59 karma · joined September 7, 2023
But I've never seen the gate, and don't have strong views on biblical accuracy.
Antibiotic Resistance from the Farm to the Table. September 11, 2014. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/from-farm-to-table.html. Accessed September 14, 2015.
https://www.who.int/news/item/07-11-2017-stop-using-antibiot...
ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE—LINKING HUMAN AND ANIMAL HEALTH https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK114485/
Much of modern medicine depends on antibiotics. The above resources give clear and compelling evidence that overuse of antibiotics in livestock is associated with increases in drug-resistant infections in humans.
This strategy, if followed by enough people, massively reduces traffic stress. It may also reduce travel time, but honestly the difference is likely just a few minutes each way.
Yes, I've driven in cities that play by the "we are in it together, let's work together to get us all out", and cities that play by "any advantage I can get regardless of the cost to others".
Problem is, once enough people start playing the selfish game, the equilibrium breaks and everyone has to go selfish.
that's how you kill a society. Kill the social contract, the care for your fellows, one form of interaction at a time.
Depends. If the profit is in more expensive housing, than private enterprise will bias towards that and ergo be less efficient at building lower-margin "affordable" housing.
Ideally, in a perfect frictionless economy populated by spherical cows, yes, private enterprise will more efficiently allocate across the entire spectrum of market needs -- so in principle, I'm agreeing with you.
But spherical cows make lousy roommates.
In an easily searchable database?
Sooo tempted to go Goodwin here and mention a nice use of computers from the late 1930s...
The real public school horror story is that today, in America, a "good school" is defined as one where your child won't get shot.
I leave the rest of the rant as an exercise to the reader.
Public schools in countries where schools are treated well have phenomenal success.
US schooling has been taken over (at the level of the state legislatures; blame goes to state Congress not to the schools) by companies selling "achievement" test. And also by charter schools whose success is based on only selecting high-achieving problem-free children?
Why do teachers say they are nothing but babysitters? Maybe because they aren't allowed to teach, to inspire love of learning in the children? And their classroom budgets are so tight they buy school supplies out of their own pockets, while living on an income that is close to poverty level? While facing felony charges for having the wrong book in the shelf behind their desk???
When things like "Creme de la Creme Early Learning Center of Excellence" are real institutions instead of something from a comic dystopia, you know you have a problem.
> Also simply driving safety. Driving with just headlights causes more accidents than on a well-lit street, since visibility is so much worse.
Accepting your points for convenience, wouldn't we get the same benefits with lights that only pointed downward? And if you further restrict to warmer colors (which interfere less with low-light sensitivity, also less diffraction reducing light pollution), with a sensible but low max intensity (again keeping the human eye more dark-sensitive, allowing better visibility into the non-illuminated spaces)?
Reducing nighttime lighting by 50% would make a huge difference in sky visibility.
the cost of a clear night sky does not have to be "no technology". We don't need nearly as many streetlights, lighted signs, houselights, etc as we have.
I've lived in areas where regulation restricts lighting choices; it is a good thing.
Excess lighting is called light pollution, and it is a societal choice to put up with it. Society can choose otherwise and help us rediscover our wonder at the world.
Your comment would be very valuable to me if it included pointers to better sources. I have sufficient background to see gaps in Jeff's book, and would be interested in exploring these, perhaps through the references you seem to be aware of.
Agreed, a widespread fallacy of category.
But computers still do some pretty cool things. Powerful tools.
No, no they don't. They would love to build in-house, but are constrained in what salary ranges they can offer.
The other challenge US government faces is that they continuously get their chain yanked by congress. I've read many stories of (corporate) management incompetence over the years, but they mostly pale in relation to the ability of congress to completely change priorities and goals every 6-12 months.
Even the most disfunctional corporation has some kind of force/attraction towards having a product line with an outward semblance of consistency and cohesion.
Most people forget that the Sahara Desert is man-made. Back during the Cathigenian period, the southern Mediterranian was the breadbasket of Rome, and the land was verdant plains, antelope, hippos, rivers and streams everywhere.
So we killed it.
Agree with your general sentiment; the article headline may be a bit of clickbait.
The challenge is what arm of the government has jurisdiction for what cause of harm?
I would like to think that I will leave this world better than I found it. However, I doubt this goal is achievable. I am actively destroying my children's future, and my hoped for grandchildren's future.
I do what little I can to try to lessen the rate of destruction, but we are all part of society and all share the same guilt.
Data mining is a bit of the reverse of that.
Money is not data, it is a complex social construct. Moving money requires interacting with that social construct, i.e. government regulations.
Yes, crypto was supposed to get around that. No, government didn't agree.
That creates other issues. Volatility, for one.
The argument agrees (as do I) that it is right for the government to collect taxes, and that many individuals (including myself) should pay taxes; believe me, I like having a stable society!! -- but "income" is not a good basis.
It comes down to two things: ownership and also what government should encourage (taxes are a way of "discouraging" things by adding an additional cost).
Labor. I and only I own my labor, else I am a slave. On what basis does the government have rights to the fruits of this? Why discourage me from employing my labor to the benefit of my countrymen?
Capital. If I deploy my capital, hopefully to make other's labor more efficient, I am taking the risk. Why should the government also charge me for this? Why discourage me from investing?
Land. Ahhh, here we have something. My ownership of my land is a right granted by the government (unlike my ownership of my labor). And land is only (economically) good for rent-seeking, which is economically harmful.
Taxes on land could fully fund the government, provide the wealth redistribution which is necessary to keep capitalist economies functioning for more than a few generations, and aligns with the foundational principles of democratic governments (natural law, rights of man vs government, etc).
Prior to ~100K years ago, humans didn't innovate. The toolkit was unchanged for > 1M years (at least the toolkit discovered by archeology). Then something changed, and the toolkit updated much more frequently.
Then the neolithic revolution, we "transcended" local food supplies via agriculture.
Then the "industrial revolution" (yes, it is debatable as a concept, but clearly the ability to sustain exponential growth in tech changed sometime after 1500) let us push past the bounds of muscle power.
So if we get another "revolution" that lets us somehow trancend the next thing, we might be ok.
OTOH, there are the classic experiments with bacteria in a closed petri dish, they eat everything and die.
So yes, there are real boundaries. Question is if we can innovate around them.
Generative AI outputs the median of the probability distribution.
Yes, that's an issue with the training data (as people comment), but it is more than that. The training data will have some observations away from the median, but it will still only have one median.
To take my observation to the extreme (where it will fail), if the data is 49.999% X and 50.001% Y, then Y is the most likely output and you'll only every see Y from generative AI.
[yes, I already said that extreme was wrong because the model samples around the median not exactly the median]
I wonder how you would generalize this?
The issue is the command "draw a judge" shows a white guy 100% of the time.
if you automate prompt generation to be "draw a {gender} judge", with as you suggest the term gender has 66% chance of being "male", sure.
But how do you extend that automated prompt generation to include "draw a {skin color} judge" or "draw a {gender}, {skin color} judge".
or to occasionally generate a character from the Book of Judges.
Or Judge Dread.
Ummm, hello? so "most anomalously hot month ever" does not suggest a change in the underlying system??
Would you predict that handrails in Arizona now can give 3rd degree burns? https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/24/health/arizona-heat-burns-er/...
Because I remember conversations like this when I was growing up:
"Mommy, can I go to the playground?" "No, Johnny, the slide will fry your ass"