You might argue that what kept Elizabeth Holmes out of trouble was her public persona as well. Neither case has the aroma of justice as far as I'm concerned.
>relentlessly adjusted and overfitted and still appears very inadequate to fit all the evidence
Welcome to physics. The Copenhagen Interpretation is the most concise and robustly tested theory in all of physics. Yet it was dreamt up by a literal absurdist who thought that the universe itself has no objective state of existence. For all we know about the universe, we can still not answer many of the most basic questions about it. The lesson to be learnt from this is that our greatest theories are at best woefully incomplete, and that even our greatest scientists don't have the ability to talk about many things with any level of objective certainty.
Incomplete in very extreme conditions such as the interiors of black holes or the first instants after the Big Bang. I’m not really sure that’s “woeful” in a sense that matters to almost anyone other than a particle physicist or a cosmologist. For example the confidence in QED has been tested and found that the theory makes accurate predictions to within 10^-8.
I’d also argue that you’re substituting “basic” for “fundamental” and that’s bordering on dishonesty. We don’t have answers to some of the. OST fundamental questions, assuming we’re even asking the right questions, but the basics are well covered.
An argument between ‘basic’ and ‘fundamental’ is a semantic one, and bordering on pointless.
QED works quite well in most cases, but only if you don’t look too closely, and only if you ignore one of the fundamental forces. QED offers no explaination for gravity, which even non-physicists know exists.
What is gravity? What is a particle? What is space? These are all quite basic questions that were not even close to having complete answers for. QED provides a “good enough” explaination for how particles and space work, just as relativity gives a “good enough” explaination of gravity. But any physicist who’s being intellectually honest knows that we only have a rudimentary understanding of these concepts. The wave function is just an excellent tool we use to smooth out our lack of understanding. Your comment is a perfect example of the arrogance that pervades the scientific community, and the inability to acknowledge the limits of our own understanding. Which I think only inhibits the wider community’s ability to communicate effectively with the general public.
It does; gravitation in perturbative QED on time-dependent curved backgrounds has exactly the same explanation as General Relativity. [1] This generalizes very well. [2]
One can look at it the other direction too: General Relativity guarantees flat spacetime in the neighbourhood of every point on the manifold with signature 1,3 or 3,1. As long as the radius of curvature is large compared to the system under study there is no trouble at all (QED systems are usually pretty tiny, so you're good down to and through astrophysical black hole apparent horizons). This is implicit in laboratory tests of QED.
> But any physicist who’s being intellectually honest knows that we only have a rudimentary understanding of these concepts
Everyone should be honest about how much she or he really knows, and how much he or she can judge how much someone else really knows.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool" -- Feynman
- --
[1] [BirrellDavies] N.D. Birrell and P.C.W. Davies, Quantum fields in curved space, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge U.K. (1982).
[2] [BGZV] A.O. Barvinsky, Yu.V. Gusev, V.V. Zhytnikov, and G.A. Vilkovisky, SPIRES-HEP:Print-93-0274(Manitoba), (1993). https://arxiv.org/abs/0911.1168
QED works to the best ability of any test, down to one part in ten billion, so looking very close indeed. Then in order...
What is gravity? The geometry of spacetime.
What is a particle? A localized excitation of a field.
It may be that you don’t like or understand the answers, but they exist and allow people to make precise predictions, build machines that work based on said principles. Maybe you’re confusing scientific answers with philosophical ones?
1. forming an essential foundation or starting point; fundamental.
Your answers to those questions are either deliberately over-simplifying to avoid the question, or you don’t understand QED yourself. Your definition of a particle describes a possible outcome of a measurement, and ignores the existence of a wave function. Your description of gravity cannot be created in QED. You have provided no explanation of space whatsoever, which is so woefully unexplained by quantum mechanics, that it is referred to as the ‘vacuum catastrophe’.
Anybody who investigates these concepts can see that our understanding of them is woefully incomplete. However scientists tend to have a very hard time acknowledging these limits of our understanding, and will often respond to such acknowledgements with thinly veiled contempt. Just as you have done by trying to undermine my opinion on them, rather than responding to what I have said. I think that by failing to acknowledge the limits of scientific understanding, maybe you are confusing science with religion?
> scientists tend to have a very hard time acknowledging these limits of our understanding
That couldn't be further from the truth. Scientists have been very upfront about the limits of our understanding, particularly when it comes to combining gravity with quantum physics. Listen to Neil DeGrasse Tyson or any other science communicator talk about general relativity or quantum physics and you'll hear them drive this point home.
We know that quantum physics and general relativity don't combine well, yet both are among the most thoroughly tested theories in science. We know we need new physics to combine them, but they're still useful in their own domains. Just like before we had general relativity, we knew that Newtonian gravity was incomplete because it didn't correctly explain the orbit of Mercury. But Newtonian gravity was (and is) still useful, even with those limitations. The key is knowing where the limitations apply.
General relativity applies to scenarios of high mass/energy. Quantum physics applies at small scales. They both work great in their respective domains. It's when you have high mass/energy in a small volume that things break down, because both quantum physics and general relativity apply, but we don't know how to combine them.
> I think that by failing to acknowledge the limits of scientific understanding, maybe you are confusing science with religion?
I don't see dbasedweeb failing to acknowledge anything. dbasedweeb wrote, "incomplete in very extreme conditions such as the interiors of black holes or the first instants after the Big Bang," which happen to be two places where quantum physics and general relativity are both applicable and we therefor run into the limitations that I mentioned above.
The theories are incompatible at all energy levels, it's simply that those are two examples where we can't use them to accurately predict outcomes. Another not-extreme-at-all example where quantum physics completely breaks down is empty space. However, this discussion is deliberately missing the point, which is that it's not making predictions in everyday scenarios where physics fails. It's in describing the basic nature of our universe, which are two completely different things all together.
You're right that there are examples of scientists who highlight these gaps in our knowledge, there are more who simply pay some lip service to them, and then there's a much larger group of people, like dbasedweeb, who irrationally suppress all criticisms of scientific theories as if they were literally religious beliefs.
I want you to engage in a thought experiment. I don’t code, and couldn’t program my way out of a wet paper bag. I assume that you can do much better than that, right? If I try to bullshit you about something you know a great deal about, from my position of ignorance, how long would it take for you to realize that I just knew little bits and pieces, but not the big picture? A sentence? Two?
And yet you seem to think that when it comes to physics, this same rule won’t apply. If you really care about the subjects you’re talking around, take some intro courses, really learn about it, or accept that you can only bullshit people who know less about the subject than you.
Phrases like, “the basic nature of our universe” sound good if you don’t know the first thing about the topic at hand, and probably impress people with no education or experience on said topic. To others, they’re huge giveaways that you don’t know what you’re talking about. Other red alerts are, “What is space?” “Empty space” and broad, substance-free critiques.
If you care about the subject and not just projecting a particular image of yourself, then bother to actually learn about them beyond the level of pop science. Critiquing something you demonstrably don’t have a deep knowledge of is a pointless exercise unless you’re just trying to impress people who know even less about it than you.
In order to benefit from agile, your codebase and pipelines absolutely NEED to be built in such a way that they can easily accept and ship lots of small changes, and ideally should maximise the efficiency of your code. You should spend most of your time writing business logic, rather than code to facilitate the code that contains your business logic.
Shameless plug here! We also created something we called our Smart Router engine at https://processout.com, which helps you connect to dozens of payment providers and optimize your transactions.
I don't know if the numbers in the comment you're referring to are correct, but let's assume they're close enough and do the math.
If I pay $5 every other day for 10 diapers, then I'm paying ~$75/month for 150 diapers. $0.50/diaper, $2.50/day.
If I take a pay day loan of $30 for a 200 pack of diapers, then I've just brought a 40 day supply of diapers. $0.15/diaper, $0.75/day.
After 16 days I've recouped my original investment of a $30 loan + $10 fee. By the time day 40 rolls around and I run out of diapers, I've saved $60. I can now afford to buy bulk diapers in perpetuity. For every subsequent month, I'll be spending $52.5 less on diapers.
Good luck finding a legal loan shark that only charges $10.
I can only speak from the fees here in Australia but here, for a small loan. You're looking at a minimum fee of 200-300% and that's assuming you pay on time.
This is why legal loan sharks exist, and if this method actually did work as you intended it, why do legal loan sharks still exist? Couldn't you apply your macroeconomics to everything?
Food? Nappies? Water? Bulk buy all of your items on legal loan sharks just once and you're ahead.
1) Get a small loan
2) Buy all the small disposable/consumables you require in bulk and reap the savings
3) Pay off the loan with 200-300% in fees on top, assuming you pay it off in time
At 200% you still come out ahead after your first packet of diapers.
As somebody who grew up in abject poverty, and who lived in poverty for the first portion of their adult life, better planning will absolutely make situations like this instantaneouly better. When I was poor as hell I put a huge amount of effort into buying in bulk and doing various other things to avoid all of the blindingly obvious poverty traps that exist. It took some hardship to get everything established properly, but my whole life was hardship, so big deal...
Most people in the west could get away with living a sustainable (although shitty) lifestyle in poverty. It’s only proper planning and effort that will pull them out of it.
I'm from a poor working background too. You can look through my comment history, topics of poverty, drug abuse and macroeconomics are some of the many topics that typically interest me enough to contribute to the conversation here on Hacker News.
Your logic is absolutely sound, but in the event or period where you've taken the loan and have to pay it off in 1-2 weeks. What happens when said parents child gets sick and requires more nappies that day?
Perhaps they need medication.
Maybe they lost some cash walking to the grocery store.
They lost a days work.
There's no room for error and when or if that occurs. The entire benefit goes backwards and you end up losing so much more than you hoped to gain.
There's a whole myriad of reasons that could contribute to this loan going backwards when you have 0 disposable income.
But if you're borrowing $30 for nappies, it would not take much to then push you outside of that fortnightly budget so you are not able to meet your legal loan sharks contractual payments and that, by definition, is a financial slippery slope.
The financial industry relies on people like this, I would assume for every credit card owner that has 55 interest days free or a 0% balance transfer. There's another 9 who don't pay off in time and will incur interest charges and fees and make the entire business venture profitable.
Legal Loan sharks are profit driven, they are not providers of care, and they are not their to help you get ahead so you do not need to use their services again. Their business model is the exact opposite. They assume you will need to go back, and go back repeatedly.
You'd do well to watch Episode 2 of Dirty Money on Netflix - Payday. The entire episode is essentially a business case for why Loan Sharks should be avoided at all costs.
But the thing is, your maths is _correct_. So instead why can't we loan this person who lives in poverty from non-profits and similar who want to _help_ if it's so logically sound that allowing those in poverty to buy in bulk, will allow them to get ahead?
I don’t disagree with most of that. The loan shark maths is just one (rather contrived) example of how a person can break out of a particular poverty trap.
It’s harder to break out of a poverty trap than it is to live with one, but it’s much easier to stay out of one than it is to live with it. My point is that with the correct effort, people can generally break free of most of the poverty traps they find themselves in.
To speak to your last point, there generally are non-profits around who help with these sort of things, and I used some of them myself in the past. The thing that non-profits can provide so simply is the motivation and discipline required to maintain a well planned budget. Each small thing that you improve, like buying diapers in bulk, is a step towards escaping poverty, and everybody has the capacity to do those things.
> My point is that with the correct effort, people can generally break free of most of the poverty traps they find themselves in.
I find 'correct effort' to rather deceptive term, because part of the problem is defining what that would be (and your example failed as a 'correct' one).
Furthermore, I'd say a cursory glance at history shows that what you're saying is not true. Slaves did not just free themselves, the working class did not just obtain the many rights all enjoy by themselves, women did not just gain voting rights and all that jazz by themselves, and all this applies to gays and the mentally disabled too.
I'm not arguing against 'correct effort', clearly many poor, slaves, women and gays fought hard. The crucial bit here is that they did so collectively, that they needed a lot of help from those who were not in their situation, and that a big part of this involved effecting political change.
I've never heard a convincing argument that somehow we're now in a completely different situation, and that somehow now the steps one can take as an individual are 'correct action', even if of course they can't hurt.
It strikes me that this focus on the individual is somehow a problem on both ends of the political spectrum. The one side devolves into perhaps too much identity politics, and the other too much into the "we'd all be fine if we just worked harder on ourselves".
Both sides, meanwhile, seem to prefer to paint the other side as being will-fully <insert shitty ism>, when I think we're all really mostly equally shitty and good, probably partly right, and really we should just be mad at the immense inequality that has left us mis-directing our anger at each other.
People aren’t property any more, we all have equal protection under the law, we have mostly reliable social welfare programs, and private charitable programs are bigger than they’ve ever been. Your analogy doesn’t hold any water at all.
The correct effort is simply whatever a person can do to make incremental improvements to their lives. It’s going to be different for everybody. Psychologically, part of the reason that poverty traps are so easy to fall into is because people in poverty don’t have the luxury of indulging in much long term decision making. However some opportunity always exists, and finding an exploiting those opportunities is the only way out.
The reason there is any focus on the individual is because you can’t simply subsidize out of poverty. If you want people to get out of poverty and to stay out of poverty, then those people need to take responsibility for their own destiny. Arguably society could do a better job of giving people the tools to do that, but that doesn’t change the dynamics of the problem. The truth is that if I was in that persons shoes, I’d be living a better life than they are. Because I was, and I managed to, and those skills eventually got me completely out of poverty all together.
we all have equal protection under the law, we have mostly reliable social welfare programs, and private charitable programs are bigger than they’ve ever been. Your analogy doesn’t hold any water at all.
Reality is that minorities get charged more harshly for the same crime than Whites and once you have a criminal record, it's harder to get a job.
Studies have also shown that all other things being equal, when a person has a resume that signals "blackness", they get fewer calls back.
Not to mention that because of overzealous prosecutions, poorly funded public defenders offices, and the prominence of plea deals, poor people don't get the same breaks as someone who can afford their own lawyer.
Then let's not even mention the poor state of some school districts since schools are funded by property taxes leading to a cycle of poor schools.
As far as just because you were able to come out of poverty means anyone can is just like saying that because I won the lottery, why can't anyone? Statistically, income mobility is rare.
Most of us went to college and lived off poverty level income. I ate potatoes, and ramen for years with a 10/hr part time job and still managed to save enough money to go on trips.
It doesn't take much time to put together a budget and if you lack the knowledge i am sure you can find free community classes to get basic budgeting skills. I signed up to volunteer at one but they had too many volunteers.
People need to get out this learned helplessness and make effort to improve their lives.
This may be accurate math but it’s also the thought process of a non-indigent person sitting at a computer, not the thinking of someone who works all day for $8.25 and hour and is taking care of a newborn and trying to make ends meet.
That’s grade school arithmetic. We’re not talking about people who aren’t intelligent enough to do arithmetic, we’re talking about people who don’t have the correct mindset and motivation to make small, incremental investments in their future.
Absolutely, nothing has brought a greater level of prosperity and equality to the world than free market capitalism. This is simply an empirical fact. Just like it is an empirical fact that every socialist nation in history has created huge levels of poverty and inequality.
Hey, remember when the USSR started and they eliminated homelessness within 10 years. And also, were the first to space. In addition, had citizens that were better fed than the US, had more doctors per capita. And this is just from State Capitalism, not Socialism.
No I don’t, because that never happened. I do remember millions of soviet citizens dying from famine though, and millions more dying from state sponsored killing. I don’t remember any famines taking place in developed free markets during that period. However, I have a pretty clear memory of the two class system that developed in all of the socialist nations that existed in the 20th century. One of the starving poor, and another of the rich oligarchs.
>How trivial would it be to make sure this leader in the article who 'never met a Muslim', was forced to scroll through a feed with positive messages about Muslims and religious tolerance?
So when the users don't conform to the world view of the platform operators, the answer is platform sponsored propaganda? That is incredibly dystopian.
> So when the users don't conform to the world view of the platform operators, the answer is platform sponsored propaganda? That is incredibly dystopian.
Advertising is propaganda dedicated to getting you to conform the advertiser's preferences, and it's already targeted however the advertiser prefers, which could be by lack of conformance to those preferences.
You are basically suggesting that the platform operator doing themselves what they already build their business around allowing anyone with a checkbook to do is dystopian.
I would suggest it is no more dystopian than the status quo.
> So when the users don't conform to the world view of the platform operators, the answer is platform sponsored propaganda?
Facebook sponsors propaganda all the time. Its algorithms favor certain posts and messages over others, based on a long list of attributes, including ad dollars. But apparently that's OK, while suggest that Facebook display some positive third-party post about Muslims in Myanmar -
while a genocide is underway - is suddenly "platform-sponsored propaganda"?
I don't support any of the propaganda that Facebook pushes. This also doesn't have anything to do with ads. The issues is that when these mega-platforms decide that they are going to promote one side of a political issue, and suppress another (as they have been doing more and more), this comes at the cost of freedom of expression, and all you're left with is corporate approved discourse.
Of course this is much easier to rationalize in this situation. However that's how you end up giving away liberty. You give it up in little pieces in response to extreme situations, then when you go back about your life you don't get it back.
The real issue here is that this gets the whole problem backwards. We shouldn't be looking at a state-sponsored genocide and then claiming that "if only Facebook had more control over public discourse then we'd be able to solve this problem". The "problem" in that statement can be anything from this genocide taking place, to your preferred candidate losing an election. "We need more propaganda" isn't going to solve any of that, and in reality it's just a veiled power grab by companies that wish to control public discourse more effectively.
> We shouldn't be looking at a state-sponsored genocide and then claiming that "if only Facebook had more control over public discourse then we'd be able to solve this problem".
The genocide in Myanmar has both state-sponsored and spontaneous characteristics. Facebook can and should help with the latter, if it's going to allow folks to pass around pro-genocide messaging using the site.
In the end, I advocate for everyone to abandon all large-scale, centralized, corporate social media, but given how unrealistic this goal is at present, my next hope is for the large social media companies to assume more responsibility for their actions. The same standards that we've traditionally held all media companies to.
But why is propaganda your preferred option over traditional content moderation? I doubt many people would considering it controversial to censor calls to violence. However when you start to focus on "hate speech" (which is where this line of reasoning will take you) and add propaganda to your moderation toolkit, then you start to cross the line into full blown dystopia territory.
Again, this may be a more compelling example of how you might define "hate speech". But if you think facebook has a responsibility to start moderating speech based on its perceived "hatefulness", then you're still going to end up at the same destination, where genuine public discourse is gradually replaced with corporate approved discourse.
You think 'content moderation' is less dystopian than 'propoganda'....
I think you are hearing something I didn't say.
I'm just talking about promoting some TED Talks. Making sure everyone can name at least 1 good Muslim. Maybe trying to raise the profile of the people who should be winning the Nobel Peace prize.
If someone is IN a hate group. I would like them to have some limited exposure to the views of the other side. I don't think that's propaganda.
I think 'content moderation' has a much higher potential for abuse, and a nightmare future.
I hope it does. Snap was clearly overvalued to an absurd level. If things like this don’t make investors more discerning, then you’ve got the workings of a bubble on your hands.
People said that about Facebook as well and yet now its super profitable.
Not disagreeing with what you say; I would be very interested in a side by side analysis of FB and SNAP to see why one succeeded and one is struggling.
Perhaps one main reason is simply that FB is aggressively trying to kill SNAP whereas FB itself didn't have that kind of a determined opponent.
They're not really comparable when you look at the numbers. Facebook had 500 million active users, a steadily growing user base (1 billion was projected within a year at the time of the IPO), and a clear monetisation strategy.
Snap had 150 million active users, most importantly it's growth was seriously stunted, and it's monetisation strategy was rather 2 dimensional.
Facebook IPO'd at around $100 billion, Snap IPO'd at $20 billion, and it got very close to $30 billion in the trading immediately after. However nothing about it's numbers should justify that. Investors get seduced by the promise of a SaaS revenue hockey stick, and I hope people learn the lessons of Snap before they buy into future hype IPOs so easily.
That's how I got my current job. I was working as a consultant for a company, and we all mutually decided that I should come in and fill a rather high ranking permanent role there. They asked me to write the job description for it, and work with HR to get it posted. That night I went home and applied for the job. That being said, I've never properly applied for a job in my life, and I'm pretty sure this is rather common.
