> “…reverse-engineering the computational dynamics of a biological brain and reproducing them in real time…”
Is not an anti-AI argument, it’s an open and unsolved question. Your optimism is appreciated, but the dismissal and assumption this is already solved is foolish and naive.
Regardless, Lia went from not being in the front of the pack, to being in the front of the pack:
“By the conclusion of Thomas's swimming career at UPenn in 2022, her rank had moved from 65th on the men's team to 1st on the women's team in the 500-yard freestyle, and 554th on the men's team to fifth on the women's team in the 200-yard freestyle.”
65th to 1st in one category, and 554th to 5th in another.
It is fair to say there was a significant increase in rank post-transition.
Yeah, generally you get better in your sport in the 4-5 years you're in college. She was already putting up crazy numbers as a freshman on the men's team.
From Wikipedia:
> Thomas began swimming on the men's team at the University of Pennsylvania in 2017. During her freshman year, Thomas recorded a time of eight minutes and 57.55 seconds in the 1,000-yard freestyle that ranked as the sixth-fastest national men's time, and also recorded 500-yard freestyle and 1,650-yard freestyle times that ranked within the national top 100.[4] On the men's swim team in 2018–2019, Thomas finished second in the men's 500, 1,000, and 1,650-yard freestyle at the Ivy League championships as a sophomore in 2019.[4][3][13] During the 2018–2019 season, Thomas recorded the top UPenn men's team times in the 500 free, 1,000 free, and 1,650 free, but was the sixth best among UPenn men's team members in the 200 free.[14]
To focus in on her just-out-of-highschool low ranking, and imply that it's weird that she improved by the time she graduated, is deliberately disingenuous (not on your part, but on the writer's.) She had already won 3 silver medals as a sophomore on the men's team, and was the best on her team in all but one event.
Nitpick: the references 4 of the wiki page point to a CNN article which in turn references times and rankings that don't exist any longer. A little more investigation shows that all of Thoms' titles were revoked and a court case allowing Thomas to the Olympics was also lost. The wiki is badly out of date.
Holy bad faith. OP didn't say Thomas's improved ranking is simply due to "people naturally improving overtime", but because she already was already rising, even between other men. Could you at least argue that point?
Also, if that's a "far left ideology rabbit hole" (it isn't even ideological), I have to ponder what the hell you think is a "right ideology", nevermind "far right ideology".
I use GP, would recommend as well; it generates great color codes tree maps of your storage. Once you get used to navigating it that way, you won’t go back.
Isn’t it more of a reflection of the current law? Age gates have long been self service (e.g., “enter your birthday”), and we have laws on the books for quite some time barring minors.
There is certainly a risk of what you’re describing with KYC tech that coming online, but I don’t know if that means it will happen.
To play devils advocate; It’s a reasonable demand from parents to control what their children are exposed to. This seems to support that.
So, the premise is high drug costs in the US subsidize drug prices in the EU.
Presumably this conclusion was arrived at because pharma companies sell drugs at a higher cost in the US than they do in EU, Canada, or anywhere else. Therefore elevating profits in the US relative to profit margins in other nations. (Note: they reportedly use the profit to develop new drugs, so this is where the subsidization comes into play, as higher profit markets will drive increased revenue and future drug development.)
And your argument against the premise is: 1. The EU is not at fault, and 2. Drugs cost more in the US because of the poor healthcare system.
Argument 1 does not attack the premise: Undoubtedly the EU is not at fault, the EU does not set drug prices in the US. Pharma companies do, within the context of the US economy, of course.
The premise does not assign fault, it’s an assessment of where profit comes from.
Argument 2 is more direct in addressing the premise, but still misses the point: you might be right, mostly right, or you could be wrong. I lean toward agreeing with the point you made (US healthcare system sucks), it doesn’t address the profit differential across different nations.
So, what about the premise is weak and incomplete?
Pharma shareholders want profit, and the US supplies that at a greater rate than the EU (likely due to the regulatory environment). They’ll take a lower profit margin vs. no profit at all, so they operate accordingly.
None of that goes against the premise that the extra profit from the US market is subsidizing the research costs for drug products that enter the EU market.
Your response is fair. I didn't present the argument fully - there is on last step which says "therefore, EU is somehow indebted to the US". That last step is, I think, less defensible.
Also, even in the absence of the "indebtedness" conclusion, the subsidy argument assumes that pharma companies would reduce their R&D spend, instead of just accepting lower margins if the US could more aggressively negotiate drug prices.
That’s a great question… Currently we’re in the main Chinese holiday period with the Lunar New Year/Spring Festival/Chinese New Year, so perhaps people traveling back home from foreign lands might use the service more during this time?
I know no one using this in China. And people who can afford to travel (and have visa and passport) will have foreign sim/phone. The timing is just a coincidence
Yes yes there's not a single soldier in all of Europe. Every soldier, tank, and airplane is American. No other military technology exists. America great.
Seriously, I'll grant the most advanced stuff is American but you really think everybody else only has sticks, stones, and water pistols?
> Try to think like an evil person with no life and very specific and demonic aims if you’re still having trouble seeing why this would be an issue.
That person already has incredible power to stalk and ruin someone's life. Making Flock cameras public would change almost nothing for that person. It fascinates me how fast people jump to "imagine the worst person" when we talk about making data public.
We have the worst people, they're the ones who profit off of it being private, with no public accountability, who don't build secure systems. The theater of privacy is, IMO, worse than not having privacy.
“almost nothing” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence.
Stalking someone from your desk vs. IRL is a whole different ball game. Not sure why this needs explanation… anyways, the main difference is how easy it do things from your desk. For example, no one see you when you’re stalking someone from your desk. Think of the success of 4chan investigations vs. those in authority to actually do so. It’s empowering.
We live in a world of strangers, and unfortunately a % of those are the type to kill/rape other strangers. Why enable them?
Not sure who else would be empowered by making all public camera accessible at the click of a button, but I’m interested in who you think that population is.
Certainly we can agree most normal folks will not spend their time looking camera feeds of strangers?
I’m fascinated by people who stick to their theoretical principles (‘all data should be public’, etc.) no matter the real world implications, but we all have our own interests :).
reply