Companies that store personal information at that level should be required to implement PCI-DSS level security. This includes going through the auditing process.
You can work to not implement the security standards, and then try to fake your way through the audit. At that point you are not ignorant of proper security, you are actively endangering the users, and your right to hold PII (Personally Identifiable Information) should be revoked.
Only people working would qualify for a loan. Those people would have more prosperity until the robots cratered all wages and prices, being free labor and flooding the market with excess.
When the prices crash a large number of people with robots will be unable to pay back the loan. Their robots will be repossessed. They will now be out of a job and with no robot.
The poor would get left over food from the kindness of people with robots? They'll certainly never work again.
The robot will properly buy futures contracts so that the borrower will be insulated from any food price fluctuations. If the numbers don't add up the lender will not make the loan. There will not be any "overproduction". The robots will instead recommend another line of business where the robots production will be profitable given the price of market futures for those products.
I have an American friend who lives in Argentina who works online. The cost of living is such that he can work two months and pay his living expenses for two years. Those horribly low prices in Argentina are totally killing him. Not!
So what you are saying is the disaster is there will be so much food that people won't be able to eat it all and the prices will crash? Imagine if everybody had unlimited amounts of everything they wanted! How would we support prices?
This kind of thinking reminds me of the great depression where they would destroy food to keep up prices even as people were starving.
BTW, The novella "Manna" by Marshall Brain is kind of a good take on the future with robots and everything, though I don't really like his "happy" future.
BTW, thanks for giving me a hard time on this. I am getting to the point where this is going to be a bit of a manifesto and you're helping me flesh things out.
I'll be interested to see if any manifesto can plot a path through societies looming issues. I don't see a scenario where we can maintain our current style of capitalism without things breaking down in one way or another.
You're friend in Argentina:
* has the ability to get a job from home, which means it's probably a tech/outsourcing job in a first world country. That doesn't take care of 95% of the population. That doesn't fix the issues.
* In the robot scenario where robots are smart enough to understand markets/futures and can decide a completely different line of work, and then do that work, those remote jobs are gone. Your friend is out of work. He doesn't get a robot.
* the company that hires him has to compete for resources in their country of origin. Their local pay requirements determine what they think a "good deal" on labor is. That country would have robots as well and their wages would crater. Again your friend's cush life would disappear, unless he could buy a robot.
>what you are saying is the disaster is there will be so much food that people won't be able to eat it all and the prices will crash? Imagine if everybody had unlimited amounts of everything they wanted! How would we support prices?
Now you are getting to the root of the issue.
We produce enough food in the US that nobody should go hungry, yet we have swaths of kids that don't know where their next meal is coming from.
We have enough abandoned houses that nobody should be homeless, but people still live on the streets.
In capitalism, a private person/entity produces and someone else has to PAY to use what's produced. The issue isn't that there won't be enough to go around. The issue is that our current system will allow lots of people to starve and do without even when there is excess.
You used the term libertarian. That might be why you're getting all the push back. Maybe I'm misinformed on the topic. Libertarians believe an unregulated market and human morality will make everything better. Those two things combined gave us the triangle trade, raw goods (America) --> manufactured goods (Europe) --> slaves (Africe). We also got child labor, poisonous food being sold, no education, life threatening work conditions, etc.
>This kind of thinking reminds me of the great depression where they would destroy food to keep up prices even as people were starving
Being against this strategy is the antithesis of capitalism. If I give away food, prices drop. If I reduce the supply then prices will go up.
During the great depression, prices dropped so low that all farmers were going to go bankrupt. Farmers themselves were dumping crops and rioting to keep crops off the market to try and increase prices. Farmers were marching on courts because they were demanding that foreclosures stop.
If you let farmers flood the market with goods (lowering prices), while allowing them to refuse to pay their debts, then what kind of economy do you have? It's not capitalism.
My concern is that the coming wave of automation will recreate the great depression x10. The population at large doesn't see it coming, and maybe I'm a chicken little. 30% of the US population think poor people are just lazy, and that if they just worked harder they'd be better off.
When automation comes full force, then our economic and political system will change. The question is what will it change to, and what will the transition look like. There's a happy path and a bloody path.
>When automation comes full force, then our economic and political system will change. The question is what will it change to, and what will the transition look like. There's a happy path and a bloody path.
This is what I keep harping on with folks. I think automation will hit and hit hard and our current economic/political structures are not ready for it or won't be able to adapt fast enough (hence your depressionx10 or just a massive inequality gap).
We already have 'more productive' economies but we have stagnant wage growth, increasing rental/housing costs due to people leaving for cities since there are little/no economic prospects in rural areas now, and, as you said, logistical problems in fulfilling basic necessities. Not to mention mental models that say that these 'unemployed' folks are bad and should just retrain/go to bootcamp/move elsewhere.
Consumption-wise, we can buy whatever we want. Shitty food is cheap, electronics, etc, all cheap. But some of the base foundations in Maslow's hierarchy don't come very cheap anymore and it's harder and harder to get to the higher reaches.
* My friend is not a rockstar programmer. He's about average, and in San Francisco he was living in Bayview and getting his house and his car regularly broken into and barely scraping by. Now he lives like he makes 5x the money he did in SF and his taxes are vastly lower since he's making less money, but living better. This is one of the largest mysteries of modern capitalism. Why are the prices for things so vastly different in different countries?
* If the robots can run the futures market and do general purpose programming then we probably won't even need money because we will have perfected central planning. Instead the robots will be playing a game called "The Humans" which is like when we play "The Sims" with the goal of trying to make the Humans happy. This will go on at a superhuman level of intellect and we won't even be able to analyze what the heck is going on, much like we can't really know why Alpha Go makes the moves it makes. We just won't turn it off because we can't live without it. This is the good or bad future depending on the ultimate fitness function, which in the good future is make everybody happy and not where the fitness future is based on deep ecology (DE) [1] which would prefer a 95% population reduction.
* My friend might not be a web developer, but he could probably get a job working on designing some guy's Burning Man float who owned a robot for enough to live well since it would require an absolutely trivial amount of effort to live since there would be so much supply.
* As far as Libertarianism goes, your formulation seems to be that that means no rules. No not really. I don't think ANY libertarian that is respected by the libertarian community would think slavery or poisoning people should be legal so you really have got a strawman there. Besides if we had no rules at all the wealthy Deep Ecology people could get together and decide they wanted to exterminate everybody they don't need to maintain things with killer robots who unlike in the movies have perfect aim and tactical strategy.
* The foreclosures during the great depression were due to collapse of bank reserves due to fractional reserve banking. You had short panics in the 19th century before the fed and fractional reserve banking, but not depression like scenarios of rapid credit contraction as the money multiplier work in reverse. This is unfortunately a very very deep rabbit hole side issue that requires a 30 page essay to get through. In China, which is probably more capitalist than the U.S, they have a different system. They have tons of companies that have bad debts and the government prints money out of thin air to selectively bail them out without austerity forced on the taxpayer, which is why they haven't had a credit crunch that has predicted every year for the last 30 years.
* The happy path of the future AI automation is normal people get access to these robots and use them to produce unlimited prosperity. The bloody path is only the elite get access and they decide to wipe out everyone else with killer robots because they find them to be irritating useless eaters.
The Weimar Republic (German Government Prior to Hitler) was a socialist country. The parties that countered the socialists were the communists, the people who supported the old monarchy, and the Nazis.
Hitler didn't bring socialism to Germany. The party introduced extreme nationalism.
This reminds me of the wired article "the long boom" which described how the economy was on a permanent upswing. The telco / .com crash happened a couple years later.
The article asserts that currency will always go up because people will want it as an investment strategy. Sounds like the idea that real estate value will always go up
I sat in a court room during sentencing of a young man for a federal drug offense. He had prior drug offenses. No violent crimes. Right before he got clean, a friend asked him to mail him some drugs. The amount was just enough to qualify as intent to distribute. Mailingnacross state lines made it federal. The friend had been arrested and was given leniency in exchange for turning in someone else.
I knew the young man being sentenced. It took two years for him to be picked up. In the two years he had gotten clean, and started a small business that was growing. He had NA spnosors saying he never missed a meeting, drug tests over previous two years showing he was clean, a stack of letters vouching for his current character, and a dozen people in the courtroom who were there for support. He was also given the option of turning someone in, but since he had been clean for 2 years, he didn't know anyone.
The judge said that while rehabilitation was part of sentencing, the primary reason for sentencing was for punishment; To set an example and deter future crimes by both the convicted and people in the community.
I didn't say the system was perfect. We treat drug users as degenerate criminals instead of people with health issues in need of help (in the case of addicts) or as regular people living their lives.
I agree. After 20 years of experience I realize "Clean Architecture" will break down on larger systems. It's easy to create a clean looking architecture with a limited set of use cases. You can do it using any design methodology.
Where systems breakdown is when other viewpoints get added. For this system it might be the following:
- Pricing/Invoicing
- Prerequisites
- Academic Status
- Professor assignment
- Course Reviews / Social Media
All of these viewpoints are close enough to the registration system that there is a bias towards reusing as much existing code as possible.
The problem is that at a high level two viewpoints look 95% similar, but in the code it equates to creating interdependencies between all of the viewpoints.
Different teams might be successful in keeping the separation in the system, but in most systems I've seen the entanglement starts in the database with the entities. Columns that become nothing more than status flags for different viewpoints. Columns with near identical names that mean almost the same thing, but are handled differently because the viewpoints treat them differently.
When the system gets big enough, a developer cannot mentally map the whole thing. When implementing a feature they will look for what is available vs what the architect had in mind.
This is how you wind up with 10 different getCourse calls all of which are building off one another with various parameters. The code will have a lot of if/thens checking the parameters to make it work for a particular viewpoint and avoids bugs for the others.
The more separation you have between the viewpoints the better. I now prefer separate entities/databases for every viewpoint. There is a set of entities common to all, but these are fact level entities. A course, A student, A professor, An admin, A TA. The entities should contain no status.
Where the viewpoints need information from each other they should just query the appropriate viewpoint, or have the source viewpoint send out updates (great place for event sourcing).
It might sound like I'm describing micro services. I wouldn't argue that, but I would say that a viewpoint is a higher level concept than a service. A viewpoint could be a collection of micro-services, or a single system (using this Clean Architecture).
The statement touches on a real issue. I would revise the statement to:
If your DevOps people reside in a separate group outside of the development team, then you are not doing DevOps.
Architecture and Infrastructure go hand in hand, and DevOps is the glue that merges them together. I've worked with both DevOps and Architecutre groups in larger companies where Development, DevOps, and Infrastructure have been separated and siloed. This invariably leads to waste that undercuts any advantage provided by modern development practices.
The core of the issue is the designs will only consider trade offs within their skill set. Problems that are easily solved with a combination of dev/devOps/inf are instead solved using complex designs within a single skill set. The other end of the spectrum is that decisions get made in one group that will undercut the efforts of another group.
Real life examples:
The dev group wants to deploy backend service version 2 with fail back option in production. The API's are identical, the database is unchanged. Instead of using a load balancer and monitoring to automate role back the dev group builds another system with the job of routing traffic between the two systems, identifying failures, and then stop sending traffic to the new system.
The dev group designs a system with "micro-services" in mind. The developers have all containerized the services and run them on their laptop. The infrastructure and/or devops group doesn't want to deal with containers and instead deploys one service per VM. (In these scenarios the dev group will get a bill for the extra services).
The problem is that it's easier to grab the people sitting next to design something than scheduling a meeting with groups you rarely see. This is a key driver of Conway's law.
> If your DevOps people reside in a separate group outside of the development team, then you are not doing DevOps
Devops and swdevs sitting and working together, understanding each other's problems and needs, and keeping them in mind when designing solutions, is indeed a beautiful thing to watch.
Roy Spencer (the guy who did the chart) has been thoroughly dismissed. Not because of his views, but because his models terrible, he never does any actual studies, and he will tweak models until he gets the output he wants.
The new climate denier stance is that you can't prove 100% without a doubt that it's human activity. The past decade has ended the "Is the temperature really increasing" debate.
The stories all have a foundation -- the sky is falling, in this case, the earth is warming, growing warmer, and the cause is sin, human sin from human greed and corruption, for human activities that release CO2 which is warming the planet dangerously, melting glaciers, ice in the Arctic and Antarctic, making the oceans acid and killing the coral reefs, killing off food for the whales, making the lobsters move farther north, raising sea levels, flooding low lands, killing the polar bears, etc.
This article did not mention CO2, sin, greed, or corruption. There is a lot of FUD being thrown around in the public these days, but I didn't find any of it in this article. Maybe I missed it, so feel free to pull out some choice quotes.
More than 50% is caused by CO2, which mostly comes from powering our homes and cars (burning fossil fuels). You can be sinful using green energy as well.
Global warming doesn't cause acidic oceans. You're thinking of acid rain. You don't hear about it as much any more because congress passed The Clean Air Act. Since then there's been reduction of acid rain. I'm old enough to remember when acid rain was a "naturally occurring phenomena and not provably linked to industrial byproducts"
The temperature has been very stable for the last 10K years. It's only been very recent that we've had such an uptick. Scientist are able to discern the temperatures of the past through core samples. Those samples also show dramatically higher CO2.
You chose to highlight the years from 1940-1970. This isn't a discussion about the natural oscillations in weather. This about the proven sharp increase in temperatures as it compares to on a paleo scale.
*
1. The earth is warming at an accelerating rate
2. High levels of CO2 have been linked with paleo level rising temperatures in the past
3. Our current CO2 levels are orders of magnitude higher than anything found in the past.
4. If the temperatures continue to rise the sea levels will rise, storms will become stronger, and we'll have both more floods and more droughts (depending on where you are). There are a host of other ecological impacts.
Our options are:
a) work with the rest of the planet to alleviate the likely causes as currently determined by analysis of the data and research of >95% of the science community. At the same time we can continue to research and refine our understanding.
b) We can assert that none of this is true and hope that it will magically get better on it's own.
The earth is going to be fine. We can kill everything, including ourselves, and the planet will just keep turning. There's other planets in the solar system that are also fine, we just can't live on them.
The goal isn't to save the earth. The goal is to make sure we aren't turning the only planet we have into something either uninhabitable, or a nightmare.
P.S.
Then, sure, we get lots of stories about why we must fight climate change -- how the heck to do that? Like the Mayans who killed people to pour their blood on a rock so that the sun would keep moving across the sky and, thus, avoid climate change if the sun stopped?
There is no evidence that anything like realistic atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have ever caused or ever will cause significant warming. None. Zip, zilch, zero.
Right, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Now NYT climate expert (ha!) Tom Friedman explained on a late night TV show that the reason CO2 warms the earth is that it absorbs sunlight, that is, visible light.
Sorry, Tom: Just exhale. See the CO2? Of course not. CO2 does not absorb visible light.
Tom, poor guy, when you were studying romantic novels or Asian history in college, I was in a high end course in optics and radiography. There the prof explained that sunlight warms the surface of the earth; then that surface radiates with Planck black body radiation; considering the temperature of the surface, that radiation is heavily out in the infrared, and CO2 absorbs in three narrow frequency bands out in the infrared, one band for each of bending, twisting, and stretching of the molecule.
So, CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs some infrared from Planck black body radiation from the surface. Thus, CO2 is called a greenhouse gas, although, with the roof, a greenhouse works in a significantly different way.
Well water vapor is also a greenhouse gas, and clouds readily absorb a lot radiation, both infrared and visible, from the earth and also directly from the sun. If you want to think about a biggie greenhouse gas, think about water vapor, not little ole' CO2.
Now, it's not at all clear if the infrared absorbed by CO2 would not also soon be absorbed by water vapor -- that's a darned tricky computation to do, especially since both CO2 and water vapor concentrations are not nearly uniform in the atmosphere, either horizontally or vertically. No, correction, it's not a "tricky" calculation; instead for now it's essentially an impossible calculation.
Really, net, we have next to nothing, next to zip, zilch, and zero ability, to say what an extra 10 parts per million (ppm) of CO2 would to the temperature of the earth. First-cut, intuitively the extra 10 ppm would warm the earth; so would lighting a match; we have pretty good shot saying what the heat energy would be from the match; we can do much less well estimating the effect of CO2. E.g., would the extra 10 ppm have any radiation to absorb, that is, not already absorbed by the rest of the CO2? Tough question to answer.
That in your statement CO2 warms the earth significantly or that significantly more CO2 would warm the earth significantly more, we just do NOT know that in any even half serious way. Sorry 'bout that.
For more, from the 800,000 years of ice core records from the Antarctic drillings, both temperature and CO2 varied, both up and down, significantly but (1) there is not even one case where significantly lower temperature was closely preceded by significantly CO2 and (2) the situation of higher temperature and higher CO2 is nearly the same, i.e., temperature went up but not from higher CO2 except maybe, in the last 800,000 years, for the first time in the last 100 years.
Next, for the past 20 years, CO2 has gone up (if believe the alarmists) but temperture has not.
Next, in the JPG I linked to, there were a lot of computer calculations to predict future temperatures considering the effects of CO2. Well, now we can check the predictions with measured values. Result: The only predictions that were at all accurate were the ones that predicted no or at most tiny increases in temperature. Nearly all the predictions were for much higher temperature and now are wildly wrong. So, we can't use such modelling to predict the effects of CO2.
And we have a recent test: There actually was some cooling from 1940 to 1970, but then CO2 was not decreasing. So, the cooling was not caused by CO2. So, CO2 is not the only cause of temperature change.
Since in the last 800,000 years temperature has gone up and down without CO2 going up and down first (maybe the last 100 years is an exception), there MUST be significant causes of temperature change that have nothing to do with CO2.
The simple observations here should settle the question for all current, practical purposes for any objective person who cares -- CO2 has essentially no effect on temperature. Sorry 'bout that.
So, concentrating on CO2, and shooting our economy in the gut to reduce CO2, look no better than the Mayans killing people to pour their blood on a rock to keep the sun moving across the sky.
So, what is going on here? Well, it's not science. In part it's fear, supersititon, and sacrifice as for the Mayans and others going back many thouands of years. In part it's an earth religion (uh, recall that Gore was a divinity student). Then, really, it's all driven by green, money that is.
The NYT? For decades now they have gotten lots of eyeballs and ad revenue raising the level of fear and, thus, getting an audience they can continue to stimulate, week by week.
Net, the whole thing about CO2 and climate is just a flim-flam, fraud, scam to trick taxpayers into having the US Federal Government spend money for nothing except to line the pockets of Musk, various wind and solar people, etc.
Just where did I lose you? It's totally simple -- it's just same song and second verse of the Mayans pouring blood on a rock.
> It has been proven without question that it is hotter now than it has been in 1000 years.
That's right and what I explained and what is in the NAS report I quoted.
Point: The current temperature is not unusual, and there are causes of a temperature this high that have nothing to do with CO2. So, that the current temperature, and the increase since the coldest of the Little Ice Age, are from CO2 are suspect.
So, there were climate models that tried to predict the effects of CO2. Well, as in the graph I showed, nearly all the models predicted temperatures way too high.
Point: The modelling efforts flopped.
First-cut Conclusion: We are really short on evidence that CO2 is the cause of any significant temperature increases, now or any time in the past 800,000 years of the Antarctica ice core data.
> This is a bullshit statement.
It's a perfectly solid statement: It's totally clear that temperature can go up without higher CO2. So, there are other causes. The leading candidate, over the short term, not the earth passing through some part of the galaxy over some many millions of years or some such, is sun spots. So, how to do something about sun spots? Hopeless. That was my point and is perfectly okay.
> The goal is to make sure we aren't turning the only planet we have into something either uninhabitable, or a nightmare.
There's not much chance of that, and there's essentially not even a clue that we are on the way to that. The energy in this debate is wild, irrational emotions, much like what drove the Myans to pour blood on a rock and have driven superstition and sacrifices for many thousands of years, those emotions now driven by quite a lot of US Federal money, money Trump is about to chop off.
Susan Milbrath, Star Gods of the Maya:
Astronomy in Art, Folklore, and Calendars
(The Linda Schele Series in Maya and
Pre-Columbian Studies), ISBN-13
978-0292752269, University of Texas Press,
2000.
with
"Indeed, blood sacrifice is required for
the sun to move, according to Aztec
cosmology (Durian 1971:179; Sahaguin 1950
- 1982, 7:8)."
> If the temperatures continue to rise
Since when? That was my original point. Apparently for the past 20 years, temperatures have not risen, although CO2 has, at least the alarmists seem to say so. Maybe they are correct; maybe they just got their data from Hawaii with that data now corrupted by the volcano. Maybe the warmer surface temperatures of the Pacific around Hawaii caused out gassing of CO2 -- warmer water absorbs less CO2.
> Our current CO2 levels are orders of magnitude higher than anything found in the past.
An "order of magnitude" is a factor of 10. Your claim is tough to believe. IIRC we long were at about 280 parts per million of CO2 and, IIRC, from the alarmists, now are at about 400. That's not even a factor of 2. Moreover, we have no solid evidence that 400 ppm CO2 is actually warming the planet. E.g., the planet was this warm in the year 1000 when CO2 was not unusually high -- so, there are causes of warming other than CO2, and there's darned little reason to believe that CO2 is responsible for any warming now. Indeed, in the last 20 years, CO2 has been increasing but temperature has not. Indeed, from 1940 to 1970, CO2 increased but temperature declined a little showing that higher CO2 does not always lead to higher temperatures.
Net, the evidence is that CO2 has had little or nothing to do with the planet getting warmer, ever in the past 800,000 years of the Antarctica ice core data.
> High levels of CO2 have been linked with paleo level rising temperatures in the past
No, not really: From the 800,000 year data, none of the significantly higher temperatures were preceded by significantly higher CO2. Yes, after temperatures went up from whatever causes, not CO2, about 800 years later CO2 went up -- presumably from more biological activity from higher temperatures. That's your "linked".
> The earth is warming at an accelerating rate
What rates? Since when? Compared with what? As in the NAS reference I gave, the temperature now is not unusually high, is about the same as in the year 1000, is cooler than in the Medieval Warm Period, and has not increased at all in the past 20 years. I see no "accleration".
> You chose to highlight the years from 1940-1970. This isn't a discussion about the natural oscillations in weather. This about the proven sharp increase in temperatures as it compares to on a paleo scale.
Right, there are, call it, "natural oscillations," and maybe count
the cooling from 1940 to 1970 as part of that. So, we get two conclusions: (A) Then CO2 was higher than before (due to WWII, etc.) but the higher CO2 did not cause warming. (B) There are causes of cooling other than lower CO2; CO2 is not the only cause of temperature changes; so, we are not at all sure that the temperature now is from CO2.
> paleo scale
Huh? The usual claim is that higher CO2 now is driving temperatures higher now, and we need to cut back on human sources of CO2 now. Paleo is not part of that argument. And, to shoot down that argument, CO2 levels seem (the alarmists claim) to be at about 400 parts per million now and maybe increasing, but we're not seeing higher temperatures and have not for 20 years. So, where are the higher temperatures now from the higher CO2 now? My conclusion: CO2 has next to nothing to do with temperature, and we can forget about CO2.
> This article did not mention CO2, sin, greed, or corruption.
That's what the article is really about; the article is a manipulation, trying to sell band instruments and uniforms because of the threat of a pool table in town. So, the Music Man mentioned only the pool table. Well, what he was really interested in was selling some band stuff, taking the money, and getting out of town.
Trust me: The article is about CO2 and then reducing CO2 and then emphasizing renewables and then wind and solar and then batteries and then the money -- big subsidies. In the end it's about the money, e.g., the $1 B or so a year in research grants, the $1 B or so to Musk, forcing utility companies to accept unstable wind and solar power they very much do not want, etc. It's now a Green Glob, a big industry, all based on US Federal money from scaring the taxpayers.
> Global warming doesn't cause acidic oceans.
The claim is that CO2 in the water makes the water more acidic, causes acidic oceans.
> Maybe I missed it, so feel free to pull out some choice quotes.
The whole article is FUD in the sense that it's propaganda pushing the claim that CO2 from human activities is about to ruin the planet -- the sky is falling.
> The new climate denier stance is that you can't prove 100% without a doubt that it's human activity. The past decade has ended the "Is the temperature really increasing" debate.
Again, the temperature hasn't been increasing for 20 years, and now it's just where is was in year 1000 and, thus, not new or unusual and need not have been caused by CO2 since the temperature in year 1000 wasn't.
> denier stance
I don't know what that is; I'm just explaining what's totally clear. I'm not part of any group on climate; I'm certainly not being paid. Here I'm just trying to push back against propaganda.
I've here, now done my best to slap down the NYT propaganda and need to get back to my startup.
"It's now a Green Glob, a big industry, all based on US Federal money from scaring the taxpayers."
You're willing to credulously state this kind of wild conspiracy theory -- as if a "Green Glob" of deceptive scientists is a simple explanation for everything we observe -- CO2, glaciers, temperatures, ocean changes -- but also willing to ignore the very solid science in, for example, the IPCC AR5 report? And to spend many paragraphs denouncing an NYT story for being the kind of fluffy stuff ("polar bears") that you can't be bothered to take seriously?
The serious stuff is out there if you cared to look.
Its funny, several years ago when climate deniers were generally still in the full denial stage - ie saying the earth wasn't warming - I remember thinking how the evidence was going to become undeniable at some point even by first hand observation (I understand that that is actually not possible, but that it can drive perception and openness to the idea that the earth is warming) and how deniers would have to retreat ever further to state that humans are not the cause, I never thought that would happen so fast.
Is there a word for this, when a point of view is continually challenged and disproved but rather than accepting another point of view, the holders of this position just adapt their reasoning and continue on as if they always held their current position? It reminds me of so many types of arguments but I feel the need to have a specific term to describe it. It reminds me of contrived inductive arguments attempting to hold doggedly onto the geocentric model of the solar system[1].
I think you could sum it up as this situation: When you have to evolve your position over and over in the light of overwhelming evidence that makes you no longer able to persuade any others to your way of thinking, but with each new iteration of your position you hold it with absolute confidence despite having been proven wrong again and again.
This is distinct from a rational view where you allow evidence and reasoning to inform your decision because people who do this don't change their actual position, they just cherry-pick their rational, and it has nothing to do with being disproved but instead the perception of others and your ability to persuade them. If they could continue to make the argument that the world is not warming they would never bother to change it. They only evolve as a means of the survival of their position.
It reminds me of how the catholic church "evolves", subsequent generations of clergy might hold some truths to be unquestionable while choosing to disregard the truths of their predecessors as the perceptions of their followers change as a means of survival. Demonizing homosexuals is just not sustainable and the church will evolve so as to not alienate their customers, but then still demand to be taken seriously on any number of other topics with seemingly no awareness of the contradiction.
Not quite what you are asking, but related, is the idea of evaporative cooling of beliefs, a selection effect where over time the more objective and rational holders of a belief are persuaded by the evidence that their belief is incorrect, and those who continue to cling to the belief become a progressively smaller group who are increasingly uninterested in rational argument or scientific evidence. This results in the group arguments becoming progressively more shrill and incoherent.
>Most of the warming occurred in the past 35 years, with 16 of the 17 warmest years on record occurring since 2001.
How do you claim we are at the same temperature as the year 1000 and also claim temperature readings from the late 1800's are innacurate and can't be trusted? Also, what does comparing a similar temperature reading from a specific year in the past prove? It is arbitrary and without context.
Someone asked me to pay a bill using docusign and entering my credit card information into one of those free text boxes They couldn't understand why I refused to do it.
It doesn't really spell out, though, how they differentiate CC info and avoid storing it with the rest of the data in the pdf form. There's just some hand wavy language about "Bank-grade Security". I suspect this means they store the CC data, which would be significantly different from how must online merchants operate.
As someone who has worked on a similar product, I would imagine they only store a token given to them by their payment gateway. The actual CC information is held by the PCI compliant payment gateway, while Docusign can use the token to charge a card without storing compromising information.
Would be good if that were spelled out though. From the outside, you click a link and see a pre-filled PDF, as both the end user and the person that sent the form. There's no obvious magic that it's auto-detecting cc like data and storing it differently than the other fields in the pdf.
With credit cards, you personally do not have much to worry about, since your card issuer holds the ultimate liability for any fraud that occurs. Just be careful to use a credit card (attached to a reversible ledger) and not a debit card (attached to a less-reversible cash account).
This is not an accurate description of the difference between credit cards and offline debit cards with regard to disputed transactions.
In both cases, fraud disputes are handled in the same way. Either the issuer or the account holder suspects fraudulent transactions and the bank engages an investigation in order to determine veracity of the claim.
Where things differ is that the onus of proof for credit card accounts is on the merchant to prove the transaction is legit. When an offline debit card is used, the funds are deducted from the account when the merchant captures funds and, therefore, the onus of proof lies with the card holder to prove it is fraudulent.
Liability, in this context, is non sequitur as fraud claims exist in either scenario and one party or the other must provide proof to support their position. The other, by definition, is responsible for said funds.
I'm not really sure what you mean regarding "a reversible ledger", as this has nothing to do with credit card transactions.
It's not really that simple either. For the US, there are different paths for liability limits, reporting periods, etc, for the different combinations of credit vs debit and card-present vs card-not-present and Visa vs Mastercard. The rules are a mix of various consumer laws like "Truth in Lending" as well as Visa and MasterCard policy. There are areas where Visa and MC differ in policy.
Your note about "onus on proof lies with the cardholder" is less true for Visa, for example.
Are you sure? I don't know how credit card companies in the US behave, but here in the Netherlands I called up mastercard to ask them whether I am liable for any fraud that occurs if I do something like this (or send credit card info over email, like so many hotels want). The credit card company tells me, yes I am liable for any fraud that occurs, because email and unecrypted text boxes on websites are known to be insecure, and so it can be argued that it's my own fault if credit card fraud occurs.
In AUS it's much like chatmasta says: if its a CC linked a true "credit" account the issuer has the value entirely underwritten. If you can reasonably prove that someone stole it for example, then you'll get your money [credit] back.
If it's linked to a savings account and it's a Visa/MC debit card, for example, then it's a different story. The funds are not insured and so if you loose it it's on you.
Even if the credit card company decides to hold you liable, you're still better off, because they have to follow court procedures and get a judgment against you before they can actually take your money.
With a debit card, the money is just gone and the burden is generally on you to find some way of recovering it from whoever stole it.
Companies that store personal information at that level should be required to implement PCI-DSS level security. This includes going through the auditing process.
Here's a quick overview.
https://www.pcisecuritystandards.org/documents/PCI%20SSC%20Q...
You can work to not implement the security standards, and then try to fake your way through the audit. At that point you are not ignorant of proper security, you are actively endangering the users, and your right to hold PII (Personally Identifiable Information) should be revoked.