It is good advice. You should be able to be honest with your doctor and they need to be honest with you.
If my dr said cannabis had adverse interactions with one of my meds I'd expect to see any one of NICE guidance, or a BNF (British National Formulary) or MIMS (Medical Information Monthly) or similar reference, or at least some study showing a link.
Does labor compound? My understanding is that say a freelance carpenter who works 20% harder for 40 years ends up about 20% richer not 1.2 ^ 40 = 1469 times richer
>Also, they make most people feel fantastic and like they can conquer the world. Is it really any question why people would find that appealing?
Perhaps, but what is the delta increase in zeal for their project. Presumably they were tolerably enthusiastic before taking the pill. Is the difference significant?
Now if it makes the user feel better then that alone might be a good reason for taking it. But let's not suppose that a bad project or feckless employee is going to become the next google or Einstein because of a pill.
>There are three areas I am aware of where labor can absolutely compound (in terms of output): business, software, and learning.
Well this would mean that every 10 times engineer ends up 10^20 richer than average at the end of his career. Since that far exceeds the planet's wealth, I am somewhat skeptical.
And if there are no 10 times engineer, even a five times engineer would end up roughly a hundred trillion times wealthier than average. So I humbly submit there's a flaw in the idea of literal compound labor value.
If you want to be (unnecessarily) pedantic, I never said what the frequency of the compounding was.
I didn't realize we were trying to come up with a realistic model of expected utility in these three fields.
If you don't want to believe that work put into these can compound over a person's life, thats fine. You're wrong, but that's ok. -- just don't pretend to pick it apart by applying math to an informal discussion.
How do you factor in possible technological advancements that could render a company's business model obsolete?
For example, if someone develops a distributed web-of-trust/payment platform, a lot of the value of Uber and Airbnb goes away.
The basic model behind some of these sharing companies can be factored out into (network effects + domain knowledge + web of trust) = profitable monopoly. You can adjust how valuable you consider each of these, but to me it seems like most of the value isn't in the domain knowledge area. What if someone figures out a way to not have all of the value captured by a monolithic entity?
What are your thoughts on advertising as _the_ way to make great services available for free (Google, reddit, Facebook, Stack Overflow)? What problems do you see with this model? When should this be preferred? Does it only work for massive sites?
We're a non-intrusive advertising startup (giftgaming) -- I personally do not think it is unethical, as they provide no value, and if anything, detract from the website's value and sometimes are plain annoying.
I cannot believe that in 2015, we still have intrusive ads, such as banner ads, popups, interstitials, pre-roll videos -- all technologies from the 90s? There must be a better solution.
Andrej is a brilliant researcher, currently doing his PhD. He has a bright career ahead.
Maybe you should actually read his comment instead of dismissing it crudely, and likewise for the thoughts of the likes of LeCun, Ng, Bengio, etc. These are the people I would listen to, not the Nostradamus pundits.
I don't think anybody would posit that it's unreasonable to entertain the idea as kind of far-fetched long-term possibility, much like encounters with alien life or faster-than-light travel.
It's the fear-mongering that's the issue. It's as if these same pundits were warning us about the dangers of space travel because it could hypothetically cause us (1000 years from now?) to draw the attention of a dangerous alien civilization (does that even exist?) that could destroy the Earth. It's the same level of ridiculous speculation. And that has no place in the scientific discourse.
Write sci-fi novels if you care about this issue, but don't pretend it's science, much less a pressing technological issue.