= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
The legal status quo is secondary to public perception, which - other than some technophile aficionados - is quite reserved. There's too much male identity attached to driving, not only are cars used to show off status, but so is the driving style you use them with.
I think you substantially overestimate how important this is. As urbanization continues and suburbs empty out, cars simply become impossible for many people to support. Further, the car mystique is being attacked at the root: young people. As minimum wages stagnate, teen unemployment continues to increase, insurance maintains its inexorable creep upwards, and additional obstacles put in the way of getting drivers' licenses, teens literally cannot afford cars unless their parents buy them. It's hard for anything to become part of your identity when you cannot obtain it.
Secondly, the reaction to a robot (car) causing accidents - killing people (gasp) is vastly disproportionate in relation to human-caused killings that are accepted as part of the supposed fabric of nature/society.
Certainly. This is one of the factors making me pessimistic in the short-run. Autonomous cars are simply too novel, and will be treated under a massive double-standard. But as the young people grow up and the statistics start to percolate through the old peoples' heads, combined with the expected improvements in autonomous cars, the problem will abate. This may not have happened in your physician example, but then again, if taxi drivers had veto power over autonomous cars, it might not happen there either...
Related reading: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/09/the-cheapest-generation/309060/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/why-are-young-people-ditching-cars-for-smartphones/260801/
(unrelated) - I'm confused. Is there a reason why random letters are bolded?
Signalling has an academic definition in economics, for sure. It's used both in an intentional sense ("workers signal their conscientiousness to employers by making their way through a 4-year college degree") and an unintentional sense ("being a high school dropout signals to the employer that a worker is in the bottom 5th percentile")
However, I do think LW uses it in a intellectual hipster sense as well - "Do you really think that, or are you just signalling?". The difference seems to me that instead of jockeying for economic advantage, we are accusing someone of jockeying for social status. Of course, such social jockeying is widespread, simply by dint of human nature. But I suppose we could replace this use of the word with "posturing" or something of the sort.
Excellent post by Yvain... your excerpt really doesn't do it justice.
What is your true decision metric? A look at medicinal chemists
http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2012/11/27/how_do_chemist_think_that_they_judge_compounds.php
Some background: medicinal chemists are responsible for identifying drug candidates, usually by screening large (10^6) libraries of combinatorially generated molecules. Some of these hits turn out to be biologically active, and then it's up to the medicinal chemists to decide whether these hits are false positives or not, and further, to synthesize analogous compounds to see if they can tweak the biological activity of each compound.
It's in this 'synthesizing analogous compounds' step that subjective judgment comes in, with Lipinski's rule of five being the most 'basic' of the heuristics, and with most medicinal chemists adopting more and more complex heuristics. Or, as this paper shows, perhaps they're just deluding themselves and their true metric is something very simple, and after making their decision, they dress it up with fancy post-hoc rationalizations.
No... because the time it takes the sun's increased brilliance to reach the moon and reflect to the Earth is the same as the time it takes for the Earth to be wiped out by the energy wave.
XKCD - Frequentist vs. Bayesians
Is this a fair representation of frequentists versus bayesians? I feel like every time the topic comes up, 'Bayesian statistics' is an applause light for me, and I'm not sure why I'm supposed to be applauding.
Obviously you are willing to extend this sort of cost benefit analysis to all kinds of influencing government?
If me grabbing a nanoslice of power in the form of casting a vote is like donating a thousand dollars to charity, me grabbing more than a nanoslice even by illegal means shouldn't be dismissed out of hand and deserves even handed analysis. The value of such information seems to be pretty high.
You have, in a nutshell, just explained why lobbyists exist.
Alice, believing that the world will end, will spend all her money by her predicted end-of-the-world date. She will then be unable to pay back. Bob, knowing this, would never lend her the money.
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
My upvote goes mostly to the "set an alarm on your phone" part. So boring; so useful!
Set double layers of alarms. I've turned off the first one and slept another two hours, way too many times!