Observation: TED talks are supposed to be 15 minutes long.
Realization: Taking the train home from work takes 20 minutes.
Conclusion: I could be listening to amazing people discussing amazing things five times a week.
Request: Tell me what your favorite TED talks are.
TED who? :?
I've been kinda wary of TED since they've started giving a platform to the likes of Malcolm Gladwell and Parag Khanna, to be honest. Too much twee New York Times pop intellectualism, not enough "ideas worth spreading".
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on March 01, 2013, 07:01:02 PM
TED who? :?
http://www.ted.com/talks
I hear what you're saying Cain, and that's sort of why I'm crowdsourcing suggestions for the ones that don't suck. Maybe just go chronologically from the earliest ones, and stop when they reek of pretension?
There are still excellent talks, you have the right idea in terms of asking about people's favorites.
I love Helen Fisher and Brene Brown,
And probably everyone here should watch this one: http://www.ted.com/talks/amanda_palmer_the_art_of_asking.html
I saw that one, but I have an observable bias agains Mrs Palmer, for extremely petty reasons.
I should probably watch it anyway, I know.
I love this one: http://www.ted.com/talks/robert_gupta_between_music_and_medicine.html
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on March 01, 2013, 08:20:49 PM
I saw that one, but I have an observable bias agains Mrs Palmer, for extremely petty reasons.
I should probably watch it anyway, I know.
No, watch it. It might cure your bias.
You saw the Prometheus viral (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jb7gspHxZiI) already, right?
There's an excellent one by Alison Gopnik, who wrote "What Babies Know"... I'll try to find it.
http://www.ted.com/talks/alison_gopnik_what_do_babies_think.html
I also loved this one, although it's not very sciency: http://www.ted.com/talks/charity_tilleman_dick_singing_after_a_double_lung_transplant.html
Here are those outstanding Brene Brown talks that everyone should hear:
http://www.ted.com/talks/brene_brown_on_vulnerability.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/brene_brown_listening_to_shame.html
A neuroscientist's insights after living through a stroke:
http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html
Another transformative personal favorite of mine, along with the Brene Brown talk on vulnerability:
http://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong.html
Oh Ms. Fisher, tell us about love!
http://www.ted.com/talks/helen_fisher_tells_us_why_we_love_cheat.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/helen_fisher_studies_the_brain_in_love.html
Joshua Fouer on memory:
http://www.ted.com/talks/joshua_foer_feats_of_memory_anyone_can_do.html
Oh yeah, this one, CLASSIC: http://www.ted.com/talks/scott_fraser_the_problem_with_eyewitness_testimony.html
Oh, wow. Thanks, Nigel!
YW! I'm kind of a TED junkie. :)
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on March 01, 2013, 08:18:27 PM
There are still excellent talks, you have the right idea in terms of asking about people's favorites.
I love Helen Fisher and Brene Brown,
And probably everyone here should watch this one: http://www.ted.com/talks/amanda_palmer_the_art_of_asking.html
That was a good-un.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on March 05, 2013, 08:49:00 PM
YW! I'm kind of a TED junkie. :)
Totally. Who doesn't love an organization whose message seems to be "There's still hope. We can fix it with SCIENCE."
SCIENCE, common sense, and looooove.
There's an amusing one on DRM and copyright law. If I recall correctly the title was something like "The 8 billion dollar Ipod"
Can't say I've bothered much further than that. Will have a look over the suggestions, appreciated all.
By all, I mean nigel really.
Crows are super smart. http://www.ted.com/talks/joshua_klein_on_the_intelligence_of_crows.html
I love the ones by ZeFrank.
I just got turned on to this one on positive psychology: http://www.ted.com/talks/martin_seligman_on_the_state_of_psychology.html
Nigel, I love you.
Ok, watched the Amanda Palmer one and...
Nope. Still biased against her. I feel it's gimmicky (both her approach and delivery), and her ideas aren't scalable to the industry at large.
She was right about how it does feel "fair" when two people exchange things out of friendship, though.
I kinda feel like this forum is a breeding ground for TED-like ideas...if we could all stop screeching long enough to hug each other. :)
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on March 06, 2013, 09:19:23 PM
I love the ones by ZeFrank.
ZeFrank does TED talks? Wow, I'll have to look into these.
I just discovered this one, about the importance of play: http://www.ted.com/talks/stuart_brown_says_play_is_more_than_fun_it_s_vital.html
An incredible resuscitation of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis that just about has me convinced, even though I tend toward the perspective that culture influences language more strongly than language influences culture: http://www.ted.com/talks/keith_chen_could_your_language_affect_your_ability_to_save_money.html
I really like this one. It turned what was otherwise just math in my 3d programs when I'm lighting a 3d scene into..... something I could almost physically understand (kinetically process, but that's my weird synesthesia).
Ramesh Raskar: Imaging at a trillion frames per second
http://www.ted.com/talks/ramesh_raskar_a_camera_that_takes_one_trillion_frames_per_second.html
Quote from: Telarus on March 12, 2013, 08:00:51 AM
I really like this one. It turned what was otherwise just math in my 3d programs when I'm lighting a 3d scene into..... something I could almost physically understand (kinetically process, but that's my weird synesthesia).
Ramesh Raskar: Imaging at a trillion frames per second
http://www.ted.com/talks/ramesh_raskar_a_camera_that_takes_one_trillion_frames_per_second.html
I'm gonna be pissed when The Corporations start making me sign EULAs permitting their use of that to look at the shit inside my house and purse.
Found these while researching my final paper and I really loved them, the guy is a very entertaining speaker:
http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/sir_ken_robinson_bring_on_the_revolution.html
It's a short paper but I'll post it later.
On the site, they allow you to refine your search based on the length and topic/characteristics of the videos.
Quote from: Doobie on March 14, 2013, 08:27:21 AM
On the site, they allow you to refine your search based on the length and topic/characteristics of the videos.
Yes! It's AMAZING, it has a fully functional search feature!
@ Nigel, thanks for the Seligman link, watching it in ADD-friendly nibbles.
Quote from: hylierandom on May 18, 2013, 02:55:21 AM
@ Nigel, thanks for the Seligman link, watching it in ADD-friendly nibbles.
YW! Tomorrow I plan to go through my psychology notes and watch a bunch of talks, if they're any good I'll post them here.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on March 12, 2013, 03:13:22 PM
Found these while researching my final paper and I really loved them, the guy is a very entertaining speaker:
http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/sir_ken_robinson_bring_on_the_revolution.html
It's a short paper but I'll post it later.
Dammit, i was going to post those.
Great guy, for a noble.
http://www.ted.com/talks/philip_zimbardo_on_the_psychology_of_evil.html
Don't think anyone mentioned Zimbardo.
Philip Zimbardo is someone you ought to know about, if you don't.
He conducted the Stanford Prison experiment.
http://www.prisonexp.org/
Oh yeah, Zimbardo's classic. We were talking about him in some other thread but I don't think anyone posted the TED link.
For those who are sensitive, be aware, I believe that's the video that has some really disturbing graphic images from Abu Ghraib.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on May 31, 2013, 04:02:11 PM
For those who are sensitive, be aware, I believe that's the video that has some really disturbing graphic images from Abu Ghraib.
Yeah, it does.
:sad:
GRIT
http://www.ted.com/talks/angela_lee_duckworth_the_key_to_success_grit.html (http://www.ted.com/talks/angela_lee_duckworth_the_key_to_success_grit.html)
Quote from: The Johnny on June 01, 2013, 05:33:14 AM
GRIT
http://www.ted.com/talks/angela_lee_duckworth_the_key_to_success_grit.html (http://www.ted.com/talks/angela_lee_duckworth_the_key_to_success_grit.html)
...And I imagine the best way to kill that quality is to tell a child "You are_______." As in, "You're stupid."
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on June 01, 2013, 07:52:41 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on June 01, 2013, 05:33:14 AM
GRIT
http://www.ted.com/talks/angela_lee_duckworth_the_key_to_success_grit.html (http://www.ted.com/talks/angela_lee_duckworth_the_key_to_success_grit.html)
...And I imagine the best way to kill that quality is to tell a child "You are_______." As in, "You're stupid."
Im sure telling them that doesnt help, but i think that a big factor can be over-protective parents.
Quote from: The Johnny on June 01, 2013, 08:36:48 AM
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on June 01, 2013, 07:52:41 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on June 01, 2013, 05:33:14 AM
GRIT
http://www.ted.com/talks/angela_lee_duckworth_the_key_to_success_grit.html (http://www.ted.com/talks/angela_lee_duckworth_the_key_to_success_grit.html)
...And I imagine the best way to kill that quality is to tell a child "You are_______." As in, "You're stupid."
Im sure telling them that doesnt help, but i think that a big factor can be over-protective parents.
True. On one hand you have precious little snowflakes, OTOH you have kids with learned helplessness:
http://psychology.about.com/od/lindex/f/earned-helplessness.htm
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on June 01, 2013, 09:02:02 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on June 01, 2013, 08:36:48 AM
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on June 01, 2013, 07:52:41 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on June 01, 2013, 05:33:14 AM
GRIT
http://www.ted.com/talks/angela_lee_duckworth_the_key_to_success_grit.html (http://www.ted.com/talks/angela_lee_duckworth_the_key_to_success_grit.html)
...And I imagine the best way to kill that quality is to tell a child "You are_______." As in, "You're stupid."
Im sure telling them that doesnt help, but i think that a big factor can be over-protective parents.
True. On one hand you have precious little snowflakes, OTOH you have kids with learned helplessness:
http://psychology.about.com/od/lindex/f/earned-helplessness.htm
i think true grit comes from having a self determined purpose or goal, our actions need to have meaning, otherwise its just the path of least resistance or seeking comfort for the sake of it.
Quote from: The Johnny on June 01, 2013, 09:22:14 AM
i think true grit comes from having a self determined purpose or goal, our actions need to have meaning
...Yeah, I figured out that I can't believe in this whole meaning construct thingee.
Quote from: navkat: navkat of...navkat! on March 05, 2013, 12:52:17 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on March 01, 2013, 08:20:49 PM
I saw that one, but I have an observable bias agains Mrs Palmer, for extremely petty reasons.
I should probably watch it anyway, I know.
No, watch it. It might cure your bias.
I didn't know this Amanda girl or her bands, and I don't really feel any need to google her yet, but that was a good talk indeed!!! I had to really bear with the dramatic part at the beginning (i have a strange aversion to drama) but it was worth it. Nice how this life experiment worked out for her, makes me think about why trusting people didn't work out for other artists (e.g., Marina Abramovicz). Maybe it was her attidute or her experience in asking for help? Maybe because the crowd were fans already and they had a feeling they somehow knew her? Anyway, I also happen to completely agree on the free music issue, and she just gave me a nice example to quote in my arguments :)
Wow, and this is just the first video I clicked on, I haven't even read past page 1 of this thread. Something tells me I'm set for my sunday at home with TED :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on March 12, 2013, 03:13:22 PM
Found these while researching my final paper and I really loved them, the guy is a very entertaining speaker:
http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/sir_ken_robinson_bring_on_the_revolution.html
It's a short paper but I'll post it later.
I just got around to watching these. Thanks for posting them, this guy is awesome.
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on June 02, 2013, 11:12:04 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on March 12, 2013, 03:13:22 PM
Found these while researching my final paper and I really loved them, the guy is a very entertaining speaker:
http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html
http://www.ted.com/talks/sir_ken_robinson_bring_on_the_revolution.html
It's a short paper but I'll post it later.
I just got around to watching these. Thanks for posting them, this guy is awesome.
YW, he's pretty great.
Quote from: GrannySmith on June 02, 2013, 10:47:00 AM
I had to really bear with the dramatic part at the beginning (i have a strange aversion to drama)
(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18lf76w8cdpm6gif/original.gif)
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 03, 2013, 03:34:07 PM
Quote from: GrannySmith on June 02, 2013, 10:47:00 AM
I had to really bear with the dramatic part at the beginning (i have a strange aversion to drama)
(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18lf76w8cdpm6gif/original.gif)
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Wasn't there a thread discussing the clusterfuck her Kickstarted project brought out?
I mean, she makes some good points, but i cant shake the background tone i hear of "vulture".
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 03, 2013, 04:38:54 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 03, 2013, 03:34:07 PM
Quote from: GrannySmith on June 02, 2013, 10:47:00 AM
I had to really bear with the dramatic part at the beginning (i have a strange aversion to drama)
(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18lf76w8cdpm6gif/original.gif)
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
WHAT IS THIS???
Quote from: six to the quixotic on June 06, 2013, 10:18:13 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 03, 2013, 04:38:54 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 03, 2013, 03:34:07 PM
Quote from: GrannySmith on June 02, 2013, 10:47:00 AM
I had to really bear with the dramatic part at the beginning (i have a strange aversion to drama)
(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18lf76w8cdpm6gif/original.gif)
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
WHAT IS THIS???
From this: http://www.ted.com/talks/amanda_palmer_the_art_of_asking.html
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 07, 2013, 04:24:01 AM
Quote from: six to the quixotic on June 06, 2013, 10:18:13 PM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 03, 2013, 04:38:54 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 03, 2013, 03:34:07 PM
Quote from: GrannySmith on June 02, 2013, 10:47:00 AM
I had to really bear with the dramatic part at the beginning (i have a strange aversion to drama)
(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18lf76w8cdpm6gif/original.gif)
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
WHAT IS THIS???
From this: http://www.ted.com/talks/amanda_palmer_the_art_of_asking.html
I think I have a poem that wants rewriting.
RHWN might be especially interested in this...
http://www.ted.com/talks/david_r_dow_lessons_from_death_row_inmates.html
...Honestly, listening to his talk makes me wonder why there are not more murderers.
Quote from: hylierandom, A.D.D. on June 07, 2013, 07:17:25 PM
RHWN might be especially interested in this...
http://www.ted.com/talks/david_r_dow_lessons_from_death_row_inmates.html
...Honestly, listening to his talk makes me wonder why there are not more murderers.
:deadhorse: :deadhorse: :deadhorse:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 03, 2013, 03:34:07 PM
Quote from: GrannySmith on June 02, 2013, 10:47:00 AM
I had to really bear with the dramatic part at the beginning (i have a strange aversion to drama)
(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18lf76w8cdpm6gif/original.gif)
hahahahahaha, brings memories of my eye rolls, tsk-noises, and head aversions :lulz: :lulz:
'morning all
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=PnwzkDqKfgY
On wabi-sabi, because wabi-sabi.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on June 03, 2013, 03:34:07 PM
Quote from: GrannySmith on June 02, 2013, 10:47:00 AM
I had to really bear with the dramatic part at the beginning (i have a strange aversion to drama)
(http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18lf76w8cdpm6gif/original.gif)
You know the thing that keeps striking me as sad about this, regardless of the original intention?
That is her earnest face. Her reaching-out face. That is it.
It makes me wonder, a little bit, what my earnest reaching-out face looks like. I don't think I've ever tried it. Maybe we all should.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 14, 2013, 07:47:24 AM
It makes me wonder, a little bit, what my earnest reaching-out face looks like. I don't think I've ever tried it. Maybe we all should.
:lulz:
I think that's a very good point.
My earnest reaching-out face would probably scare the crap out of everyone. (Except the Nigels)
I am presently unaware of any incident of earnestly reaching out in my past. For this reason I can only assume that I have no face reserved for this purpose and that my face would default to homicidal rage or sarcastic sneer in the event that I ever did.
I think it is time for a photo series.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on June 14, 2013, 11:46:50 AM
I am presently unaware of any incident of earnestly reaching out in my past. For this reason I can only assume that I have no face reserved for this purpose and that my face would default to homicidal rage or sarcastic sneer in the event that I ever did.
Typically I have not reached out until it was either that or off myself in some sort of drastic way.
Since this often involved copious amounts of tears and mucus, I doubt it was pretty.
I gave it a try
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kalera/9046796940/
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 15, 2013, 02:10:09 AM
I gave it a try
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kalera/9046796940/
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
That's EARNESTLY REACHING OUT. :lulz: I want to see EVERYONE'S.
Amanda Palmer style eyebrows earn bonus points. :lol:
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on June 15, 2013, 02:10:09 AM
I gave it a try
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kalera/9046796940/
:lulz: :lulz:
Mine coming up!
Mine will have to wait until Monday, I don't have time to find the camera ATM.
ahhahahaha :lulz: i guess mine still looks something like
http://www.lastwordonnothing.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Crying-girl.jpg
:lulz:
Quote from: GrannySmith on June 16, 2013, 09:51:47 AM
ahhahahaha :lulz: i guess mine still looks something like
http://www.lastwordonnothing.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Crying-girl.jpg
Awww.... :lulz:
This one got taken off the TED site, but it explains something that a lot here already know but most don't, quite well. The rich don't create jobs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CKCvf8E7V1g
Quote from: Pergamos on July 21, 2013, 08:46:50 PM
This one got taken off the TED site, but it explains something that a lot here already know but most don't, quite well. The rich don't create jobs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CKCvf8E7V1g
That ROCKS!
I want to beat Republicans over the head with it!
Quote from: Pergamos on July 21, 2013, 08:46:50 PM
This one got taken off the TED site, but it explains something that a lot here already know but most don't, quite well. The rich don't create jobs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CKCvf8E7V1g
His comparisons are soooo bad, the orbits and the squirrels...
Other than that, how he speaks of rich spending is pretty interesting, in which it usually ends up as hoarding, since they cannot spend enough on their daily lives to make it go around (although a sociologist friend has researched that some of it does go into luxury items, but who sells luxury items? other rich people, etc, its a different ecosystem of the cash "precipitation-and-evaporation" cycle).
In conclusion, money can translate into quality of life, but after a given point, its just accumulation of power that others are deprived of.
Quote from: The Johnny on July 21, 2013, 10:17:35 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on July 21, 2013, 08:46:50 PM
This one got taken off the TED site, but it explains something that a lot here already know but most don't, quite well. The rich don't create jobs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CKCvf8E7V1g
His comparisons are soooo bad, the orbits and the squirrels...
Other than that, how he speaks of rich spending is pretty interesting, in which it usually ends up as hoarding, since they cannot spend enough on their daily lives to make it go around (although a sociologist friend has researched that some of it does go into luxury items, but who sells luxury items? other rich people, etc, its a different ecosystem of the cash "precipitation-and-evaporation" cycle).
In conclusion, money can translate into quality of life, but after a given point, its just accumulation of power that others are deprived of.
Artists sell luxury items. I made my living at it for almost ten years.
Quote from: The Johnny on July 21, 2013, 10:17:35 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on July 21, 2013, 08:46:50 PM
This one got taken off the TED site, but it explains something that a lot here already know but most don't, quite well. The rich don't create jobs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CKCvf8E7V1g
His comparisons are soooo bad, the orbits and the squirrels...
Other than that, how he speaks of rich spending is pretty interesting, in which it usually ends up as hoarding, since they cannot spend enough on their daily lives to make it go around (although a sociologist friend has researched that some of it does go into luxury items, but who sells luxury items? other rich people, etc, its a different ecosystem of the cash "precipitation-and-evaporation" cycle).
In conclusion, money can translate into quality of life, but after a given point, its just accumulation of power that others are deprived of.
I was just discussing the hoarding phenomenon with my lunch date (who unfortunately I was not at all attracted to) and exactly this; how after a certain point wealth is merely an accumulation of power, and how without a serfdom there can be no aristocracy, just crazy people with a lot of stuff.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 21, 2013, 10:49:43 PM
Quote from: The Johnny on July 21, 2013, 10:17:35 PM
Quote from: Pergamos on July 21, 2013, 08:46:50 PM
This one got taken off the TED site, but it explains something that a lot here already know but most don't, quite well. The rich don't create jobs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CKCvf8E7V1g
His comparisons are soooo bad, the orbits and the squirrels...
Other than that, how he speaks of rich spending is pretty interesting, in which it usually ends up as hoarding, since they cannot spend enough on their daily lives to make it go around (although a sociologist friend has researched that some of it does go into luxury items, but who sells luxury items? other rich people, etc, its a different ecosystem of the cash "precipitation-and-evaporation" cycle).
In conclusion, money can translate into quality of life, but after a given point, its just accumulation of power that others are deprived of.
Artists sell luxury items. I made my living at it for almost ten years.
Ideally they do :sad:
Meh, I think I'd rather just paint stuff.
This talk is not especially dynamic, but the data is significant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFOEe6M2VT4
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 21, 2013, 11:09:10 PM
This talk is not especially dynamic, but the data is significant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFOEe6M2VT4
Here in Mercia's basement we have the richest person in the world, Mr. Carlos Slim... we also are the nest of the worse Cartel's...
what were you saying about the correlation between crime and inequality?USA really has 25% with mental illness population???
I vaguely recall something I think Cain wrote or cited, about how inequality fosters envy and hatred between different classes. (Or was that some text about prejudice i read...?)
Quote from: The Johnny on July 22, 2013, 12:00:44 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 21, 2013, 11:09:10 PM
This talk is not especially dynamic, but the data is significant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFOEe6M2VT4
Here in Mercia's basement we have the richest person in the world, Mr. Carlos Slim... we also are the nest of the worse Cartel's... what were you saying about the correlation between crime and inequality?
USA really has 25% with mental illness population???
I vaguely recall something I think Cain wrote or cited, about how inequality fosters envy and hatred between different classes. (Or was that some text about prejudice i read...?)
I'm sure you already know all this, but for the benefit of others who may not, inequality also creates a particular type of relative status stress, which is why poorer countries with less inequality are healthier overall than richer countries with more inequality. Check out Robert Sapolsky's social status and stress studies, and, oh shit I can't remember her name I'll try to find it, but these finding have been replicated in study after study in different types of primates, including humans.
The particular text I read spoke of how because of inequality there's "safe zones" for the different economical classes:
If a rich looking person (attire, race, manners, behaviour) goes to a shitty part of town, it's like he's a foreigner in a different country almost, so given person is either targeted to be mugged, or with envy/hatred or sometimes admiration.
The other side of the coin, is someone with characteristics of lower classes going to the "nice" places in the city, which can translate to fear of them and being harassed by police, or not given proper service (like attending to them last, bad mannered, exacerbation of bureaucracy).
So inequality in the big picture makes for this economic tribe system ala caste system, in which, depending on who you are and where you are, is the manner in which you are treated.
Quote from: The Johnny on July 22, 2013, 02:56:09 AM
The particular text I read spoke of how because of inequality there's "safe zones" for the different economical classes:
If a rich looking person (attire, race, manners, behaviour) goes to a shitty part of town, it's like he's a foreigner in a different country almost, so given person is either targeted to be mugged, or with envy/hatred or sometimes admiration.
The other side of the coin, is someone with characteristics of lower classes going to the "nice" places in the city, which can translate to fear of them and being harassed by police, or not given proper service (like attending to them last, bad mannered, exacerbation of bureaucracy).
So inequality in the big picture makes for this economic tribe system ala caste system, in which, depending on who you are and where you are, is the manner in which you are treated.
Yes, and there's more to it as well, in that even when you're "in your place" the constant knowledge of your relative social positioning can make you feel relaxed and content (if you're near the top) or anxious and threatened (if you're near the bottom) leading to varying degrees of overall health and stress-related illness. The one thing that helps ameliorate this stress, with powerful physical ramifications, is social caring; the degree to which each primate spends time grooming/having caring social interactions, in person, with other primates. Humans included. Cacioppo's work on the neuroscience and epidemiology of loneliness really drives this point home.
This seems worth adding to this:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/30/we-need-to-talk-about-ted
Video halfway down presenting the text.
Some very good points here, particularity about the bad side of TED and similar ilk. Notable mainly because he seems to be fairly on the money in several areas.
Quote from: Junkenstein on January 05, 2014, 12:22:12 PM
This seems worth adding to this:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/30/we-need-to-talk-about-ted
Video halfway down presenting the text.
Some very good points here, particularity about the bad side of TED and similar ilk. Notable mainly because he seems to be fairly on the money in several areas.
I feel like he made a few points, but only after committing a fundamental error, which is "Science, philosophy and technology run on the model of American Idol – as embodied by TED talks – is a recipe for civilisational disaster".
It's an error because TED is not the model on which science, philosophy and technology are run. It's a pop science venue, designed to make science interesting and accessible to the public, and to inspire wealthy private potential donors to give to science. That's it. That's what it is. I'm sorry his friend didn't get his donation, but that's about as irrelevant an anecdote, in the big picture, as the fact that nobody gave me a full ride to school even though I'm smart and cute. That anecdote isn't a sign of a failing system. Collect a few dozen of those anecdotes, or show that private funding for the sciences is down, or show that funding is overwhelmingly going toward projects with charismatic researchers, and you have data. Data is meaningful, anecdotes are not.
TED is fun. TED is accessible. TED has nothing to do with how science is conducted.
This guy isn't a scientist. He isn't backing up his ideas with... well, with anything. He's just talking, because he's got an opinion, without any semblance of research or scientific method to back that opinion up, even though he's presenting that opinion as being relevant to science.
I didn't get funding so popularizing science is just WHORING.
\
:mad:
Fair points all, I can't recall his title offhand but it wasn't hard-science based.
The bits that caught my attention were:
QuotePhones, drones and genomes, that's what we do here in San Diego and La Jolla. In addition to the other insanely great things these technologies do, they are the basis of NSA spying, flying robots killing people, and the wholesale privatisation of biological life itself. That's also what we do.
The potential for these technologies are both wonderful and horrifying at the same time, and to make them serve good futures, design as "innovation" just isn't a strong enough idea by itself. We need to talk more about design as "immunisation," actively preventing certain potential "innovations" that we do not want from happening.
That's pretty bold and wide ranging and shows a level of awareness of what these changes are capable of in both directions. More open dialogue about all of the above is needed urgently before it's too late. In many cases of the tech in these areas it already is too late and shit's pretty fucked. So talking about how not to make it worse or easier seems worthwhile. For instance, A politicatian's stance on those three areas alone is more valuable now than knowing if they're Democrat or Republican. While "Pro-X" is essentially "Pro-company Y" It'd at least give you an indication of which business interests you would be like voting for or against.
The other:
QuoteKeep calm and carry on "innovating" ... is that the real message of TED? To me that's not inspirational, it's cynical.
In the US the rightwing has certain media channels that allow it to bracket reality ... other constituencies have TED.
Very sharp point. I try to view the news as cynically as possible as it increasingly seems to be the only way it makes any sense. A reveal in the future about a shady funding source or a less than ethical news baron (Not saying Murdoch, but Murdoch) getting involved in any capacity suddenly shifts the content and focus. Look at what happened to Vice.
It's pretty much because TED is fun, accessible and nothing to do with science that could potentially leave it vulnerable to some very questionable people. We all know how far you can get with just high vis jacket and air of authority.
The funding anecdote I took as butthurt and little more, but there's something to be said about the above.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 05, 2014, 06:58:22 PM
I didn't get funding so popularizing science is just WHORING.
\
:mad:
He's a visual arts professor. He doesn't even have a background in science, or in anything even vaguely relevant. Just, he went to a presentation his friend gave for funding, and his friend was turned down, and the rich guy who was the potential donor told his friend he should be more like Malcolm Gladwell.
He then proceeded to criticize TED at length for being exactly what they are, pop science that is accessible to the masses, rather than being a serious science symposium, which he appears to be unaware exist.
I am not sure why he limited his criticism to TED rather than including other popsci outlets such as, well, Popular Science. Although it seems to me that it is possible that he is placing altogether too much importance on TED.
It does look like he has a sociology background. I just really question his conclusions, and what they're based on, as he offers pretty much no support for them whatsoever.
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on January 05, 2014, 07:27:47 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 05, 2014, 06:58:22 PM
I didn't get funding so popularizing science is just WHORING.
\
:mad:
He's a visual arts professor. He doesn't even have a background in science, or in anything even vaguely relevant. Just, he went to a presentation his friend gave for funding, and his friend was turned down, and the rich guy who was the potential donor told his friend he should be more like Malcolm Gladwell.
He then proceeded to criticize TED at length for being exactly what they are, pop science that is accessible to the masses, rather than being a serious science symposium, which he appears to be unaware exist.
I am not sure why he limited his criticism to TED rather than including other popsci outlets such as, well, Popular Science. Although it seems to me that it is possible that he is placing altogether too much importance on TED.
In solidarity, I shall throw out all my Richard Feinmann books.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 05, 2014, 07:29:14 PM
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on January 05, 2014, 07:27:47 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 05, 2014, 06:58:22 PM
I didn't get funding so popularizing science is just WHORING.
\
:mad:
He's a visual arts professor. He doesn't even have a background in science, or in anything even vaguely relevant. Just, he went to a presentation his friend gave for funding, and his friend was turned down, and the rich guy who was the potential donor told his friend he should be more like Malcolm Gladwell.
He then proceeded to criticize TED at length for being exactly what they are, pop science that is accessible to the masses, rather than being a serious science symposium, which he appears to be unaware exist.
I am not sure why he limited his criticism to TED rather than including other popsci outlets such as, well, Popular Science. Although it seems to me that it is possible that he is placing altogether too much importance on TED.
In solidarity, I shall throw out all my Richard Feinmann books.
:lulz:
I would take him more seriously if he provided ANY datapoints. ANY at all. He essentially said that the right wing owns all mainstream media and that the left wing has TED, which is um.
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on January 05, 2014, 07:31:25 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 05, 2014, 07:29:14 PM
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on January 05, 2014, 07:27:47 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 05, 2014, 06:58:22 PM
I didn't get funding so popularizing science is just WHORING.
\
:mad:
He's a visual arts professor. He doesn't even have a background in science, or in anything even vaguely relevant. Just, he went to a presentation his friend gave for funding, and his friend was turned down, and the rich guy who was the potential donor told his friend he should be more like Malcolm Gladwell.
He then proceeded to criticize TED at length for being exactly what they are, pop science that is accessible to the masses, rather than being a serious science symposium, which he appears to be unaware exist.
I am not sure why he limited his criticism to TED rather than including other popsci outlets such as, well, Popular Science. Although it seems to me that it is possible that he is placing altogether too much importance on TED.
In solidarity, I shall throw out all my Richard Feinmann books.
:lulz:
I would take him more seriously if he provided ANY datapoints. ANY at all. He essentially said that the right wing owns all mainstream media and that the left wing has TED, which is um.
Rachel Maddow: Right Wing Extremist.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Also, what's wrong with getting up and dancing for some funding? You do that ANYWAY, only the rich guys are more likely to stuff singles down your shorts than the NEA/NES is.
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 05, 2014, 07:32:47 PM
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on January 05, 2014, 07:31:25 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 05, 2014, 07:29:14 PM
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on January 05, 2014, 07:27:47 PM
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 05, 2014, 06:58:22 PM
I didn't get funding so popularizing science is just WHORING.
\
:mad:
He's a visual arts professor. He doesn't even have a background in science, or in anything even vaguely relevant. Just, he went to a presentation his friend gave for funding, and his friend was turned down, and the rich guy who was the potential donor told his friend he should be more like Malcolm Gladwell.
He then proceeded to criticize TED at length for being exactly what they are, pop science that is accessible to the masses, rather than being a serious science symposium, which he appears to be unaware exist.
I am not sure why he limited his criticism to TED rather than including other popsci outlets such as, well, Popular Science. Although it seems to me that it is possible that he is placing altogether too much importance on TED.
In solidarity, I shall throw out all my Richard Feinmann books.
:lulz:
I would take him more seriously if he provided ANY datapoints. ANY at all. He essentially said that the right wing owns all mainstream media and that the left wing has TED, which is um.
Rachel Maddow: Right Wing Extremist.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Also, the idea that TED is some kind of leftist media outlet. :lol:
Quote from: Dirty Old Uncle Roger on January 05, 2014, 07:34:05 PM
Also, what's wrong with getting up and dancing for some funding? You do that ANYWAY, only the rich guys are more likely to stuff singles down your shorts than the NEA/NES is.
That was an interesting part for me as well. What was most interesting is that the friend was presenting in a non-traditional way to a non-traditional direct funding source that probably wouldn't have been available were it not for pop lecture venues like TED. Rich people used to donate to institutions which would decide how to dole out the funding based on grant applications, not verbal presentations. Sometimes you would meet to elaborate on your grant application, but basing the whole funding opportunity on a verbal presentation?
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on July 22, 2013, 02:29:48 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on July 22, 2013, 12:00:44 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 21, 2013, 11:09:10 PM
This talk is not especially dynamic, but the data is significant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFOEe6M2VT4
Here in Mercia's basement we have the richest person in the world, Mr. Carlos Slim... we also are the nest of the worse Cartel's... what were you saying about the correlation between crime and inequality?
USA really has 25% with mental illness population???
I vaguely recall something I think Cain wrote or cited, about how inequality fosters envy and hatred between different classes. (Or was that some text about prejudice i read...?)
I'm sure you already know all this, but for the benefit of others who may not, inequality also creates a particular type of relative status stress, which is why poorer countries with less inequality are healthier overall than richer countries with more inequality. Check out Robert Sapolsky's social status and stress studies, and, oh shit I can't remember her name I'll try to find it, but these finding have been replicated in study after study in different types of primates, including humans.
I saw the one involving baboons. And then all the dick-head alphas caught some disease and died. And then shit was cool. I still can't help but smile.
Quote from: NoLeDeMiel on January 06, 2014, 05:32:34 AM
Quote from: Nigel's Red Velveteen Skinmeat Snacks on July 22, 2013, 02:29:48 AM
Quote from: The Johnny on July 22, 2013, 12:00:44 AM
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 21, 2013, 11:09:10 PM
This talk is not especially dynamic, but the data is significant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFOEe6M2VT4
Here in Mercia's basement we have the richest person in the world, Mr. Carlos Slim... we also are the nest of the worse Cartel's... what were you saying about the correlation between crime and inequality?
USA really has 25% with mental illness population???
I vaguely recall something I think Cain wrote or cited, about how inequality fosters envy and hatred between different classes. (Or was that some text about prejudice i read...?)
I'm sure you already know all this, but for the benefit of others who may not, inequality also creates a particular type of relative status stress, which is why poorer countries with less inequality are healthier overall than richer countries with more inequality. Check out Robert Sapolsky's social status and stress studies, and, oh shit I can't remember her name I'll try to find it, but these finding have been replicated in study after study in different types of primates, including humans.
I saw the one involving baboons. And then all the dick-head alphas caught some disease and died. And then shit was cool. I still can't help but smile.
Yeah, that was a pretty good story. He tells more of it in his memoir, it's pretty excellent.
The Ted talk teaching some written Chinese!
Misandrist wankery aside this one from a couple of days ago (http://youtu.be/vNDhu2uqfdo) blew my fucking mind. She's sceptical about how quickly fmri resolution will increase. Kurtzweil has been tracking it and, so far, it fits onto the moore's law/accelerating returns graph. Going by the video demos I'd give it 5-10 years before we're recording our dreams in 1080p :fap:
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 05, 2014, 01:12:01 PM
Misandrist wankery aside this one from a couple of days ago (http://youtu.be/vNDhu2uqfdo) blew my fucking mind. She's sceptical about how quickly fmri resolution will increase. Kurtzweil has been tracking it and, so far, it fits onto the moore's law/accelerating returns graph. Going by the video demos I'd give it 5-10 years before we're recording our dreams in 1080p :fap:
Nice!
I'm becoming increasingly interested in neuropathology research that relies heavily on fMRI to map the activity of abnormal brains, to try to understand the differences in function.
I'm beginning to see this in - Big Data - terms. The software side. That's essentially how they cracked it. A lot of AI stuff, backing up minds and the like, the thinking always assumed figuring out how all the intricate bullshit worked in minute detail. Thing is, we only need that if we're talking about writing consciousness from the ground up. Stick that particular noble ambition to the side and focus on the immediate goal - I am fucking awesome. My consciousness is, at the moment, not being backed up. That shit is unacceptable and needs to be rectified at first available opportunity.
I'm guessing a lot of people also feel this way. Or would, if they thought about it in terms like that. So this video feed thing strikes me as a significant milestone on the road to capturing a snapshot of my whole instance.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 05, 2014, 05:04:32 PM
I'm beginning to see this in - Big Data - terms. The software side. That's essentially how they cracked it. A lot of AI stuff, backing up minds and the like, the thinking always assumed figuring out how all the intricate bullshit worked in minute detail. Thing is, we only need that if we're talking about writing consciousness from the ground up. Stick that particular noble ambition to the side and focus on the immediate goal - I am fucking awesome. My consciousness is, at the moment, not being backed up. That shit is unacceptable and needs to be rectified at first available opportunity.
I'm guessing a lot of people also feel this way. Or would, if they thought about it in terms like that. So this video feed thing strikes me as a significant milestone on the road to capturing a snapshot of my whole instance.
I'm totally all about the computer backup of the human brain. That technology, however, is a very, very long way off, and in fact when it does arrive it will probably barely be recognizable as "technology".
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on March 01, 2013, 06:50:11 PM
Observation: TED talks are supposed to be 15 minutes long.
Realization: Taking the train home from work takes 20 minutes.
Conclusion: I could be listening to amazing people discussing amazing things five times a week.
Request: Tell me what your favorite TED talks are.
This one is important to the Fractal Cult
http://www.ted.com/talks/ron_eglash_on_african_fractals
Quote from: Nigel on March 05, 2014, 05:22:53 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 05, 2014, 05:04:32 PM
I'm beginning to see this in - Big Data - terms. The software side. That's essentially how they cracked it. A lot of AI stuff, backing up minds and the like, the thinking always assumed figuring out how all the intricate bullshit worked in minute detail. Thing is, we only need that if we're talking about writing consciousness from the ground up. Stick that particular noble ambition to the side and focus on the immediate goal - I am fucking awesome. My consciousness is, at the moment, not being backed up. That shit is unacceptable and needs to be rectified at first available opportunity.
I'm guessing a lot of people also feel this way. Or would, if they thought about it in terms like that. So this video feed thing strikes me as a significant milestone on the road to capturing a snapshot of my whole instance.
I'm totally all about the computer backup of the human brain. That technology, however, is a very, very long way off, and in fact when it does arrive it will probably barely be recognizable as "technology".
I'm not talking abut restoring the backup or running it on new substrate. I agree - that shit looks decades away at best but just capturing the image will come much sooner. At that point, from my point of view it ought to appear instantaneous anyway, even if I'm not restored and rebooted for hundreds of years. Just grab that images and subsequent generations can figure out how to get them up and running.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 05, 2014, 06:41:34 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 05, 2014, 05:22:53 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 05, 2014, 05:04:32 PM
I'm beginning to see this in - Big Data - terms. The software side. That's essentially how they cracked it. A lot of AI stuff, backing up minds and the like, the thinking always assumed figuring out how all the intricate bullshit worked in minute detail. Thing is, we only need that if we're talking about writing consciousness from the ground up. Stick that particular noble ambition to the side and focus on the immediate goal - I am fucking awesome. My consciousness is, at the moment, not being backed up. That shit is unacceptable and needs to be rectified at first available opportunity.
I'm guessing a lot of people also feel this way. Or would, if they thought about it in terms like that. So this video feed thing strikes me as a significant milestone on the road to capturing a snapshot of my whole instance.
I'm totally all about the computer backup of the human brain. That technology, however, is a very, very long way off, and in fact when it does arrive it will probably barely be recognizable as "technology".
I'm not talking abut restoring the backup or running it on new substrate. I agree - that shit looks decades away at best but just capturing the image will come much sooner. At that point, from my point of view it ought to appear instantaneous anyway, even if I'm not restored and rebooted for hundreds of years. Just grab that images and subsequent generations can figure out how to get them up and running.
The image of someone's imagination? There's nothing to get "up and running", not sure what you're talking about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue2ZEmTJ_Xo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue2ZEmTJ_Xo)
Yeah.... We are all going to be obsolete someday soon....
Quote from: Nigel on March 06, 2014, 08:19:58 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 05, 2014, 06:41:34 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 05, 2014, 05:22:53 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 05, 2014, 05:04:32 PM
I'm beginning to see this in - Big Data - terms. The software side. That's essentially how they cracked it. A lot of AI stuff, backing up minds and the like, the thinking always assumed figuring out how all the intricate bullshit worked in minute detail. Thing is, we only need that if we're talking about writing consciousness from the ground up. Stick that particular noble ambition to the side and focus on the immediate goal - I am fucking awesome. My consciousness is, at the moment, not being backed up. That shit is unacceptable and needs to be rectified at first available opportunity.
I'm guessing a lot of people also feel this way. Or would, if they thought about it in terms like that. So this video feed thing strikes me as a significant milestone on the road to capturing a snapshot of my whole instance.
I'm totally all about the computer backup of the human brain. That technology, however, is a very, very long way off, and in fact when it does arrive it will probably barely be recognizable as "technology".
I'm not talking abut restoring the backup or running it on new substrate. I agree - that shit looks decades away at best but just capturing the image will come much sooner. At that point, from my point of view it ought to appear instantaneous anyway, even if I'm not restored and rebooted for hundreds of years. Just grab that images and subsequent generations can figure out how to get them up and running.
The image of someone's imagination? There's nothing to get "up and running", not sure what you're talking about.
The image of me. The software running in my brain and extraneous neural network. Imagination is only part of it. Memory, pattern filters, all the other bullshit. Once that's captured and fed into an emulator, I'm restored but backup can happen at any point before the restore platform is developed. I'm non existent in the interim but I'm thinking it'll be just like sleeping but without the dreams.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 07, 2014, 10:14:39 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 06, 2014, 08:19:58 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 05, 2014, 06:41:34 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 05, 2014, 05:22:53 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 05, 2014, 05:04:32 PM
I'm beginning to see this in - Big Data - terms. The software side. That's essentially how they cracked it. A lot of AI stuff, backing up minds and the like, the thinking always assumed figuring out how all the intricate bullshit worked in minute detail. Thing is, we only need that if we're talking about writing consciousness from the ground up. Stick that particular noble ambition to the side and focus on the immediate goal - I am fucking awesome. My consciousness is, at the moment, not being backed up. That shit is unacceptable and needs to be rectified at first available opportunity.
I'm guessing a lot of people also feel this way. Or would, if they thought about it in terms like that. So this video feed thing strikes me as a significant milestone on the road to capturing a snapshot of my whole instance.
I'm totally all about the computer backup of the human brain. That technology, however, is a very, very long way off, and in fact when it does arrive it will probably barely be recognizable as "technology".
I'm not talking abut restoring the backup or running it on new substrate. I agree - that shit looks decades away at best but just capturing the image will come much sooner. At that point, from my point of view it ought to appear instantaneous anyway, even if I'm not restored and rebooted for hundreds of years. Just grab that images and subsequent generations can figure out how to get them up and running.
The image of someone's imagination? There's nothing to get "up and running", not sure what you're talking about.
The image of me. The software running in my brain and extraneous neural network. Imagination is only part of it. Memory, pattern filters, all the other bullshit. Once that's captured and fed into an emulator, I'm restored but backup can happen at any point before the restore platform is developed. I'm non existent in the interim but I'm thinking it'll be just like sleeping but without the dreams.
We noticed you weren't productive enough so we went ahead and made some changes to the Backup before restoring you. Enjoy your new found work ethic and patriotism that we threw in for good measure.
Faust, Bringer of Dystopia.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 07, 2014, 10:14:39 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 06, 2014, 08:19:58 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 05, 2014, 06:41:34 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 05, 2014, 05:22:53 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 05, 2014, 05:04:32 PM
I'm beginning to see this in - Big Data - terms. The software side. That's essentially how they cracked it. A lot of AI stuff, backing up minds and the like, the thinking always assumed figuring out how all the intricate bullshit worked in minute detail. Thing is, we only need that if we're talking about writing consciousness from the ground up. Stick that particular noble ambition to the side and focus on the immediate goal - I am fucking awesome. My consciousness is, at the moment, not being backed up. That shit is unacceptable and needs to be rectified at first available opportunity.
I'm guessing a lot of people also feel this way. Or would, if they thought about it in terms like that. So this video feed thing strikes me as a significant milestone on the road to capturing a snapshot of my whole instance.
I'm totally all about the computer backup of the human brain. That technology, however, is a very, very long way off, and in fact when it does arrive it will probably barely be recognizable as "technology".
I'm not talking abut restoring the backup or running it on new substrate. I agree - that shit looks decades away at best but just capturing the image will come much sooner. At that point, from my point of view it ought to appear instantaneous anyway, even if I'm not restored and rebooted for hundreds of years. Just grab that images and subsequent generations can figure out how to get them up and running.
The image of someone's imagination? There's nothing to get "up and running", not sure what you're talking about.
The image of me. The software running in my brain and extraneous neural network. Imagination is only part of it. Memory, pattern filters, all the other bullshit. Once that's captured and fed into an emulator, I'm restored but backup can happen at any point before the restore platform is developed. I'm non existent in the interim but I'm thinking it'll be just like sleeping but without the dreams.
OK, but that is not even close to anything the technology in that talk actually does, or even could be developed to do. Think of it as like a camera; no matter how HD the image, it's still just an image.
Quote from: Nigel on March 07, 2014, 04:44:27 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 07, 2014, 10:14:39 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 06, 2014, 08:19:58 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 05, 2014, 06:41:34 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 05, 2014, 05:22:53 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 05, 2014, 05:04:32 PM
I'm beginning to see this in - Big Data - terms. The software side. That's essentially how they cracked it. A lot of AI stuff, backing up minds and the like, the thinking always assumed figuring out how all the intricate bullshit worked in minute detail. Thing is, we only need that if we're talking about writing consciousness from the ground up. Stick that particular noble ambition to the side and focus on the immediate goal - I am fucking awesome. My consciousness is, at the moment, not being backed up. That shit is unacceptable and needs to be rectified at first available opportunity.
I'm guessing a lot of people also feel this way. Or would, if they thought about it in terms like that. So this video feed thing strikes me as a significant milestone on the road to capturing a snapshot of my whole instance.
I'm totally all about the computer backup of the human brain. That technology, however, is a very, very long way off, and in fact when it does arrive it will probably barely be recognizable as "technology".
I'm not talking abut restoring the backup or running it on new substrate. I agree - that shit looks decades away at best but just capturing the image will come much sooner. At that point, from my point of view it ought to appear instantaneous anyway, even if I'm not restored and rebooted for hundreds of years. Just grab that images and subsequent generations can figure out how to get them up and running.
The image of someone's imagination? There's nothing to get "up and running", not sure what you're talking about.
The image of me. The software running in my brain and extraneous neural network. Imagination is only part of it. Memory, pattern filters, all the other bullshit. Once that's captured and fed into an emulator, I'm restored but backup can happen at any point before the restore platform is developed. I'm non existent in the interim but I'm thinking it'll be just like sleeping but without the dreams.
OK, but that is not even close to anything the technology in that talk actually does, or even could be developed to do. Think of it as like a camera; no matter how HD the image, it's still just an image.
Yes but that's only the visual cortex. They're doing this with the whole brain. A bit at a time, for the present but eventually it'll be the whole thing. Give it a couple of orders of magnitude in scanning resolution, they'll be getting the whole mind state. Unless you think there's something "external" going on, ie. some essence of you that isn't an emergent property of brain function, then scanning at high enough resolution becomes a frozen snapshot of your conscious state.
Emulation would require a complex series of rules to coordinate the interactions of the mostly dynamic dataset. Maybe emulation isn't required, maybe just growing a brain in a vat and then "flashing" the snapshot onto/into it. Like I said - it's the future's problem. Getting the snapshot, in my lifetime, before my consciousness starts to suffer deterioration or death - that's the important part, from my point of view.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 07, 2014, 05:31:18 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 07, 2014, 04:44:27 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 07, 2014, 10:14:39 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 06, 2014, 08:19:58 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 05, 2014, 06:41:34 PM
Quote from: Nigel on March 05, 2014, 05:22:53 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 05, 2014, 05:04:32 PM
I'm beginning to see this in - Big Data - terms. The software side. That's essentially how they cracked it. A lot of AI stuff, backing up minds and the like, the thinking always assumed figuring out how all the intricate bullshit worked in minute detail. Thing is, we only need that if we're talking about writing consciousness from the ground up. Stick that particular noble ambition to the side and focus on the immediate goal - I am fucking awesome. My consciousness is, at the moment, not being backed up. That shit is unacceptable and needs to be rectified at first available opportunity.
I'm guessing a lot of people also feel this way. Or would, if they thought about it in terms like that. So this video feed thing strikes me as a significant milestone on the road to capturing a snapshot of my whole instance.
I'm totally all about the computer backup of the human brain. That technology, however, is a very, very long way off, and in fact when it does arrive it will probably barely be recognizable as "technology".
I'm not talking abut restoring the backup or running it on new substrate. I agree - that shit looks decades away at best but just capturing the image will come much sooner. At that point, from my point of view it ought to appear instantaneous anyway, even if I'm not restored and rebooted for hundreds of years. Just grab that images and subsequent generations can figure out how to get them up and running.
The image of someone's imagination? There's nothing to get "up and running", not sure what you're talking about.
The image of me. The software running in my brain and extraneous neural network. Imagination is only part of it. Memory, pattern filters, all the other bullshit. Once that's captured and fed into an emulator, I'm restored but backup can happen at any point before the restore platform is developed. I'm non existent in the interim but I'm thinking it'll be just like sleeping but without the dreams.
OK, but that is not even close to anything the technology in that talk actually does, or even could be developed to do. Think of it as like a camera; no matter how HD the image, it's still just an image.
Yes but that's only the visual cortex. They're doing this with the whole brain. A bit at a time, for the present but eventually it'll be the whole thing. Give it a couple of orders of magnitude in scanning resolution, they'll be getting the whole mind state. Unless you think there's something "external" going on, ie. some essence of you that isn't an emergent property of brain function, then scanning at high enough resolution becomes a frozen snapshot of your conscious state.
Emulation would require a complex series of rules to coordinate the interactions of the mostly dynamic dataset. Maybe emulation isn't required, maybe just growing a brain in a vat and then "flashing" the snapshot onto/into it. Like I said - it's the future's problem. Getting the snapshot, in my lifetime, before my consciousness starts to suffer deterioration or death - that's the important part, from my point of view.
:kingmeh: I don't think you understand what an fMRI does, or what its role is in generating the signals that are being interpreted into these images.
What you're saying is a lot like "If I can take really, really good detailed video of the insides of a computer while it's working, I'll be able to reproduce the data on the computer".
Quote from: Nigel on March 07, 2014, 09:56:42 PM
What you're saying is a lot like "If I can take really, really good detailed video of the insides of a computer while it's working, I'll be able to reproduce the data on the computer".
Yes. You do realise that what you just said there would actually be possible right now if anyone could be bothered to do it?
Been watching Jason Silva (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThBWOr7rfTw) all day. Kinda digging his manic energy and inspiring take on shit in general.
check out more on http://thisisjasonsilva.com/ (http://thisisjasonsilva.com/)
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 08, 2014, 07:35:04 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 07, 2014, 09:56:42 PM
What you're saying is a lot like "If I can take really, really good detailed video of the insides of a computer while it's working, I'll be able to reproduce the data on the computer".
Yes. You do realise that what you just said there would actually be possible right now if anyone could be bothered to do it?
Uhhhh nope. Unless you are using a completely different definition of "video".
No matter how high the resolution achieved with fMRI, it is not and will never be capable of taking an image of the brain that a personality and memories could be reconstructed from. I actually do think that at some point a technology may be developed that CAN do that, but it's not fMRI.
The complex structure of the brain, composed of both electrical and electrochemical transactions is still way beyond our best spectroscopic analytic techniques.
Even if you allow us to cheat and take apart the brain to measure everything.
We can tell you the average for areas and tell you what's currently active and what's not but on a base unit charge and transaction we don't have anything that good yet.
Quote from: Tom on March 08, 2014, 08:32:09 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 08, 2014, 07:35:04 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 07, 2014, 09:56:42 PM
What you're saying is a lot like "If I can take really, really good detailed video of the insides of a computer while it's working, I'll be able to reproduce the data on the computer".
Yes. You do realise that what you just said there would actually be possible right now if anyone could be bothered to do it?
Uhhhh nope. Unless you are using a completely different definition of "video".
No matter how high the resolution achieved with fMRI, it is not and will never be capable of taking an image of the brain that a personality and memories could be reconstructed from. I actually do think that at some point a technology may be developed that CAN do that, but it's not fMRI.
Sorry, yeah, getting ahead of myself :oops: I wasn't thinking of video, I was thinking of some kind of electron microscope :lulz: Of course, fMRI will only give part of the picture but I agree, something will eventually be developed, there's loads of theories flying about, about what form this new tech will be, whether it's some kind of direct, nanotech, neuron by neuron bridge or maybe an amalgamation of different scanners or maybe some other method that hasn't even been invented yet.
What the clip I posted shows is a milestone on that roadmap. I think a fairly significant one. What's significant here, though, isn't the scanner. It's the software that analyses the data. What it's doing, right now is effectively simulating part of the function of the visual cortex, without simulating the visual cortex itself. It's applying an algorithm that creates the same results from given input. It appears that a large part of that algorithm was not written by a human. The machine "learned" how to do it, humans merely gave it the parameters that told it how to learn.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 09, 2014, 06:33:24 AM
Quote from: Tom on March 08, 2014, 08:32:09 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 08, 2014, 07:35:04 AM
Quote from: Nigel on March 07, 2014, 09:56:42 PM
What you're saying is a lot like "If I can take really, really good detailed video of the insides of a computer while it's working, I'll be able to reproduce the data on the computer".
Yes. You do realise that what you just said there would actually be possible right now if anyone could be bothered to do it?
Uhhhh nope. Unless you are using a completely different definition of "video".
No matter how high the resolution achieved with fMRI, it is not and will never be capable of taking an image of the brain that a personality and memories could be reconstructed from. I actually do think that at some point a technology may be developed that CAN do that, but it's not fMRI.
Sorry, yeah, getting ahead of myself :oops: I wasn't thinking of video, I was thinking of some kind of electron microscope :lulz: Of course, fMRI will only give part of the picture but I agree, something will eventually be developed, there's loads of theories flying about, about what form this new tech will be, whether it's some kind of direct, nanotech, neuron by neuron bridge or maybe an amalgamation of different scanners or maybe some other method that hasn't even been invented yet.
What the clip I posted shows is a milestone on that roadmap. I think a fairly significant one. What's significant here, though, isn't the scanner. It's the software that analyses the data. What it's doing, right now is effectively simulating part of the function of the visual cortex, without simulating the visual cortex itself. It's applying an algorithm that creates the same results from given input. It appears that a large part of that algorithm was not written by a human. The machine "learned" how to do it, humans merely gave it the parameters that told it how to learn.
Literally all it is doing is going "there is increased oxygen consumption in these places when person looks at A". Therefore when there is increased bloodflow in this pattern, display something that looks like A". The more times subjects look at A, the better of an average for A can be reproduced.
It's easy to get super excited about material presented in TED talks because it is often presented as if it is new and groundbreaking and exciting, because that is the purpose of TED talks; to get the general public excited about science. Unfortunately, in most cases this impression is going to be misleading, because scientists with new, groundbreaking, and exciting research and ideas are not presenting it at TED, they are presenting at it national and international science conferences, and it may eventually make its way to TED. In addition, in the last couple of years not only has TED been sadly diluted past all recognition with the utter crap that is TEDx, but they have taken to inviting guest speakers to present on research that is wildly outside of the scope of their own field of knowledge, which has resulted in the circulation of a good deal of speculative pseudoscience being presented as if it were spoken by an expert in the field.
I used to love TED. Not so much anymore.
Quote from: Tom on March 09, 2014, 02:57:50 PM
Literally all it is doing is going "there is increased oxygen consumption in these places when person looks at A". Therefore when there is increased bloodflow in this pattern, display something that looks like A". The more times subjects look at A, the better of an average for A can be reproduced.
I think you might be getting the wrong end of the stick here. Here's the guy who actually did the experiments explaining it a bit better (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FsH7RK1S2E&feature=youtu.be)
The subject was not looking at an image over and over, rather a whole bunch of completely different videos were shown (tens of thousands of images), allowing the machine to spot which neurons were responding to which videos. and cross tabulate this with which pixels the video frames had in common, allowing it to build a picture of which neurons respond to which areas of the image. The second part of the experiment then showed
new videos to the subjects which the machine interpreted according to the ruleset it established in the first part.
I didn't say they looked at the same image over and over again, and you just restated what I said.
But if you're that convinced that I just don't get it, go right on ahead and believe that. :lol:
Quote from: Tom on March 09, 2014, 06:27:37 PM
I didn't say they looked at the same image over and over again, and you just restated what I said.
But if you're that convinced that I just don't get it, go right on ahead and believe that. :lol:
I'm convinced you're not seeing the same thing I am. You start out with "Literally all it is doing"
Literally all it's doing is reading neural hardware activity and decoding it, producing a reproduction (albeit a very rudimentary one) of the input signal. The impression I'm getting is like if I was showing you an old mainframe room 20 or 30 years ago and you were like "Yes but all it's doing is adding and subtracting numbers" and at the same time, I'm seeing how it's going to end up with youtube on a cellphone.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 09, 2014, 07:03:03 PM
Quote from: Tom on March 09, 2014, 06:27:37 PM
I didn't say they looked at the same image over and over again, and you just restated what I said.
But if you're that convinced that I just don't get it, go right on ahead and believe that. :lol:
I'm convinced you're not seeing the same thing I am. You start out with "Literally all it is doing"
Literally all it's doing is reading neural hardware activity and decoding it, producing a reproduction (albeit a very rudimentary one) of the input signal. The impression I'm getting is like if I was showing you an old mainframe room 20 or 30 years ago and you were like "Yes but all it's doing is adding and subtracting numbers" and at the same time, I'm seeing how it's going to end up with youtube on a cellphone.
I can understand where you're coming from, but maybe it would help to understand that I start my morning, every single day, catching up on the latest neuroscience news. fMRI is one of the most overhyped, if not THE most overhyped, technology in neuroscience. So what I see is a guy who is tripping out and announcing that flying cars are next, because he just saw a combustion engine for the first time.
So maybe you're the great visionary in this scenario, but I still think you're attributing potential to this particular technology that just isn't there.
Quote from: Tom on March 09, 2014, 08:56:41 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 09, 2014, 07:03:03 PM
Quote from: Tom on March 09, 2014, 06:27:37 PM
I didn't say they looked at the same image over and over again, and you just restated what I said.
But if you're that convinced that I just don't get it, go right on ahead and believe that. :lol:
I'm convinced you're not seeing the same thing I am. You start out with "Literally all it is doing"
Literally all it's doing is reading neural hardware activity and decoding it, producing a reproduction (albeit a very rudimentary one) of the input signal. The impression I'm getting is like if I was showing you an old mainframe room 20 or 30 years ago and you were like "Yes but all it's doing is adding and subtracting numbers" and at the same time, I'm seeing how it's going to end up with youtube on a cellphone.
I can understand where you're coming from, but maybe it would help to understand that I start my morning, every single day, catching up on the latest neuroscience news. fMRI is one of the most overhyped, if not THE most overhyped, technology in neuroscience. So what I see is a guy who is tripping out and announcing that flying cars are next, because he just saw a combustion engine for the first time.
So maybe you're the great visionary in this scenario, but I still think you're attributing potential to this particular technology that just isn't there.
Cool! I think I can lay this to rest by telling you that fMRI means absolutely nothing to me. Just like the old valves in the original computers didn't mean anything and silicon means nothing, other than what they can accomplish. The best predictions on the planet don't have fMRI reaching anything like the kind the of scanning resolution required to capture all the atoms and state vectors required to grab a complete snapshot but technological advancement is always a series of incremental steps, punctuated by quantum leaps. I see this experiment as one of those quantum leaps, right out of leftfield. Whilst tons of approaches are plodding along at the rate of Moore's law, trying to simulate nematode worms and the like, growing neurons in petri dishes and fuckton of other shit that you no doubt are more switched onto than me, this maniac has just gone, "fuck it, lets forget about understanding the shit and just take pictures of it and let a supercomputer figure out how to map the connections."
And it worked!
As I said when I posted the clip - what excites me isn't the latest fancy kind of microscope du jour - it's the big-data approach to the problem. That's the one part of this equation that does stray into my area of professional expertise. I've been following neuroscience progress, as an interested layman, for a few years and everything I've come across seems to involve learning how it all works from the ground up and, again as a layman, hooked into TED talks and with no stomach for dry scientific papers, it's been kind of plod plod plod, with the odd mildly interesting goalpost ticked off along the way.
Now, with this experiment, the way is paved to just grab the next awesome scanner and hook it into the next awesome gigacore processor. Wash, rinse, repeat. Neuroscience just got scalable. Let's face it, that's when you know your science is all grown up - when you develop it to the point where you hand it over to us engineers :lulz:
Seriously, tho, I'm not dissing whatever the hell else is going on in the field and I've no doubt that something else will come along that either complements this approach or renders it obsolete but, until then, I can see a roadmap from here to the goal of saving my backup, which is, honestly, about my only interest in this whole field. Obviously if you guys can cure my brain cancer, or alzheimers or senility in the meantime, that'd also be cool but my eye is on the prize.
Except it's totally not out of left field, at all. I think that not knowing what fMRI is probably heavily contributes to your interpretation of what's actually being done. It's not new; this is stuff that neuroscientists all over the world have been working on for years, improving incrementally. Did you hear what her "big idea" was? Where she talks about the bottleneck in this technology, and what she thinks the solution is? The whole point of her talk is that she thinks the increase in fMRI resolution can be done with a better type of magnet. That's it, that's the whole spiel. The resolution limitation isn't in the computing, it's in the level of detail in the brain scans. She has an idea for fancier magnets.
What this technology does is makes a picture by reading activity in the brain. If you can't read the activity with a high level of precision, you can't make a very clear image, no matter how great your computational processing. Current fMRI technology doesn't read activity with a high enough level of precision to allow computers to reproduce very clear images. Either we need a new kind of brain imaging technology, or we need, as she says, better magnets.
However, most of her talk is basically a visionary Google display developer talking about other people's brain research, and toward the end she just starts wandering all over the place. Yeah, a brain scan device that lets us see brain activity at a neuronal level would be basically the holy grail of neuroscience, sure. Kind of a non-sequitur, but totally true.
Of course, as this research progresses it is pretty inevitable that both brain imaging and computing is going to continue to improve; we're already looking forward to some much more powerful fMRI equipment (I don't know if she just wasn't aware of this when she gave her talk, or if she didn't talk about it due to lack of time): http://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/imaging/the-worlds-most-powerful-mri-takes-shape.
Even so, at the end of the day the kind of technology she's talking about is purely a way to convey visual imagery. It's not a way to snapshot a personality. It's really cool, but not personality-reconstruction or memory-storage cool. It could, if it reached a certain point, record a playback of a memory, but it's still kind of the equivalent of pointing a video camera at a TV set, and not the equivalent of burning a CD, if that makes sense.
Some of the other current sensory neuroscience research really interests me more, like this: http://nsnbc.me/2014/03/07/blind-people-can-see-bodies-sound-study/
To each her own, though. Bringing pictures out of the brain just don't excite me the way putting pictures into it do, although long-term, these technologies are probably complementary.
This line of research goes back further, but here are some articles documenting the progress.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/translating-images-from-brain-waves/
http://www.livescience.com/16190-movies-reconstructed-brain-activity.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/scientists-youtube-videos-mind/story?id=14573442
Gallant and his team are slowly and steadily chipping away at the visual translation, and other teams are working on words and sounds. Eventually it will all come together, but it's no renegade out-of-the-blue thing, it's an ongoing, long-term, and highly collaborative process.
As far as I know, nobody's doing smell. :lol: Maybe I should email Luca Turin about that.
PS.
Welcome to the future.
I would actually be more interested in technology that let us look at brain activity from a glial level, for a number of reasons, though.
Quote from: Tom on March 10, 2014, 12:20:11 AM
This line of research goes back further, but here are some articles documenting the progress.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/translating-images-from-brain-waves/
http://www.livescience.com/16190-movies-reconstructed-brain-activity.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/scientists-youtube-videos-mind/story?id=14573442
Gallant and his team are slowly and steadily chipping away at the visual translation, and other teams are working on words and sounds. Eventually it will all come together, but it's no renegade out-of-the-blue thing, it's an ongoing, long-term, and highly collaborative process.
As far as I know, nobody's doing smell. :lol: Maybe I should email Luca Turin about that.
"We need really big computers," Gallant said."
So this particular experiment is a couple of years old. His computer is a lot bigger now. Anything interesting happened since?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on March 10, 2014, 09:04:06 AM
Quote from: Tom on March 10, 2014, 12:20:11 AM
This line of research goes back further, but here are some articles documenting the progress.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/translating-images-from-brain-waves/
http://www.livescience.com/16190-movies-reconstructed-brain-activity.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMoodNews/scientists-youtube-videos-mind/story?id=14573442
Gallant and his team are slowly and steadily chipping away at the visual translation, and other teams are working on words and sounds. Eventually it will all come together, but it's no renegade out-of-the-blue thing, it's an ongoing, long-term, and highly collaborative process.
As far as I know, nobody's doing smell. :lol: Maybe I should email Luca Turin about that.
"We need really big computers," Gallant said."
So this particular experiment is a couple of years old. His computer is a lot bigger now. Anything interesting happened since?
"this experiment"
:facepalm:
I give up. You're right, it's basically computer wizardry, old guy.
Ever wonder what the most evil billionaire on the planet is up to these days? (http://www.ted.com/talks/bill_and_melinda_gates_why_giving_away_our_wealth_has_been_the_most_satisfying_thing_we_ve_done?awesm=on.ted.com_pmRi&utm_content=awesm-publisher&utm_campaign=&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=on.ted.com-facebook-share#t-308382)
Andrew Stanton: The Clues to a Great Story
If you're interested in writing, story development, etc. (http://www.ted.com/talks/andrew_stanton_the_clues_to_a_great_story)
I saw Sam Jones (Flash Gordon) doing a Q & A the other day.
Ironically, he was in "Ted" the movie.
He should do this speaking Ted stuff.
The man has charisma, presence, some great stories, endless character and seemingly a real good heart.
It would also be somewhat discordian to have him there, but I think there would be much beauty in that.
To take it a step even further, more from the avant garde savants of the world.
Let's derive and extrapolate the genius of the Rocky Balboa's, Rain Men, and Forest Gumps.
Maybe talks from very dangerous people. Death row inmates. Supervillians on the lam.
that kind of thing...
New one out today. Verbalises and makes concrete a lot of themes I've been internalising the last couple of years.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiM5a-vaNkg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiM5a-vaNkg)
Particularly liked this line.
Quoteoppression breeds the power to oppose it.
I've heard it framed in different terms before but this just nailed it for me.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on May 21, 2014, 05:18:51 PM
New one out today. Verbalises and makes concrete a lot of themes I've been internalising the last couple of years.
Particularly liked this line.
Quoteoppression breeds the power to oppose it.
I've heard it framed in different terms before but this just nailed it for me.
i think it seeks to breed revolution in a way that can be controlled; order out of chaos.
MEANWHILE SOMEWHERE ELSE
Another type of power and revolution grows naturally.
Seen the movie/future/whatever they called it tomorrow.
It's Godzilla!!!!!
Invest in godzilla merch now, it will become the new currency.
forgot the link :oops:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiM5a-vaNkg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiM5a-vaNkg)
Oh fuck yes! (http://www.ted.com/talks/stephen_friend_the_hunt_for_unexpected_genetic_heroes?utm_campaign=&utm_medium=on.ted.com-facebook-share&awesm=on.ted.com_ptbi&utm_content=awesm-publisher&utm_source=facebook.com)
This has been a hobby horse of mine for a while and I've been going grassroots. Anyone who will listen, I've been telling to give it up. Get a swab done. Go online, engage, tell them everything they want to know. This will become a privacy issue, I'm sure of it. I've no doubt that some sneaky wankers will try to make use of this info for nefarious reasons but fuck those assholes, it's just the same old bullshit that happens with every technological advancement. There's a hell of a lot more good will come of it.
What's about to happen, if we let it, if we lend a hand, is an impending avalanche of cures. Do not pass up this opportunity, world, I implore you!
Seems to have vaguely discordian references (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qCWAsd2GP8)