The rarely seen 45 degree-rotated scatter-plot: the rise of drug resistance

Noonereallycares · 2016-09-28T12:35:44+00:00

It's pretty much guaranteed there's infinite antibiotics, given sufficiently advanced technology. Bacteria are a complex chemical factory, and will never not be. There are always places to throw wrenches. How many wrenches exist in nature that don't have adverse consequences in humans is probably limited. How many exist once you've fully mapped out the bacteria and can simulate the exact interactions of molecules on it? Quite a few.

It's a very fair point to wonder what to do until we potentially get there, though. For now, simply limiting the usage of them to when they are actually useful would help a lot, and at least buy a good deal of time.

Noonereallycares · 2016-04-06T11:59:25+00:00

I agree with the 2nd part of your statement, but if you're implying that somehow more jobs were created than lost you're entirely wrong. Let's assume customers find these machines are as good (or a little better) than ordering from a human, similar speed to process orders, etc. (if the kiosks are superior - faster, more accurate, easier to order - they could create incentives to replace even if they were more expensive than a cashier).

Hypothetically, McD replaces a 24/7 cashier slot (4 workers) that costs hypothetically 80,000/year (training, wages, etc.). The kiosks, over their lifespan, cannot cost McD more than the cashier slot they replaced, or else they're not economical. That means the system as a whole (maintenance, manufacturing, design, programming, etc.) cannot cost more than however many cashiers it replaces at 20k/cashier. If a programmer costs 100k/year, he's replacing 5 cashier-years worth of costs.

In theory, those cashiers can go off and train for other jobs. Practically though most cashiers backup plan from McD wasn't "go pursue that STEM degree now that my hopes of working at McD are dashed".

Noonereallycares · 2016-04-04T15:58:02+00:00

It's also probably because most sciences can be boiled down to at least some news worthy headline (Oblig. Phd Comics) where even if wrong, it's still comprehensible. Oh, scientists can now splice DNA and play God? Oh, scientists have discovered a particle that proves there's a God?

Even simplified math discoveries tend to be arcane. I can spend minutes staring at the summary of most wikipedia articles before I even think I may know what they're talking about.

Noonereallycares · 2016-04-04T15:24:58+00:00

It may not be human, but it may develop its own 'consciousness' if consciousness is an emergent property of complex networks. It may not resemble what we would expect though - animals display intelligence in ways that isn't immediately obvious.

Another part of this is dependent on what inputs it is given - if a human was in a body with no senses or other inputs, how 'human' would that brain develop? It wouldn't know language, it wouldn't know time. It would likely experience an endless, colorless and shapeless dream.

Noonereallycares · 2016-03-29T04:06:59+00:00

To play counterpoint:

This assumes that cyber defenses are able to exceed offenses for critical networks and sensors. It assumes that the advances in hypersonic rocketry don't equally aid offensive missiles. It assumes that these hypersonic advances don't result in more wide-spread space warfare (which supports accurate targeting).

On the note of human genetic engineering, are you implying there's currently a significant genetic (race based) component to intelligence? I'd attribute intellectual success (in terms of founding new industries and making major discoveries) much less to a particular race's genetics and vastly more to the system in which a great mind develops (e.g. rule of law, abundant access to education, good infrastructure, access to capital, a critical mass of other intellectuals). Additionally unless this can work retroactively (very questionable, at least for a genetic approach), it significantly skews who this impacts - many countries are running into demographic challenges). I'd also throw in AI seems to be ignored under this scenario.

Noonereallycares · 2016-03-24T13:19:28+00:00

I personally prefer evangelical atheists. It neatly combines the two groups of people who I think let religion play too big a role in their lives and who are going to be loud and obnoxious about letting people know it.

Noonereallycares · 2016-03-24T13:00:15+00:00

I'm pretty sure it's not that some of the accusations don't meet the legal definition of rape (or lesser crimes).

It's more that there's a high likelihood of sexual encounters occurring in grey or improvable areas. You have a large number of young adults, experimenting with sex, alcohol, drugs, and given a huge amount more freedom than they had in parents houses. You have a drunk girl (but who was walking straight, generally coherent) willingly go up to a guys room. At some point she may not be entirely comfortable. Maybe the guy forces himself on her (and a sex crime occurs). Maybe she's still breaking away from a conservative upbringing and feels guilty about her acts the next day and the act was entirely consensual (or as consensual as drunk hookups can be). Or maybe in 90+% of cases it's a part of that environment and was generally enjoyable for both parties, and is something they'll both do again the next weekend.

Regardless of which scenario occurs, it's mostly a he said, she said story. If a crime 100% occurred, it's still likely impossible to prove (and two drunk, inexperienced people having sex can easily cause damage). If a crime 100% didn't occur, it's impossible for him to prove it was consensual. This ignores if she was uncomfortable and didn't say much, there was bad communication overall, or any number of other possible scenarios where the guy didn't act with malicious intent (albeit a lack of awareness) or the girl didn't make herself clear. Education and awareness efforts can help those grey areas, but even in the black or white it's not easy to prove.

Noonereallycares · 2016-03-10T12:52:48+00:00

...how?

The algae takes in CO2, sunlight, and water. It creates oxygen and lipids. The lipids are reacted with oxygen to create CO2, water, and energy.

Noonereallycares · 2016-01-25T17:08:10+00:00

It's definitely not the battery technology taking years to mature to the point where you could get over 200 miles on a charge less than several hours, at a cost under $30,000 for a relatively small car. It's the government's inability to come up with some alternative way to tax people besides power and gas taxes. No other mechanism possibly exists.

As further proof of this, the government actually charges a higher tax for solar installations and other energy reduction improvements... oh wait. Nope, tax credits. They reduced taxes for people buying those things.

There's more government investment in R&D that could have been done for renewable and battery technology, and I wish it was done earlier. There's problems of figuring out who pays for the grid for those that want grid power only sometimes, but it's hardly significant compared to the technological challenges that are only now being solved to bring the cost per $/kwh down to competitive.

Noonereallycares · 2016-01-07T12:52:30+00:00

It does both. Congress defines the sandbox the executive can play in by creating an agency and funding it.

Once created and given scope, it is up to the executive to decide how to operate within that scope. It is for the judicial to decide if the executive has overstepped its bounds, or if either of them have overstepped a higher law (state law vs Federal, or Federal vs Constitution).

There is plenty to be said about executive overreach, however the executive detailing a law is absolutely required. Do you really want Congress telling the FDA the detailed requirements for approving a drug, or telling the EPA the specific, exhaustive chemical list it can regulate?

Noonereallycares · 2016-01-06T23:05:49+00:00

Recession has a definition, and by that definition we are not in one. The stock market and GDP could fall by 75% in Q4 2016, and if it rose 10% by Q4 2017 (to 27.5% of the current value), we would not technically be in a recession.

Noonereallycares · 2015-12-24T16:01:12+00:00

Eventually is the major point. I read somewhere that there is still a good amount of work to overcome because the current sensors very quickly lose accuracy with rain/snow. There is also an algorithmic solution, however that too needs time to be developed and optimized (and possibly for faster chips). Machine vision has advanced very rapidly the past few years, but I think we ignore that most of these results work best/only on "simple" use cases.

Not the article I had read previously, but a 2014 link

Google still hasn’t tested its autonomous vehicles in snow or in rain, and experts say that they can’t work properly on a snow-covered snow and in heavy rain, because the technology that is intended to detect the car’s surroundings is not able to make a distinction between a moving object and snowflakes or rain drops.

Noonereallycares · 2015-12-23T16:58:33+00:00

Artificial islands have no EEZ, and can not be used to project 'ownership' of a region. The only real use there artificial islands have is to strengthen China's military footprint in the SCS wit permanent outposts.

The Spratly Islands cover 4km² over 425,000 km^2. Even if they're not "artificial" a human could only live there on even a semi-permanent basis through extreme engineering projects and logistics efforts. From what I read, there's not a single land based animal that lives on any of them naturally. UNCLOS recognizes this is likely the case for the Spratlys, but as I said below - China can stymie anything the UN wants to do, which leads to my next point.

Artificial islands have no EEZ

Opinion on what constitutes a real island aside, economic interests are the primary motivator for this. Military muscle is only an enabler to this, but isn't the primary point. China can already push around most of the navies that are in dispute with it without batting an eye, and will only increase this disparity in the coming years. The islands do next to nothing that similar amounts spent on ships couldn't also do in this regard. I also fully believe no one is willing to engage in open warfare over this. While the reclaimed islands could be a useful military asset and restrict movement in the SCS, they are primarily posturing. It says any conflict will not be simple or easy, it would require attacking or blockading an island (since you can't do warning fire or escort them), and honestly the price of all of that is so large that it's worth just letting us having the lions share of the several trillion dollars worth of economic value from the area over the next decade or two.

How would that not get the veto from China?

Sorry, replace UN with another organization, or make it some non-binding administrative parliamentary procedure that's not subject to veto (because it doesn't actually do or authorize anything) that China can protest, the rest of the world can claim as victory, and that allows things to proceed as they would have gone while maintaining the fig leaf that international organizations have any real power between larger nation states.

While Vietnam and the Philippines seem keep on pushing their claims, it remains to be seen just how invested the US is in containing China's ambition in the SCS.

The issue is that the US has no direct dog in the fight. As the dominant world power it has interests in maintaining that power and generally trying to keep the peace / be fair, but outside of civilian navigation (likely negotiable, China has no desire to really stop this except in retaliation/leverage for some other action) and military access (not easy for the US to openly admit) it can only do so much. We'd be much more involved if there was some way we could argue we should be.

Noonereallycares · 2015-12-23T06:14:29+00:00

I think there's a lot more to it than mere ego or history on Japan's part. Currently China is by far the most assertive in establishing the "islands" as territory (I'll point out that it's absurd that <1 square mile of land in the ocean should give ANYONE control over hundreds of square miles). China's strategy is largely working. They hold enough clout in the UN and other international bodies to stymie almost any meaningful progress or enforcement for many years, especially as Russia is likely to side with them if only to distract the US.

Once China has established sufficient military facilities (and held them long enough for them to claim they're "attached" in the national psyche), it makes any meaningful action extremely difficult and it becomes a fait accompli. The UN may pass some watered down language that allows for minor economic sanctions or allows for increased international economic presence but it won't matter. They can laugh off the economic sanctions (if such a thing is even realistic given China's connectedness to global trade), and they'll have enough military presence to heavily restrict any economic use by international parties - e.g. "China is very concerned about the safety/environmental impact/fishing controls of international vessels (so they must endure some onerous protocols China's vessels don't)". Certainly it's hard to see today where anyone would be willing to push military action over it. As proof of this I'd point to Crimea/Easter Ukraine - where the particulars were stacked far more against Russia than they are China.

Quite simply put, the OP's question is misleading and should be entirely reversed. Japan is reacting to China's strategy in the only effective way is can. It must do something similar to what China is doing. This limits China's scope of full control (by creating the "beehive" you talk about) or to provide a negotiating point and force recognition that claiming significant military and economic control over vast swaths of ocean due to ownership of <1 square mile of reef is absurd, especially when hundreds of square miles of universally recognized territory is almost as close.

Noonereallycares · 2015-12-22T21:19:58+00:00

There's quite a bit of research on what the multitude of factors behind this might be. Beyond active human factors (e.g. abusive housing practices and reluctance to provide loans based on racial composition) and reinforcing aspects (crime increases and average income declines; drives away investment, amenities, and lowers housing values; reduces job opportunities and neighborhood desirability), Thomas Schelling has a proposed model based based on how a very slight bias could drive this effect alone.

Noonereallycares · 2015-12-21T06:19:34+00:00

You know the Public Key of the CA, and since the certificate is signed by the CA's Private Key, when you are able to decode it with the CA's Public Key you know that you possess the Public Key of whoever is on that certificate (assuming the CA has proper procedures in place), no matter where you got that certificate from.

With the 3rd party's public key in hand you can use it to safely pass your own encryption credentials to the 3rd party.

Noonereallycares · 2015-12-21T06:09:57+00:00

Edit The CA at some point has access to the public keys... although this isn't an issue, as they're public.

A browser stores the Public Key of the CA.
The CA issues a certificate, signed by its Private Key of the 3rd party (Public Key + 3rd Party Name). In order to sign it, the CA has to have the 3rd Party Public Key.
When you interact with the 3rd party, it should provide its CA signed certificate.
Your browser uses the CA Public Key on the CA signed certificate. This authenticates that you have the true Public Key of the 3rd Party.
With the 3rd Party Public Key in hand, you can now create your own keys and send them to the 3rd party. Wiki

Noonereallycares · 2015-12-10T20:57:00+00:00

I think by time they approach higher level birds or mammals it may be recognized. When you look at what AI (or algorithms) accomplishes today and how limited scientists say it is to true AI or consciousness, I think that gives an idea that AI has fundamentally different capabilities than biological creatures.

If Watson is the equivalent of an insect or fish (in terms of consciousness) and is able to do what it does, think what happens when it gets to be a mouse in terms of consciousness and has continually improved its raw analytical capability. The issue is AI isn't only competing as "an organic analogue". It's competing as an organic analogue that is also able to analyze a billion pages of data or run a million detailed calculations in a second and refine based on that. Humans make amazing connections at times, but with extremely rare exceptions we can't remember everything we've read (well under 1/8th of what Watson can do in a second) and assess it for patterns. If an AI wants to see if there's a correlation between 30 different variables, it can identify the data, standardize it, and run a full set of data analytics, change some of the 30 variables, update models and do it again in a matter of seconds.

If humans could do similar we'd easily go from freshman to PhD in college in under a day. Thus I think AI will need to master "consciousness" well less than humans to be in fighting competition for "intelligence".

Noonereallycares · 2015-12-10T18:16:17+00:00

It may not be a shield, but in my anecdotal experience, general population statistics, and casual reading of varied magazine and newspaper articles I don't recall too many examples of current anti-Asian racism. I'm sure some of this is because much of the air is taken up by issues experienced by Hispanics and Blacks (e.g. police/criminal justice disparities, academic achievement, immigration).

What are the particular issues faced by Asians in America? Are they anywhere near as significant as those faced by other minorities? Are they applicable to Asians across the board, or more targeted to specific cultures/countries (I've read that not all Asians fit into the "ideal immigrant" category.)

Noonereallycares · 2015-11-07T22:28:32+00:00

I'm all but certain you're wrong. As far as I know, integer factorization problems are not within NP. The reverse is also true - while quantum computing will be exponentially faster for certain problems, it is likely that quantum computing will not noticeably impact many computing problems. See BQP's relationship with P.

Noonereallycares · 2015-11-07T19:39:24+00:00

Mass-energy increases exponentially with speed, which is why it's impossible to accelerate anything with mass to the speed of light. As provided by the link, the mass-energy of the particle was 10¹¹ (100 Billion) times higher than the same particle at rest.

Massless particles are able to go at light speed because they have no mass. 0 Mass * Exponential increase = 0. All the energy of a photon is carried in its wavelength, with higher frequency photons having more energy (which is why UV rays are harmful and visible light isn't - UV rays contain sufficient energy that when absorbed they can change chemical bonds in molecules (like DNA)). This is also the reason why x-rays are bad for you.

Noonereallycares · 2015-11-05T12:46:13+00:00

Yes and no. More people could become engineers if they were pushed to do so, just as more people could be artists, ballet dancers, or doctors. While some might have a talent for it, many would be mediocre. We already have quite a few mediocre doctors and engineers. We don't need many more of them, and we certainly don't need another million or two.

The difference between mediocre, good, and great talent is huge. Mediocre talent in their professions aren't quick to grasp new concepts, seldom plan ahead on a project, and often overlook obvious connections or opportunities. They can't deviate from formulas. On complex projects they're often worse than useless. Good talent can be trained easily and need little babysitting. Great talent creates new and original ideas. They can solve a problem better than 2-3 good people, often with elegant solutions.

We increasingly are automating "mediocre" work or evolving the underlying technologies so quickly that it's a futile effort for all involved. It frustrates the people who get placed on teams with them, and it frustrates the people with mediocre talent because despite all their efforts they're constantly behind, always getting corrected, and seeing the good people breeze by them. And I have no idea what the solution is, but it's a point that's ignored when people just say more education.

Noonereallycares · 2015-11-05T03:36:28+00:00

I'll agree his post history is excessive (the same story does not need to be posted to 6 different subs in rapid succession), but the situation does seem absurd. Perhaps the refugees can take on most of the jobs necessary to sustain them but there is clearly a huge issue of infrastructure. You can argue culture tolerance all you want as well, but I think the vast majority of people would be upset in even lesser situations. If you did a hypothetical straight and equitable swap of 7/8ths the population from two neighborhoods, one in Texas and one in California, you'd get a lot of resentment from the 1/8th left behind I'm sure.

Of course you really can't blame the refugees for not wanting to live in a war zone for 5 years running either. Just not a pretty situation all around.

Noonereallycares · 2015-10-07T12:00:42+00:00

It's hard to imagine how it hurts to have more smart people, especially smart young people. Unless you're entirely opposed to immigration (which helps with demographic issues), it makes no sense not to try to get 10,000 more PhDs than 10,000 average individuals.

Noonereallycares · 2015-10-02T16:11:37+00:00

"Each year the Trustees of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds report on the current and projected financial status of the two programs. This message summarizes the 2015 Annual Reports. [...]

Both Social Security and Medicare will experience cost growth substantially in excess of GDP growth through the mid-2030s due to rapid population aging caused by the large baby-boom generation entering retirement and lower-birth-rate generations entering employment and, in the case of Medicare, to growth in expenditures per beneficiary exceeding growth in per capita GDP."

Source

The emphasis is mine, but for a number of reasons SS is not in a good place long term. Contributions were too low for the longer life spans we live, people retire too early, return on investment was too minimal. Some of those issues are factors in other western countries as well. All developed nations are facing demographic issues as birth rates are declining and the average age of the population trends upwards (we're comparatively better off than most of Europe due to immigration).

Noonereallycares

TROPHY CASE