On the topic of algorithms helping you discover your own 'taste' (whatever that may be), some time ago when the topic came up on HN someone linked this interesting paper: "Recommender Systems for Self-Actualization" [1], which suggests some methods how filter bubbles could be avoided. I really liked it and its suggestions like having extra recommendation lists for things the user will likely hate, items that are very polarizing in the user base or things no one ever rated before.
Understandably, since that press release is devoid of any real information. Seems quite reasonable to disregard it.
That's one thing that bothers me about security in general, that it's so super political and it's a bit hard to just be interested in the technical aspects of it without being sucked into political bickering to some degree (can't follow Twitter accounts of most security people for that reason). Of course, I understand that it comes with the field since many adversaries simply have political motives. Still annoying though.
Have any twitter accounts you find worthwhile? I currently follow Troy Hunt and occasionally check some of the people he talks with/retweets, would definitely like to expand that a bit.
Either we make life on Earth sustainable before that or we won't have enough time to develop the technology to settle on Mars anyway, so thinking of Mars as a backup Earth does not seem like a particularly good idea.
You have to have the power of the Q to do something like that. There's no way for humans to move Ceres that way, at least until we become a Kardashev Class II civilization.
I guess you could argue that the nodes can reject the hard fork. Decentralization doesn't preclude nodes coming to a consensus to change (or not change) the protocol.
Yeah, I also never liked that kind of advice. For me personally just doing something that roughly seems somewhat interesting was usually enough - if you get good at something, the motivation can often follow.
If I had spent more time thinking about what my passion is in life then I'd probably still sit there pondering without an idea of what to do.
I find it pretty hard to curate even interesting lists of researchers on Twitter without running into too much fluff or political tweets. I don't blame them for using the medium as it might be intended and of course they are free to share their personal opinions, but in my experience even just a handful of people who tweet a bit too often can pollute your stream enough to make it annoying to follow along.
Maybe Twitter should just let you filter posts based on content. (Maybe it's already possible, I'm not a big Twitter user.)
Same here. I only follow graphics programmers and game developers. The graphics people are ok, but a few of them tweet a lot of politics in addition to content I wouldn’t want to miss. And game development is thoroughly saturated in The Culture War, so there’s no practical way to avoid that except to ignore it.
There is word filter feature, but the UX is a bit clunky and you cant subscribe / paste a big list of words you would like to filter.
A future feature I would like to see in social networks is automatically generating tags for posts and letting people filter out the posts based on that.
With that, I can just choose an automatically generated US politics filter for example and not have to maintain a mute list.
I suspect some people are guessing that a multipolar world will be less interventionist (since the great powers might block each other from interfering too much) and therefore adventures like the Iraq war are less likely to happen again. This might arguably make the world more peaceful, though it might allow civil wars to continue for longer.
No idea if it's true or will work out that way, but it's one hypothesis I think is out there.
Sure, the downside of China's rise is that authoritarian states have more legitimacy, but it's not like the western powers did much about those states back when they were the hegemons, so I'm not sure if the argument carries much weight either.
But that's not what happened during the cold war. The US and Soviet Union both fought over allies, influenced affairs in other countries, engaged in proxy wars, etc
You say "block intervention"... how does that work? That sounds like a proxy war to me... like the korean war, or vietnam, or afghanistan in the 80s. It's not peace, it's just bloodier.
The world is more peaceful today without the Soviet Unions fight for influence.
The problem is that reinforcement learning is far from solved and doesn't work all that well yet, so these toy problems are probably what researchers will stick with for some time to come.
There's certainly enough opportunity to work for a more peaceful world instead - scenarios where two large military powers clash should probably better be avoided anyway, so it's probably even a more productive use of one's time than optimizing for yet another variant of mutually assured destruction.
Pacifism is all well and good when the other guy doesn't want to kill you. Until we get to that point, I'm happy with the US policy of having an overwhelmingly dominant force as a deterrent.
While that may be the reality of things, it surely can't be a justification in any way. If anything, I'd be afraid to revert back to those dark times where technological advancements were driven mainly by military needs.
[1] https://sci-hub.tw/https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=295918...