Thanks Bloomberg for this advertorial summary of a 1250$ research .pdf. Saves me some money to invest (in crypto or otherwise).
Would you believe that the author of this research was harping about blockchain adoption by large companies less than a year ago? A lot has changed in 11 months, such as a slow price drop from the 2017 December insanity.
Isn't it a bit rich to first make companies anxious to join in on the bandwagon, then to turn around and say they are investing into something that is on the very brink of destruction? Based on pretending that Bitcoin was invented at its height in December 2017?
Heck, I did not sell any of my market research, I gave it away for free (silly me). Sure, sure, I made a few million here and there, but nothing like charging 0.5 BTC to tell you the financial world is collapsing, because John McAffee is so irrationally bullish.
This time it is real though. I can feel it too. Bitcoin is over! I hope you made out like a bandit, because soon, the only way to make money is to sell research about the impending bounce-back of crypto.
Of course the early adopters of Bitcoin are critical about its demise. They have a vested financial interest in seeing it succeed. Unlike these researchers, who only stumbled upon Bitcoin when they realized that people are willing to pay for their objective expert opinion on something they themselves missed the boat on.
So, wit.ai got bought by Facebook. Any players left in this space that aren't data hoarding companies? Does the market still care for privacy and a close-to-open-source/hackable intelligent assistent?
The entire market seems to care about data rather than privacy.
From your smartphones to your cars to your watches to everything else, it seems like the economy is about getting as much information about you to advertisers/corporations/governments. And data collection looks to be accelerating if anything.
It's like the system is giving us the rope and we are mindlessly putting it around our necks.
The orwellian nightmare was that big brother was going to forcibly install telescreens and listening devices all over your home to deprive you of an ounce of privacy. He never imagined it'd be us installing the telescreens and microphones all over our homes to deprive ourselves of privacy.
Hey man, when I was working in that field, we had really strict controls on who could access the data. I had to sign A PIECE OF PAPER agreeing not to misuse customers' personal data before I could get at it. Plus I'm pretty sure the company did a cursory background check before they hired me. And there's a form that government intelligence employees have to click through sometimes before they get the data.
Hey, good for you! But how am I to verify that other companies take the same level of care?
Also, just because engineers have to jump through hoops to be able to run SELECT on a database, doesn't mean marketroids and sales don't get free rein on using it (or passing it to other parties).
There's a niche market for such products, in which a high premium would be paid for a product that successfully meets the needs of its purchasers. Unfortunately, successfully is defined by the high floor of convenience provided by multibillion dollar companies, so I understand that it's tough to compete with that.
I've participated in adjacent niche markets where consumers 1) most likely work in tech 2) have needs that 99.9% of people don't care about 3) are willing to pay a premium 4) have the means to pay that premium.
It's too bad that there are so few businesses willing to tap into this market. Part of me believes this is a marketing issue, though. I've yet to see a campaign that really nails our core concerns and does so elegantly.
You create it for the part of the corporate market that wants good on prem services. On-prem that ends up also being something for prosumers is basically the missing thing we are looking for, kind of like ubiquity wifi.
Would depend on my budget (because it would certainly cost more than hovering up all training data for free).
Perhaps: Pay/reward for data sharing, decentralized training, differential privacy, local training and submitting the weights, local fine-tuning of pre-trained model, marketplace of third-party (open source) models, ...
... or just have the user repeat some phrases for 5-15 minutes during initial setup? Like you could do with good ol' Microsoft SpeechAPI from the first decade of this century?
The obsession with cloud-based machine learning is creating half of these problems.
I see an extreme focus on GPA, even employers considering that score during hiring. This is fairly alien to the other Western cultures I've sampled.
Also the latest "taboo" is discrimination on intelligence. You can not help it that you were born below the IQ Bell curve. "You just gotta work harder for it" is like telling an overweight person to "just stop eating so much". Difficulty learning new material puts you at an eternal disadvantage, with no way to catch up to what smart people are learning in their teens and early twenties.
The big five openly discriminate on intelligence. Intelligence and aptitude is also correlated with your upbringing (Did you have smart parents to guide your academic career and interests? Were they rich enough to help put you through a good college?).
For all the renewed interest in identity politics and combating discrimination, intelligence is really the odd one out. High school teachers berate you for something that isn't your fault, it is commonly accepted to call out your low IQ, no matter how much you want to work for a tech company -- even if they favor women, poor people, minorities, war veterans, the disabled -- you are not going to get hired to fill some neurodiversity quota.
The ease with which the left ridicules, stigmatizes, and marginalizes right politicians (Bush & Trump) and those that vote for them is astounding to me. "Those idiot low-educated racists ruined it all! They are not smart enough to vote rationally!". Change "low-intelligence" with any other protected status and such language becomes vile and primitive.
In my personal experience, after you've been out of school for about a year, nobody cares the least bit about GPA or any of that stuff. It's a placeholder differential for someone who doesn't yet have relevant experience.
There's a big difference between someone born with a low-IQ and someone who actively maintains their own ignorance. You can argue whether the left is crossing that line in some places, but some portions of the right actively attack higher education, whether it's "trying to convert our kids to socialists" or "attacking Christian values" -- pursuing an education is positive, full stop, no matter what your IQ is.
Also, "stigmatizes and marginalizes right politicians"? You're arguing politicians on the right are being marginalized? And two examples you're using are the last two GOP POTUSes? That's not marginalization. And of course, notably, for all the "coastal elites" talk -- Trump is pretty much the definition of a coastal elite, a billionaire born into privilege who went to an Ivy league college and has lived in NYC his whole life.
> A computing professional has an additional obligation to report any signs of system risks that might result in harm. If leaders do not act to curtail or mitigate such risks, it may be necessary to "blow the whistle" to reduce potential harm. However, capricious or misguided reporting of risks can itself be harmful. Before reporting risks, a computing professional should carefully assess relevant aspects of the situation.
The irony is that the previous leak (which detailed a harmful IT system) was the cause of this very meeting (Googlers wanted to know more about the project they read about on HackerNews/The Intercept). Without that earlier leak, upper management wouldn't be forced to organize this open meeting. Though, I can fully understand getting angry and wanting to signal support.
What this new leak made clear is that the supposed culture of openness at Google is a farce: "Brin reportedly denied having knowledge of the program until after news leaked and what Brin described as "this kerfuffle" erupted." So even one of the CEO's was left in the dark.
There is also the pledge by Google to not build AI weapons.
A censored search engine is a gray PSYOP weapon.
> Psychological operations (PSYOP) are planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.
People got real joy out of seeing Alex Jones banned from public platforms. It saddened me. I think Alex Jones is foolish entertainment and nearly never agree with his message. But it hurts me to see someones free speech curbed. We can all say: Ah, these are commercial companies, so free speech doesn't matter. But these commercial companies aggressively took on as many users as they could and concentrated them (often behind walled gardens). For all intents and purposes, Facebook and Youtube are public spaces. Good luck with your social network if you are banned from Facebook. Good luck with your amateur news channel if you are banned from Youtube.
These people get banned for what their followers do. But there is no consistency, and political preference. When someone posts the phone number of an employer (after he is deemed racist by a one-sided video), and over 200 people call and the guy loses his job... Twitter does not act. When a verified journalist publicly shames, with photo, a teen alt-right protestor (in an effort to scare people into staying home next time)... Twitter does not act. When the president of the USA threatens nuclear war or reposts incorrect far-right propaganda... Twitter does not act. When people proudly in their bio state that they will punch anyone they perceive as a violent nazi, and post videos and incitements to promote punching more... Twitter does not act.
First they came for Alex Jones, but I wasn't a conspiracy theorist, so I did not care.
Twitter is now a platform where a single tweet can deny you entry to the US. Where sending a 10-year-old .gif to someone with epilepsy can land you in jail with a felony. Where terrorist attack announcements are broadcasted live for all to see. Where people dig up 5-year-old tweets and take them out of context, and send them to your employer. Where preference is given to a select few verified people and their voices amplified (who cares what a spoiled out-of-touch movie/music star thinks of politics?). It may be too late to salvage.
Here is for a conspiracy conspiracy: The connection between fueling conspiracy theories and foreign intelligence agencies is interesting. See for instance the "active measures" [1] tactic.
I don't know all the details yet, but Facebook and Youtube should have connections with US intelligence. If Alex Jones, like WikiLeaks, was used by foreign agencies to promote conspiracy theories harmful to US political and democratic coherence (9/11, birther movement, division over gun rights, pizzagate), these companies should be aware of that, which turns their decision into a different light (but of course, they can not come clean about this yet).
Make it opt-in. Then you give control away to the government deliberately.
All it takes is a simple checkbox to say you want to be a part of it.
It should be easier to receive mailing list spam, than it is to sign over your body, but opt-out makes it the other way around.
Forgetting (or being unwilling to be forced) to sign a checkbox does not make one a willing participant, but an unwitting one. I understand this saves lives, but then again, lots of unconstitional actions may save lives. No excuse. No convience.
You, and only you, as an adult, has sovereignity over your body. Opt-out is a grave breach of this sovereignity. That is the spin "the government wants control over my body": A violation of your human rights and a government-run organ market.
Bodies are a kind of use it or lose it deal. If you are buried, everything except your bones and teeth will be eaten. Organ donation is the least of your sovereignty problems.
Make it opt-in and secure, and I have no problem with it.
For instance, send a letter every 6 months where you tell of the social benefits of donating your organs and thank-you notes from receivers. Sponsor national organ donation days. Even properly aligned incentives: Make certain government-sponsored health care cheaper and more available for donors than non-donors.
But make any opt-in cryptographically verifiable, and signed with an e-ID. I really don't want my opt-out hacked during DEFCON 2023. And implement it correctly: often government attempts to curb self-ownership are well-intented (physical and mental healthcare), but ill-executed (block internet porn, close fast food restaurants, ban psychedelic drugs) and they compound.
I full well realize that anything that happens after my death is out of my hands. Even if I don't donate now and opt-out, maybe in a 1000 years they can clone some of my DNA to grow new organs. It is purely about opt-in vs. opt-out for me (and about democratically consulting the majority opinion on an opt-out).
Opt-out (happens during life and on life-support) of self-ownership [1] is, to me, a violation of human rights. One of the most fundamental and innate rights, which should be a given (but could be opted out of by opting-in for donorship). To partly take away a right, unless you say "no!" sets a dangerous precedent.
> Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No-one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law. - Human Rights Act 1998
> The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. [not: are beneficial to others, unless you want to posit that opting out of donorship injures others in need] - Jefferson
> My impression is this is only true for some transplant types.
Other way around. Organ donation after cardiac death is only possible for certain types, and only in very limited circumstances.
Hopefully things will improve because it would vastly increase the number of possible donations. The vast majority of people can not donate organs even if they want to - it requires a very specific type of death (brain death where the body is just fine).
Many people also have religious and ethical problems with it because you are killing someone. Obviously that depends on how they define death, which has no commonly accepted definition, the current definition "brain death" was set that way to make organ donation possible, and that makes many people uneasy.
> It's opt-in now, and easy to opt in, yet despite many people saying they support it, few opt in.
Let's take this as a fact. You don't solve the problem by flipping this around, because then you only solve for social gain. You just make it worse for the individual:
> It's opt-out now, and easy to opt out, yet despite many people saying they don't support it, few opt out.
Now you have people not supporting (or wanting to remain blissfully unaware of) donorship, registered as donors. You bank on apathy and ignorance, because a simple and deliberate opt-in was not convincing enough, and turned supporters for or against, but still, for whatever reason, on the fence, into fair gain.
Having your cake and eating it: If it is very easy to go through opt-in process, yet there are problems with registering a deliberate choice, then it will also be very easy to go through opt-out process, but there will be the same problems with registering a deliberate choice. The ease cancels out, and the problems remain. But taking away a human right, until registered protest, is far worse than a deliberate opting out of it.
Would you believe that the author of this research was harping about blockchain adoption by large companies less than a year ago? A lot has changed in 11 months, such as a slow price drop from the 2017 December insanity.
Isn't it a bit rich to first make companies anxious to join in on the bandwagon, then to turn around and say they are investing into something that is on the very brink of destruction? Based on pretending that Bitcoin was invented at its height in December 2017?
Heck, I did not sell any of my market research, I gave it away for free (silly me). Sure, sure, I made a few million here and there, but nothing like charging 0.5 BTC to tell you the financial world is collapsing, because John McAffee is so irrationally bullish.
This time it is real though. I can feel it too. Bitcoin is over! I hope you made out like a bandit, because soon, the only way to make money is to sell research about the impending bounce-back of crypto.
Of course the early adopters of Bitcoin are critical about its demise. They have a vested financial interest in seeing it succeed. Unlike these researchers, who only stumbled upon Bitcoin when they realized that people are willing to pay for their objective expert opinion on something they themselves missed the boat on.