You’re calling this poor leadership, can you share a time you were in a similar situation and did something different or are you armchair quarterbacking?
I believe there’s some benefit from boulardi yeast but I don’t know the reference except that it’s part of the bredeson protocol. Smells nice in a cleaning vinegar solution though.
I actually agree with the idea that we should judge people based on their popularity with customers rather than their peers. Credential are very often indicative of the former
I'm surprised at how many people took the bait to treat this as an either/or proposition. One criteria of evaluation is never sufficient to make a good decision - why not ask both? A smart consumer reads the product label and the user reviews.
With professionals it's their peers. Unfortunately that doesn't really help unless you're in the "club". In any community the other doctors all know who are the best surgeons and who are the butchers. But they won't publicly badmouth a peer or even privately tell you unless they really trust you.
On the other hand, we have seen how perverse incentive amongst experts work too. Academia is rife with fraud (e.g. publishing 500 paper a year), because certain incentives make it possible. I agree expert are important and should be judged by peers, but incentives around budget allocation and prestige should not be attached to performance, especially in science. However I understand it's a complex topic so I probably miss a lot of information, just my 2 c.
skin in the game. They paid for the product, and if the company's still in business, didn't sue it or convince everyone else not to. A good review costs a restaurant critic nothing.
I'd say Korea counts as a US win or stalemate, but Vietnam ended with the US achieving none of its objectives, having wasted tons of lives and leaving in a humiliating fashion. Is it so weird to call that a defeat? In that case it's 50 years, given that Afghanistan ended in '21 in similar fashion.
Are you just taking issue with 70 years being hyperbole? If not, I have to say this idea that the US didn't lose a lot starting with Vietnam is weird. In fact, it seems like exactly the kind of delusional self-talk among the leadership that would lead to such situations reoccurring. I mean, suppose I get in a fistfight and get knocked down then don't get up. Can I really say I chose not to get up because I didn't want to hurt the guy too badly and I therefore didn't lose? Even if it's true, it just means I lost on purpose.
Corals are more likely to survive a slow than a fast change as well. I don't think we know that much about how evolution bottlenecks work, but I'd think it's easier to adapt to a radically different environment in three generations than one.
In practice, there’s no conflict between feeling gratitude for the positive things in one’s life and having an internal locus of control. In theory, those feelings are hard to express in a single narrative
Yes I think they can pass the Turing test, yes I think this was a poor test to begin with if we are attempting to clarify what machine intelligence is and how it compares to human intelligence.
I genuinely do not understand how this attitude is so common on a site with so many experts. Surely two things being indistinguishable is a step change if we’re trying to compare them?
The Turing Test is a test of mimicry, not of identity. It's based on a metaphysics that says appearance = reality, which has all sorts of issues. There are plenty of ways we can distinguish humans from machines and I expect this other "background information" (primarily biological in nature) will play an increasingly important role. Especially embedded cognition and the gradual realization that intelligence is embedded in its environment, not some kind of abstract, external entity.
