In terms of personal growth it’s easily the equal of any big company job.
Everyday objects don't work like that. Saying ice cubes are cold is roughly equivalent to saying that they radiate less heat than the objects around them. If they radiated at "high intensity" then they wouldn't be cold anymore.
"A cold object that radiates heat at high intensity" is a contradiction.
People already do things like grab food from the backseat, fiddle with the music, read their texts etc.. while driving. Are they less of a risk to those around them if they have some self driving guard rails? I would argue very likely yes.
Your conclusion of “you’re bad if you do this, so don’t do it” is rarely going to change human behavior. Giving people a tool to make the behavior they already want to do much safer is more likely to succeed.
What if that actually made the exploration of their solar system easier, since once they left the gravity well of their planet getting to other planets with nuclear rockets was comparatively trivial?