At first, “scary numbers” seems ridiculous. Then you realize we live in a world where otherwise meaningless numbers (also known as “money”) are, because of their emotional effects on others, scaling up to the whole society, legitimately fear-inducing.
I think it's funny that 90% of the arguments I hear people having day-to-day, especially in the political realm but also in general, are literally just semantic arguments. Things like "yeah, I'm fine with someone being trans, I just don't think they should call themselves <insert-gender>" or, inversely, "calling someone <insert-gender> when they want to be <insert-other-option> is highly offensive". Like, yeah I guess so, if specific words just have that much power over your life...personally, I just care about what the intention/meaning behind someone's entire point is. Like when my mother used to call my Sega a Nintendo, I knew what she meant...no reason to focus on the semantics.
To tie back to your point. People give so much power to words, and numbers are a bit more abstract but the same can be said of those as well. I care very little that someone else has 250bln USD, however I care very much if they are using that (or have the power) to inordinately effect/shape society.
Wittgenstein thought lots of philosophical arguments were semantic ones when he wrote the TLP. He would later abandon this idea after two world wars in Philosophical Investigations.
Have you ever had to put in a 6-digit code from an Authentication app, you have 10 seconds left before it renews and you know if you type fast enough without any entry mistakes and no number discalculia you'll make it in time and if you don't well it's fine you'll get another number but you know you can make it if you just focus and in those few seconds getting those 6 numbers right is the goal and you feel anxious that you might not make it..
There's a lot more between the actions there image to display, mouse to computer that have nothing to do with internal meatbag reactions. Especially when we're already measuring in milliseconds.
I'm referring to the paper cited in the linked site, which quotes about 50ms of difference in reaction time between auditory and visual, not 200ms like stated in the comment above.
Or maybe ACT test scores have plummeted because these students have experienced 1-2 years of remote teaching, which might have been less effective than in-person school?
> Or maybe ACT test scores have plummeted because these students have experienced 1-2 years of remote teaching, which might have been less effective than in-person school?
As I mentioned in another post, you can check this theory against the pandemic control-group that kept schools open:
Per the comment thread, this doesn't have perfect explanatory power: drivers and ATC have also recorded statistically significant declines over the same time period.
In other words: remote schooling may have had a negative effect on ACT scores, but all evidence points to it not being the only (or even primary) effect.
Regarding this thread, I really want to caution on the desire to automatically assign worse car crash rates to covid-19 infections, or any other specific cause.
Car crashes and ATC mistakes are two different sets of data. Just because they are going up or down at the same time and you can overlay some other event on top of it means absolutely nothing on its own.
There are a lot more reasons that car crash rates can be getting worse. For one thing, they have been trending upwards since smartphones have become prevalent. Car crashes weren't trending down for some time before covid-19. Also, the number of screens installed on automobile dashboards is increasing every year.
Still, I won't automatically assign blame to smartphones or automotive screens unless someone at least attempting to use the scientific method weighs in on the subject, because our intuitions about statistics are often really, really wrong.
> Regarding this thread, I really want to caution on the desire to automatically assign worse car crash rates to covid-19 infections, or any other specific cause.
People’s tolerance levels and general concern for other humans plummeted in the post covid times. The warning signs about acceptable behaviour in supermarkets, medical practices and restaurants proliferated. I don’t know how you measure that effect though.
I don’t know what grocery stores or restaurants you go to but I don’t see this supposed lack of concern for others that you’re talking about. It seems the same to me.
If it helps, I certainly not so worried that I'm going to flip out on minimum wage employees or ground an airplane in a full blown "Karen meltdown", but I do think that the pandemic has left a lot of people disillusioned, that Americans are seeing their standard of living decline, that climate change has left our future uncertain, that the stability of our democracy is in question (more than normal anyway), and that doom scrolling makes it easy to ignore anything but the worst things going on around us. It's difficult to imagine that those pressures aren't contributing to the problem anyway.
> Car crashes and ATC mistakes are two different sets of data. Just because they are going up or down at the same time and you can overlay some other event on top of it means absolutely nothing on its own.
Except that COVID is known to be brain invasive and to affect cognition.
This looks more like refusing to ever entertain the idea that letting COVID rip was a bad idea and lockdowns and vaccinations and masks were justified because you don't like it, than actual scientific rigor.
As far as the vaccine leading to more mild infection goes the impact seems to be unclear. There's been some evidence that disease severity can have an effect on how bad the cognitive issues get. Some studies have suggested that people can end up with greater cognitive impairment if the infection got bad enough to result in hypoxemia/hypoxia, or if they were put on ventilators, or spent longer amounts of time in the ICU, but other research didn't show any link between time in the ICU and the severity of cognitive issues, and others found that people with mild infections might even be more likely to have problems than those with severe cases.
As always, vaccinated or not, the best thing you can do for yourself is avoid getting infected in the first place.
I had a new car for a month (mine got damaged whilst parked). Simply adjusting the aircon fan required screen navigation followed by a fidly touch screen control.
The crash avoidance systen was a distracting alert that took my attention away from the road for none risks but instead increased there likelyhood to become a risk.
Glad to get my own car back with physical switches and dials without all this crap, having to operate a tablet behind the wheel is a dumb idea and no different to operating a smart phone behind the wheel.
The only reliable way to predict whether it's aligned or not would be to look at game theory. And game theory tells us that with enough AI agents, the equilibrium state would be a competition for resources, similar to anything else that happens in nature. Hence, the AI will not be aligned with humanity.
non-competes are extremely hard to enforce in California. Sam would literally have to download Open AI trade secrets into a USB drive to get in trouble.
That is only the case for rank and file employees. From my understanding executives, particularly ones with large equity stakes, are not exempt from non-competes. Sam doesn't have equity though, and I am not sure if non-profit status changes anything, but regardless I suspect any non-compete questions would need to be settled in court. Probably not something to stop Sam from starting a competitor as he could afford the lawyers and potential settlement. I suspect the MSFT move has more to do with keeping the ball rolling and keeping Satya happy.
> From my understanding executives, particularly ones with large equity stakes, are not exempt from non-competes.
Your understanding is incorrect. There are some exceptions where noncompetes are allowed in California, but they mostly involve the sale or dissolution of business entities as such. There is no exception for executives, and none for people who happen to have equity stakes of any size.
You cannot patent a foldable coat hanger. The only thing she could patent is the specific mechanism she used to enable folding, but I doubt the copycats would use exactly the same design.
Sure you can patent a folding coat hanger, in fact someone did recently in granted US patent US1139964B2 [0].
If you look at the claim, which defines the scope of the monopoly, you'll see it is very long. That is because folding coat hangers were already invented and reinvented many times over. Some example published applications would be US4997115A [1], US5632422A.
I've not looked at the OP yet, but I'd be surprised if they had a new invention in this space; possible of course.
A lot of these things don't make it to be products because they're too expensive for the utility they provide.
>You can't do that IIRC, because it is based on prior art in the public domain. Just like you can't patent a chair with 5 legs.
A point she made in the video (and at least partially confirmed by a quick patent search by me) is that there really isn't one of these in the prior art.
> There's also no reason to patent that many things for the same thing. You only need to be sufficiently vague to how it folds.
As far as patents are concerned, those are the same. Getting a patent broad enough to cover all her embodiments of the invention is the same as getting a patent that covers all the prototypes. In the US you get up to three "free" independent claims per patent application, that can cover different approaches that are non-overlapping. But they can't be addressed to different inventions. In other words, you can get a single patent on three reasonable variations of a folding coat hanger and slight variations thereof. You cannot get a single patent that covers a folding coat hanger, and precision timing device, and a popcorn maker.
> The only thing she could patent is the specific mechanism she used to enable folding
Have only had a brief look at the video but the folding mechanism looks like the standard figure-of-8 rubber things that join the various parts of folding clothes dryers (eg. [0] from John Lewis) - which makes sense! It's a proven design!
