The wisest know nothing.
Does this message also contain an ulterior motive?
If so, or if not, how can we conclusively determine either?
Maybe instead of sharing it over the internet with public access, this should have been debated extensively in an expert committee?
Could you also post some case law or analysis of such clawbacks for those unfamiliar with the legal terrain?
No military big enough to require multiple layers of general level positions filters for exceptional generals, they all filter for loyalty.
EA needs to implement a stricter code of conduct, in line with Title IX, and align on this code in EA group houses / social events/ communities. They also need better processes for resolving and reporting sexual misconduct incidents—Julia Wise’s work is a beginning but is nearly not enough. Libertarian style community mediation of sexual assault cases common in EA communities need to be dumped in favour of police intervention because it leads to gross mismanagement such as this or this.
The post was mostly plausible until this part.
This seems like advocating for establishing an entire bureaucratic system to regulate behaviour?
I’m not part of the EA scene and I do agree there are significant numbers of associated shady folks, with that estimation likely increasing for everyone, given recent events.
Yet this proposal seems to be inviting even more moral hazards?
Upvoted because at −30 votes it was unusually low for anything other than obvious spam and trolling.
Though unsure about the logic of this comment. Does it imply all ‘appropriateness and tone’ critiques are invalid? If so, what is replacement? Or is it a free for all?
If true, definitely makes him seem like an unpleasant character on the inside.
In any case the folks over in the EA leadership really should have done some more due diligence before getting intermeshed. The management team leaving in 2018 should already have been a really strong signal, and ignoring that is the sign of amateurs.
It does makes him sound very shady.
It’s unproductive to grieve before all the facts are known. There’s even a chance the EA folks dodged a bullet here.
IDK why the OP even needs to include suggestions on how to feel?
Maybe in the U.S., but even then aren’t there lots of hospitals infamous for their low quality of care, high infection rate, etc.?
Why haven’t they all disappeared yet if it were so easy to sue hospitals into adopting superior practices?
Ventilation costs can be reduced almost by an order of magnitude using enthalpy recovery systems, which have an upfront capital cost though.
There are additional benefits that helps mitigate that though, such as more alert staff due to lower CO2 concentrations, lower VOC levels from off gassing materials, better humidity control to keep indoor humidity in the optimal zone, etc.
I’m not entirely convinced that UVC systems can be procured and installed cheap enough to be obviously better in 100% of hospitals.
Is there a cost analysis of how effective UVC sterilization is compared to other methods such as increasing ventilation?
So then how could such a politician behave acausally?
If your definition says that any writing that changes views is propaganda, then your definition is very broad and covers any persuasive argument.
If you got the impression that I was offering my own definition, instead of following standard definitions available in popular dictionaries, then you should reread my comment.
Online versions of the major English dictionaries exist and anyone can read them, so no one has to take my word for it.
A civilized country cannot dish out 15 year prison terms just based on its imagination of what is likely. To find someone guilty of terrorism, you have to prove that they were planning or doing terrorism. Which Russia didn’t. Even in the official accusations, all that the accused allegedly did was meeting up, fundraising and spreading their literature.
Regardless of what has been done, is likely to be done, etc., I was addressing your claim that:
I don’t find the goal of establishing and living by Islamic laws sympathetic either, but they are using legal means to achieve it, not acts of terror.
Which does not seem credible. As there are genuine reasons to believe that such groups may not use entirely legal means to advance their goals.
Whether or not this occurred in fact, or is in fact planned to occur in the future, isn’t something that can be proven either way without on-the-ground investigation, nor are they the claims that I’m addressing.
This would work if it was the only contentious topic at stake during an election. However in reality, given recent trends, there will likely be dozens of hot button topics at stake and only a few viable candidates, and virtually all other topics carry more emotional appeal, and more motivated voting blocs, then fixed-price contracting standards.
It seems exceedingly unlikely that this issue would get enough oxygen for it to be decisive in selecting any elected candidate.
I don’t see how this could overcome the counter-efforts of those who currently benefit from cost-plus contracts. They after all have a lot more to lose, individually, then a society of several hundred million, where the per person costs may be a couple hundred dollars total in any given year.
Getting enough votes and maintaining voting discipline to enforce any standard at all is incredibly tough in the U.S. elections systems.
How would you envision the logistics of enforcing such a standard?
Right, so the upfront sticker price of a fixed price contract to build rockets in the 90s would have been much higher then that of a cost-plus contract.
Maybe after you include the delays, overruns, etc., it would turn out to be a lower price. But NASA didn’t need the votes at some future date, they needed the votes at the time of approval, in order for the project to happen.
Thus it would never get past Congress unless somehow NASA could guarantee that the congressmen voting for it would still be in power to benefit from the possible future savings, which is impossible in a democracy.
But nobody would have taken a fixed price contract to build rockets in our version of Earth, actual U.S., circa 1990s, without a huge profit margin built into it because rocket manufacturers also have access to accountants and actuaries, etc., who can price out possible risks. It didn’t help that there really only was one or two companies willing to invest capital into doing so. Which precluded the possibility of selecting a lower bid.
And no one else in the U.S. wanted to invest capital to establish a third manufacturer for the reasons described above.
Which is why the Pentagon hasn’t moved entirely to fixed price contracts, because for many systems there’s literally no competition for their business, so it would probably increase the price over cost-plus contracts since corporations have to borrow at higher interest rates for debt then the government can.
Huge flocks of birds also occasionally dive straight into the ground, injuring many of them. Such as https://www.boston.com/news/world-news/2022/02/17/mexico-viral-video-explained-100s-of-birds-diving-to-ground/
Which has obvious parallels to possible failure states of robotic swarms.
Large quadcopter type drones also don’t ‘coordinate just fine’, you can look into it yourself what the requirements are for hosting those huge shows. The requirements are not simple or easily reducible to a few paragraphs of instructions.
Intel even released a promo video touting, in 2016, how a challenge of 500 drones in simultaneous operation was groundbreaking and incredible even with their state of the art technology.
“The difference between 100 and 500 is mind-blowing.”—Natalie Cheung, Light Show Business Lead, Intel
You need to do a bit more research if you were unaware of the complexities.
It’s a ballpark number, anything from 100kg+ would have made a 90s equivalent too heavy. The difference compared to consumer computers is expected once you realize it includes multiple interlinked triply redundancy systems and the wiring, mounting structure, power supply system, shielding, etc. for all that.