wisty

Nitpick, the top 10% are probably not 100x worse than the 0.1% (they are only 100x more numerous). But yeah it's rage bait to ignore basically 99% of the people in 1st world countries.

So if I'm reading you right, the question is, is the context that matters a consumer, a government, or a business?

If a CEO just needs to write "optimise profits" ...

Hot take - the criminal should pay the jury if they're clearly guilty and wasting everyone's time. And the judge. And if they resisted arrest, the cost of the extra police work.

The philospher Adam Smith(before he invented economics) had a similar argument, but added an "invisible hand" in which our group belief evolves to be adaptive for the group. Clever guy.

Original articles says it was likely a comprimised maintainer machine?

How dare you suggest we reduce the quality of doctors to the top 1% rather than top 0.2% of academic performers! Quality will fall through the floor if they aren't in such high demand!

A high margin luxury good with huge r&d costs is a death spiral.

A high per-user r&d means high costs per user. So then users leave to save a buck, qnd the price goes up again for the remaining users.

Maybe it works out OK if you want to signal wealth - the high price is the selling point. But luxury pure utility is a hard sell to consumers, and for luxury B2B it's about high touch sales (e.g. Oracle).

When a lawyer says "reckless" it's an extremely strong word. It doesn't mean "negligent", IANAL (and it depends on the state etc) but it's more like if you knowingly run over a pedestrian in your way, and you aren't trying to hurt them but don't care if they get hurt. And often criminal law will treat it as just a little less bad than intent.

I haven't seen it, but my opinion is she likely was what lawyers call "reckless", as in she should have known but didn't care (blinded by the upside and a "we'll figure it once we scale" tech attitude that works a lot better for db performance than healthcare).

Mostly no, but the people who ARE pro free speech (e.g. libertarians) have mostly found the right to be slightly more tolerant.

Why would pro free speech people be right wing?

Unless they are burning through funding. It's "blitzscaling" and is followed by "enshittification" when yhe free money dries up.

Franklin and Wilkins weren't bad, they just didn't get on very well. Wilkins was a bit sensitive and Franklin was arrogant; but neither were really bad people. Wilkins later gave Franklin a lot more credit, he was just a bit peeved off at the time.

People do look a bit funny at Watson though ... he apparently became a bit of a crackpot in later years.

It kind of was a Wilkins discovery though.

Wilkins produced the initial samples, trained Gosling (who took photo 51) and then had his samples and assistant (Gosling) taken when the high flying Franklin was hired.

Wilkins took lower quality photos before Franklin was even in the lab, and showed them to Watson at a conference.

Yes, Franklin built a way better x-ray camera.

But she was also allegedly pretty horrid to Wilkins. She mocked Wilkins as a "middle class" idiot and refused to share her data with him (Gosling did show Wilkins photo 51 when ordered by higher ups, which Gosling had taken, we don't talk about Gosling because PhD students don't get credit right?).

Franklin held a funeral for the double helix, because I guess she thought Wilkins was an idiot to suggest DNA was a double helix.

Yeah, Wilkins was a little bit rude, giving as little credit to her as possible. But if some privileged upper-class rockstar moves into your lab, tries to freeze you out, mocks you for your theory, then you figure out you can prove your theory is correct (using a photo your former assistant took using the rockstar's camera, and some help from a couple of other researchers) then yeah ... are you really going out of your way to praise them, even if maybe they could have eventually figured it out?

Or that chess is over because stockfish can easily beat any human player. Or that warehouses don't need workers now that we have forklifts.

Maaaybe.

On the other hand, proofs was the main thing that distinguished good mathemeticians. It was the way of sorting out who should be a math professor.

It's probably a bit of a blow for math professors. For almost everyone down the "food chain" though - who cares? I'd argue that mathematical thinking is still very useful, even if you offload the heavy lifting to power tools. Math teachers still need to exist. Math tests probably still make sense - you want to incentivise learning, and test to see who the brightest or most studious students are. Math will still be used for physics, economics, etc - no one actually cared about most of the new proofs anyway, it was just a fun tournament to pick math professors with a side effect of generating a bit new knowledge.

At some point, maybe humans don't need to make decisions. We can just sit in VR racks being fed and entertained by AI like we're in The Matrix or Wall-E, as they fill some age-old instruction to make the humans happy and healthy. But until then, humans still need to make decisions, and mathematical thinking makes us better at that.