'Under the TPP, if a company believes an Australian law endangers its “expected future profits,” it can challenge the government at an investor-state tribunal. This tribunal has the power to overrule Australian laws and levy fines against the Australian state.'
If true that's nuts. Even the WTO only lets you do tit-for-tat.
Up to this time, I believe the Aust. govt has refused to endorse this clause. Now that the new Foreign Minister is involved, who knows. I'm not optimistic on this or on copyright extensions. I think we will be sold these under the banner of "being necessary to complete the TPP for the greater good".
The idea of TPP is to extend the stalled WTO process by multilateral treaty. So you can expect it to go further in many ways. We just don't know what most of them are due to the secrecy...
Me too, maybe it is the color (blue / red contrast), I know that ~black background with ~white text is an instant trigger for me, always immediately close the tab when I visit such website. Do you see the words kind of "vibrating" when it triggered your migraine?
Perhaps not, but the context is that this dialogue is a response to Uber's response to the situation in Sweden, which is at best jarringly strident in tone.
Dialogue that doesn't /start/ nuanced rarely becomes so half way through...
One thing that mustn't be over-looked with interfaces that 'learn about your behavior' is they can lock into a 'local maxima' and can be difficult to retrain without resetting to factory defaults. - If your lifestyle changes, can the interface keep up?
I disagree that this would be a bug. It's a design flaw that cannot be corrected by fixing bugs.
It's analogous to security flaws. If there is a flaw in the design, no amount of bug fixing will make the system secure, unless that 'bug fixing' changes the design.
Can you explain why you think it's an inherent flaw in the design?
The way I look at it is, yes the software should keep a history of user behaviour and base its actions off that, but there must be feedback involved, either explicit or implicit. This way, if I gave some input to the system once but then never did so again, the likelyhood that one event should affect the future would diminish over time.
There could be trickiness around "Bubbles" (like a Search bubble, where it only recommends to you things it thinks you'd like, and never shows you other things). I think those are problematic and should be dealt with. But I don't think that means it's impossible to fix. It's just something that needs to be thought through. I don't have an answer for it right now but that doesn't mean there isn't an answer.
> It's just something that needs to be thought through.
Your statement is what I mean.
"Thinking things through" should be done during design.
Once you have built system, its much harder to compensate for design flaws.
Programming is not designing.
Designing is not programming.
Fixing bugs is not designing.
You have to design into the UI system a means for it to compensate for changes in user behavior. You don't want a system that takes many uses to train. At the same time you don't want a system that is trained by a single use.
For me this is the crux of the problem.
The happy medium that automatically detects deviations from a user's 'normal' behavior _and_ takes the correct action is very hard to design, as it involves AI fuzzy logic.
>Your statement is what I mean. "Thinking things through" should be done during design. Once you have built system, its much harder to compensate for design flaws.
I agree with this fully. This is something that would need to be solved before building such a system.
That's a pretty silly statement. Surely you can prove that 1+1!=3, which is the negative of 1+1=3. You can also prove that pi is not a rational number, 1/2 is not an integer, etc. There's a post on the front page about attempting to prove P!=NP.
Is there a distinction between proving and demonstrating by proof? I did a quick search (I'm hardly a mathematician), to quote Wikipedia:
> a proof must demonstrate that a statement is always true
It would seem that, if you can demonstrate a statement is true for a given logic, that is proof. Contradiction and exhaustion (which is a bit more controversial, I think), while less tidy than one might expect, are valid techniques for showing that a statement is always true, and therefore are valid ways to construct a proof.
Note: I encourage any and all maths professors to come and tell me off if I'm way off base.
