Here’s an example of a corporation demonstrating positive socio-economic change:

The Basque Country’s Mondragón Corporation is the globe’s largest industrial co-operative, with workers paying for the right to share in its profits – and its losses.

I grew up in Silicon Valley and I can testify what you already know: venture capitalists and tech CEOs are just dumb kids with a lot of money. Many of them landed in their positions by chance alone. We are not obliged to give them more credence than anybody else.

Damn. I’ve got the Mountain Dew drinkers riled up.

“Possibly causes cancer” is sufficient for me to never the touch the stuff. Please stop drinking these things. They’re literally addictive.

I never trusted the stuff. We use to say this matter-of-factly when I was a kid, about thirty years ago. I’m glad to see that my unfounded confidence and speculation turned out to be right!

Probably stepping down to sit on the board instead.

If I had a dollar for everytime I’ve read a similar story in the last thirty years…

Rendering 3d immersive AI generated deepfake porn is going to be so fucking fast

Isn’t past perfect “it had been a tense gathering”?

Yeah, I figured as much. At least they can’t count me as a user when they go public.

I’ve just deleted my Reddit account. That’s the last straw for me.

I think they mean existential problems, like our belligerent lumbering towards the violent self-destruction of humanity.

💍 Will you marry me?

So it’s OK to publish “research” that’s been generated by AI so long as there are no experiments involved? I’m sorry. I don’t understand what you’re getting at.

There has clearly been a massive decline in academic integrity lately, as evidenced by this ridiculous paper and so many others. Why should any of it be excusable?

Please read the Wikipedia article about the replication crisis that I’ve linked. This is a widespread problem. Even the most prestigious cancer research institute in the world, Dana-Farber, has admitted to egregious forgery and plagiarism of their formerly published research.

“Publish or perish” indeed…

“It’s unclear how such egregiously bad images made it through peer-review.”

That’s because the paper wasn’t peer-reviewed at all. In fact, the majority of published medical and psychological papers are never reviewed or replicated.

The scientific method has sold out to the profit incentive, at least in academia.

I bought a Tesla in early 2020 and after four years I can say confidently that autonomous driving seems unlikely. The self driving feature feels like I’m in the car with my geriatric grandpa. It drives like a stoned teenager trying to protect the liability of his rich daddy.

The reason that humans are able to drive swiftly and efficiently is because we’re not thinking about every single thing that could go wrong at every single moment. The car is incapable of such blissful ignorance and therefore the autonomous driving experience is uncomfortable, to say the least.

I don’t think that Venter is suggesting intelligent design. He’s claiming, as a result of his research, that it’s not effective to assume simple explanations for genomics and especially for cellular biology.

Every technological improvement in the methods of research has revealed more complexity in organisms and so it behooves us to suspend dogmatic approaches to the genome. That’s the subject of the book discussed in the article.

Craig Venter is very controversial and his statements are provocative. I’m not qualified to critique the science in this field. But I’d recommend you to take a look at the work his team is doing with synthetic chromosomes and engineered cells.

I’m not an expert on the subject. I can only repeat what Venter said: “the only junk DNA is in my colleagues brains”. He claims that all DNA has function and that it should not be referred to as junk just because we don’t know the function yet.

He talks about at intervals in this interview.

Craig Venter, the infamous head of the Human Genome Project and who created the first “synthetic” cell, has been saying this stuff for years. It’s remarkable how ahead of the times he is, perhaps because he’s not beholden to an academic institution.

He claims that a “tree of life” is fallacious, that there is no junk DNA, and that the bare minimum genes necessary for a living cell still can’t be determined even after decades of research.

I hope that the authors of the new Extended Evolutionary Synthesis will admit the deficiency of outdated assumptions and reject dogmatic approaches to the theory, as implied by the author of the book reviewed in this article.

🤞🏼

Every five years the date of the earliest homo sapiens is pushed back five thousand years. They’ll be saying that homo sapiens were writing novels in 200,000 BC by the time I die.