xr4ti

In no way do the benefits outlined by OP even come close to outweighing the systemic risks posed by omnipresent surveillance coupled with precise targeting of individualized persuasive messaging with the intent of behavioral change.

The way targeted advertising is currently implemented is a mass violation of privacy and autonomy, a clear and present threat to democracy and liberty, and an indicator of the complete ethical collapse of the US tech sector.

The converse is also true -- a wide range of drugs are subject to metabolism by gut microbes. This can throw off plasma concentrations and reduce effectiveness, or cause unwanted side effects or unexpected toxicity in the worst cases.

Sorry I don't quite follow your comment. What does free speech have to do with unregulated, unconsented mass surveillance and violation of end user privacy?

That "new" social network already exists. It's called Snapchat. I think it's an open question whether social networks will even continue to exist in their current form. There was a time when people connected over Yahoo Chat and AIM...

Seems perfectly in line with restrictions on other dual use technologies, such as biological pathogens, nuclear fuels, etc.

Possibly naive question from a non-physicist... does this not follow from relativity as a natural a consequence of the effect gravity/mass has on spacetime?

By that I mean that the edges of galaxies experience a "reference" spacetime (e.g. constant period), while the interiors experience a stretched out version spacetime (i.e. inverse time dilation and length constriction)?

Not sure I agree. Inheritance refers to flow of influence on properties from parent to child. I think anything beyond that high level definition requires additional qualifiers (e.g. genetic heritability). Inheritance is typically not deterministic, even in the case of genetic heritability.

For example, the statement that tall parents will always have tall children is incorrect, though there is a strong bias. I would be curious to see how the probabilistic linkage between parent and child height compares to that for language. My guess is that parent language has a stronger effect than 99.9% of SNPs identified in GWAS.

If you really think about the difference between the two inheritance scenarios you outlined, it's that one mechanism of influence occurs at a scale that readily admits direct observation and perturbation while the other doesn't.

I don't think we (humans) know anywhere near enough about how genes compare and interact with other factors to support an argument either for or against your final statement.

What is this "free speech" on the net people that speak of? Has it ever existed?

With few exceptions the right to post in a forum has always been at the pleasure of the mods/sysop. In fact, the quality of discussion is usually proportional to how effectively the mods cull the off topic content and wield the ban hammer against the trolls. It has been this way since the days of the dial in BBS.

If the people who believe in X are unwelcome in a particular forum, then no one is stopping them from building their own. Maybe they don't benefit from the network effects of a Reddit, but a Reddit derives zero or even negative benefits from hosting them, so fair deal.

I don't see why this should be very surprising to people. It's not difficult to think of heritable traits that have nothing to do with genetics such as: social status, money/property, spoken language, etc. Biological phenomena exist on molecular, cellular, organismal, population, and planetary scales. The assumption that genetics would be the only mode of entanglement would seem to be overly reductionist.

A better term to use would be ancestry. There is a very strong social component to race and ethnicity. Case in point, I know a number of people who "pass" - meaning 99.9% of people incorrectly guess their race/ethnicity and they don't bother to correct anyone. Perhaps you have interacted with some of these types without ever knowing.

A manager can't follow each individual employee every moment of the day.

To be a little more abstract, I'm talking about the degree of privacy and autonomy that workers are afforded. The reason people find the idea of wristband tracking objectionable is because it provides a means to reduce the autonomy of large numbers of workers beyond what was previously feasible.

There are qualitative and quantitative differences between requiring weekly progress meetings, daily updates, and microchipping employees.

Because economy exists to sustain and enrich the lives of humans, not the other way around.

I think the underlying assumption that the "amazing transparency" enabled by crypto currencies will necessarily lead to a fairer more humane world is dangerously naive.

Does it not occur to people how an immutable, publicly inspectable ledger that records all your transactions might be abused by criminals and/or corrupt authoritarian governments?

Maybe HN is the wrong place to quote 90s rap songs, but these guys knew a thing or two about criminality and human nature.

"Rule Number Uno, never let no one know

How much dough you hold, cause you know

The cheddar breed jealousy, 'specially

If that man f---ed up, get yo' a-- stuck up" -Biggie Smalls (10 Crack Commandments)