j15t

Non-ionizing radiation is certainly able to have effects on biological systems, and there is no reason to believe that effects are strictly neutral or positive. Calling these facts 'anti-science' is blatantly asinine.

I'm curious, why not?

>It's not just a question of there being a huge pool of money, you can buy a car with loans and car prices haven't skyrocketed.

The obvious difference is that car loans are not Federally issued and defaults are possible. Hence creditors have to issue loans in a prudent manner or else they will incur a loss. Not everyone is able to acquire a car loan, and interest rates can be very high.

These incentives do not exist in the student loan market and thereby subsidizing demand. Students become price inelastic.

The Fed is not focused on the stock market. When they improve the status of the economy through monetary policy, they indirectly improve the value of publically listed companies. This makes sense, because companies are the central entities in the economy. I don't know how the Fed could improve the state of the economy without affecting the prices of shares.

Hey do you have a link to some more information on your one-shot learning algorithm? Sounds interesting, thanks.

What software do you use to rename PDF files and extract their metadata automatically? I have found this difficult to accomplish, despite trying multiple different tools. PDFs from Arxiv are commonly a problem.

Yes a blog post would be terrific, thanks.

Hi, I'm interested in program execution state and the different ways it can be represented/modelled. The "relational model" you describe sounds very interesting. Do you have a technical whitepaper on this topic, or perhaps some third-party literature that has guided you?

Are you talking about the yield curve or credit spreads?

Either way, as far as I understand they are independent variables to the absolute value of federal fund rate -- what matters more is the stage in the business cycle.

Hi, would you happen to have any additional information on #3? (links to companies that require these services and/or industry reports)?

I am work with technology that might be useful for this type of application. Thanks!

I think labelling one side of this debate as "pro-science" and the other as not, is disingenuous.

Science at its core is about scepticism and degrees of certainty - never about absolute truth (see: inductive logic, etc.). Using "science" as an appeal to authority to end debate is the opposite of scepticism.

I personally do not have strong opinions about this debate, but I think it is completely acceptable for someone to take a 'wait-and-see' approach, especially considering the number of times "scientific consensus" has been wrong in the past (see: smoking, fats, etc.).

Moreover, it seems to me that there isn't any immediate danger from people who are "GMO sceptics" since all they do is pay extra for organic products. Market forces will regulate this behaviour if any shortages occur; which I don't think is likely.

So overall I find the "pro-GMO" attitude (such as that displayed in the article) to be strangely insistent on influencing the choices of individual's, dispite such low stakes.

The thing is, "good for the world" is a subjective notion.

In my studies of philosophy I am yet to find any system of ethics that provides an objective and universal definition of right and wrong - if you find one, please let me know.

Until then, we are all dealing with subjective opinions - it's just that some opinions are more popular than others. In democracy the most popular opinion wins, but this does not imply that an opinion is objectively "right" (as we know from history).

Hence, I find this recent trend where people classify other people's beliefs as "objectively wrong" - with no consideration for the subjectivity of their own beliefs - to be deeply troubling. Such behaviour is a departure from reason; only dogma remains.

Just to be clear, most insurance companies have very strict risk management policies and almost exclusively invest capital in government bonds. As you are probably aware, these bonds have had very low rates of return in recent years - getting close to 0℅ yield (or even negative yield in some regions)

So I don't think the difference in efficiency will always be a significant factor.

In addition it is possible to create bond tokens on Ethereum, which might provide opportunities to invest the capital from premiums - provided that the bonds have sufficiently low risk.

Are you suggesting that such a scenario would be worse than the current situation - nVIdia having a monopoly on DL hardware?

I think you'll find that birthrates are negatively correlated with education level, so globally the reverse is happening (with regards to your breeding theory).

But more generally, the reason why evolution works is because organisms are not equal (mutation and crossover are random). I don't expect that this will stop any time soon.