hatboat

If they're already an "enthusiast, grad student, hacker", are they likely to choose the "plumbers and people that know how to build houses" career track?

True passion for one's career is rare, despite the clichéd platitudes ecouraging otherwise. That's something we should encourage and invest in regardless of the field.

As an Australian, "youse" is the most common variation here. It's sometimes maligned as a bit lower-class/bogan, but it certainly fills a niche!

"Sorry, I didn't pick the game - it is what it is" said LeBron to Neymar as they lined up for some one-on-one.

I'm not implying this was your original intention, however without providing any commentary other than the Wikipedia quote your reply read to me like a "rebuttal" or counterargument to the OP. Furthermore, it comes across like a lazy one (perhaps explaining the downvotes?).

While interpreting it as such goes against the "assume the best" ethos of HN, in an argumentative thread such as this it's an understandable reflex.

I think this is a good point, however over time I believe less and less of option (2) will be used. Option (1) will become ubiquitous, and it is important it is done well. The researchers signing the letter should be exactly the ones helping improve the models used, as they obviously care enough to consider the inherent biases and societal effects.

Just because they choose to "opt out", it doesn't mean everyone else will. It leaves the task to a smaller pool of competent people (best case), or unscrupulous people out to make a quick buck or push an agenda (worst case).

This is one potential outcome.

Another is organisations will keep the same content (as this is what drives clicks and profitability), however change the language used to describe it.

I would say this outcome is worse, as it leads to things like newspeak, muddying of definitions, and an increase in accusations of dogwhistling (accurate or otherwise). We may already be on this path, but it would be accelerated.

The title is far from "clear" or "accurate". Attention-getting for sure.

I had no idea what the premise of the article would be without clicking on it. The article's thesis: "abolish cop shit in the classroom" would make a more accurate title (albeit still inflamatory to those sensitive to the language).

I think your second paragraph is misplaced. It's my belief that people "accepted a drastic and sudden lifestyle change over the last few months" precisely because it was advertised as a temporary measure.

We're already seeing large numbers of people reject the "stay at home" narrative , simply because they want to, rather than it being driven by improving conditions.

Using this as evidence to suggest that people will adjust to a "new normal" is arguing against your point.

I think an important point the author is trying to make is that we don't know how this is going to play out, with "scenario planning" being a central theme of the article.

We have only experienced a few of the pandemic's direct effects a few months in, and in many parts of the globe the first wave is still in full swing. The second- and higher-order effects are largely unknown at this point, and many will only be fully understood by future historians.

While the direct comparison to WWI/II may be hyperbolic, I think it's a fair assessment to say that COVID is the biggest, truly global event since. During each war there were many turning points that may have ended them early, turning them into smaller, regional conflicts. The people who experienced the first six months of them weren't to know they would leave tens of millions dead and society changed forever after. Now I'm not suggesting that COVID will be on remotely this scale, however I believe the author's argument that it will likely trigger large societal change, and to try and prepare accordingly, is a good one.

Perhaps you didn't mean it in a literal sense, however you and I have a very different opinion on the term realistic.

I believe a deus ex machina type carbon capture solution is a far more likely scenario than getting industrialised nations, let alone emerging ones, to actually reduce their energy usage.

I like your idea of malfeasance insurance.

Premiums could be priced in such a way that it takes into account your personal record, to incentivise your own behaviour; your local/metro PD's record, to incentivise them policing each other; and the state's record in an attempt to address systemic and cultural issues.

Your body cam "malfunctioned"? Congratulations, you just increased the insurance premiums for yourself and all your colleagues.

I have a similar gripe with Eric Weinstein's podcast mentioned in TFA.

I've quite enjoyed the episodes I've listened to, however they can be difficult to parse at times - somewhat defeating the oft-mentioned benefit of listening to a podcast while performing other activities.

He is obviously very intelligent, but often uses language and analogies that appear to be aimed more at showing off this intelligence than engaging the guest or audience. It distracts from the point he or his guest is attempting to make, which is frustrating.

This is a disingenuous take. There's a big difference between a shorter person wanting extra leg room because it's nice to have, and someone being in actual physical pain because they couldn't afford / weren't quick enough to get one of the few seats they can actually fit in.

If you're interested in the topic of this comment and its replies, consider reading about the Vulnerable World Hypothesis [1].

I don't know how much credence to give it, however it's a fascinating thought experiment, especially the "Type-1" vulnerabilities.

[1] https://nickbostrom.com/papers/vulnerable.pdf

Because the article's title specifically states that every CS major should know those topics. Should every CS major know formal methods, AI, robotics... ?

Yes the heavy math you took was very helpful (and I personally agree as someone who did a CS heavy math degree), however as stated above the list should really be a minimum requirement. Anything extra is superfluous.

I think the argument is that "they" is often used in the plural form, and requires context to determine where it's referring to the singular. This context isn't always clear which leads to ambiguity.

You obviously can't jail a corporation as you would a person in this situation. However, a person would absolutely be subject to asset forfeiture and proceeds of crime law in such a situation - do the same here.

A paltry fine such as this is never going to prevent this behaviour. Determine as part of the investigation any revenue the company made from engaging in the behaviour and take it off them, in addition to the fine.

Even then, it's not even a cost of 0.1% EBITDA. It's a cost of 0.1% * p, where p is the probability of actually being caught. How many companies behave unethically because they know full well the will likely get away with it.

It was definitely a tedious process, made all the more frustrating when all you wanted to do was play. But damn if your post didn't just make me smile from a wave of nostalgia.

Your last paragraph makes little sense. You can advocate for a world where software shouldn't be patented, while still respecting existing IP laws.

Thinking everyone should play by the same rules, even if you disagree with those rules, is not hypocritical in the slightest.

Seconded. If you have any interest in CS and are looking for a cheap mobile game to pass the time, give this a look.

As an Australian, your story rings particularly true - simply replace Vimy Ridge with Gallipoli. We even celebrate our (arguably) most important national holiday on the day of the first landing.

It took listening to Dan Carlin's podcast [1], which I couldn't recommend more, for me to learn much of what I know and pique my interest to read further.

[1] https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-50-bluepr...

I think it's unlikely the parent was referring to actual physical harassment.

I agree with the premise that acceptance would probably be higher for someone who comes across as awkward, or makes a social faux pas in an effort to fit in if they were on the spectrum, as opposed to just being "that weird guy."

It looks like you're trying to fire a rifle. Would you like help?

I agree with the sentiment that review bombing should not be a way to voice criticism, but the unfortunate reality is that it is used extensively. The line from the article which questions how Jiminy Peak managed to get a favourable Google response when others have been destroyed is a salient one. This becomes yet another method by which the large tech companies exert control through their monopoly on information.

And under your system, what incentive is there for long term capital investment?

Why is it I generally only ever hear this argument (or some variant of it, e.g. starving children) when discussing a proposed scientific endeavour? Why not trim the US military budget by 10% and generate 3x as much revenue, you could house 1.2 million homeless for that price.