Sure you can, though only probabilistically. That's precisely why fiddling with something as critical as the food supply is a bad idea, as it's likely we'll only discover potential problems when it's too late.
That paper is so bad, it's not even wrong. It's just clever word-trickery by someone who is quite skilled in writing in an authoritative and scholarly tone.
He does have the courtesy to recognize that his thinking goes against the scientific method:
"While evidentiary approaches are often considered to
reflect adherence to the scientific method in its purest
form"
But then he just declares that his principle is superior to the scientific method:
"In the case of ruin, by the time evidence comes it will by definition be too late to avoid it."
He knows nothing about biology or argiculture:
"The ecological implications of releasing modified organisms into the wild are not tested empirically before release."
(In reality, crop plants don't survive in the wild even if you release them. No more than farm animals would.)
But then in section 12.8 he goes on to explain why he actually knows better than people who actually have domain expertise in the relevant sciences. It is a crafty tactic: He almost manages to convince you that you shouldn't listen to experts, and then he cites that there is a historical track record of experts having been wrong in their subject domains. And that you should listen to outsiders like him.
Financially, yes... But... the second part is mostly just the dread of it. I've moved (with family) 6 times in the last 7 years... most of which do to bad luck of contracts falling through in the companies i worked for and them just not having enough work to support the staff... lay offs... and while its disruptive, there is actually a ton of growth out of it that, honestly, has been worth it... Just because something is hard up front doesn't at all make it a bad choice...
I dont think the fear is sheltering... Most of those islands have shelter, its not like hurricanes are a rare event for them.
However, its the destruction and risk that it could be WEEKS before help comes if infrastructure is completely destroyed... and an island with limited resources means that the people still on the island will (compared to mainland) very quickly start to realize that they need to eat and acquire things to survive... and survival mode is the worst part of any natural disaster. The damage done by Katrina to New Orleans was horrible, but honestly, the damage done afterwards by the people that lived there (that was done to survive, im not criticizing, morality changes real quick in survival mode) wsa pretty horrible, too. Imagine a small-ish island with not a lot of natural resources and no quick way to get truckloads of supplies en mass...
Not saying thats what's going to happen - but thats the kind of outcome people forget when they volunteer to ride out a natural disaster. The actual event is just the prelude to a pretty bad period of time for the area it hit... and the pain you will feel after the hurricane is likely to be much higher than the hurricane itself.
More evidence supporting the claim that, as a society, we have completely lost the capability to have a conversation on anything. Everything is polarizing and everyone feels the need to pick (and defend) a side.
Well, in reference to the subject of this particular movie, one "side" of the "conversation" is frequently in the news as wanting to put nonbelievers of their view of the issue in prison. That might tend to create some animosity.
Can't reply to responder below - but I am not your research assistant. The parent asked a question, I showed where they could find answers. The google search above links to a professor speculating on death penalty for skeptics, and others speculating on trying them for crimes against humanity.
For spokesmen, Al Gore didn't mention jail, but said we should "punish" and politicians should "pay the price" for differing perceptions (and note that even climate change advocates who are not extremists get branded as "deniers").
"""
Former Vice President Al Gore on Friday called on SXSW attendees to punish climate-change deniers, saying politicians should pay a price for rejecting “accepted science.”
...
we need to put a price on denial in politics
"""
Correct. Also correct: you need to cite specific examples to back up the claim, which you have not done. "A professor speculating" and the nebulous "others" are, again, not in such a prominent position as to speak for their "side" as a whole.
>For spokesmen, Al Gore didn't mention jail
Correct, which would make this not an example of "wanting to put nonbelievers of their view of the issue in prison," OP's only claim.
>Also correct: you need to cite specific examples to back up the claim, which you have not done.
Hmm. See above.
I chose to contribute to the conversation by pointing to examples of behavior that poison the discussion, in the spirit of thrill's comment.
I personally thought "death penalty" and "war crimes" were stronger examples than just "prison".
I did not attempt nor do I need to prove the ancestor literally correct, but just for fun, here are a couple of links that do -
you'll have to decide if Bill Nye and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. meet your criteria as "prominent" (which was not in thrill's post - just that they are in the news).
He says the Koch brothers are treasonous, and for that reason should be arrested. He goes so far as to clarify that there is no law politicians can be punished under (the opposite of the ancestor's claim).
Bill Nye compares them to the guys at Enron. He does not suggest jailing them.
SippinLean> The RFK quote gets thrown around a lot
Thrill> one "side" of the "conversation" is frequently in the news as wanting to put nonbelievers of their view of the issue in prison
Yeah, what you both said.
(And Rfk said the Koch's "treason" was co2 "pollution", and he wished there were a law, which pretty much matches thrill's statement)
So we can agree that the idea is "thrown around a lot", even apparently by someone prominent enough to be recognized as a spokesman, but (thankfully or regrettably) there isn't yet a law to enforce it.
That is a google search. Do you have evidence that people in such a prominent position as to speak for their "side" as a whole are "frequently in the news" wanting to put people in prison?
Much more easily found are examples of the other "side" making such (climate-change-denying) claims.
The one example provided was a proposal that would allow someone to sue another party, not "put nonbelievers in prison".
Trying to shift the blame for disagreement to the people who are on the right side of the facts is mistaken. People are deluded on the facts because of a massive decades long propaganda effort. The left moving to the center hasn't brought the right to the center on any issue, it's just allowed the right to get even crazier.
It's people's expectation for it to be perfect, and the egoic drive to blame someone when something goes wrong. There was no reason for the hype around this story... an AI determinator had a false positive. Thats not google attacking the videos, thats a technical issue and it needs to have zero feelings involved because the entire process happened in a damned computer incapable of feelings...
But everyone needs to feed their outrage porn addiction...
It's not a technical issue. Software is not yet capable of accurate content detection, and even if it were, it's not clear whether this sort of thing should be automated. It's not like google can just change a few lines of code and the problem is gone.
> It's not a technical issue. Software is not yet capable of accurate content detection,
Your second sentence is a technical argument, which makes your first a lie. Obviously Google disagreed, which is why they put this system into place. And if they were wrong about that they were wrong for technical reasons, not moral ones.
I mean, you can say there's a policy argument about accuracy vs. "justice" or whatever. It's a legitimate argument, and you can fault Google for a mistake here. But given that this was an automated system it's disingenuous to try to make more of this than is appropriate.
If you just stare at the words and ignore my meaning, sure. But saying this is a technical problem is like saying that climate change is a technical problem because we haven't got fusion reactors working yet.
Then I don't understand what your words mean. Climate change is a technical problem and policy solutions are technical.
My assumption was that you were contrasting "technical" problems (whether or not Google was able to do this analysis in an automated way) with "moral" ones (Google was evil to have tried this). If that's not what you mean, can you spell it out more clearly?
Is there any problem you wouldn't frame as technical then? If the software isn't anywhere close to capable enough to do this task and YouTube decides to use it anyway that is a management problem. Otherwise literally every problem is technical and we just don't have the software to fix it yet
Sure: "Should Google be involved in censoring extremist content?". There's a moral question on exactly this issue. And the answer doesn't depend on whether it's possible for Google to do it or not.
What you guys and your downvotes are doing is trying to avoid making an argument on the moral issue directly (which is hard) and just taking potshots at Google for their technical failure as if it also constitutes a moral failure. And that's not fair.
If they shouldn't be doing this they shouldn't be doing this. Make that argument.
I would argue climate change is a political problem.
Policy solutions are political.
A policy is a deliberate system of principles to guide decisions and achieve rational outcomes. A policy is a statement of intent, and is implemented as a procedure or protocol. - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy
If you believe climate change is a technical problem then there isn't much point continuing this discussion. Using that logic you could claim that any problem is technical because everything is driven by the laws of physics.
The point is, there will be false positives, there is no reason to get upset and hurt over them...
There is no perfect system. If its automated, there will be false positives (and negatives), if there is a human involved, you have a clear bias issue, if there is a group of humans involved, you have societal bias to deal with...
There is no perfect system for something like this, to the best answer is to use something like this, that gets it right most of the time... then clean up when it makes a mistake. And you shouldn't have to apologize for the false positive, people need to put on their big boy pants and stop pretending to be the victim when there is no victim to begin with...
If isn't the same process being defended, but I clearlt didn't claim that: the argument used to defend the different processes, however, is the same. This "put on your big boy pants" bullshit is saying that people should accept any incidental harassment because false positives are to be tolerated and no system is perfect, so we may as well just use this one. If the false positives of a system discriminate against a subset of people--as absolutely happens with these filters, which end up blocking people from talking about the daily harassment they experience or even using the names of events they are attending without automated processes flagging their posts--then that is NOT OK.
The false positives are not random: they target minorities; these automated algorithms designed to filter hate have also been filtering people trying to talk about the hate they experience on a daily basis. They keep people from even talking about events they are attending, such as Dykes on Bikes. It is NOT OK to tell these people to "put on their big boy pants" and put up with their daily dose of bullshit from the establishment.
Your whole premise is wrong, because the final decisions were made by humans. But even if they weren't, you're still mistaken. If you write a program to do an important task, it is your responsibility to see that it's both tested and supervised to make sure it does it properly. Google wasn't malicious here, but it was dangerously irresponsible.
"Previously we used to rely on humans to flag content, now we're using machine learning to flag content which goes through to a team of trained policy specialists all around the world which will then make decisions," a spokeswoman said..."So it’s not that machines are striking videos, it’s that we are using machine learning to flag the content which then goes through to humans."
"MEE lodged an appeal with YouTube and received this response: 'After further review of the content, we've determined that your video does violate our Community Guidelines and have upheld our original decision. We appreciate your understanding.'
Humans at YouTube made the decisions about removing videos. Then, on appeal they had a chance to change their minds but instead confirmed those decisions. Then, because of public outcry, YouTube decided it had been a mistake. 'The entire process happened in a damned computer incapable of feelings' is inaccurate.
[Disclaimer: I'm not a youtuber, so my knowledge is only 2nd hand]
Aside from but related to this story, many people are making a living off of YouTube ad revenues, and the AI is unpredictable in how it will respond in terms of promoting your video content on the front page, as links from other popular videos, and so forth. I think it's also unknown how the AI categorizes the content appropriateness of videos to advertisers, which if categorized the wrong way leaves your stuff unmonetizable.
Basically, people are throwing video content up, but have no way to properly have a feedback loop to gauge whether or not they violate the "proper" protocols that the AI rewards. This really is a problem of automation using (presumably) trained statistical rules where nobody really knows what specifically influences the decisions about their videos.
It is the People's expectation that it be perfect. Once they have determined that there is something badly wrong going on in the video destroying it is a violation of U.S. Code § 1519 (destroying evidence with intent). They had better have backups.
My old Manager's last name is Blank. The sad thing, given blank isnt a reserved word at all, is he has the same problem. I think its EventBright or Ticketmaster, i forget, but one of those sites wont accept "Blank" as his last name, literally with the message of "Last name can not be blank" ...
They have a constitutional right to say whatever they want without punishment by the government. Thats where that right ends.
The constitution has no power in the private sector, its an agreement from the government. If a dns provider doesn't want to take money from a hate group and support them by providing them with visibility, why should they be forced to? Its a private company. Now, if the US government was a domain registrar, the constitution may apply, but even then hate speech is a gray area and is easily worked around.
>The constitution has no power in the private sector, its an agreement from the government.
So going the libertarian route and shrinking government would remove protections. That doesn't seem quite right, because it was still the government that allowed the private sector to take over a duty of the government.
What duty? You think that domain registration is by default a duty of the government? The government has no real say over the internet - and the little it has should be removed. Thats like saying space travel or planetary colonization should be reliant on the approval of a government... its not their place to be in charge...
There isn't an approved list of what the government handles. Much of politics is disagreements in this. But it is still a point worth discussing, and saying that it cannot be the government's duty because it currently isn't a valid reason to stop discussion of it.
"That doesn't seem quite right, because it was still the government that allowed the private sector to take over a duty of the government."
You aren't talking about discussing it, you're already calling it a duty of the government that the government allowed to be taken over. The discussion is fine, just dont start it from a stance already...
How is that? It seems reasonable to believe, all else being equal, that someone that's been convicted of a crime has committed more crimes than someone that hasn't been convicted.
Why? Being caught committing a crime is less a sign of committing a crime but in doing it in a way that got you caught. Serial committers often go years uncaught... from petty burglars to assaulters.. a lot of people get caught their first time, its the ones who dont get caught that are more dangerous...
You cannot prove something is harmless. Thats literally the opposite of science... you can not prove a negative.