I would think this is an obvious approach. Of course this is a public issue - and one that is extremely unprofitable for private corporations to tackle. But I don't understand - is the average American opposed to government funded research into antibiotics? If so, why?

His engineering teacher had asked the class to make projects. What excuse would you have to carry the same thing into a federal court building?

Buying Manhattan by itself couldn't be called colonialism. The real problem with colonialism is the eventual suppression of human rights, murder etc. Without human rights violations, there would be no problem with colonialism.

Let me put in this way. I'm an Indian (as in India - the east. Not native American). The British were a problem only because there were human rights violations. Let's say the British instead had democratic elections and people freely chose a British national to govern instead of an Indian, I would have absolutely no problems with that. That would not be called colonialism.

As long as there are no human rights violations, there's no complaint. And tech companies are not engaging in that kind of thing.

If people give up their data willingly, that is not colonialism. Colonialism dealt with the forcible removal of people's rights. When it's voluntary, no one has any business complaining. It's not hard to understand.

Edit: They still promise the above in their "Timing for Software Updates" section in the following link: https://support.google.com/and...

I bought an Android One phone to get regular updates. It took more than 6 months for Google to roll it out to my device. I was expecting an update within 2 weeks of the announcement at Google I/O. They've changed the wording on their website, but at the time it was:

"Android One devices receive the latest version of Android directly from Google. When a new update is released, it can take up to two weeks to reach your device.

So Google broke their promise big time. I wouldn't advise anyone to get an Android One phone.

Well, there are no network effects that I'm aware of so I guess it shouldn't be a problem. A better product will be used cause there are no switching costs. Unlike say switching from Facebook to something else even if the alternative is better. In the latter scenario, a better product will not automatically get social media users cause the value of a social network increases with the number of existing users alone.

I don't see the same effect for video streaming services.

It's brilliant. I hate twitch - the bandwidth is terrible, I can't choose the resolution, the interface is slow. Youtube is smooth and works seamlessly.

And yet we have data that doesn't fit neatly in a single model. Hence the need or quest for unified theories in the first place. I mean...the current state of physics depends on a lot of data that doesn't fit a single framework.

And let's not even get started on dark matter. The entire concept was evolved to account for discrepancies in data that didn't fit existing models. If we can get a theory that not only explains everything we already know, but which also has a convenient explanation of what dark matter was meant to explain, that would be awesome.

Sure, a lot of theories might be crap. But it's worth popping them out nevertheless because the good ones can change the way we look at the world forever.

But none of this really matters. No one is stopping another from doing "real science" if they wish. Everyone does what they enjoy. Everyone is happy!

I disagree. We have lots and lots of data. What we need more is a coherent framework to put it all together. The data from the LHC is so vast that processing it is a herculean task. More frameworks, more ideas will help make sense from all of it.

That's just terminology. All of mathematics is "storytelling". The fact is that physics desperately needs ideas more than anything else. And we need them in a flood. Who cares what terminology is used? Let people make ideas and follow them. Some may pan out. Most won't. So what?

If some people don't want to call it "science", let them. It doesn't matter.

When a theory seems interesting, you can't just give up on it saying "Oh, there's no way to test it!". Who knows? Down the line when it's fully fleshed out, it might make predictions that can be tested. It might have a much more elegant explanation of existing patchwork theories. Ultimately you have to ask yourself whywe do physics. We don't do it to stick to some ideal standard. We do it for fun, for ourselves. To satisfy our craving for understanding.

Curiosity is a much bigger motivation that will not be arrested simply because someone points out that a theory can't be tested at this time. Every development, every idea, every thought is useful in some way or the other. If not directly, then indirectly. Ideas that are developed now can be used decades later in a new theory. We have to lay the seeds, bring out all the wayward theories and develop all the conceivable mathematical tools.

No, I don't consider any of this wasted effort at all.

There is no reason for an AI to kill us. Biological life forms created via evolution have the instinct for self preservation, to view threats both emotional and physical, and have been programmed to respond to those threats.

AI created by us will have no such impulses. No ego. No self preservation instinct (since we won't program them to, and it serves to purpose). So what on earth can be the reason for them to kill us? The only reason I can think of is if some human being specifically programs them to do so.

I'm not saying that a human being will never program an AI to kill us. I'm saying that assuming that AI will eventually kill us and to view it as a foregone conclusion is illogical.

Ads pay for my web hosting. Everyone wins. I win, the readers of my blog win, and the advertisers win. What's the problem here?