QAPereo

31 ms·

361.
by QAPereo 9y ago
The problem with the disguise is that people are pretty good at seeing through, and the more prosthetics and make up you have on more obvious it is. It works in the movies with an editor and the lighting director and cameraman, but not so
362.
by QAPereo 9y ago
Everyone would... who could afford to. Now ask yourself what the majority who couldn’t afford it would do to protect and advantage their offspring. Gattaca is probably a fairly tale, and a nuclear wasteland the reality.
363.
by QAPereo 9y ago
Lower intelligence is a limiting factor when it comes to education, employment, and economic success but IQ has nothing to do with dignity, friendliness, compassion, honesty and a host of other positive human attributes. Access to all the
364.
by QAPereo 9y ago
Consumers have this in them, but it’s conditioned by a couple of centuries of marketing.
365.
by QAPereo 9y ago
It’s funny, you failed to mention the group with the real power there... politicians, specifically, Congress.
366.
by QAPereo 9y ago
You do realize that most people won’t accept that, right? Worse, when the algorithm does kill someone, who is responsible? Edit: Instead of just downvoting and moving on, why not actually formulate a response? Is there anything more empty
367.
by QAPereo 9y ago
IIRC there are well established patterns to solve or nearly solve a cube from given starting conditions. Could that be it? Edit: https://ruwix.com/the-rubiks-cube/how-to-solve-the-rubiks-cu...
368.
by QAPereo 9y ago
Even worse, if the public comes to associate ML in medicine with shady dealings and lost privacy, then adoption of proven tech will be delayed or stopped. The ethical constraints around medicine exist for good reasons, and shortcuts can cos
369.
by QAPereo 9y ago
http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/peop... The history of Arctic peoples working extraterrestrial iron.
370.
by QAPereo 9y ago
There is a principle in medicine that you need to demonstrate efficacy first, before taking further risks at the potential expense of the public. Advancing the tech sounds good on paper, but the cost is unknown and the benefits unclear at b
371.
by QAPereo 9y ago
A very brief history http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-22528719 https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/mar/12/nhs-agrees-l... https://www.theguardian.com/society
372.
by QAPereo 9y ago
Free Money Nothing is free, and if you feel like it might be, you’re about to screw someone, or be screwed yourself.
373.
Facial recognition eyed for 2020 Tokyo Olympics(straitstimes.com)
2 points by QAPereo 9y ago|0 comments
374.
by QAPereo 9y ago
Original comment I responded to: “Thanks for the feedback. I created this project because I know many people who struggled with loneliness at times in their lives. My hope is that by sharing this experience we’ll feel a sense of connect
375.
by QAPereo 9y ago
Compared to the risk of Mars? I take your point, but let’s be realistic about our odds on Mars without Earth backing it all up.
376.
by QAPereo 9y ago
Maybe, although generally when you fill a room with sick people, they don’t make each other well. Group therapy can work, but it takes the guidance of people not currently looking up from a hole.
377.
Our Visual Imagination Is Severely Limited(undark.org)
120 points by QAPereo 9y ago|21 comments
378.
by QAPereo 9y ago
Now that’s a really interesting idea! Add in a bank of shielded frozen embryos and sperm and yes, I can see your point.
379.
by QAPereo 9y ago
Sure, but now you’re spending the Dv to get all of that to Mars.
380.
by QAPereo 9y ago
Even before it kills them, it definitely ruins their reproductive capacity, which is going to be critical offworld.
381.
by QAPereo 9y ago
Ambitious. Sure, but accomplished? Oh if only hard work necessarily equates to that...
382.
by QAPereo 9y ago
Inflatable, radiation shielding, light emitting? How. Edit: Plants and non-human animals wouldn’t appreciate Martian rads either.
383.
by QAPereo 9y ago
Sadly we have nothing that comes close to getting a fleet of nuclear warheads far enough to intercept before it’s too close and we shotgun ourselves. Most likely forms of diversion involve years of planning and deployment, and that’s minus
384.
by QAPereo 9y ago
Right now it isn’t easy or hard, it’s impossible. We probably have the tech, but it would need to be ready to launch on detection. Worse, we have shit detection. So yes, in theory we could divert some impactors, but in practice right now? N
385.
by QAPereo 9y ago
How would we get the nuke to the asteroid? With what rocket? We’d have to detect it early, design and build a massive new gen of rockets, and then essentially hit a target moving at cosmic velocities far enough away that we don’t turn a rif
386.
by QAPereo 9y ago
Cancers occur naturally so you need an exposure model to give you an idea of what to expect, and then compare that to the background of normal cancer. Even assuming that he checked mortality records which I assume he must have, he still h
387.
by QAPereo 9y ago
Raven with a nuclear sidecar I’m afraid...
388.
by QAPereo 9y ago
How do you enforce that law against nuclear powers?
389.
by QAPereo 9y ago
Which exposure model is being used here? LNT? Hormesis? Threshold?
390.
by QAPereo 9y ago
You do realize that “rap culture” revolves around a product marketed to, and bought predominately by white kids, right? I realize the term is just a dog whistle for a much less kind word, but still.. so stupid.

More ›