Not American here, but I'm aware of both privacy in mixed forms (privacy act 1974, HIPAA, COPPA, and CCPA in California); as well as anonimity in First Amendment et al since there's case law (IANAL) demonstrating the requirement of anonimity to avoid persecution of free speech.
All of these have limitations and exceptions in a complex legal system. But to issue a blanket statement like the comment above is no really correct - just trying to make a point, I guess
What a weird way of phrasing that.
The whole point of ethics in multiple disciplines is to try and study the principles of humanity in the society we've formed. The areas of philosophy, medicine, justice, and religion are filled with centuries of discussions trying to argue and explain a lot of these matters.
But the philosopher of the Internet of today, instead of curiosity of reasoning and arguing for what should change in deontology, and why; sums it up as "ethicists forbid...".
I'd really like to understand your views better on what should change and why...
Especially when there's plenty of ignoring of ethics in today's world!
The centuries of ethics discussions have nothing to do with the current institutions that gatekeep science and health with worries and trivia, any more than philosophers of nature are responsible for enviromentalists not letting us build housing. I'm entirely referring to anti-growth bureaucrats. https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/31/highlights-from-the-co...
Ethicists seem worse for the world than actually unethical people because they bind the majority of good people from progressing, which is what gets us out ahead of our baser natures.
I believe that many of the criticisms are either naive or intentionally ignore the importance of ethical oversight in research. The existence of these processes ensures that research is conducted with rigor and thought, which is crucial for maintaining high standards. Some examples suggest they aim at those high standards, and yet fail to see the value on these.
These applications allow you to dissect, discuss and reason about every presumption you had coming in, how you handle people's data with care, understand the risks and be prepared for anything.
They help both you and your participants. Help you not be an idiot, help you to grow and question your own procedures, and ultimately help you write the damn paper as you have clearly given the matter enough thought at that point. You need to prove yourself, and that is a good thing.
Without ethics, other motivations inevitably end up undermining any good intentions an experimenter may have. Ethics are the "laws" of science that constrain us for the sake of all. Your opinions here reflect a Libertarian bent, I bet.
This is just normal conquest, historically speaking. Anyone who describes it otherwise is likely to be debilitatingly ignorant of history or intentionally obfuscating facts to push a narrative.
This should probably link to the actual press release since its more of an announcement of something forming rather than a release of any models, code, whitepapers, etc.
As a European myself, I would prefer them to put less emphasis on collaboration and more on actually doing something's with the resources available to them and making that freely available. Collaboration will happen naturally and without having to coordinate.
But as they said, this is less about producing value then it's about signaling
I don't get this. At the beginning of the press release they cite eurohpc. Before eurohpc, it was probably announced with a similar press release. And then it existed
I don't agree with that. We had two powers dividing Europe in two, placing their own armies all over the place and doinglg their best to convince the other party that the world would be destroyed if it dared to attack. That was what brought us peace. Collaboration in the form of the various European international organizations was a consequence.
Making another war in Europe was basically impossible. We had one in Yugoslavia which was not aligned with the two blocks and anyway only after the USSR lost the cold war.
The idea is that EU countries do not see themselves at rivals, this is very different then our entire history where everyone had an issue with their neighbors (there are exceptions of neighbors not having any conflicts). Most educated Europeans are now considering the entire EU as a similar culture and not want to start a fight to kill each other for some historical land, the exception are the uneducated or just low IQ people that fall for extreme nationalists that push for "Make our country a great empire again"
Your point is about the Cold War, nuclear weapons prevented nuclear alliances to attack each other, it did not prevent say two NATO non nuclear members to start conflicts.
ARPANET and its successor TCP/IP already provided the fundamental networking infrastructure. Various hypertext systems were also being developed independently in and before the 1980s, like Ted Nelson's Xanadu project and Bill Atkinson's HyperCard. The key ideas of linked documents and markup languages were "in the air" so to speak. However, CERN provided some unique conditions that helped the WWW succeed where other systems didn't. It had an immediate practical need - helping physicists share information across institutions. It was developed in an open, non-commercial environment that encouraged sharing. CERN made the WWW technology freely available without royalties. The international nature of CERN helped drive early adoption across countries.
Without CERN, I think we would have eventually seen some form of hyperlinked document system emerge from either academia or industry, but it might have been more proprietary or fragmented.
Theoretical research in itself is one of the actual values. Any real-world application from CERN are purely incidental (albeit welcome).
The other values include redistribution of wealth, support for businesses, job creation, sustaining internal intellectual capabilities without depending on the whims of fickle corporations, and probably many others that I can't think of for now.
See Artemis for an answer to how NASA is doing. They’re in trouble. Post Apollo they became very ineffective at big space projects. I say that with respect as an aviator who has benefited much from their past and ongoing work.
I guess the main point is that NASA is forced to have contracts to verious USA states because of politics,
but you have robots on Mars, space probes outside the Solar System, and other ambitious plans that are announced and discussed not revealed in a PR conference where the CEO removes a blanket and shows you the latest robot and fanboys chear.
I understand MAGA and Elon fanboys are attacking NASA and claim that master Elon can do it better so the government should give Elon all the money, no auctions or checks to be done. I mean all Elon promises were fulfilled on time and on budget , right ?
> maybe there was no reddit like people commenting back then?
Huh?
The EU is often criticized for its lack of competitiveness due to its highly regulated environment, low investment numbers, risk aversion, and slow moving bureaucracy. This announcement hits all of these points. I am European as well, and it just makes me sad? It is more of the same. This doesn't look like a serious effort to propel Europe to the cutting-edge or even the conversation. It's just enough to say we're doing something, without a high risk of calling it a failure if nothing ends up being delivered.
Europe doesn't lack talent or initiative. If you look at the top AI research institutions out there, a great many of them are composed of researchers who originated from Europe. What is the US offering them that Europe is not? That is many things, none of which are are actively being addressed in the EU. There's a high likelihood that academic beneficiaries of these funds will end up in the US due to the absurd salaries and cutting edge positions.
I prefer the regulated EU environment. I value my privacy and think the EU is doing the right, long-term thing. I don't mind the reduced salaries here -- I worked in the US for years but returned back to Europe because I share its values. But there's no point in pretending the EU will be a serious contender in this environment.
> unless Hacker News has a lot of readers who might contribute to this effort
But it obviously does? Maybe not people who "want" but definitely many who "might".
If anything this is one of the better places to advertise, and certainly more interesting than another "Hooli (YC99) is hiring to democratize breathing".
>It probably should not be number 2 on Hacker News, unless Hacker News has a lot of readers who might contribute to this effort
I agree, but some EU people want to share it and USA guys and EU skeptiks want to shit on it. Probably we should post a wikipedia article about CERN and have Elon fanboys explain how Elon can do it it better while his bit* Trump could make our eggs cheaper.
Make it a local or company-wide identification of FOSS packages, and a way for those individuals, teams, and businesses to score them by importance or criticality (or needs of the FOSS project if they are aware).
Not that I've used this extensively, but months would likely increase to quarters.
And if you're estimating something to the lengths of months, you're already into project management territory size, rather than broken down to development/delivery sizes... The amount of unknown unknowns and other uncertainty certainly warrant happily estimating years length, surely.
Of course there's a need for a lender, even at a microsecond transaction you do need funds to perform arbitrage, it's not just all theoretical funds - there's backing to them.
Else let's all just pretend trade on a real market until it collapses and just make sure they come a-knockin' on some non-existent firm...
Plus my conjecture, from my understanding, is the flash loan terms incentivise fast payback, whilst still retaining some fixed profit.
Akin to a credit card which has an effective 0% rate of you pay back within a certain time frame, but raises to 30% monthly after that.
I'd be happy to provide you with a flash loan at 0.001% fixed rate of profit for me/cost for you for the first 5mins and scare you with a 30% rate calculated every minute after that. For some pre-validated huge sum I know your business can be liable for, of course.
Which allows capital scarce firms to leverage these micro-loans on fast arbitrage opportunity where they should take any transaction that provides anything larger than that 0.001% in transacted profit. And let's them compete with larger firms on optimising pricing.
It’s not a microsecond, it is zero seconds. The entire series of trades either succeeds as a bundle, or does not happen at all.
This is quite different from "normal" arbitrage, which consists of a series of non-atomic trades. There’s various risks here, both on the side of the arbitrageur (offer books can change, making the trade non-profitable halfway through) and by extension for all counterparties (due to the arbitrageur not being able to settle for the promised/borrowed amount), as well as non-zero time of locking up capital. Both have a price.
All of these have limitations and exceptions in a complex legal system. But to issue a blanket statement like the comment above is no really correct - just trying to make a point, I guess