I think that is, in part, because it's a summary of a talk. So it's written a bit awkwardly and probably misses maybe some more interesting in-depth details from the actual talk. It does seem on the surface though like potentially a good text summary, having not watched the actual talk.
On the flip side, I have been frustrated particularly at linux.conf.au last year at how "not deep" many of the talks were. Having done quite a few talks over many years at similar conferences, it's actually quite hard to nail something technical and be entertaining for a presentation at the same time. Someone who nails that quite consistently is Aaron Paterson (from the Ruby/Rails world). Watch some of his talks on Youtube.. I aspire to produce more content on a level similar to his. To combine good entertaining presentation with actually educating an audience about the technical non-obvious details of something they probably didn't know -- and something that was relevant in a practical project he took on. Working on it, not there yet...
The problem with this kind of legislation is that it is unsustainable. The complexity and rate of emergence of digital markets will easily outstrip the governments ability to regulate them over the coming years. Of course, (slow) regulation like this will be disregarded by the community and progress will continue. It's possible that the rate of growth and profitability inherent to these markets will enable the market-builders to re-write government before government can write software to enable effective regulation.
That's exactly what I was going to say - the "hand drawn" diagram on the right is better looking, but the left hand is far more accessible and arguably have more utility.
MyScript offers an API that does this. You need to feed it all the motions/sequence of points that make up the shape (known as "online OCR"), it won't work with a static document.
Intellectual Humility doesn't go far enough. The goal should be to reap knowledge from all sources and to disassociate the emotional and intellectual self from that knowledge set.
I believe that the primary issue is the formation of heuristics about knowledge sources. e.g. Person B provides person A with knowledge of class "low-value in domain D" N times and knowledge of class "higher-value in domain D" K times in some time period T. At some time T_n A internalizes a heuristic about Person B's overall knowledge set. Depending on internal characteristics of A, all subsequent knowledge expressed by B may be ignored.
This is problematic. Not only does A ignore that the difference set of A and B's knowledge (even in D) is likely nonzero, it effectively assumes that A's knowledge is a superset of B, and that A's rate of knowledge aquisition is greater than that of B for all T. It ignores that A and B are dynamical systems.
In my opinion, formation of these kinds of heuristics and being dismissive of knowledge is a sign of intellectual weakness. It's akin to internalizing knowledge to the point of belief and belief is bounding.
>> ...all subsequent knowledge expressed by B may be ignored.
Given that we're human with a finite amount of time and attention at our disposal, it strikes me as intuitively sensible that we tend towards (but never firmly settling on) this outcome, especially where instances of N >> K...a sort of "survival of the fittest" feedback loop, if you will. I think Johnny Lee's analogy framed in the context of the user experience[1] is applicable here.
>> ...it effectively assumes that A's knowledge is a superset of B, and that A's rate of knowledge aquisition is greater than that of B for all T.
Sounds like narcissism. Surely we can have our pragmatic feedback loop without deteriorating into such a state.
This might be intuitive if A weighted each N of some class equally, and N>>Kevin for each _class_, but observation indicates this is not the case. Also certain N tend to be overweighted regardless of the knowledge class to which they belong.
IRL I have observed that B can work around A's bias by framing knowledge expressed as a question.
> Sounds like narcissism.
I think this is a common bias with implications in the "machine consciousness" question, but I'll have to wait ton finish that point. Look for an edit.
> The goal should be to reap knowledge from all sources and to disassociate the emotional and intellectual self from that knowledge set.
this is absurd, in my opinion. do you honestly believe that dissociation from emotions is actually possible in most people? emotional dissociation is a psychiatric disorder.
can I suggest an alternative approach that is less dehumanizing? The goal should be to promote positive emotions and a sense of personal confidence when acquiring and verifying knowledge is accomplished. in most social situations this is not rewarded at all. in-group conformity is the most readily rewarded experience. a shift towards providing encouragement and emotional support for knowledge verification seems like a healthier response than emotional dissociation.
