It seems to me that they tried to roboticize a manufacturing process for a product that was designed to be manufactured by humans. Rookie mistake.
If they want to automate construction of Mac products, they'll have to redesign the product to fit the constraints of robotic manufacture.
Looking up their net worths, we find that Bill Nye is worth $8 million. That’s great, really. A scientist that is worth $8 million is pretty rare. Even Neil Degrasse Tyson is only worth $5 million. I say “only” with tongue in cheek because $5 million is really a LOT of money. But, it’s only about 63% of Bill Nye’s net worth. So, comparatively speaking, Bill Nye has done very well for a scientist.Let’s compare that with Ken Ham. He has a net worth of $54 million. That ark has made Ken Ham his fabulous wealth. And, if it wasn’t for the Bill Nye debate, it might never have come into existence since the project had stalled out.
All this demonstrates is the amorality of capitalism. Ham is richer, but also an immoral propagandist for a demented worldview.
We live in a society whose psychic structure is formulated on the premise of survival of the fittest and you’re either in or you’re out. If you’re in, you must play the game of kill or be killed. One-upmanship and a perpetual ladder-climbing exercise is your lot.
Quite a pithy remark. Even though some may say it's far too reductionist, I would say reductionism remains the truest mirror of our selves. We're nothing but monkeys, except that we don't throw shit at each other, we throw nukes.
I do think that if you in fact have a losing ticket, then you know it. And if you have winning ticket then you can justifiably, but incorrectly, think you know you have a losing ticket.I think the only good way to deny knowledge in lottery cases is to demand infallibility from knowledge, which than loses us pretty much all ordinary knowledge.
This is exactly my problem with "knowledge" and it's inherent vagueness. I think it's far better for us all to admit that we have virtually no knowledge and instead only have beliefs of varying strengths.
This is a nice introduction to some issues of concern to me. For instance, the absence of pain is good - but why is it good? The empirical reason for this is that it satisfies evolved instinct. So again, what is good tracks to what is natural. But the naturalistic fallacy undermines that. And most importantly, there is no known scientific connection between evolution and instinct on the one hand, and "good" on the other. My answer is: morality is not natural, it is an artifice of humanity. And since it's an artifice, we can make it whatever we want.
I've got serious reservations about this Gerst fellow. His answers are too vague and contain too many bald assertions. The form of his answers fits what I've noticed to be a "style" of regressives seeking to promote obsolete traditions and social norms.
Granted, it's difficult to present precise information in "interview format" articles like this one, but education is too important to get get wrong - again.
If the words of legendary samurai Miyamoto Musashi:“If you know the way broadly you will see it in everything.”
This is analogous to how I see systems everywhere, having studied them for a couple of decades.