What business is it of yours if your neighbor is doing heroin? We could get people off the streets if we gave them treatment. A drug addicts are sick; Locking them in jail shouldn’t be the answer
If junkies get their fix, it's literally the only thing they care about. It's them not being able to support their habit with a day job what makes them reckless and dangerous.
If junkies receive their fix from medical authorities, along with a treatment helping them to quit, they even have a hope to become in-addicted again.
Of course, arresting or maybe outright killing a junkie would instantly remove any threat to the neighbors. It just requires stopping to see the junkie as a human in need of help and start seeing the junkie as a violent criminal or even non-human. I wonder if such an approach is sort of dangerous for the society's mental health.
Yep, as it stands we are just pulling off the band aid in the slowest and most painful possible way. The handling of the crisis by the Trump administration has been so far beyond stupid that there isn’t even a word for it
I think you’re right that we are on the cusp or real natural language understanding. It’s an incredible moment. But we are also kinda far from these huge models being in every home because of the enormous amount of compute they require. Even running inference with these things is kinda expensive
A lot of truth in this article, but I disagree that trump has anything to do with this trend. As other commenters have pointed out, this trend predates trump’s ascension. The author admits vapor wave predates trump, as does Burner art and certain Japanese styles which I think played a major part in producing and popularizing this aesthetic. Trump’s aesthetic bears superficial similarities with this aesthetic, but I think in the same way that a stopped clock is right twice a day.
I don't think the article hinges on trump bringing this stuff out. I think its more like the existing popular appeal of this stuff counteracted / re-channeled disgust.
The article talks of journals rejecting papers because the author had already been rejected by other journals or because the author’s prior papers were in less-prestigious journals. This method of selecting papers is the perfect recipe for groupthink. The names of the authors should be removed while a paper is being reviewed—the reviewers shouldn’t know who wrote it so that they’ll be forced to evaluate the paper on its intrinsic merits rather than the reputation of its author. That might not solve this beta amyloid orthodoxy problem, but it’d help at least
> they’ll be forced to evaluate the paper on its intrinsic merits rather than the reputation of its author
Similarly, many academics won't evaluate published papers on their own merits and instead focus heavily on proxies like publication venue. Conference papers are unfairly viewed with suspicion compared against journal articles (in my field at least), and certain venues are viewed as superior in general to the point where some "don't count".
These academics instead outsource the evaluation to a few reviewers, who often don't know what they're doing. Peer review does not appear to be as reliable as it is treated. I view peer review as closer to a lottery. And the "best" journals still frequently publish nonsense. It tends to be more pretentious nonsense in my field, though.
I don't care too much about signaling the quality of my work and instead would rather publish in more specialized journals and conferences where I can reach the people I want to reach and get better feedback. I recall at a presentation on getting a faculty job someone said that they won't count any publications in journals with names they don't recognize. Both quality specialized journals and bad journals are included in that set. Add on top of that the common view that conference papers also "don't count" and I think the incentives here are bad.
Ask people who work in any field that does have blind review, and they'll tell you that it isn't actually blind... you can make good guesses on the author list by examining the description of previous work, the reference list, the style of the writing, etc etc.
It's still better than nothing. You can't reject a paper saying "I believe this author is X, who has few publications in major journals" which encourages people to assess the paper on its own merits, even if it doesn't ensure it.
While halting warming is important, a Solar shade is an absolutely terrible way to do that. Shading out 2% of the light has obvious implications for global crop yields and for non crop plants that all rely on solar energy. It would also obviously reduce efficiency of solar electric power collectors, impeding their ability to replace fossil fuels. Global warming is a big problem, but a global food crisis is an even bigger one. A solar shade would buy time on the global warming problem while also creating a much bigger problem.
> A solar shade would buy time on the global warming problem while also creating a much bigger problem.
It had been pointed out that the main reason for warming, advanced level of CO2, leads to bigger agricultural growth, so here we have to opposite trends.
We'd prefer of course to have the shield controllable, and shadow only a small (like, 10%) fraction of solar energy. More, the shield likely won't be ready all at once, so we can have early indication for how it works being partially deployed.
reply