We studied him too, he kicks off most of the major anthologies. Seems he's almost universally considered an overlooked founder of analytic philosophy. (There's the famous story about how Wittgenstein showed up on his doorstep to move in and study and Frege said, "no just go to Russell," he even underrated himself.)
So he is partly famous for not being famous, a paradox he would hopefully appreciate.
I remember getting obviously burned DVDs run through terrible label makers back in the day. Now they're copying all the the art and packaging for box sets.
I'm both impressed at the work they put in, and also confused why they occasionally leave obvious errors like typos on the box after all that work.
A hint at what wpm I just typed at would be nice. So if I only hit 50 wpm a 50 off to the side or below the dotted line.
This is fascinating when picking a liminal wpm. Single hand words are so much harder.
I can cruise along until I hit words like "exact"
EDIT: You could make a list of bigrams as people type and average the wpm for words with that bigram, then you could weight the randomly chosen words by the difficulty of the bigrams, to really help people focus on their biggest stumbling blocks.
> copyright holders do in fact declare ... and pay taxes on [IP]
Or they sell the IP to a shell company in a tax haven and lease it at an artificial price, so the balance sheet shows no profit or even a loss. It's one of the largest sources of tax evasion out there.
A system like the one midasuni proposed would actually be an interesting patch for the tax system.
It's not perfect or fully fleshed out. Derivative works would raise a bunch of questions. And you couldn't use one regulatory framework for all different types of intellectual property, obviously, even though different kinds of IP can be used in this sort of tax dodge.
It's a proposal to enrich public access to orphaned works while closing a major corporate tax loophole. Saying "all this would do is benefit big business" is a surprising take here. It'd probably have some unintended consequences, any change this big would. Might be unworkable in practice. But it certainly wouldn't ONLY help big corporations. A ton of ordinary people would benefit immediately from something like this.
IOT and some other advancements still create opportunities for new DDoS attacks, but attackers herd. And the "X as a service" support infrastructure is mostly supporting ransomware right now, likely because its safer and more lucrative. You can walk away from a ransomware target, fire and forget, so you can do it at scale. DDoS you have to pick your victims, and monitor and maintain the pressure, choose how to allocate your resources to targets while they're investigating or waiting you out.
Cloudflare might be part of the story, maybe that was enough of a headwind to stop the trolls, but for the professional criminals, I suspect this is about lucrative alternative attacks.
Yes I have the same suspicion. It is way harder to maintain a certain volume of DDOS, and some people use services to keep them online during a DDOS. Spending your time on a single action, encrypting, and keeping a company hostage without further energy I think is more, what's the word, efficient for those bad actors.
Breezewood is mostly fine, you're on a giant empty stretch of road for hours otherwise.
If you want a truly dystopian moment, drive I-64 at the border of Kentucky and West Virginia in the middle of the night. Towering smokestacks all around you, lit up like daytime for 24 hour processing, it's like you slipped into a 70s sci fi film.
There are some pictures online, search for Catlettsburg Refinery. It's like the opposite of Breezewood. Whereas the Breezewood photos make it look worse than it actually is, none of the photos of Catlettsburg quite capture the awe and foreboding you get from staring directly into a city-scale refinery.
This exact technique (putting wolbachia in mosquitoes to combat dengue fever) was also covered in the excellent book “I Contain Multitudes.” Highly recommended — super well written, deeply researched and interesting.
This is a really important puzzle. In other terms, basically the efficient markets hypothesis vs, well, a week of GameStop prices.
At certain extremes, a stock price is clearly objective.
If the company is bankrupt and wiping all stock, that's objective. If the company does so well the shareholders demand an immense dividend or buyback, that's objective. Those are the fixed points where stock price is set to money in hand.
Are the swings in the market just irrational participants between those extremes?
We could imagine purely objective superintelligent AI dominating a market, investing only to those "true" values. Such AIs might determine p(bankruptcy) and p(payout), knowing those are the "true" outcomes of the prop bet, and set expected price as the ratio of those two probabilities.
But both those p()s are vanishingly small for most companies, and infinite precision will be impossible. Even if you were nearly omniscient about all current factors within a company, the slightest possible change in either probability could swing the ratio in dramatic ways.
(Add on to that the graveyard of companies that performed well, got fat, and failed to adapt... current performance is somewhat but not fully predictive of longevity.)
So basically, what if EMH is true, but stock pricing is a debate at an arbitrary level of precision, to make it close to meaningless in short time windows?
I'm not an expert so I'm sure professionals or academics would roll their eyes and offer something even more explanatory, but that's my best hunch at resolving this tension so far.
(The upshot of this theory is that it seems to validate strategies that help you zoom way out: low fees, broad diversified indexes, long time windows... those are the real value trades.)
I'm optimistic for this area of tech and research in general, but agree we need to stop benchmarking against average human crash rates.
Although anyone can be hit at any time, the distribution of human crashes is not purely random. People who drive compromised, for example, are way overrepresented in those events.
So, theoretically, the tech could get to a point with a lower than expected crash rate for humans generally, but still increase your personal crash likelihood.
If you believe you are a better than average driver when manually driving, why couldn't you also be better than average at intervening when autopilot is driving?
Humans don't have forward facing radar nor 360 degree always active vision, so in some cases, cars can see hazards that even a perfect human driver cannot.
It's a natural human tendency to get distracted, especially when we are not engaged with a task (as with autopilot). Driving manually physically engages your body in the task, making it harder to get distracted. On the other hand intervening is subject to distraction and longer response times.
So he is partly famous for not being famous, a paradox he would hopefully appreciate.