I think it could be an actually pretty good solution for this. A bit like Chaos Monkey but for human systems. Introducing error often enough that operators don't assume it never happens.
Exactly, I just saw a post today about someone's grandpa barricading himself in his house and fearing the eclipse would kill him. On the comments section everyone was insulting him, treating him like an idiot. I couldn't help but feeling this was not a result of poor media choice as everyone was suggesting but an underlying medical illness.
I really hope mental illnesses would be better treated and that people in very edge cases would spend more time in counseling and maybe less time on the internet.
Also, in general, people are quick to insult others online. Somehow it's easier to degrade someone online than I'm person, and there's less incentive to look for the common ground.
> There’s a technical meaning devised by a guy named Claude Shannon that involves, basically, how quickly a listener can reduce their uncertainty about the message they’re getting. This involves calculations of the number of possible syllables in a language, the relative popularity of each of those syllables, and the probability that a certain syllable will follow another. All the Shannon stuff is kind of abstract and involves a lot of math that, frankly, made my head hurt.
100% agree. The default Helm chart generated when creating a helm chart is itself too bloated in my opinion! Just take the basic k8s yaml files and parametrize what needs to be parametrized!
Because the trust level is under zero. In France you have to put items one by one and the weight of your shopping bag has to add up before you can scan the next article. It's the prison feeling with the speed of an 90 year old in any other country's self checkout. 0/10 would not recommend.
I think psychology is very successful at categorizing abd treating mental illnesses. The DSM is really a monument and hold for most of its part very well to scrutiny.
Where psychology is massively failing to replicate is in trying to characterise healthy individuals. Typically the work of Kahneman.
But that's what interest people and sells, pop psychology.
Genuinely curious, how would you scrutinize a categorization tool that includes both causes and effects in its key?
I'm only tangentially following the whole autism/Asperger's/ADD/ADHD development, and I'm growing more and more convinced that all these categories are mostly arbitrary constructs grown out of random history and academia politics. Happy to be proved wrong here, though.
It's because dogs are wolf with the Williams Syndrome. A DNA deletion syndrome which reduces aggression and increases empathy. In humans the syndrome produces individuals with characteristic facial features, a big smile and friendly traits.
Edit: visibly dog lovers are not too keen on learning that their best friends have a genetic abnormality. But that doesn't make it less true, it's pretty well documented. It doesn't mean that dogs are lesser somehow, they are still perfectly viable it the wild (well not the races resulting from the most extreme genetic selections, but most of them)
Williams syndrome is only in humans. It's not even a particularly hereditary condition. If what you said was true, we would expect to see modern day wild Wolves with this same genetic abnormality. Or we would expect to see wolves (and other predators, too) domesticated many different times in many different places, whenever this animal version of "Williams Syndrome" naturally occurred. We don't see that.
There are plenty of other genetically similar canine species that aren't domesticated. There are plenty of related animal (seals, ferrets, skunks) that aren't been widely domesticated, but are completely capable of being domesticated on an individual level, and none of them possess genetic abnormalities
One thing that many of these animals have in common is that they are fairly comfortable and adaptable to living in very close proximity to humans. That's true of modern day coyotes, raccoons, etc.
Humans have 99.9% identical DNA. All the variation you see in humans is explained by just 0.1% genetic differences. There's no reason to believe that the same isn't true for dogs without having to resort to a rare genetic deformity.
Dogs have a few genes that are implicated in hyper-social tendencies of people with Williams Syndrome; they do not have Williams Syndrome. WS causes a lot of other mutations that dogs don't have.
It's more likely that the social phenotype that is present with many WS patients emerged in dogs due to evolutionary pressures (explicit and implicit breeding) than dogs emerging due to WS.
