wolverine876

> Who gets promoted when they juke the stats to say there isn't a problem?

Who says there isn't a problem? IME many people says there is a major one, that the US needs to revamp its healthcare system, and rural voters vote against it.

I'd say the primary problem is the attitude that there's nothing you or anyone can do about it.

I think it's a fantasy that there is not significant prejudice at the end of the pipeline, where we are. Everyone seems to have that fantasy about themeselves, their organization, their community, etc.

The answer starts, as with every problem, by looking carefully in the mirror, with fresh eyes, as if there was a stranger staring back. Then look at your own organization, your own community, etc.

It's clear to the reader that it's her point of view. It's assumed the reader is a mature social creature who naturally considers context, the speaker, their knowledge, etc., not a credulous empty vessel that just accepts whatever is poured in.

How do people in street fights not break their hands?

> Have to train something, though. Nobody should be the gardener in a war.

Most people have no martial training and never need it. It might be better to train in descalation or something much more useful, like JavaScript.

That's the standard argument, but it's actually a carefully constructed talking point that (like many such things) twists the premise.

The issue is that it's effectively awarded based on a sort of 'diversity requirement' now - white / asian males being the requirement. The evidence is overwhelming - there's no way that's coincidence, or coincidental with all the racial exclusion in the past. Racism, sexism, other forms of prejudice clearly still exist (look at social media if you need a refresher).

The question is, what do we do about it?

As I said, everything we do affects others. That can't be the sole basis.

> It's too late for the person to receive any benefit. They won't know or care.

Every human culture ever, afaik, has burial and death rituals. I don't suppose they are useless.

It's not outrageous that a business's investors are rewarded for an innovation that benefits humanity.

> Didn't we learn federalism doesn't work when the states fought each other over pandemic supplies.

The US learned between 1776 and 1789, under the Articles of Confederation. That's why they made a new constitution with a stronger centeral government.

Unless done alone in a windowless, lead-sealed basement, almost anything we do affects others. It's too easy to take away freedom that way.

I wear seatbelts; I could understand insurance contracts not covering costs if the insured didn't wear a seatbelt; but I don't think government should mandate it. I'm not anti-regulation; I agree with the table saw safety requirement.

> That's the problem, not the concept of safety.

Per the article, SawStop offered to 'open source' (as we'd say) the patent. Also, in TFA, end users objected to the regulation.

There's also the knee-jerk anti-reguation crowd. Consider this comment from the article:

"If it's mandated, you're going to have people hanging on to their old saws forever," Juntunen says. "And, you know, that's when I'd say there will be more injuries on an old saw."

Does the mandate in any way change the functionality of a new saw (other than for cutting flesh)?

> My parents had a hard time explaining my dad's job to me, so they just told me he was a scientist because he had a masters in physics (he was a diplomat).

I'm just curious about when you found out what he really did, and if you had known earlier if you would have been a diplomat today rather than a scientist.

> It has been a long time since any of those theories had any practical application.

That's a cliche, not why people are ignorant of science (if it's even true, which it's not), IMHO.

When you kiss your spouse or watch a sporting event or (go bird watching / play D&D / play your trumpet / <your hobby>), does it have a pratical application? Practical applications tend to be kind of boring, actually.

If you can't get excited about the fundamental laws of nature and a person's actual discovery of one - the reason for mass (such an incredible concept that it would be absurd to say if it wasn't true) - then the issue isn't partical physics.

For the broader public, I think these things just aren't explained well, and now there's the anti-science mis/disinformation.

The evidence? Name a mature democracy where there was a coup.

The full headline did not quite fit in HN's title field:

LIGHTS ALL ASKEW IN THE HEAVENS; Men of Science More or Less Agog Over Results of Eclipse Observations. EINSTEIN THEORY TRIUMPHS Stars Not Where They Seemed or Were Calculated to be, but Nobody Need Worry. A BOOK FOR 12 WISE MEN No More in All the World Could Comprehend It, Said Einstein When His Daring Publishers Accepted It.

Full text sans subscription:

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times/Lights_All...

> So, how do we stop people lionising "strong men"?

We have the solutions and have, perhaps not incidentally, discarded them in last 10-20 years:

Postmodernism - yes, I know the reaction to that outrageous idea - is at its heart a distrust of power as corrupting and its application as necessarily evil. Power is the Ring; Gandalf's mission was to stop the Enemy without raw power, but by defeating despair and arousing people's goodness, honor, and courage (e.g., the clearest example being Theoden).

Democracy: No kings, no aristrocrats, no masters; all created equal; liberty and justice for all; every one's opinion as good as another's; everyone is equally trusted to live their own life, make their own choices, choose their own words and religion; everyone gets an equal vote and is a valid juror. To assert greater power was a sin; megalomania was transparently ridiculous. Remember the humility of Washington, Lincoln, etc.

Eary American Protestantism (I'm open to better terms, and I can't define this one well): Humility, simplicity, service to others as the ultimate measure; charity; personal wealth almost an embarassment of greed; the Golden Rule; etc. I remember a New Yorker article about such a culture even on Wall Street in (iirc) the 1980s; high walls around homes in the suburbs were frowned upon as arrogant and not engaged in the community; the head of one bank wore a cheap watch and soon everyone else did too.

We have all that, we know all that. Those who want to seize power try - for obvious reasons - to say they are impossible or to ostracize them. The failure is that leaders who know better - who should remember Washington, Lincoln, Eisenhower, so many more - haven't bothered to pick up the banner from where it was dropped. I think that's all we need.

Right. I started this thread by saying it was a potential threat.

How much energy would be needed to power a minimal wireless network node, of some sufficient capability, for let's say 1 day? Any IoT devs out there?

> thanks to specialized Pixel hardware, Pixel 8 and 8 Pro owners will also be able to find their devices if they’re powered off or the battery is dead.

This suggests there is separate hardware with its own power and network capabilities, designed for location tracking, designed to be always on. Is there a way to disable it?

Can anyone recommend a similar device small enough for eyeglasses? An elderly person I know loses theirs (and it's a significant problem; they are very limited without them, on top of other difficulties of aging). I can find their phone for them remotely, but not their eyeglasses.

Again, you can't build a human mercenary military with nearly the capabilities of any country but a small, poor one.

> there are still powerful people who want to execute coups in any given society.

There are still far more people in society who don't want a coup, and the desire for a coup isn't binary - democracy changes human behavior, obviously.

> It is a mistake in logic to assume that because someone is successful they are talented or deserving.

There are other very strong indications of their capabilities. I suppose talent doesn't matter, just their ability to create outcomes.

I agree that the line between that and automomous weapons is hard to draw. A simpler example is any precision targeted missile or munition. At some point every munition leaves human control, including artillery and bullets.

But is my 1979 calculator artificially intelligent because it can duplicate some cognitive things that I can do? There's a major qualitative difference where we find all the significance in the meaning of AI.

Still, some of the problems with mines, which are illegal or highly discouraged in many situations, are similar to autonomous robotic weapon systems: A fundamental law of war is discrimination between military and civilian targets. Mines are literally indiscriminate, by that legal definition; the worry is that autonomous robotic weapons may be the same. Arguably, they could be more discriminate.

I think one difference is in the 'robotic' aspect of autonomous robotic weapon systems (my terminology): Robots don't need to be mobile, of course, but those with significant mobility seem far riskier and deadlier than mines or artillery. Imagine one that, even from some malfunction, ends up in a city or a refugee camp.

Mature democracies don't have coups. That problem is solved.

> they are not actually that smart

It includes billionaire leaders of the IT industry. Whatever their flaws, it doesn't stop them from developing, building, and scaling technology - beyond anyone else in the world.