martynr

Could it rather be that genZ are risk averse and choose not to volunteer to be shot at? Or even that they have greater moral concerns than earlier generations? (No judgement on that implied, complexities acknowledged)

That said, personally can’t see how a show would be much help either.

Unlikely to be a popular question in this forum but in my view the most important topic we need to reflect on is “are we really better off with these services?” - obviously at face value there is utility or there wouldn’t be the market penetration but the externalities and issues of market dominance are becoming more apparent and pressing.

And if we agree that better solutions are needed then the question becomes “how do we create the market conditions that support those better outcomes?”

I’d really like to see kk reflect on this article with 10 years hindsight and see if he remains optimistic.

Genuinely curious- In what sense is the risk calculated? I understand that the leverage factor is known but fundamentally isn’t this still just a bet that eth will rise? And if it falls then won’t the loss be multiplied by the same leverage factor?

Obviously you can research the eth market and form a view but you can also research horse racing form and the odds themselves should be a fair calculation indicator if the betting market is working well - so it seems fair to suggest that this is in the same category as a horse racing bet.

This would be totally necessary for a robust conclusion-trust me, the social cues of having PD are not subtle ;)

It’s not the winning, it’s the taking part

Surely this can’t be justified as a ux driven “oversight” - I am not an economics professor but I would be feeling totally sketchy if I manipulated a data source in such an apparently arbitrary manner.

In combination with the (reportedly)blatant lack of any reference to the methodology in his paper this feels like wilful gross misconduct in professor-land.

IMO this sort of thing rightly undermines confidence and credibility of research in a much broader context and should be a sackable matter if shown to be true as asserted.

Adjacent to this, I recommend reading (and perhaps even sharing with your parents) “Being Mortal” by Atul Gawande. It is a masterpiece on the reality of aging and what is important in managing the process towards a good life and ultimately death.

As someone dealing with a long term, chronic, progressive and currently incurable condition I can say that for me it really helped to find a better focus and conversation around what is important and how to communicate needs and desires towards good outcomes.

“…and finally the work will be done completely by AI.”

How will the AI be trained on novel patterns of interaction, for example new products or previously unknown problems?

It seems to me that (as the article suggests) high level human support capabilities will be more valuable in this scenario rather than less - rather different from a complete AI solution

Fair enough- however this analysis specifically addresses

“Critical technologies [which] can be defined as current and emerging technologies with the capacity to significantly enhance, or pose risk to, a country’s national interests, including a nation’s economic prosperity, social cohesion, and national security”

So a level of consideration for the geopolitical implications seems warranted - after all, I’m not sure anyone really invests in hypersonic nuclear capable ballistic technology for the general advancement of humanity.

The benefits of a multi polar world are another topic of course.