I mean, that's definitely going away if all other employers also move to five-day workweeks, so it seems like you shouldn't factor that in as one of the benefits of this schedule.
VW is against import tariffs on Chinese cars as they fear repercussions (and China is an important export market to them). There are other car manufacturers in the EU which depend much more on domestic sales.
To think things get done in the EU without Germany's approval is a bit past naivety. Germany publicly voted no to try and delay a Chinese reprisal too fast in counter tariffs, but that's just for optics, otherwise they wouldn't have been approved.
It's incredible how one can see what happens in practice but believe what people say rather than what people do.
The biggest economy in the block votes on tariffs for foreign competitors in their largest exporting industry and surprise surprise, adding tariffs is approved, and somehow your conclusion is that they are unhappy about it.
> The model has 4 (2²) possible symbols and 8 (2³) possible states, so in total 32 possible symbol-state combinations. Each instruction has 7 bits (3 for the state, 2 for the symbol, 1 for moving left/right and 1 for stopping)
No. Social Science almost always is done/funded by organizations / people who already have a set agenda. A Department of "Equity and Justice" will always fund research that fits their mission. Thanks to spurious correlation, you can make up anything. Many social science research are not reproducible.
It's also done by people who aren't hard-core physicists or mathematicians, meaning they can't/won't do true multi-dimensional analysis and 2nd and 3rd order effects.
Yea, because physical science is never funded by anyone with an agenda...
That's at least what the American Petroleum Institute, the Tobacco Institute, the Beverage Institute, etc. tell us about climate change, smoking, and sugary drinks...
You kind of prove the point previous person is trying to make. Hard science proved the tobacco leads to cancer, Social Sciences helped Tobacco companies get highest ESG ratings.
Climate change is another of "not really science" fields mostly peddled by social sciences.
I assure you that physical research includes questions like whether climate change is happening, smoking causes cancer, and excess sugar causes diabetes haha.
Here is the rule of thumb. Does the "scientist" pay some serious price for being wrong ?
Doctors lose business if they are not very good. Bakers lose business if they are not very good. Car mechanics lose business if they cant diagnose problems properly.
The "ai safety", "bio ethicist", "gender justice researchers", "transrights researchers", "diversity officers" etc. pay no price of being wrong or peddling fake made up ideas, falsified data or pure nonsense. On the contrary more nonsense you can peddle higher you go in this field. Hence it is safe to assume a lot of these professions are full of fake, fraudulent individuals.
PS. There are indeed good people in these fields but they are very few and hard to find.
Bio-ethics is an extremely important aspect of the field in most research involving human and animal subjects. When we don't know about bio-ethics, we do fucked up shit as a society like the Tuskeegee Syphilis Trial. We did gain useful medical knowledge from that study but it had a massive human cost, most of which was borne by a poor community mostly made up of one racial minority. When bio-ethicists get things wrong there is absolutely a horrific cost and when I did bio research I had to take an ethics course every 3 years.
> It's also done by people who aren't hard-core physicists or mathematicians, meaning they can't/won't do true multi-dimensional analysis and 2nd and 3rd order effects.
This is so incredibly insulting to entire fields of study. The whole backlash against anything vaguely DEI-related has really done a number on the coldly logical HN. Prejudice does exist and we are allowed to study it.
meaning they can't/won't do true multi-dimensional analysis and 2nd and 3rd order effects.
Neither does any other researcher these days. Thus, the crisis of reproducibility in “peer reviewed” papers.
Kind of disingenuous to single out social scientists for this practice. Probably a bit more wise to clean our own house first. Certainly unwise to be engaged in the very practices we’re attacking.
Social Scientists actually have a problem that they can't do true controlled experiments (unless they spin an alternate universe). So, they literally have to work with spurious correlations
Physical Science and Math can be isolated enough to do controlled experiments
I’m gonna have to disagree. If the majority of your “science” isn’t reproducible then you really can’t call it science in any meaningful capacity. That’s not to say it isn’t valuable or helpful in some way but that’s not what’s in question. In fact, it’s not science in the same way that we’re not questioning whether it’s useful. Particularly, in the literal way.
May be and since this discussion can quickly spiral out of hand into flamewars I will not counter your claim anymore.
My question was whether the scientists who are warning us are "social scientists" who study dubious areas of "scientific research" such as "AI safety" or are some real scientists who know how neural networks and who can write python code or use tensorflow to to run a linear regression.
It can be, but it often isn't. It depends wildly on who is doing the work and how they're doing it (which, to be fair, can be true of other sciences, although the density of quacks appears to be much higher in the social sciences)
Is it just me or does someone else finds it curious that a post with 414 points in 2 hours and many comments is on page 2? There are posts with less points, and less comments in more time that are on the first page.
Is the HN ranking algorithm public?
> Founded in August of 2019, Sahan Journal is a nonprofit digital newsroom dedicated to reporting for immigrants and communities of color in Minnesota.
I mean... no. Apple publishes breakdowns/reports of their recycling efforts and it's pretty damn good for what it is, and these devices now last a very long time if you don't feel like chasing the yearly upgrade train.
The selling point of the Fairphone is moreso that it's:
- Attempting to pay fair wages to workers
- Not Apple, for those who just don't want an Apple device
- More (user) repair-able
These are all very valid reasons to want to use something like the Fairphone and I am glad it exists, and it might even be my next phone - but to imply that it wins out over the iPhone trade-in-and-get-it-recycled flow is just bonkers.
> and these devices now last a very long time if you don't feel like chasing the yearly upgrade train.
But they constantly make new devices with incremental improvements and advertise/market for people to upgrade when they don't need to - and people do exactly that.
>to imply that it wins out over the iPhone trade-in-and-get-it-recycled flow is just bonkers.
I made this point in another comment already, but for many people, it isn’t easy to access an Apple Store, and Apple is notoriously stingy with third party authorized repair
I'm not talking about the Apple Care/App Store get-it-fixed flow, I am talking about how when you buy a new iPhone you can quite literally just mail your (hopefully data-cleansed) phone to Apple and they'll recycle it properly. If you're buying your phone through Apple - which you should do, just because phone carriers are ripoffs - then you generally get a credit back to boot.
For the average consumer this is great and encourages sustainable reuse of the core materials throughout the iPhone lifecycle and generally means there is no good reason for iPhones to bloat up landfills or anything.
> For the average consumer this is great and encourages sustainable reuse of the core materials throughout the iPhone lifecycle and generally means there is no good reason for iPhones to bloat up landfills or anything.
But they do though.
A lot of this stuff is corporate PR. For example, recycling aluminum is the default -- it costs less than mining it. You don't get credit for that, it's saving you money and you were going to do it anyway. And the reason it's so cheap is that you can source it from things that are basically pure aluminum, like aluminum cans, even though they're then making something out of it that has to go through a complicated process to separate the diverse materials from each other again.
They have a recycling program for their old devices, but to use it you have to buy a new one. And there's a reason for that -- it's not otherwise cost effective to do it. It's a promotion to drive new sales, because the process is complicated and inefficient.
Because they're trying to turn the device back into raw materials after gluing and soldering them all together. Which is why they go into the landfill unless someone is subsidizing it.
Whereas the best way to "recycle" a piece of electronics is to continue using it as a piece of electronics. Allow the memory or storage to be upgraded to extend its usable life. Have modular parts to minimize the materials necessary to replace before it can go back into service after being damaged, and minimize the cost of such repairs to increase the number of repairs that are economical before a new device has to be manufactured.
It isn't both because they do PR about building a robot that can disassemble iPhones, but there are only two of them in the world and even if they were run nonstop they could only recycle 1% of the iPhones Apple manufactures in the same amount of time.
In the meantime most of the iPhones people trade in are sent to third party "recyclers" who don't recover nearly as much of the materials and are contractually required to shred the devices without recovering functional parts for reuse, even though that would reduce the amount of ewaste by several fold -- once for the device already on its way for the shredder, and again for each of the devices that could have been repaired from its operational parts.
It's a cynical take because it's a cynical marketing ploy.
> Apple is only operating two Daisy models—one in the Netherlands and another at the company’s Material Recovery Lab in Texas—that each process up to 1.2 million iPhones per year. Achieving circularity may seem futile considering how Apple sells 200 times as many iPhones annually...
I swear it's like nobody reads the actual reports that they put out. There is a lot to knock about the Apple/iPhone experience but frankly sustainability just isn't it.
And I will note again, to be clear, that I still think the Fairphone is a good thing. I just don't think it should be held as the highest regard when it's not.
1920 probably
reply