You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
For those who don't get it, our precautionary principle page & the computational class for GMOs. http://fooledbyrandomness.com/PrecautionaryPrinciple.html …pic.twitter.com/x2XBpUwbcv
It takes bet 45 minutes & a week to convince a smart person that GMOs are an intellectual fraud, not science but scientism, that supporters are not "skeptics" but shills, etc. Takes only 30 seconds to convince a computer scientist. Just mention P/NP and they get it instantly.
Is this true? do you have a link?
Yes, please.
Farmers don't grow GMO wheat. This is a hoax
Hi, computer scientist here. Not convinced.
I’m not surprised you don’t get it, Vitalik. You’ve always been bad at understanding catastrophic tail risks (hence your support for centralization vs high fees, bail outs vs immutability, and cult of personality vs leaderless).
"always" - as in the 1.5 years you have heard of @VitalikButerin ;-) it's true that tail risk is undervalued - often. but in a lot of cases it's overvalued. that's why, e.g., the insurance industry is a profitable one... and selling index options is profitable (vs equity options)
The insurance industry is profitable exactly because they do not face tail risk since they cap the maximum payout in the contract.
i *think* this might be because practicing computer scientists are steeped in "complex systems" that (on the surface) seem simple (travelling salesman problem) ...but in practice hard/impossible... no bullshitting in the low level details
GMO analogy: expert writes a billion line OS OS is modified (one line at a time) by a novice unfamiliar with programming to improve "efficiency" along one dimension OS is integrated & distributed into every phone/tablet/computer on the planet & expected to never fail
And then the novice accuses everyone who cautions against their "improvements" of being stupid and not understanding science
"I tested it! worked on my machine!" --- (SCYENCE)
Now that Bayer purchased Monsanto they can cure the illnesses they inflict on people. Closed loop business model
Not cure, treat. Treating illness generates more profit than curing it.
For those “computer scientists” who don’t get it: natural selection over thousands of years is non-deterministic computation in polynomial time (NP), lab experiments in 10 years is deterministic in polynomial time (P). Gabish?
So you're against breeding in general? Where in your facile spectrum do the other dozen or so breeding methods used throughout history fit, including organic-industry accepted mutagenesis?
Let me help you: You don’t even get the difference between cutting corners and taking a step.
I'm sure you'll be happy to find a convenient definition of which is which in this case.
Some idiots or shills doing philosophie of science are not getting the point that Pascal’s wager != ergodicity/survival.https://www.reddit.com/r/badmathematics/comments/8dxoip/p_v_np_and_some_bad_science/ …
I run an IT firm. GMO is perfectly safe and the key to feeding 10Bn+ people when mined, finite fertiliser runs out. P/NP is irrelevant. Also, as wheat farmers don't grow GMO wheat, you just fell for an egregious hoax and proved both confirmation bias and lack of expertise on this
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
