We really have no idea what kind of profound ramifications this could have for the planet and even beyond. Let's find out.

I see, thanks. Yes I have long thought that the science that has shorter, more repeatable and more controllable experiments will be more successful. In fact, the business of a scientific model is to predict causality: if A happens (or if you do A), B happens. Physics does it marvelously, but they have it easy. Astronomy is harder. In living systems it's not at all clear that such causality exists, except trivially. Maybe we need a different scientific method for biomedical fields, something equivalent to fuzzy logic in computing. The current one was invented for the need of physics alone.

What field, if I may ask? Sounds like you're talking about physics, or astronomy maybe, or chemistry, or perhaps basic life sciences at the most complex. Biomedical sciences and fields involving complex/living systems seem to require a different or more refined protocol, with stricter standards for acceptance and more fuziness at the same time for giving ideas to others, compared to hard sciences.

That's a great point. I also think it means at the current level and depth of knowledge we need to refine what it means to have a correlation.

From http://www.wired.com/2013/02/b...: 'Well, if I generate (by simulation) a set of 200 variables — completely random and totally unrelated to each other — with about 1,000 data points for each, then it would be near impossible not to find in it a certain number of “significant” correlations of sorts. But these correlations would be entirely spurious.'

Probably 'significance' needs to be larger the higher the number of variables in the system.

I think for that reason life sciences need to be subjected to a different process. All the sciences now try to use the physics approach which was designed for physics. IMO in life sciences theories based on models should be taken very loosely, and collected evidence should be taken more as a hint for other researches in the field to pay attention. "Consumption of salt increases blood pressure"? No. Instead, "it seems like there's a correlation between higher salt intake and blood pressure in the small group of specific people we've observed. Physicians, please pay attention in the next 20-30 years if you might see something similar in *your* context." And for economics, sociology etc. it should be spread out even more.

That way, we don't throw away concentrated efforts on discovering patterns by intelligent people knowledgeable in their field, nor do we naively jump into believing that those hints they stumbled upon are some general Truth.

A bubble doesn't affect all stocks equally. So you can protect yourself by moving out of the "bubbliest" stocks -- at this point, those seem to be new Internet/anything social stocks. (Facebook, Linkedin, Twitter, Uber, if it gets there before the bubble begins, online marketplaces, online advertising -- though not google necessarily -- and so on.)

Yes, absolutely, forgot to clarify (I only know PC games) -- play games on platforms on which you can write hello world, and with tools you can get for free at that.

Yes, you had to have a sense that what you were playing was something that you could actually make yourself, given the time and effort. That has absolutely been the case for me with the ZX Spectrum in the 80's -- I played game then made them and knew all about Z80 and Spectrum's hardware. Playing a multimillion dollar game is the same as watching a Hollywood blockbuster and thinking I can make movies too -- doesn't happen.

That said, what Zuckerberg is saying may be right if kids are encouraged to play *indie* games?

Example is Scott Adams' example of the faulty reasoning, I should have added quotes.

Scott Adams' Falacy #24: IGNORING ALL ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE
Example: I always get hives immediately after eating strawberries. But without a scientifically controlled experiment, it’s not reliable data. So I continue to eat strawberries every day, since I can’t tell if they cause hives.

You're right. I can only say that my detection of light from the exploding star and the detection of alarm clock going off have happened simultaneously. And if my alarm clock is 11,000 light years away in another direction, if I detect its light and the star's light simultaneously, I can infer that the alarm and the star went off at the "same time". At the same time for me, that is. For someone who was moving at the time, not necessarily.

I'm still not quite convinced that I can talk about events that I can't measure/observe in principle. I.e. the detection of the exploding star's light in my telescope is an event I can observe. It appears that the explosion of the star itself at its point in space is not. But I think I see that I can use this inference about a non-observable/imaginary/abstract event to establish order and therefore potential causality or lack of it among events, which is the utility of the theory. Thanks for explaining that.

I think the problem is that the question "did the star really explode now or 11000 years ago?" is philosophical as it tries to go beyond the theory. The only thing that matters is that the light -- the information -- has just reached our frame of reference. (Actually 300 years ago.) "Now" only has meaning in our frame of reference.

Simultaneity as you said is a better term, and "according to the special theory of relativity, it is impossible to say in an absolute sense that two distinct events occur at the same time if those events are separated in space." So if, say, I see my alarm clock go off at say 10pm and just then see a star exploding, then the explosion and the alarm activation are happening simultaneously -- as far as I'm concerned.

Now if I had a premonition and wrote down 11,000 years ago "that one star will explode" and indeed the light of its explosion reached me today, then it's true, I had to wait that long, but my writing that down didn't happen simultaneously, in my reference frame, with the star exploding -- it happened 11,000 years before it.

No that is the whole point of the Relativity Theory. There is no absolute time or "God time", there are only points in timespace. 300 years ago here on Earth if you could see the photons of the explosion, you were witnessing the explosion exactly as was happening. "Now" spreads at the speed of light so when you see something, it's happening, as far as you are concerned, right now.

And that's the problem with services like this. You don't really need that much music. 50 years ago people heard songs on the radio from time to time and were happy. I have enough good music stored on my HDD (most of it ripped off of CDs I bought) that I don't really need more.

Great, thanks for both. I use both Firefox and Chrome.