I wonder why are such sayings NOT persecuted as libelous; then again I think they have bigger fish to fry now (i.e. bigger crimes to punish i.e. scihub)
but it makes sense that they should pursue such sayings because prestigious magazines are all about 'status' and 'signaling' and what people think; specially now that technology has made their former 'logistical' contributions redundant (referring to the printing of the stuff and getting it to where it's needed) and also how the actual peer reviews are essentially volunteer labor, again because they have their prestige.
> I wonder why are such sayings NOT persecuted as libelous
Because studies of the replication crisis have actually borne this out. Journals with higher impact publish more results that fail replication than journals with less impact, because those results are counterintuitive and "sexy". Being first to publish such novel or unintuitive findings increases their profile/impact because they'll get cited more.
Even if I published my statement (which I believe to be factual, not merely humorous), Nature would not sue me for libel. All that would do is bring more attention to the Nature racket.
Anyway I think there is a role for "sexy but wrong" journals- but that role is limited to extremely competent scientists working at the state of the art of their quantitative field. I don't think anybody should take what gets published in Nature and just sort of naively share it on social media with the claim it proves/doesn't prove something. The context required to evaluate a Nature paper on its merits is absolutely enormous.
> which I believe to be factual, not merely humorous
“Factual” and “humorous” aren’t opposites. I think “publishing in Nature is a strong signal that the results are wrong” is likely to be determined to be an opinion, regardless of whether you mean it serious or as a joke.
The basic dividing line the court has drawn between “factual claim” and “protected opinion” is whether the claim is objective and can be proven true or false.
In general it seems (to me, a non lawyer) that your signal claim isn’t an objective one. There’s no hard line about when a journal would be a “strong signal” vs a “weak signal” vs “no signal” about something being wrong. It’s not really a statement that can be proven to be true or proven to be false. Which is why I think it would be considered to be your opinion about Nature (even if a very serious opinion)
are you suggesting that scientists in UK can't say that Nature is a crap journal that publishes mostly errors? Or that Nature Publishing Group would sue an individual scientist for making such a statement?
Don't really see the point to invoke imperial hegemony in your criticism, it just makes you sound petty.
Since Science is published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, it feels reasonable to presume US law on this front.
I will say, I have a strong preference for US libel law, and aversion to UK libel law, but that’s probably mostly my cultural upbringing and familiarity speaking.
> On January 1st, 2014 the Defamation Act 2013 came into force, requiring plaintiffs who bring actions in the courts of England and Wales alleging libel by defendants who do not live in Europe to demonstrate that the court is the most appropriate place to bring the action. Serious harm to an individual's reputation or serious financial harm to a corporation must also be proven. Good faith belief that a disclosure was in the public interest was made a defense.
Also, a libel case does not work when the accusation is true. In this case, it depends on what a "strong" signal is. That it is a signal is quite obvious and has been shown (as a general principle) in meta-studies looking at replication.
solution: don't give people that choice... this aligns all corporate-business incentives which are the only ones that matter when considering how to run stores.
I'm really worried since it occurred to me that going forwards the only way to really change what any computer device does/can do is through app stores. No more programming languages; specially not 'open ones' for your own computer hygiene (or safety).
heck, at this moment I'm worried about a future (I hope it stays a future plan forever) agendas against teaching people to read and write. Now that computers can engage in verbal (oral) communication is just a matter of time.
You say that now, but you'll love the Speakwrites. You can just talk into them and they'll write for you, with realtime correction of grammar and misinformation.
what worries me is that it'll realtime correct what I say into what I mean so perfectly that I won't be able to learn to do it on my own.
Once our capacity to 'self-correct' (which is the essence of healing) becomes unused we will begin to lose it.
I guess in such a world we all talk to our personal 'computers' and they communicate us to other humans translating everything automatically. sounds like we will be so free that we won't have to learn to talk to others, 'our' computers will do that for us, and so on until we don't know whether we are ourselves or our computers are us; perfectly assimilating us into the borg.
we will have accomplished a more perfected state of "freedom": we will have become free from having to be alive!!
For the human individual person, the interests (the goal) is to care for their health; but amazon is a corporation: for them the real goal is profit, not health.
I'm saying that for the human the incentives should be all about health. the money, the costs are the "obstacle".
On the other hand, for the corporation the incentives are the profit. The health is a cost (or "obstacle").
with this 'frame' in mind I'm saying the incentives are not aligned on their own because the priorities are in conflict.
What's truly the problem here, is how healthy patients aren't 'good' customers of health-services. Then again, this is not a problem unique to Amazon, but they're getting into this 'rodeo'.
Right, but there exists enough people in the healthcare space that want an outcome driven approach as opposed to a profit driven approach. You let the parasites in and it moves the needle towards (or more towards) "profit driven".
My doctor doesn’t sell scratch-offs and cigarettes in his waiting room. The profit motive doesn’t require companies to pursue every single avenue of profit; beyond that, medical ethics explicitly forbid some avenues.
Yes. Plenty of medical providers are focused on making a profit while still emphasizing other values, rather than sacrificing them in the name of maximizing profits.
this is unnecessary, of course I know this. It's the reason Americans are now engaging in 'health tourism' a.k.a. going anywhere else in the world to get health care, specially when they know the specific procedure they need.
throwing a capitalistic-optimizing 'machine' into health services has been a huge mistake which is seemingly impossible to fix... this is how systems collapse; when the system is so resistant to fixing its 'problems' that only changing the entirety (or a significantly larger chunk) of the system fixes the problems; but the problems have to be 'life or death' (or 'do-or-die') level for this to kick in.
the biggest issue is that for a level of the system there is no problem, people die anyways. but for another level of the system (the human individual perspective) this IS a problem. if/when the system ignores a level of itself it becomes unstable like it's happening now.
call me old school, but it doesn't make sense to me that people get to live off the work done once, then repeated (recreated or reproduced by technology) while the 'creator'
in practice whomever owns the 'licenses' continues to collect payment for what the technology does (namely: machine-based repetition/reproduction)
I guess this is the way NFTs can make real sense: when whomever owns the NFT receives auto-blockchain royalty payments for the underlying asset (if/when the blockchain system gets political support)
Blockchain will literally never be used for this. There are such trivial fundamental issues. Imagine for example, the rights owner has their computer hacked or stolen and their NFTs are stolen. Legally, they are still the rights owner as they never agreed to transfer them. So now you are left to either ignore the blockchain record or to do the insane option of treating a thief as the rights owner.
There are seemingly no advantages to using NFTs for copyright.
I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say here. The creator shouldn't be the owner of the work, the owner of the work should? That's EXACTLY how the world works and has worked for longer than you have lived.
You can buy a piece of art from someone and get all the royalities if you aren't creative but have money.
> it doesn't make sense to me that people get to live off the work done once, then repeated
> whomever owns the NFT receives auto-blockchain royalty payments for the underlying asset
It doesn't make sense for someone to do work once, then get money all the time that's why you want to automate the process of doing the work once and then getting the money all the time in perpetuity
but at some point you must think more deeply about what illusions are in a grander sense...
this is a jumping off point into considering your own mind as an illusion. your own self with its sense of personhood: i.e. yourself as the it-element in a I-it interaction.
But if we leave it at that, it's essentially a very nihilistic (deterministically reduced), so either turn back, or keep going:
the fact that your own personhood is itself very much an illusion is OK. such illusion, however illusory, has real and potentially useful effects
when you interact with your computer, do you do it terms of the logical gates you know are there? of course not, we use higher level constructs (essentially "illusory" conceptual constructions) like processes and things provided by the operating system; we use languages, functions, classes: farther and farther away from the 'real' hardware-made logic gates with more and more mathematical-grade illusions in between.
so the illusions have real effects, in MOST contexts, it's better to deal with the illusions than with the underlying implementations. dunno, what if we tried to think of a HTTP search request into some API in terms of the voltage levels in the ethernet wires so that we truly 'spoil the illusion'??
I mean, I agree willful suspension of disbelief is a thing, but as someone who actually build APIs and worries about network latency and packing messages to be efficient blocks of data and that the method itself is a useful affordance for the product, I can walk and chew gum at the same time.
Just because people don't actively think all the time in terms of low level contexts doesn't mean that only simulating the high level contexts is a sufficient substitute for the whole process.
I think this whole concept is conflating "illusion" (i.e. allowing oneself to be fooled) and "delusion" (being involuntarily fooled, or unwilling to admit to being fooled.)
I personally don't enjoy magic shows, but people do, and it's not because they think there's real magic there.
>Just because people don't actively think all the time in terms of low level contexts doesn't mean that only simulating the high level contexts is a sufficient substitute for the whole process.
See also Aristole's description of a 'soul' (Lat. anima/Gk. ψυχή), which is embodied above all, unlike the abstract description of the soul that the West would go on to inherit from Neo-Platonism via Christianity.
Even though today we know full well we are indissolubly embodied entities, the tendency to frame identity around an abstraction of that persists, but it seems thinking around this hasn't completely succumb to this historical artifact, see 'Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human'
In what way? Getting "lost" on youtube just meant following your interests until it strayed far away from the original video. Jumping video to video was fairly similar to "surfing" the web by jumping hyperlink to hyperlink.
Now it feels like Youtube controls the tide towards some fixed direction outside of the user control, which is frankly really boring. It's almost like the opposite of TickTock if comparing to other platforms.
but it makes sense that they should pursue such sayings because prestigious magazines are all about 'status' and 'signaling' and what people think; specially now that technology has made their former 'logistical' contributions redundant (referring to the printing of the stuff and getting it to where it's needed) and also how the actual peer reviews are essentially volunteer labor, again because they have their prestige.