homogeneous
> We're almost certainly going to discover less palatable differences between races -- e.g. around intelligence.
I read that as "we are almost certainly going to discover, for example, that some races are more intelligent than other races". From this statement it follows that we will be able to prove that some races are "more intelligent" and some races are "less intelligent", thus it seems fair to conclude that you're asserting that the genetic factors that cause someone to fall into a specific racial category predisposes them to a certain level of intelligence. From that position we can conclude that if an individual displays the phenotypic traits that meet the definition of one of the less intelligent races, it follows that this individual would be genetically predisposed to less intelligence, also known as stupidity.
I do notice that you said "almost certainly", not "inevitably" so I apologize for that, but please let me know if I have otherwise misinterpreted your position.
I mean any conclusions that follow from a baseline assumption that certain races are genetically predisposed towards abstract characteristics. For example "we should target white communities for voluntary firearm buy-back programs because white people are genetically pre-disposed to firearm suicide." We know that white people are statistically more likely to commit suicide and statistically more likely to use a gun to do it, we also know that genetics play a large role in suicide risk, what does not follow is that the common genetic factors that culminate to express the phenotypes that are unscientifically identified as "white" necessarily imply the existence of genetic factors that increase suicide risk.
You might ask, "Well what's the practical difference? In your example we should still target white people for the buy-back because the statistics show the population we define as white is the most vulnerable". To this I say, that's ok, we collected data on "white" people so targeting them for assistance is the best we can do, but it doesn't mean that we cannot do better in the future by disentangling the specific genetic factors that increase suicide risk from the opaque genetic category of "white" people.
> It's not a coincidence you can pass people by on the street and readily identify 95% of them as being "white", "Asian", "Indian (/Pakistani/etc)", "black", etc, and that if multiple people perform this task, the agreement will be very high. It's obviously shared genetics that are causing these groupings
Right, what I'm saying is that walking down the street and categorizing people into races based on how they look is a crude and unscientific (but efficient) method for grouping people with some shared genetics. Obviously, shared genetics are at the root of these groupings because genetics are the foundation of all phenotypes, but it is not a given that the presence of the phenotypes used to define arbitrary categories like "white" or "black" or "indian" necessarily account for the genetic factors that culminate to make someone more or less prone to violence, or intelligence, or an affinity for musical composition.
> These differences are already used very widely in discussions about policy, as you noted, and that's exactly part of the reason why it should be fair game to fully investigate those differences.
Investigate away, I have no problem with that, we use racial categories because they are practical, what I reject is the hypothesis that we will one day be able to prove that there is an intrinsic link between the particular genes that cause the expression of a given phenotype and the specific polygenes that constitute complex characteristics like intelligence.
Not sure what you're referring to here but I did not use the word superior or make any references to superiority in any of my replies, but I think it's ironic that you accuse me of using smugness as an argument when you only responded to the first sentence of my reply (to tell me I'm smug) instead of the paragraph describing the argument.
> I was clearly distinguishing between those who hold that position because they think there are no significant differences and those who would maintain that position if uncomfortable differences were discovered.
What I'm telling you is that "those who hold that position because they think there are no significant differences" is a strawman. Once again, everyone except self-identified racists (they do exist) claim that all people should be treated equally and it is fallacious for you to claim a monopoly on this position because you believe it to be an inevitable truth that some races are genetically predisposed to stupidity.
Great, you've espoused the ostensible position of every person who isn't a self-identified racist.
> The position that differences aren't possible
Differences are clearly possible and readily apparent, my point is that any definitive conclusions drawn from correlations to "race" are of dubious merit because our racial definitions (as defined by the government and thus as it relates to policy) are imprecise heuristic amalgamations of apparent phenotypes. Skin tone, hair texture, facial structure in addition to language pretty much constitute the entirety of racial identity, so the impulse to group abstract polygenic characteristics like intelligence into what is essentially an individual's outward appearance doesn't lead to much in the way of profound insight. It's like trying to draw conclusions about road safety by measuring the correlation between car color and rate of receipt of speeding citations.
So whenever that is, I'll be eager to discover which phenotypic traits represent themselves on the spectrum of intelligence. I also wonder what concentration of melanin correlates with laziness and also about the particular hair texture and eye shape that can indicate poor driving skills. We can also demystify the relationship between nose size and financial proficiency (after factoring out penis size, of course).
What is the purpose of a "private blockchain"? Why not just use a traditionally centralized application if your organization is the only user?
Of course not. Do it exactly like how rentals work today except in an app instead of in person. Put in your bank card info, a hold is placed on your card, when the vehicle is returned the hold is released and the service fee is charged.
A machine (like the one I linked above) can accept money and dispense money at the discretion of the business rules that determine the appropriate criteria for these operations (via car sensors or whatever).
http://bw-2e2c4bf7ceaa4712a72dd5ee136dc9a8-bwcore.s3.amazona...
If this is not the type of device you're talking about please be more specific.
There is also no need for collateral or a smart contract in this scenario.
> Public bikes in many big cities don't have that problem either (i.e. there's no assessment of the returned bike).
How does a smart contract improve over the current system?
> A smart car doesn't have to have it either (sensors in the car could detect crashes, for example, and interiors could be built to be tough, like many public cars already - see Paris' AutoLib)
How does a smart contract help?
In all of your examples a smart contract doesn't add anything to the equation because the merchant (or the merchant's automated centralized systems) already have the authority and capability to relinquish deposited funds.
I don't want to sound like a hater, and I think as a developer it seems pretty cool that you can start receiving funds on the web without relying on a 3rd party gatekeeper, but it seems like smart contracts have pretty limited uses (not that they are useless, just very specialized)
I just don't see how a smart contract is helpful here since you're still relying on the owner of the resource to relinquish your funds when they are satisfied that you have returned their property in the condition they rented it to you. Whether you use cash, credit card, bitcoins or eth the power dynamics remain the same because it's ultimately up to the owner to say "ok, everything looks good, you can have your deposit back now".
Can you go into more details about this?
> blind auctions
Or this? How does the contract ensure that the winner of the auction receives what they have purchased?
> crowdfunding
In what respects beyond simply collecting funds? How does the contract judge that the terms of the funding are adhered to or ensure that the crowdfunders receive whatever it is they are entitled to as funders?
> person-to-person gambling
Any examples? In my post I gave the example of betting on a sports game but this requires a trusted 3rd party to officiate the outcome of the game.
> currencies, exchanges
These are vague descriptions and these things have already been done by bitcoin.
I'm not trying to nitpick, but I'm looking for specific practical examples that demonstrates the potential utility of ethereum.
This is possible with bitcoin isn't it? What does the added complexity of ethereum bring to the table?
> payment schedules or any kind of transaction that does not function exactly like a one time, full size payment
This also seems possible with bitcoin, but it's also a problem that has already been solved better by the traditional payment system (e.g. netflix debits my credit card every month, why would I use a cryptocurrency solution instead?)
> more ambitious ideas, like the Slock.it ones, involve smart locks that hold funds while granting use to a resource, and only return them after access has been revoked
Can you go into specifics here? I'm not really understanding. It sounds like you're describing a kind of autonomous collateral system, but I can't really think of any practical examples where this would be useful (without bringing human judgement into the mix).
Even something as trivial as betting on sports requires deference to a trusted authority to say "this team won". What advantages does an ethereum smart contract provide over, say, some kind of trusted bitcoin escrow site?
My point is that he is suggesting something more sinister.