- once private information is leaked, it can never be undone
- being treated differently by some party because that party had knowledge of private information about you is difficult to prove
The ultimate solution is to legally require that important services cannot depend on private information.
An example would be: define a set of properties health insurance cost is allowed to depend on, and then have health insurance providers publish their formula for the premium (that can only depend on that set of properties).
The western economic system cannot deal with lockdowns, and more generally, any kind of stop-the-world scenarios.
What will be most important now is how the west will be able to deal with this crisis in comparison to China.
If the Chinese system is able to deal with the crisis more effectively in economic terms, this may put the western system as a whole in jeopardy, in particular values like freedom and privacy.
I feel uncomfortable at the ubiquitous, silent assumption that what is marketed as AI is a computer implementation of a brain.
I see how the term neuronal network reinforces this believe, but we (especially the researchers among us) should allow for the possibility that we are missing something.
I've followed Bitcoin for a while. What seemed to happens there was the deliberate manipulation of the price using all means available (ads, etc.) The result was a few winning big.
I have no reason to believe the same doesn't happen on the real stock market.
The German voter is against coal (the young climate concious), against nuclear (the old green party supporters), against wind (everyone when it appears in their backyard), and the government killed solar in 2015 which resulted in approximately 80000 lost jobs.
What the German voter doesn't want is to consume less and/or save energy.
Let's also talk about why LTS is a dangerous idea: It provides an excuse not to update.
Many tech debt traps start with relying on an LTS version of OS or libraries. The philosophy behin that is, that software behaves like a chair: You buy it once, and then you sit can sit on it until it is no longer needed.
A much better analogy is a horse: You need to feed and take care of it daily, and you need to be ready for it do die when you still need it.
That is not the only way technical debt gets introduced.
Often, teams cut corners to release a feature earlier/on time, and only make it work for the MVP use case without restructuring the codebase to fully accommodate the change. In this setting the term debt is pretty fitting.
The US sanctions and the effect on Huawei just made it very easy for Chinese companies to justify expenses that increase technological independence, on all levels (not only hardware).
I don't have a problem with the requirements. I'm just saying that if passing the requirements is so time-consuming and expensive that companies start cutting corners to get around the approval process, the approval process just became worthless.
I'm pretty sure the requirements are fine, but the process is not streamlined and hence avoided whenever possible.
It is not pilot training. The root problem is that Boeing and Airbus are currently retrofitting larger engines into old airframes at the cost of pitch stability, when what they should be doing if safety was their primary concern is change the airframe to accommodate the larger engines.
Boeing in particular was under pressure from the more fuel efficient Airbus A320neo, and they needed bigger engines (larger fans) to compete on fuel efficiency. Those large engines don't fit under the 737 airframe, but getting a new airframe approved is time-consuming. So Boeing placed the bigger engines more forward from the wing, resulting in flight instability and pitch-up.
Boeing tried to fix that problem with software, but, as became apparent recently, weren't very successful with it.
The elephant in the room is that we made requirements for getting a completely new plain design into the market so expensive and time-consuming, that Boeing cut corners and reused an existing design to get around the process.