Anyone calling in from comcast here would get a scorched ear for their time (and complete and utter lack of transparency, support, value, ethics, et cetera.)
Science is a methodology bent on correcting itself; Anything you like can go in the front of the process.. a hunch, an observation, a bit of math, some statistics suggesting a previously unknown pattern, etc. The process, done correctly anyways, will whittle away at it until the truth remains. As NDT suggested, science is not a noun, but a verb.
Do you really have so little concept as to the scale of human damage? A single average-sized car puts out 4.75 metric TONS of carbon every year (and about 2-3 years worth during its construction and a little bit more during its destruction.) At last check there were more cars in the use being operated than there are drivers... and that's just one country... whilst this amount is being dwarfed by carbon emissions tied up in industrial agriculture (local/natural agriculture trends toward carbon neutral to negative, but can only sustain modest populations the likes of which we haven't seen on earth for over a century.) The fact that YOUR individual contribution to the damage done is a drop in the bucket does nothing to deny the fact that you are not the only person on earth... it's a tiny place in the grand scheme of things and we've overrun the place and are spending carbon, water, and oxygen like there's no tomorrow... which is no longer a mathematically implausible scenario as a result. The world's WORST extinction level event was also a climate change one, and we've reach the same levels at 40000x the speed... if life couldn't cope at that snail's pace (~1000000 years of constant hawaii-style volcanic carbon farting, killing off some 95% of all life) why do you think it (or we) will fare any better doing the equivalent of flying this jet into a brick wall?
Now just combine this, in some way, with that new 4.4 trillion FPS camera some other scientists recently invented.
I know someone who works there, and they complain quite a bit not just about some of the other workers but also a lot of the folk semi-external to the office on whom they have to rely. Not exactly useful information, I know, but it makes me wonder.
then again, a joke update written about something as obscure as jumping spiders by a coworker some years ago was found and removed within HOURS of its posting. Wikipedia still, due to the competitive nature of its maintenance, beats out well established entities such as encyclopædia brittanica, et cetera.
At some point, I don't see the world being able to avoid a paradigm shift in how we measure careers, labor, etc... we have invested in and achieved so much in terms of automation, ai, etc, and yet we refuse to distribute the high efficiency benefits of these things to the very masses who brought them about and are being displaced by them. If it takes less labor, per person, to make the world work, then it truly should take less labor, period... not the same (or, as things have been going lately) more labor by the few still employed while those at the top of the economic food chain rake in the entire difference just for themselves. In the end, our current path is resource wasteful in a time when we can't afford it, and all for the actual benefit of very few people. It's an untenable and unsustainable practice that's going to have to change, and I don't see us regressing to old technologies just to reestablish old careers when we already have (and simply aren't properly dispersing) much better.
Sigh; and the permian was similar (in fact, was the source of much of the fossil fuels we use now.) And yet, a far milder jolt on their climate wiped up 95% of all life the likes of which the world took ages to recover from. The nature of any given climate is of academic interest; the problem is in how fast it changes... and it's happening a lot faster now (we've done in just 200 years what took a million then) than during the world's worst known extinction level event.
Actually, yeah... I'm not sure if there's a STRONG link to being on the spectrum (not my area of experience, though I might even find myself on some mild end of it myself), BUT, these kind of things do require a very unusual amount of dedication to learning a thing... most good developers I know have been hacking away since they were between 5 and 10 years old, dedicating their entire lives to it. That is not normal, as defined by numerical analysis of the larger population. The part I have difficulty with, in this statement, is that it is the result of culture, rather than an emergent pattern centered around the depth of education it takes to be a genuinely good developer. Still, I would support a movement to introduce algorithmic (problem solving) thinking classes (as expressed through programming or perhaps interactive models (lego mindstorm or equivalent stuff)) much earlier in schooling...
... and will sell what people are buying. I shop there, and never even glance at these aisles. I just get fresh unprocessed food that's hard to get anywhere else these days, cook it myself, lose 120lbs and normalize my bloodwork in doing it.
Just as with new processed food products, or mining techniques, etc, this sort of thing has potentially huge and life-threatening consequences. Google (and similar) should have to do the legwork to PROVE the safety of a product rather than maimed or widow(er)ed individuals having to do the legwork to PROVE a product is NOT safe.
Pay should reflect the good a person has done... a tech CEO could potentially have invented something that has changed the face of the world for the better, and I am happy for them to have benefitted from that (this applies less or potentially not at all to later CEOs who simply take the position as given them by money-only boards of directors and/or shareholders.) Bankers, though... it's a real stretch of the imagination to see them has having done anything other than a modest good at their broadest, and thus should incur only modest pay to match that.
... in this case we're talking the food industry, and in an example a few minutes prior to where this is tagged to begin, Lustig describes how it was the food industry got away with not admitting to people what they were putting in our food (i.e., because it was proprietary information that their competitors could duplicate.)
But the point is, some science MUST rely on causal inference. You can't go around infecting thousands of people with HIV to run a study. You can't make someone smoke for 70 straight years to see what happens. You can't spike their food with high fructose corn syrup and trans fat, en masse, and be doing ethical science... and so you must instead examine the statistics that came FROM the fact that industries have already subjected us to these things and make a strong inference. And yet, because of the methods we're limited to, the food industry keeps getting to set the goal line back. 'We need better data,' 'more research to be sure...' and as long as they're 'never sure' we can never say, with any authority, 'okay, this explicative deleted is bad stuff.'
I actually kinda LIKE the idea of complete transparency... but if they're going to force it on the EPA, FDA, CDC, etc, they must ACCEPT it upon themselves as well. No product can be sold to the public before it is ABSOLUTELY PROVEN TO BE SAFE. Let's see how they like that one?