If your product is at all worthwhile, it will constantly be tossed back and forth between lawyers, trying to uphold or disprove its validity. ("Well here's an independent study done on how arresting officers with shaky hands get inconsistent results when administering the SannTek Cannibus test" et al et al ad nauseum) While yes, this is a problem in any society that applies capitalism principles to the practice of law.... I don't think there's necessarily a better system, sadly. Don't feel responsible to fix it all yourself. Anyway, pursue the technology as well as possible, by all means work in as many checks and balances as possible for correct use, and constant calibration, BUT ALSO talk and document openly during your design phase and testing the ideology you develop to govern false positives versus false negatives. This is an extremely engaging technology ethics discussion. If you drive the error to be false negatives, at a rate of 5%, will you not be able to sell it, because your customer is most interested in an effective tool? What is the societal benefit of getting this device to be accepted and used by the police? If you can achieve FN=4% is it worth it, or is the societal benefit actually much higher, possibly at FN =20%. Can you just run the test 5 times in a row, or with 2 stand alone devices to reach the dependability rate you desire? If you drive the error to be false positives, at a rate of 1%, can you sleep at night with the lives your product will effect, or do you need a fall back like your device determining with 100% accuracy that cannibus is present in someone's system (just not a definitive, exact amount), PLUS a statement from an arresting officer stating erratic or dangerous driving or behavior in conjunction with your device's input. I'm very excited about what you're doing. I didn't know (still not yet convinced) that the science is solvent, but I've been asking about this device for years.
"It’s obvious that the police will want a device that produces more convictions, no point in disputing that."
Uh, why couldn't we talk about it as adults? OP's answer below is excellent. Police want a device that will make their job most effective and profitable, with the lowest margin not only for legal repercussions, but also the lowest possibility of people like you deciding that all police officers are pure evil who just want as many convictions as possible. Doesn't everybody want their job to be like that? BLM has made some good progress (and more is needed yet) scaring some pure evil people who happen to be police officers into wanting what's good and right. Probably not prudent to worry about a new technology that might be oversensitive, especially when the first time this thing is used in a conviction by a person with a rich dad, they'll spend as much as possible throwing doubt on the research supporting it, or how the officer was trained to use it, or etc etc etc, in order to build plausible deniability in court and get the case thrown out.
Your kind makes me laugh.
"I am busy solving real problems for real customers."
Yep, I'm sure you hardly have time to brush your teeth with all those real problems popping out from everywhere just asking to be solved!
"It shows resourcefulness, too, because the candidate often has to hunt down an email address the interviewer never gave them."
So basically the author expects the candidate to send a thank you email even though she didn't exchange her email address. Well, I think such email is natural when you make a personal contact with the interviewer, but in this scenario(when you receive emails from noreply@bigcorporate.com) it feels unnecessary and intrusive to me.
Really? Blatantly ignoring patent laws, IP, international waters, the sovereignty of other countries, as well as their well documented strong arm capitalism-for-the-sake-of imperialism, like their infrastructure projects in Sri Lanka and other places for the purpose of bankruptcy is just seeking the common good?
Its very funny to me how you praise them for championing "open source" philosophy with other people's IP etc... adn then at the end of your statement wonder allowed about them not sharing any of their own. Uh, thats not "open source" thats imperialism by any and all means.
Disclaimer: Im not trying to paint this onto China as an entirety or as a culture. There are government forces at work, as well as private entities supporting and abetting this behavior for the purpose of Chinese Imperialism. There are good people and good institutions in China, unfortunately they are not the winds of progress there currently
"Its very funny to me how you praise them for championing "open source" philosophy with other people's IP etc... adn then at the end of your statement wonder allowed about them not sharing any of their own. Uh, thats not "open source" thats imperialism by any and all means. "
Yeah, it's not the same as open source. They certainly don't give anything out like in open-source. Your comment is misleading, though. The Chinese companies, which include lots of competitors internal to China, just copy everything in their process of iterating products out. So, Chinese companies and/or government takes the I.P., create their own products, and other Chinese copy them. All this stuff keeps spreading cheaper and getting forked kind of like open source. Hits overcharging, proprietary suppliers hard like open source. Just isn't open source with the full benefits.
Wow how interesting. Seems to drive out of a mindset of despair and blind hope. This seems like a pretty appropriate category for Modern Monetary Theory as well.
Reason becomes dangerous when you have an agenda to push because. It mandates that there is a source and authority of that reason. Corrupt religion is a very interesting (and true example, because while vocally, a source of reason is acknowledged (God), the control freakishness of corrupt religion, or anything else, makes plain that they have no unwavering trust in anything besides themselves and power. Non-corrupt religion does not display these failings.
Communication overhead is MORE relevant than it ever has been. Sure, large open-source groups can collaborate on a project, but each person needs to know the operating principles and what element of solution is being held paramount. Regardless of inputs, mathematics can "only optimize 1 variable". Large groups can offer a larger pool of situational knowledge, which is valuable, but if individual A knows a certain element MUST be included, they now have to convince a great number of people that they're actually right. "There are a thousand ways to skin a cat", but if you put 1000 engineers in a forum and ask them to skin a cat, each will chose and champion 1 of the thousand ways (exaggerated for effect) and if left alone will complete it. The artistry is in developing a system to discern a solution that is above average, within the agreed upon timeline. A 4 person team might only brainstorm the 4-10 most obvious solutions, but the discernment process is orders of magnitude simpler.
