thaw13579

55 ms·

1. 241.▲
   by thaw13579 11y ago

   If they're so intelligent, to what extent is it ethical to study them experimentally?
2. 242.▲
   by thaw13579 11y ago

   Consider this... the genome is ~725MB, and 99% percent is shared with chimpanzees, leaving ~7.25 MB for human-specific traits. While I'm sure that the mother instinct is strong (and probably encoded in that 99%), it's truly amazi
3. 243.▲
   by thaw13579 11y ago

   Most academic writing isn't meant for public consumption--papers are communications between researchers, so the jargon etc. is a more of a convenience than "bad writing". Good researchers can talk very plainly about complex
4. 244.▲
   by thaw13579 11y ago

   To make an admittedly bad metaphor, it's likely a lot of that knowledge has been moved from main memory to cold storage, and it would take some time to bring it back. It certainly makes the case for why we write things down! Although
5. 245.▲
   by thaw13579 11y ago

   To name a few counter-examples: solar panels, wind turbines, MRI, artificial hearts, defibrillator, antibiotics, vaccines, refrigerator, lightbulb, the list goes on. I wouldn't say people should stop making new things, but some things
6. 246.▲
   by thaw13579 11y ago

   This is great work, but this is another article trying desperately to give one person credit for something that an entire community of researchers has been working on. They go as far to claim ultrasonic haptics was "abandoned" in
7. 247.▲
   by thaw13579 11y ago

   I don't mean to diminish the value of patents, but in this case, it's safe to say there is biological complexity limiting the translation to treatment. As someone working in this area, I wish there were more potentially patentabl
8. 248.▲
   by thaw13579 11y ago

   I'd suggest reading a bit farther into the article: "[Rouleau] says the kind of early-stage science that the institute does is not really worth protecting. “There is a fair amount of patenting by people at the institute, but the o
9. 249.▲
   by thaw13579 11y ago

   Yikes, please don't step anywhere near anyone else's medical data. That kind of "philosophy" is pretty much an imperative to violate patient and research subject privacy (and yes that is something to be protected).
10. 250.▲
    by thaw13579 11y ago

    Patents and licenses seem like financial solutions, but aside from keeping people funded, how would they help with complexity? I suspect much of the complexity is in the basic science, and the "open science" approach is meant to
11. 251.▲
    by thaw13579 11y ago

    Calling them "know-nothing" isn't criticism, rather, it's merely to say they lack assumptions of parametric models (or that they are even statistical) and lack guarantees w.r.t. error bounds. Whether that is good or bad
12. 252.▲
    by thaw13579 11y ago

    > It's a reasonable seeming law, yes, just as the categorical imperative is - but what if your culture says that the more skulls you collect, the better a person you are? It's easy to define a law in isolation from social press