6 ms·
>It's like the author wants cancer to have some mystical power over us forever and is fitting all current endeavors to that narrative. The author is realistic.
by crimsonalucard 8y ago
>It's like the author wants cancer to have some mystical power over us forever and is fitting all current endeavors to that narrative.
The author is realistic. What I see among young people today is technology worship. It's like technology has a mystical power over you guys and you think that it will solve every problem known to man. Technology has limits just as physics has limits, but you guys bend all problems toward the narrative of being solve-able by Data science, machine learning or nano-machines.
I hate to break it to you. Not only will many problems remain unsolved. The future will proceed in an unpredictable direction.
- TaupeRanger 8y agoNo, the author makes baseless claims about the future of technology under the guise of "being reasonable". Technology is just applied and abstracted physics, so I'm not sure what your point is there. No one said anything about data science...this seems a little ranty TBH. You aren't arguing against anyone in this thread.
- crimsonalucard 8y agoMy point is this statement right here: >Technology is just applied and abstracted physics. Like thats it. Technology is so simple. It's just physics. I'm arguing with your attitude and your technology worship. AS if nanotechnology is right around the corner and will cure cancer 100%. Cancer is not a trivial problem and likely a problem that will not be solved within our lifetimes. All the article is saying is that data science, machine learning and all these buzz words popping out of silicon valley aren't the answer to cancer. But we have people like you heralding machine learning and nano-machines as the answer to problems such as world peace. Open your eyes.