That first article is just nonsense. The south pole can't support life? It's been supporting humans for half a century. Can't protect against radiation? Live underground like Hamas did. Have to wait 9 months for food? We do that on Earth too - if you're hungry, call a farmer and ask him to plant some food then come back in a year or two when it's harvested. We solve that problem by pipelining it, just as you would on Mars.
The South Pole hasn’t been “supporting humans”, we forced ourselves in there and survive despite the conditions in an environment that is harsh but even so considerably more hospitable than Mars.
All your other solutions are hand-wavey. Sure, let’s “just live underground” as if that’s just as easy as pitching a tent. And who on Earth is surviving nine months without any food? You’re talking as if Mars is just turning right on Albuquerque.
He can't build Rods From God for his personal use because the government won't allow it. Or are you suggesting he builds it then uses it to perform a one-man military coup on the US and disables all their defenses? That's complete nonsense.
Visual Basic in VS has aggressive autocomplete and it gets pretty annoying. You often want to write things in a different order and end up having to delete the auto-inserted endif/quotes/brackets/variable names (if it's not yet declared, it changes it to become something else that is), etc.
Years ago, they made Outlook the web email service and I thought they were going to deprecate Outlook the application and keep the name for the web email. But man this is confusing. Too many things are called Outlook.
It doesn't even matter what the website looks like, that's what trips people up - thinking they have any capacity to judge how legitimate something is from what it looks like. Almost all scams follow this same pattern that everybody should learn:
1) Stranger approaches you
2) They tell you some things
3) They ask for money
That process looks like a legitimate cold-calling salesman, but you can treat them the same way and not miss out. After step 2), assume everything they said is possibly a lie and go find the actual person/organization you already know and trust and contact them yourself to do whatever it is. If it's not somebody you already trust, as in this case, then abort.
I would add a bit of nuance to this. I always say there are three parts of any scam:
1. Claim of authority (timeshare purchase agent in this case)
2. Call to action (send me just a bit of money to sell your timeshare)
3. Sense of urgency (buyer will go with someone else if you don't act now)
You'd be surprised how often all three of these are present in a phishing attack of any variety.
Absolutely. Once had exposure to a sales course at a leading institution and biggest takeaway for me was learning the tactics, to then be able to recognise the tactics when used on me. And when these things all line up, I become deeply sceptical. Examples:
Sense of urgency - limited time offer!
Social proof - everyone else is doing it!
Call to authority - #1 doctor recommended!
For scammers, the way I think about it… there is no choice but to be exceptional at the sales process and understanding what drives people, because there is no product. It doesn’t necessarily indicate someone who is good at sales is a scammer, but seeing these tactics always shifts me into a sceptical mode.
Looking for signs in the tealeaves is risky though. For example, my doctors sometimes sends me text messages saying something like "Hello enigmaflare, your XYZ Medical Center invoice for $83.00 is due in 7 days. Please pay to 01-2345-67890123-00." It's not using salesman tactics, but a scammer could replicate that and collect the money himself.
Another example I experienced was a door-to-door salesman who say your home has been identified by the government to be eligible for a heavily discounted air conditioner installation. Our company is authorized to provide that. There's limited funding available so buy quick to avoid missing out. So it ticks all your boxes but it wasn't a scam and I did buy it and it really was a great deal. BUT I didn't trust a word the salesman said. I checked with the government myself, found their company from the list of authorized installers, and called them back through that channel to order it. That's that part people keep getting wrong. They don't go through another channel to re-contact them.
Authority can just be identity of anyone though. For example pretending to be a relative asking for money for an emergency. And urgency isn't always present, as in catphishing and other long-con scams.
If you were a really good academic, you could come up with a theory that predicts the performance of a model you haven't actually tested. Physics is full of this - theories that predict something novel followed by other people doing expensive experiments to test them. The guy who published the theory gets the credit. That's probably what we want from academic AI researchers - theories that we can eventually use to design models, rather than just haphazardly building something and wondering how good it will be.
That theory sounds great. There's no such thing at the moment and maybe never. Lots of smart people have tried.
Just because that's what people want, doesn't mean we can produce it. I often talk to funding agencies about things like this. "We don't want to fund boring research, only what will give us the ultimate theory of how everything works". That's not how science or progress work.
> That theory sounds great. There's no such thing at the moment and maybe never. Lots of smart people have tried.
In my opinion the problem rather is that considering the current AI gold rush, people are rather eager to throw newly implemented models around instead of thinking really deeply how an insanely better model could look like.
How about if you're publicly saying things that offend a whole community, take personal responsibility for that and accept whatever offensive things they say about you in response. People have this dumb idea that everyone else should respect them for what they say in public but they have the right to disrespect others. If you can't handle that, stop saying inflammatory things to the whole world.
There's a long-established pattern linking bullying and suicide, and huge amounts of tougher-to-quantify lesser damage done. Giving people mechanisms to slow and reduce bullying makes perfect sense.
I'm not talking about bullying, where the person being offended is the only one who suffers from it, but rather things like saying "X is false" which offends believers of X and they retaliate with insults. Yes, people get angry when you offend them or even just disagree with them. If you don't want to cause that, don't offend them. Unfortunately a lot of people are so arrogant about their own beliefs, they feel they have the right to both offend people who disagree and be protected from being offended in response.
Not saying the people making death threats are innocent and of course the law should try to stop them, but often it's not powerful enough so people who don't want that unfortunately have to keep quiet or be anonymous when they want to step on the toes of death-threat-happy communities.
This just means that the only people who will post on your platform are toxic. Users don't want that. Advertisers don't want that. Instead, we can build tools to make life harder for the toxic users to discourage them and reduce their impact.
Again, it's not just bullying. Real world example:
* The quarterback (QB) for Miskatonic University throws an interception on the last play of the game.
* Internet members (trolls) find their Twitter handle. Trolls harass QB, insult QB, and make QB's lives miserable. They publish QB's handle on their forums where other trolls also harass QB.
* QB blocks the trolls
Which scenario is better for QB, non-trolling users, advertisers, and the world?
1. The trolls still see can follow QB and respond to everything they do. Maybe QB can't see their messages, but the trolls are free to harass QB's followers, the staff of any location QB posts to being at, and so on. They continue harassing over and over. For years and years they can see QB's posts and continue engaging.
2. The trolls cannot see QB's posts, follower lists, or engage with them. A few particularly dedicated trolls may use alt accounts but it's a tiny percentage of the original trolling and much easier to manage. They eventually get distracted with some other player who made a newer mistake and leave QB alone.
1. is better because in general because nobody actually knows who's a all-bad troll and who's a worthwhile activist. Least of all the person being criticized. QB himself isn't hurt after he blocks them and can carry on with his life as if it's not happening.
I've heard celebrities say they don't read what anyone says about them on social media. That sounds like a good idea because there's always going to be haters to any popular public figure. Just ignore them and you're fine.
3rd parties being affected? Well stop associating with the widely-hated public figre if you can't handle the heat of celebrities.
Yes and yes. It's called picking your battles. If you're not equipped to stand up for yourself or have anyone else do that for you, you're going to get hurt when you insult someone else's beliefs they they've linked to their identity or even their purpose in life.
Stop publicizing it to the whole world, yes. The world is chock full of homophobic people and some of them are going to see it if you share it with all of them.
What if you're a holocaust denier? What are you going to do? Somehow not share your belief with the world? Yes! Either that or accept the hateful responses you're bound to get if you do share it.
Don't forget this is all about public posts. Not anyone's private life or stuff they only share with people they trust. There's always going to be a Muslim somewhere who wants to kill you for being a practicing gay, or a holocaust believer who wants to punish you for disagreeing with their it-did-happen belief.
What about an ashiest who ties their belief to rejecting the identities of Christians? There's no end to what people vehemently disagree on.
By the way, you can always change your identity if you really want to. Just because you're gay doesn't mean that has to be your identity. You might primarily see yourself as a citizen of your country or what your job defines you as or your personality or religion or just simply yourself if you don't want to be part of a bigger group.
Society does not have to just let the worst people in it be as they are. Neither do platforms. Bullying and hateful abuse hurt the platform - users don't want to be subjected to it, advertisers don't want their name next to it. Blocking and other tools to reduce this vile garbage are positive things.
Who are these worst people and who made you the judge? Is it holocaust deniers? Gays? Muslims? Christians? Vegans? Humans are diverse and contradictory in their deeply held beliefs about right and wrong. What about climate change deniers? They get blocked without saying anything vile - just disagreement.
Not at all. I do think people should share their beliefs even when other people don't like them, and other people should be tolerant of that. But the reality is some of those other people will try to hurt you for expressing a belief they don't agree with.
During covid, people got so hyped up about trusting authorities, they threw science out the window. Well I guess they never understood science in the first place but wanted to shame anyone who disagreed with or even questioned whatever arbitrary ideas their government proposed. It was disgusting, and those people are still walking around among us ready to damage society next time some emergency happens.
I've got reasonable financial success in my software product mainly from the merits of the tech. Pretty much all the marketing I ever did was spamming a small mailing list once, making an anonymous website that subtly mentioned my product, got good Google ranking, and got referenced by other people, and eventually making a Wikipedia page which I'm not sure does any good. I got good ranking in Google early on without any particular effort, probably because there just aren't many competitors.
Other people have done a lot to help at their own initiative though. Resellers approach me and market it themselves, customers recommend it on forums, researchers mention it in their published papers, and one customer even wrote a chapter of a book about it - which was key to being eligible for a Wikipedia page.
I'm lucky though because it belongs to a slow moving, well-defined class of products that people in my target industry already understand so when they go looking for a cheaper alternative to the super-priced big names, they find mine. I'm not inventing a new market.
It's not free money though. It's very code-heavy and technical-understanding-heavy and I've spent nearly 20 years actively developing it by now. One man wouldn't be able to just smash one out in a year, and you'd need some reasonably deep domain knowledge.
I'm a bit shy about the details but it's used by engineers. Actually there's a lot of opportunity in software for engineers. They pay huge prices and the quality of what they have is often poor. I'm aware of some gaps in the market. For example, modeling thermal distortion due to robot welding. That's not what my product does but that's one where the existing solutions are something like $50,000/year and it's a hard problem in part because the software has to run faster than an actual welding robot making a prototype to be economical to model it in the first place. It takes some clever research to invent the secret sauce to get those speeds.
You can try breathing through one to see. But the hole may also prevent it getting sucked into/deeper into your windpipe in the first place by preventing a seal.
Come on. Millions of people put pen caps in their mouths. Nobody's going to need a special warning when they're specifically thinking about the choking hazard.
