926 karma · joined March 19, 2007
http://ericwaller.com/
[ my public key: https://keybase.io/erwaller; my proof: https://keybase.io/erwaller/sigs/z8rRl3U4HJdLc-qnuPfEl4nHbgOThj13wRRDTkwQDaI ]
I thought it was a great story until here. This just seems totally unethical. Am I missing something?
Certainly I can't just evade the liability of a risky short sale (for example) by making the trade through a shell corporation?
Yeah, I would literally stick that text below the logo/search and above the three-steps description.
If you're from India, you're probably familiar with http://www.smsgupshup.com/. I don't know too much about them, but my understanding is that they're very similar to twitter, but managed to grab the Indian market by catering specifically to those users' needs. I think I remember reading that sms was a much bigger focus for them because of the availability of net access in India. Sometimes doing it better means doing it better for a specific subset of customers.
From what I've gathered, the consensus, both in neuroscience and in philosophy of the mind, is that consciousness is totally emergent from the "simple" building blocks; there's no specific component unique to higher primates that explains the difference.
I do have one suggestion for you though: autoplay is a great feature, but it took me a long time to realize the button was even there. If there's a way to make it more prominent I think that would help.
Do you mean that we should (oof, I hate to bring "should" into this) sometimes maintain the status quo even if doing so doesn't have the highest expected outcome for us?
No, certainly not. I mean that we should maintain the status quo until we can reasonably estimate those expected outcomes and their costs/benefits (ask questions first, shoot later). This article is arguing that we don't yet have those reasonable estimates.
I think the "innocent until proven guilty" approach is and expected value approach. Public loss of faith in the system is a huge cost (probably much bigger than letting the average criminal go free). So I think there's an implicit cost/benefit analysis there.
There are also costs associated with (at least some of) the proposed global warming solutions. I'm thinking specifically of cap and trade, a system with far reaching economic consequences we can't fully understand until it's actually implemented. So before we implement it, we'd better know with some degree of certainty that the current situation is bad enough to warrant a potentially dangerous economic experiment. On the other hand, I think investment in alternative energy is a relatively low cost decision (sort of a "what the hell, it can't hurt").
And for the record I don't know much about global warming, it seems at least plausible, and I certainly don't reject it. I'm just wary of the kind of argument from urgency that's become so popular lately in American politics (and I'm sure it's been an effective political tool since the beginning of time).
In fact I do not, and you've placed me into one of the two mutually exclusive categories I accused you of creating earlier.
I'm only arguing that relevant data/predictions should be reasonably vetted (this article makes some pretty strong claims against that point). And second, that whatever policies we enact should be supported by rational gathering of evidence, not just fabricated urgency.
Inaction is always our default position: innocent until proven guilty. Your argument is tantamount to "consider the cost (amortized over the probability that he actually did it -- which we can't actually know) of letting this murderer go free!"
Besides your argument is circular. The urgency you express with "THERE HAS TO BE A DECISION MADE" assumes that the data/predictions are correct.
EDIT found the article: http://aaugh.com/imageabuse.html
So, thanks for GitX!
Adaptive cruise control (and even regular cruise control) definitely crosses the line and is available today in a bunch of mass market vehicles.
Totally wrong. Try: [racial minority] is [derogatory adjective]. The hate groups who accept the premise aren't laughing when they say it. It's a only a joke when you clearly do not accept the premise.
It's kind of awkward that you have to enter your email again as a reminder destination, which then ends up killing the reminder I had started to create.
But overall I think the UI is very good.
But I had to laugh at this line:
The textbook answer to recessions is simple...the central bank can cut interest rates.
That really depends on who wrote your textbook