> Some companies made investments in properties, or signed multiyear leases, before the pandemic happened.
That was unfortunate, but incidental. Larger companies certainly can do the cost-benefit analysis that cancels out those losses if they plan on being around in 10 years.
> Occams razor tells me that other animals probably do have a concious experience just like ours.
For most mammals, everything is so similar...including responses to stimuli like light, sound, temperature, pain, pleasure, even predictive behavior (knowing when they have done something to provoke a human response) that the same principle leads me to believe it's likely they have a very similar experience.
I personally loved having this realization. All these creatures of the earth are probably having very rich and significant experiences. If it’s not limited to humanity, then wow, the world really is so alive.
I still struggle to imagine a bug having a conscience that resembles mine. I’m not sure why. I tell myself they don’t have the brains for it or the sensory capabilities or whatever. I’m probably wrong.
I see this repeated, but arguments like "You don't get to secretly do things to your subjects." are not sufficient nor is "it's arguably the most important software on the planet". These viewpoints are not agreed upon or codified anywhere that would affect an IRB decision.
The notable history of outrage in some communities (did this make the evening news anywhere?) that has been created, may influence future decisions, at best.
The linked page doesn't say anything about what is and isn't a human subject.
But even so, defining human subjects so as to exclude humans who are subject to your experimentation is absurd on the face of it. Who cares what is codified by whom? Experimenting on unwitting subjects is unethical. I had hoped that by now that would be something that didn't need stating and restating.
> The linked page doesn't say anything about what is and isn't a human subject.
Why you decided that was a claim is your own bias talking. I was pointing out the relevant section.
You've tried to raise something that isn't the issue, nor is it a sensible question as you undoubtedly realized (But even so).
Every human in an experiment is a human subject. Glad we got that out of the way.
The issue is what an IRB is looking for in evaluating the ethical feasibility of an experiment.
> Experimenting on unwitting subjects is unethical
> I had hoped that by now that would be something that didn't need stating and restating.
That's because it's your opinion. Seriously, go tell your local Target or College Bookstore to stop playing with the wall colors because there is no disclosure AND they make money off of it.
To quote the department [0] as was linked elsewhere:
> An IRB evaluates “Human Subjects Research”, which has a precise technical definition according to US federal regulations (see 45 CFR 46.102), and this technical definition may not accord with intuitive understanding of concepts like “experiments” or even “experiments on people”.
I think this is a misconception. It's not about the fountain vs canned or bottle soda.
Carbon dioxide lowers the pH of a drink to 4.5, which is acidic. The acid pH level erodes teeth and one shouldn't brush their teeth too soon after drinking soda because the enamel can be damaged. (Edit: acid on your teeth is always bad, brushing or not.)
Getting a soft drink from a fountain often means getting a straw for your cup as well. Using a straw to drink does help somewhat to bypass the soda from making contact with the teeth in the first place.
The pH of soft drinks is more typically in the range 2-4, due to the addition of various acids.
And the negative effect of soft drinks on dental health is primarily from the action of acid-producing bacteria metabolizing sugar. Diet drinks aren't nearly as bad for your teeth, carbonated water barely has any effect.
> The school must abide by policies and incorporate student's right to free speech,
"Though public school students do possess First Amendment freedoms, the courts allow school officials to regulate certain types of student expression. For example, school officials may prohibit speech that substantially disrupts the school environment or that invades the rights of others. Many courts have held that school officials can restrict student speech that is lewd.
Many state constitutions contain provisions safeguarding free expression. Some state Supreme Courts have interpreted their constitutions to provide greater protection than the federal Constitution. In addition, a few states have adopted laws providing greater protection for freedom of speech." - https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/what-rights-...
> a sincere apology cannot in any way entertain doubt about the fact that there WAS harm
Someone will always be apologizing wrong for some. Some interpretation of what harm there was, is not necessarily the same as my interpretation. There are too many ways to construe what harm there was or may have been according to others to satisfy everyone addressed. This is an efficient wording that doesn't explicitly satisfy your (and many people's) specific issues out of "the community", which illustrates the point.
"If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."
I understand doubting the sincerity of the authors, but this argument hinges here on them saying "any" instead of "all" and they are often used interchangeably in casual conversation.
Legally, it depends on the very lenient existing laws of the land to determine if you are prohibited (or default allowed) to be referred to as a doctor when you receive a doctorate. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5026525/ (mentioned US and CAN)
Dr. Phil is widely and routinely criticized for calling himself a doctor. The internet says Dr. Laura has a "Ph.D. in physiology." I had no idea Dr. Ruth wasn't a real medical doctor and I feel lied to learning that now. Your examples cement to me the idea that routinely calling yourself a doctor without a medical degree is extraordinarily dishonest and used to mislead people into thinking you have a level of expertise you don't.
"earn" as in was granted by a university? The purpose of a graduate degree (Masters, Doctorate, et al) is to further knowledge. Without churning out "dissertations", Universities would be nothing more than echo chambers for what's already accepted and considered "known". https://vimeo.com/9270320 - Greg Wilso mentions this, because it's important to all modern human industry and somehow that's rarely understood.
In that vein, there are discoveries, studies and experts that occur or develop outside of universities. This is the source of an honorary degree. Famously, others have been given various degrees for effort and demonstrated competence (eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Joel). People who scoff at honorary doctorates are elitists, at best. Those who do not accept that expertise can be cultivated excepting through anything other than standardized processes understandably believe that no other process is legitimate despite the fact that there are narrow and wide fields of study for which there exists no framework.
There is some truth to the observation that age unfairly plays into academic accomplishment insofar as someone younger could not be granted a teaching position or honorary degree, even if they demonstrate comparable knowledge. Part of the leeway is due to a passion or commitment to topics that can only be demonstrated through a life-long pursuit of knowledge and criticality.
Nobody is being an elitist or scoffing at anyone. The phrase “earned degree” has a particular meaning: it means “not honorary”. I think honorary degrees are great. But they are what they are. The convention is not to use the title “Dr.” on the basis of an honorary degree. That‘s it. Stallman is a legend, and obviously has no need of titles.
Indeed, honorary degrees are earned. The accreditation process differs for every individual, at a micro level and for individuals across organizations (and time and discipline, et al) at a macro level. The idea that a degree is "earned" based on a lack of the "honorary" descriptor belies a bias of ignorance, at best.
That was unfortunate, but incidental. Larger companies certainly can do the cost-benefit analysis that cancels out those losses if they plan on being around in 10 years.