This isn’t being realistic. The major benefit of these is peer review. You aren’t going to have enough people to peer review the work of a massively open and public publication system.
On top of that the chance of finding something as you suggest becomes that much more difficult. Smaller findings get published now in a more controlled scenario and get lost in the stream.
Major journals are a net positive for surfacing important science.
Yet "peer review" would absolutely scale if it were actually the review of peers (and not just an editorial board). A large number of publications where submissions are reviewed by previous and prospective authors would be much like how open source peer review works, though not without its own set of issues.
Discovery is a search problem and its pretty clear that we have the technical capacity to solve that problem if there is enough of a signal from wide-spread peer review.
Major journals become those that re-publish and report on the big debates and discoveries of the actually peer-reviewed journals and this would be the work of "journalists".
Peer-review can also occur from non-gatekeepers, from non-experts. You realize you posted this on a massively open and public publication system, right?
Non-experts sometimes bring perspectives that gatekeepers are blind to.
“You could always make an argument” and people did. And I would say this isn’t a surprising finding but it is important. Assessing direct impact almost always is because it makes realities more plain.
I wouldn’t say linear algebra is a necessity to being a computer scientist. At least, not the full linear algebra content. Knowing matrix math is enough.
It's not completely necessary. But I will say, as someone who began their career as an 18 year old "self-taught developer" then completed a CS degree at 30, I found linear algebra to be the most useful bit of knowledge that was missing from my kit.
You seem very confused by this in your comments. Did you read the article? The Swiss government was found to be out of line with its own policies and laws.
The ECHR is very obviously writing brand new legislation here, completely outside of the democratic process. The argument of “well that’s good because I think the democratic process should have already created this legislation” is simply anti-democratic.
The ECHR rules that Switzerland has failed to meet its treaty obligations WRT climate action. IE, there's been an internal failure by Switzerland's government and courts to enforce its own legislation and treaty obligations. So, these women took the next step - an international court (to which Switzerland is a party - if the Swiss don't like it, they should vote to abandon their obligation to the ECHR).
It’s a multi generational issue. It’s not a question of fair when the repercussions for not addressing it are massive. Younger generations know this. It’s too bad older generations did nothing to address the issues they saw in front of them. They were too selfish
I also think it’s preposterous to put climate change at their feet
I can see people using AI for setting up simple solutions. But AI, as it currently is, is dependent on human innovation to be able to generate results. Any novel problem will need human minds. On top of this AI is currently horrendous at coding things with complexity. Maybe some higher complexity solutions can get done with high cognitive tax in human prompt input, but there are serious diminishing returns on that.
AI still needs major breakthroughs to get to that point. And when it does it might very well have outpaced humans in a multitude of academic fields. Including the ones listed by Jensen Huang (the sciences).
Well why study history at all? Nothing in it has any more impact on us, no? Why try to determine who murdered a person even if it was decades later and the killer might be alive? It doesn’t matter anymore right?
I’m not in the conspiracy theorist crowd, but the “doesn’t matter anymore” crowd is disappointing.
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
History is extremely important. It can help us make predictions about the future and understand circumstances in the past.
This specific incident has been researched to death. There is very little we will be able to understand about the sociopolitics of the past that we don't already know if the hand on the trigger changes. Every hypothetical scenario has been gamed to exhaustion, and which one reflects the reality we happen to be living in isn't going to change modern sociopolitics very much. What would change in a relationship with Russia if we found out a USSR plot killed Kennedy? The USSR is gone. What would change in people's trust in the FBI if we found out they killed Kennedy? That institution's reputation is already tarnished, and the people who would have made the decision to have him killed no longer work there. What would it matter if there was a conspiracy of a few people working with Oswald? We already know that it doesn't take more than one actor to kill a President from other assassination attempts.
Similarly, there is little to be gained studying this topic to exhaustion in terms of future predictions. Kennedy was a singular President existing in a singular time. A series of fairly unique circumstances led him to be universally hated and loved at the same time... Immensely popular, but his combination of willingness to challenge entrenched power and brash indifference to consequences made him dozens of enemies who would have had the resources to eliminate him.
Whether he was killed by a secret FBI project or a lone, angry man with firearm training changes none of those facts.
That rules quote does not apply in the slightest. Perhaps I was glib about it, but I replied directly to the message at hand. He questioned the validity of studying a (massive) historical event (it “changes nothing”, much like studying a lot of history). You continue the exact same line of reasoning (“isn’t going to change modern sociopolitics very much”, though I find the use of “very much” an interesting use of words in this case). That there is nothing to gain. You make two assumptions a) that if there was a second gunman that they couldn’t possibly be put to justice and b) there is no historical value to knowing the truth or understanding the truth that would come to light had a potential third actor that was tied. For example say the Soviet Union somehow was toed (I’m not saying they are) there is an incredible value to knowing that it is fact. And if the FBI was involved? You thinking the FBI reputation is tarnished now is opinion, the effect could even have legal repercussions to people still alive and to regulating agencies. You don’t know , but if you have some “war game” about the impact I would love to see it. But the biggest of all is understanding the history of our country and world history. Historians don’t pretend that knowing more about the military maneuvers of Alexander will effect us today even though his battles have been studied to death. But when we contradict that denial of understanding some truth of our own history we are told, “doesn’t matter”, there’s no modern sociopolitical gain.
Your opinion on JFK as a president is moot. The fact he could not continue being president is what changed the world. LBJ succeeded him and the rest is “history”.
It doesn’t need to play out in todays politics but as I said, why study history at all if the only point is to gain insight into how it effects us directly today??
Oh, I misunderstood your previous position. Yes, "because it's there" is always a fine reason to climb a mountain.
I guess I'm just personally burnt out on this topic because I've been watching people bandy conspiracy theories back and forth my entire life, and the odds of this changing the understanding of the day's events in any meaningful way aren't larger than the other "revelations" I've seen in my time. I guess upon further reflection, I do have some concern that people will take the stuff too seriously and do something foolish.
To give an analogy, the Titanic disaster is extremely well understood, but the disproportionate obsession with it has recently led to people getting killed again. One could certainly argue that they were free people making free choices and I would agree. But similar obsession in the political spectrum seems to have a nasty tendency to end up with somebody showing up in a pizza parlor with a firearm demanding to see the basement that doesn't exist. So it makes me twitchy.
It’s an amazing bit of history. Leaders of major powers have regularly been assassinated in history. Here the leader of a globally hegemonic nation was assassinated on camera.
The bullet points seem to be mostly confusion at the scene and shitty police work afterwards.
What is the conspiracy. That he was not killed at that spot, but later by the secret service? Like "that guy fired blanks at him, lets kill the PM and frame him"?
I never really understood the logic because it is deeply oxymoronic. People that generally wanted him dead (ultra right) think that he was killed by the secret service (presumably left) and Yigal Amir (ultra right) was framed.
But it is something about putting blank bullets in order to gather support with a fake assassination and then he was really killed by the Shabak on order of Shimon Peres (but can’t say that’s verbatim)
It always seemed even less internally consistent than most JFK theories
I mean, that would be like a secret service sniper shooting JFK when Oswald missed, or something. Surely is is reasonable to believe that the risk of a secrete service assassination increases during a assassination attempt. But, there is not really anything that would indicate that.
During the 1WW the death rate of officers was about twice that of privates for a sample.
There's no way (for most of us with finite resources) to verify the vast majority of history, even recent history, even history that happened today. To me this is like saying "who cares what may or may not have happened in the past".
This particular conspiracy theory is interesting because the assumed enemy here—the Soviet Union—was ostensibly (and seeming authentically) unhappy to see this happen. So who wanted JFK dead and why?
On top of that the chance of finding something as you suggest becomes that much more difficult. Smaller findings get published now in a more controlled scenario and get lost in the stream.
Major journals are a net positive for surfacing important science.