Don't really need to reach other planets.
Once we have hundreds or thousands of world ships each carrying more than 100.000 people, we can live in space:
https://www.universetoday.com/...
https://indico.esa.int/event/3...
These are huge projects, yes, but do not violate the laws of physics. And yes you can also use world ships go outside the solar system too, though it's not super clear it would be worthy
"but at what point is this an "AI" and not just a really, really advanced PID controller?"
Indeed, what this does is to use many many simulation data points to approximate a value function, so in the end it is really a nonlinear optimal controller synthesized in a different way.
I don't disagree. But the other fact is that US has hit Huawei very hard claiming, without evidence, that their gear is used to spy. No evidence. While in the mean time as it turns out, attempting to spy with every possible mean.
I'll let you draw you own conclusion about damning hypocrisy.
might in general be a good idea.
Note that those features are really handy when you drive, so really i don't know what they are thinking. I have been using siri when i am driving or walking for around 5 years, and i already think it is pretty damn useless, since half the times it does not understand what i am asking and a quarter of the time it can't help anyway. I don't know but i would bet google assistant is much much better.
Apple is sitting on hundreds of billions of dollars in cash and meditating to spend them to enter the car market (!), it's a shame they don't feel pressured to improve their existing offering. I guess they must feel their users are safely locked in anyway.
But a shame/sham nevertheless.
".... which states that quantum physics cannot be local "
Acually it cannot be both local and causal in the strict sense. It could be local and retrocausal, or causal and nonlocal.
I am a fan and going to read his book, but so far i am not sure i agree with the premise that we need "to drive the research we need." Don't get me wrong research spending is a great thing and we need more of it! But we do have the technology to change most of our infrastructure and make it greener right now, and we can do it in 10 years if we wanted to.
The problem is that many people are not comfortable of doing it in a top-down planned and coordinated way, using government mandates, (like it has been for stuff like moon landing, winning the war, the fight against the depression and other situations), because it's too much work, or too much money, or too much government or too much whatever.
Therefore we want the market to take care of it, which implies both that we need a lot of research to drive the price of renewables further down, AND that is going to take A LOT longer. I am not opposite to that, maybe (maybe) it would reveal itself to be the best option in the end, maybe my first option is no longer feasible because government won't be able in practice of doing anything any longer, i don't know, but then, if you can't consider solutions that are able to make a dent in 20 years, please don't say that solving climate change is a real crisis or a priority!
https://www.vox.com/podcasts/2...
https://www.vox.com/podcasts/2...
I think you're both right, and it's an interesting exchange of opinion.
Personally i would lean towards banning that word period, since it has a good probability of being used as an insult, and therefore drive all conversations down the drain. Rules that are dependent on who belongs to which not better specified "group" are just too messy to even be considered, IMO.
Let's be honest though, hateful memes, harmful lies, insults, and outrage porn are no more "free speech" than actual porn.
And at least actual porn does not -in general- damage the trust and reasoning attitude that constitute the very fabric of civil society.
And by the way FB policies were never free speech in the first place. Posts are automatically promoted and demoted all the time, (depending on content too), to maximize engagement. And to avoid pissing off local government laws. Their appeal to the second amendment (which by the way applies to the US government not to independent multinational companies), is just a fig leaf, an excuse that they can use to keep kicking the can all the way to the bank.
>> There is literally no way to repay everything without the system collapsing
Fortunately there is also no need to repay everything by a fixed date. Furthermore, inflation helps deflate the debt, so, assuming there is at least some some real growth, part of that problem solves itself with time.
Because your spending and profligacy have helped the economy in a very substantial way. Your spending is somebody else's income, allowing him or her to raise their kids, pay takes, and in turn spend.
Right. Europe also has less of a lobbying problem as in general campaigns use public funds and afaik private contributions are illegal.
We already live in a world in which what gets aired or published is at the ultimate discretion of the platform owners. It is already like that for a scientific journal, a newspaper, or a cable TV, just to cite a few examples. So that is already the status quo. Facebook also rejects users posts that do not fit with their policy (but other rules currently apply to paid ads).
I for one wouldn't mind if the company that owns a platform did a basic screening (according to transparent rules) on what gets published on it (paid or not). For example avoid hateful language, that would not be hard to enforce and would go a long way to promote civil conversations, and people reasoning with their cortex instead of reacting out of (easily manipulated) anger.
Would you rather be the government be the "arbiter of truth", or perhaps a number of other entities appointed ultimately by people? I don't know
Also remember that whatever they are doing is in pursuit of their own business, not of an abstract freedom of speech ideal, whatever they'd like you to believe. So again, as long as the rules are clear and transparent some basic extra screening of isn't necessarily a bad idea in my opinion.
The optimum committee has no members. -- Norman Augustine
