Imagine what health care would look like if scientists and doctors shared that attitude.
This discussion is not about if the current prediction methods are good or not, it's about if we should even try to develop these methods to begin with. How many cancer researchers would there be today if you had to cure one yourself, with no grants or outside ressources before you are even allowed to enter the field? Probably not a lot.
Your argument is a self fullfilling profecy. You justify preventing them to research how to predict earthquake by saying that they have not already predicted one.
Maybe in a couple of decades we will find out that many of the big ones could have been very easily predicted, maybe not. The way things are going, we will never know.
You raised a very interesting comparison with medical doctors (MD) and cancer, I'd say their attitudes are not much different from the seismologist and geologist, but at least they are more open towards research publication using offline data because we managed to publish several publications. To be honest our algoritm and technique was developed originally for the early detection and prediction of myocardial infarction or heart attack, and the results are very encouraging with high accuracy of more than 99% accuracy, specificity and sensitivity, the main difference is that the data was heart vs seismic . During the beginning of the research, we tried to get permission to get government hospital patients data to check against the well-known biomarker Troponin for several years but we cannot even get the reply until today (not even a negative reply).
Dr. Randall W. Jones with FirstScan cancer product was among the pioneer of cancer screening device, an engineering doctor not an MD, and he even wrote a book on the struggles and endeavours [1]. According to him "Healthcare is in crisis" and “The system is broken".
Based on our initial results using the latest major earthquakes in five earthquake error prone countries based on publicly available offline seismic data, definitely we really can predict the earthquake within several days prior to the main major shocks hopefully preventing many lost of lives, unless we screw up the analysis bigtime. But again that's what peer reviews of papers are very important and critical, but we cannot even get past the all the reputable journal editors that we sent to, in order to get any proper review, c'est la vie.
[1] The Healthcare Disruptor: How An Underdog Inventor And His Companies Are Changing Medicine And Saving Lives:
How do you expect someone to come up with a good answer to that question with proper sources to back them up if this subject is blacklisted and no one can get grants or ressources to do the research? Maybe there is a pattern that can predict it, but we won't know if the people who have access to all of the data and knowledge are being told it will kill their career if they try to find the answers.
>Initially, when they were new, also Siri, Alexa and Google Home felt mindblowing and "truly like the future".
Strong disagree on that one. It was difficult to get them to do simple things like give the weather if a different location, play the right song. Even asking what time it is wasn't guaranteed to give you an answer if you didn't ask the right way. The marketting material made it sound great but the first hand experience was very underwhelming. The biggest use case at launch was making it say funny things.
At first yes, but about a year or two in was when you could do some really cool things, especially with Google. It could be astoundingly context aware, especially regarding a chain of on going queries. I have not seen that happen reliably in at least 5 years.
Isn't it even more racist to replace them in a picture? Being told that your skin colour is too offensive to show sounds a lot worse to me than calling them "white" considering their skin is very white
The fear people have on NH about China is >10x worse than what real chinese people living in China feel about their own government. After living there for a while, the things I hear on US social media sounds like it came strait out of a South Park parody. Many of the supposedly high crimes that may get you jailed or killed (according to Americans) are the equivalent of jaywalking in New York City.
I meant the people's reaction look like a South Park episode, not china's actions. The way they get hysterical and claim that you could spend years in jails for stupid things like having a picture of Winnie the Pooh on your phone. And it never stops, every couple of months, there is a new made up and/or exagerated thing about china that Americans are ultra confident about even if they have never been to china or talked to a Chinese person. This week for exemple, politicians (not trump this time) on tv were talking about how most Chinese migrant are ccp spies/soldiers.
Exactly this. I felt extremely safe in Shenzen. More safe than I've ever been in any American city.
Maximum propaganda about China in the west has done people in. But people in the west still swears that they actually have press freedom. Yet, no mainstream press will ever write anything remotely positive about China or simply daily life in China.
And had a US passport, which gives some protection, which also means they can just leave.
It takes staggering levels of privilege to claim visiting China as a US national is the same as living there as a Chinese national.
People don't understand how these authoritarian regimes work because it's so far outside of their experience. During the Nazi rule and occupation most people just continued their lives as before, especially during the first few years. What else could you do, right? And mostly, it was kind of okay. But it wasn't "safe" by any means, even for non-Jews. But people also weren't shaking with fear 24/7.
> no mainstream press will ever write anything remotely positive daily life in China.
The number of videos that westerners are receiving with positive messages about daily life in China, (or S. Korea, or Japan) on tablets, laptops or TV channels has never been so high in fact.
The question was whether a scene can be subject to copyright and I answered that question. Whoever downvoted it probably doesn't get basic aspects of photography
If I am the photographer and I set up decorations, lights etc. then the scene itself is my creative work. The other guy will have trouble claiming any copyright over his photo of the same scene because it is based on my creative work.
Not in this case because the scene is naturally occurring. So we can move on to other things that make the final photo like sensor capture and processing
As long as they don’t leave it empty, they are not limiting the stock. Changing the name on a piece of paper doesn’t magically creates new houses out of thin air.
Well they are leaving them vacant. Both rentals and houses across the country are sitting unfilled. NYC has anywhere from 13-26k rent controlled apartments vacant. As of last year ~16 million homes were estimated to be vacant overall and increasing interest rates have likely increased that. Why? Because these large orgs have purchased them via debt and it's just a line-item on a spreadsheet to them. Just build might work in a world where market actors were wholly rational and the government regulations actually targeted these perverse incentives, but that's not the reality we currently find ourselves in.
That doesn’t really apply to this debate. Netflix isn’t sending data back and forth through the ISP’s network just for their own fun and their own benefit. They send the data because the ISP’s client specifically asked for it and is paying for that bandwidth. They are also likely paying for far less bandwidth than the low bitrate Netflix is using. TV streaming is also arguably one of the main reason why the end user bought a high speed internet connection in the place.
This discussion is not about if the current prediction methods are good or not, it's about if we should even try to develop these methods to begin with. How many cancer researchers would there be today if you had to cure one yourself, with no grants or outside ressources before you are even allowed to enter the field? Probably not a lot.
Your argument is a self fullfilling profecy. You justify preventing them to research how to predict earthquake by saying that they have not already predicted one.
Maybe in a couple of decades we will find out that many of the big ones could have been very easily predicted, maybe not. The way things are going, we will never know.