7granddad

Interesting point! Based on what you said, in a way caveman does save your human brain tokens. Grammar rules evolve in a particular environment to reduce ambiguities and I think we are all familiar enough with caveman for it to make sense to all of us as a common. For example, word order matters for semantics in modern english so "The dog bit the grandma" and "Dog bit grandma" mean the same. Coming from languages where cases matter for semantics (like German), word order alone does not resolve ambiguity. Articles exist in English due to its Germanic roots

^OP if you read this, may I suggest you change the title of the post to "Let 'em cook". Let's assume that shooting down ideas is in fact a skill in the game of work (think prisoner's dilemma). An alternative skill is to play along. "No, because.." becomes "Yes, and..". Improvising off one another is how to play along

What I don't follow is how other multi-charging mats do exactly this. According to the article, by their estimation it was powerful harmonic EM interference that did AirPower in. If AirPower were only powering 3 coils at a time like other multi-charging mats why did it run into this problem when others had not

Whether their hireable isn't the problem. They legally can't be employed by you. You would have to employ then without tying their employment to their SSN.

Thanks for this post. I thought I deleted my Facebook four years ago only to read this and find out it still existed. IIRC back then it said something about deletion after a set period of inactivity.

Near the bottom of the page:

> A key to the success of MIT IQ will be identifying industry allies who share our passion for tackling big, real-world problems. That work is already underway: we have forged a number of collaborative projects with industry, such as the MIT–IBM Watson AI Lab.

However, the biggest incentive to go into industry is income. Sure, your research and your department can do more with more funding but wouldn't you still make about the same amount as a grad/research scientist/professor?

I think an interesting way Facebook could approach determining credibility would be by having users bet (betting with some made up points instead of real money). Since this forces readers to speculate, it would encourage critically reading the articles. I think a betting system would push Facebook less in the direction of an echo-chamber. The difficulty with applying a betting system is that it still doesn't tell you whether the information is true, thus bets can't be evaluated.