It sounds like there must be a standard of privacy for certain apps.
I work with UL a lot and they have lists of standards and specifications that help us meet the safety requirements of electronic devices. These standards are then used to meet the customers demand for a high level of safety. Customers in my field do not even consider products that don’t have UL. This strategy is good to better inform the consumer while standards are kept by an independent firm whose incentives are aligned to maintain their credibility.
I am not deep in the software field but I can imagine that groups like the EFF or similar orgs have a standard. The issue is that the consumers of these products don’t seem to care about this outside of the privacy advocate world.
In the book “The Diamond Age” by Neal Stephenson there are mist-like swarms of nanobots that act as an immune system for regions against malicious nanobots.
I can picture there being something like this with drones.
There are problems to this. The major one being that, as mentioned by the posts on this thread, you have to develop the weapon to really know how to counter it.
The US spent the first 100 years not living up to it’s own ideals. When we started figuring that out, we stopped caring about them altogether. It’s as if things like constitutions and conventions exist to provide the illusion of legitimacy to systems that ignore them.
Anyone can do this stuff. Cut a good promo that feeds into the internalized mythology of the target audience and you can get them to believe in it without a hint of skepticism.
As far as organic or not, it doesn’t really matter. People need to have an immune system for nonsense, especially it feels right. Most people can spot nonsense that goes against their own worldview. The trick is to be able to spot nonsense that is aligned with your worldview or you could directly benefit from if true.
When I’m on a long trip with friends or family we play a game trying to spot people on their phones by how poorly they are driving. Police are extra points. You would be shocked at how many cops you see looking down at their lap while driving.
I would rather drive next to people with .09 blood alcohol than someone on their phone.
Social media and cell phones are very convenient, but come with major drawbacks that must be addressed. Phones, for many young people, are just mental disorders with a touch screen.
If this is widely accepted, would it just be better to describe the exact form of subjective well-being that is studied rather than relying on vague descriptors?
One of my biggest issues with the science community is their lack of discipline when choosing language to describe what they are doing. Exact language is good practice and can eliminate a lot of bias and superstition that is prevalent in the way reality is described.
I appreciate the clarification. I do find it interesting that population density is a factor for understanding these rates over time.
Pardon my ignorance, as I am just trying to understand this (not my field of expertise). What is the relationship with violent crime rates and population density? That seems to be an important factor in this that isn’t getting highlighted enough. Are we jamming too many people into a small area?
I am asking because I am from a large city. I moved outside of the metro area years ago for work and found it to be refreshing, even though I first hated it and found myself stereotyping these people as ignorant bumpkins. After I got over my initial prejudice (not something I am proud to have felt), this place is more home than any place I’ve ever lived.
It’s an anecdote, but I have experienced a major benefit to living in a place where humans aren’t stacked on top of each other like factory-farmed chickens. I’ve never been put in a position to have to fight for my life out here. Could population density be a factor for increased crime rates? Could we help people by spreading them out a little bit and giving them space to live their lives? Access to nature, etc. Is this a housing problem? I think that more people could move out of the cities if we broke down the stereotypes and made sure to enforce equal housing rights.
This has kind of been a pet theory of mine but, again, I am no expert in this field and I only bring it up here to see what people with better info think about it.
Software bugs happen. The trick is to have proper management of the release that takes into account the inevitability of bugs while incentivizing bugs to be identified and fixed without the stakeholders of the project being in a position to have to defend a project as if it is perfect.
I cannot imagine how it must have felt being under the boot of an entire government and it’s corporate partners due to a bug. This is why we are important. A poorly managed IT system with bad incentives puts lives in danger. It is a literal threat to the safety of society. This cannot be stressed enough.
I’ve always been a proponent of state actors being held to a higher standard like how the UCMJ is an additional judicial code that members of the military have to follow as well as the normal laws.
Spending time on something people aren’t willing to pay for is always a waste of time, whether you’re writing a book or digging holes.
We need to stop assuming that having no copyright means that the work cannot be monetized. It just can’t be monetized as if it was a physical object or service rendered. Vinyl records, tee shirts, patronage, book signings, lectures, anything that isn’t copyright dependent can be monetized easily.
The fans of art are aware that paying for it will help create more art they like. This is a personal connection that the fan has with the artist and keeps the art accessible for the casuals.
An artist isn’t entitled to having their work funded unless someone voluntarily funds it. This does not require legal fiction.
Entire genres of music have been created from inexpensive musical equipment and free software. Art has never been more accessible to the people than it is now.
I work with UL a lot and they have lists of standards and specifications that help us meet the safety requirements of electronic devices. These standards are then used to meet the customers demand for a high level of safety. Customers in my field do not even consider products that don’t have UL. This strategy is good to better inform the consumer while standards are kept by an independent firm whose incentives are aligned to maintain their credibility.
I am not deep in the software field but I can imagine that groups like the EFF or similar orgs have a standard. The issue is that the consumers of these products don’t seem to care about this outside of the privacy advocate world.