Science & Technology News

[Eigenvector]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Be careful what you wish for .
https://youtu.be/RvRZogigTtQ

I'll take 1 pleasure models please.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XA9e...channel=TaliaM

[Pelagic]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Yes, I believe that's what people are saying; that some version of utilitarianism will drive the choices. My point is though, that:

#1. Based on actual human psychological research, few of us are purely utilitarian when it comes to hard choices. Even when we claim otherwise, when tested many of us make other real-life choices.

#2. If we embed autonomous vehicle (AV) algorithms with actual commonality standards of who is most important, we'd have to replicate the existing highly inequitable realities. If community standards are the guide, then rich white people would be prioritized over poor brown people. Men would be prioritized over women. And we'd always prioritize ourselves and those within our immediate group of family and friends over strangers.

Free societies do not codify this kind of inequity, but reality shows it is a fact. We like to pretend "all men are created equal," but actual community standards show this not how we treat people.

Ok, I'll try to break this down based on logic and present behaviour :
1. Transport is a utility and public transports are called Utility Vehicles


2. Rich and powerful always have more options and perks


3 If you take the example of commercial aircraft you have
First , Business and Budget classes with known differences in comfort and treatment.

4. Ironically , First Class seating near the front of the plane has a greater fatality rate in a crash landing than those further back.
But that was not a deciding factor in the marketing to the Rich. The utility of Comfort and Convienience, took priority.

So can we agree that there is an acceptable risk factor if comfort and prestige is marketed to the Rich?

In AVs, I anticipate that there will be different classes of comfort, quality and built in safety features. From public Busses to private use Fords, Volvos, Bentlys that are a call away.

In a democracy, I doubt that other than from intrinsic engineering qualities and again ironically via size and scantlings that favor the heavier budget Busses,
...there would be no self sacrificing software built into AVs that would ever be tolerated in AI piloting of these vehicles

[Ded reckoner]

Infectiousness after vaccination

An article was published investigating infectiousness after COVID-19 vaccination. It is pointed out, “The ideal vaccine is one that produces what is known as sterilizing immunity, which means that your immune system is able to stop a pathogen, including viruses, from replicating within your body. Not all vaccines achieve this standard. For example, the measles and rubella vaccines provide it. The hepatitis B vaccine does not.” In any case, it is difficult to conduct high quality experiments determining whether someone can still be infectious after vaccination. Nevertheless, there are some data available, including observations from the Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, and AstraZeneca vaccines. Preliminary “results are looking very promising.” And, “a SIREN (SARS-COV2 immunity and reinfection evaluation) report by Public Health England was preprinted online by the peer-reviewed Lancet medical journal that evaluated staff working in publicly funded hospitals in the UK…and found ‘strong evidence that vaccinating working-age adults will substantially reduce asymptomatic and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection and therefore reduce transmission of infection in the population.’” Finally, it was observed that viral load is reduced after vaccination which is compatible with lower infectiousness. Otherwise, it has been established that people testing positive for COVID-19 who are asymptomatic aren’t infectious.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

...there would be no self sacrificing software built into AVs that would ever be tolerated in AI piloting of these vehicles

And yet a utilitarian approach that maximizes life demands that self-sacrifice be part of the algorithm. From a utilitarian perspective (and as DH rightly states): "Obviously, all such vehicles should be programmed to sacrifice their own passengers if it saves more other people." And yet, when tested, few actually people make this kind of choice. In the real world, this kind of self-sacrifice is rare for total strangers.

As the one paper indicates, most people want others to have AV with self-sacrifice as a parameter. They agree it is the right choice ... but they don't want it for themselves.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Ded reckoner

Otherwise, it has been established that people testing positive for COVID-19 who are asymptomatic aren’t infectious.

No, that has not actually been established.

[geoleo]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Again, rarity is irrelevant. And it is clearly not straightforward, as your proposed solution illustrates perfectly.



Without attempting to drag this into a philosophical quagmire as to how one measures such a term, this perspective is merely one of many. I doubt you'd find agreement with this approach with even a small group of thinkers or policy makers.



If it's banal, why doesn't it already exist? Where in law does it state that when firemen rush into the burning building that they prioritize young over old, women over men? And how does one even begin to calculate Quality Life Years?

We all make these kinds of assessments in the moment, and few legal or ethical judges question those choices made by actual humans. But the ethical new world with autonomous non-human actors is that we must decide a-prior who lives and who dies. This forces us to explicitly value some humans over others.

We've been down this dark ethical road many times, and are still there in many ways. We do value certain lives over others. Are we to codify that the rich are more valuable, so should be prioritized by our autonomous vehicles over the poor? How about white over black? Again, society already does this. Certainly men over women...

Again, whose ethics?

I am truly surprised you are so quick to dismiss this obviously significant aspect of the whole autonomous vehicle development. And remember, I speak as one who believes they will be a net benefit for society.

peeps have way too much time on their hands

[Pelagic]

Quote Mike
"But the ethical new world with autonomous non-human actors is that we must decide a-prior who lives and who dies. This forces us to explicitly value some humans over others." Unquote

Mike, I think this is where your premise is weak and/or mistaken.

You are assuming that "we must decide a-prior who lives and who dies".

I do not see that as possible within the context of AV transportation failures.

By their very nature those are "usually" caused by latent defects supplimented by a series of random conditions leading to uncontrolable events.

Therefore ethically subjective outcomes cannot be predetermined.

We can only engineer and monotor via AI... mechanical systems and backups that fail safe.

The one exception is if there is evil intent to destroy via human or AI...... but that is another can of worms[emoji849]

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Pelagic

By their very nature those are "usually" caused by latent defects supplimented by a series of random conditions leading to uncontrolable events.

Yes... Or to put it in layman's terms, accidents will happen [emoji6].

We know this, so we also know we must account for them in AV algorithms. This will have to include some guidance on life valuation.

Or do you say we should program knothing? But choosing to do nothing is still a moral choice. Here we're allowing for the possibility of five to be killed when it could otherwise have been one.

With humans we live with this reality because we can't pre-program people*. Or more likely, we inherently recognize that not everyone agrees on the best-worst outcome in these no-win situations. But this is the fundamental difference with AV. We know these unusual events will occur.

*In a sense, this is what training does.

[Ded reckoner]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ded reckoner View Post
Otherwise, it has been established that people testing positive for COVID-19 who are asymptomatic aren’t infectious.

No, that has not actually been established.

Not only is it now an established fact that aymptomatic people who test positive for COVID-19 aren’t infectious, but this fact has been established in what is likely the highest quality, large scale study possible. The data were taken in Communnist China in the city of Wuhan. The candidate pool was ten million people. The data were collected under a totalitarian system that watches everyone’s actions, knows where you go, knows who you see, and knows when you do anything. Citizens have no rights recognized by the government, much less the right to opt out of the study. The article doesn’t get into the controlling state security apparatus, but, putting aside ethical considerations, it is reasonable to think the testing, contact tracing, and subsequent confinements represent the highest quality data. This was an important study with significant results that go a long way to informing someone of COVID-19 transmissability. One conclusion from the study is, “There were no positive tests amongst 1,174 close contacts of asymptomatic cases.” Do you have any objective evidence to the contrary, or do you take exception with their data collection, analysis, or conclusions?

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Ded reckoner

Not only is it now an established fact that aymptomatic people who test positive for COVID-19 aren’t infectious, but this fact has been established in what is likely the highest quality, large scale study possible. The data were taken in Communnist China in the city of Wuhan. The candidate pool was ten million people. The data were collected under a totalitarian system that watches everyone’s actions, knows where you go, knows who you see, and knows when you do anything. Citizens have no rights recognized by the government, much less the right to opt out of the study. The article doesn’t get into the controlling state security apparatus, but, putting aside ethical considerations, it is reasonable to think the testing, contact tracing, and subsequent confinements represent the highest quality data. This was an important study with significant results that go a long way to informing someone of COVID-19 transmissability. One conclusion from the study is, “There were no positive tests amongst 1,174 close contacts of asymptomatic cases.” Do you have any objective evidence to the contrary, or do you take exception with their data collection, analysis, or conclusions?

Yes.
L-E’s comment included a link, to supporting evidence , which [itself] contained links to [at least] 3 studies.
“The truth about COVID-19 and asymptomatic spread: It’s common, so wear a mask and avoid large gatherings"
Studies show that at least 40-to-50% of people who test positive for COVID-19 have no symptoms. Medical experts say asymptomatic spread clearly is contributing to fall spikes of COVID-19.
Here ➥ https://www.uchealth.org/today/the-t...d-of-covid-19/

[Ded reckoner]

L-E's reference is to an opinion piece that contains summary information from other studies. The author of that article did no original work. The stated opinion in the article, backed by no facts and uncoupled to the referenced studies, is that asymptomatic people testing positive for COVID-19 are infectious. The UCHealth article doesn't state it, but it is implied, that all referenced results were based on RT-PCR testing. There are no referenced links, so the quality of the studies, including their methodology and testing, is unknown. If PCR testing was done with high Ct counts, then it is no wonder there are false positive patients and these are asymptomatic. The referenced Duke University study of asymptomatic children testing positive indicated they had some viral load in their nasal area. There's no indication if viral load just was correlated by PCR testing or by some other, more reliable, means. And, it doesn't indicate if the viral load is high enough to be infectious. One point made in the JPost article was infectiousness is correlated with viral load, "THERE IS also another consideration when it comes to virus transmission, and that is viral load: How much virus can be measured in a patient, which will determine how much virus you are spreading into the air when you breathe or cough. The less virus you spread, the fewer people who are likely to contract the virus from you." The UCHealth article doesn't quantify the children's viral load. In any case, other studies indicate the viral loads carried by children don't cause infection, which explains why they are asymptomatic and can assemble closely together (as is normal), and yet infection rates are extremely low. It is an established fact that PCR testing by itself is insufficient to determine if someone is infected with COVID-19 and high thermal Ct counts, as recommended by the WHO, make for invalid data. On the other hand, the Wuhan study validated their conclusions with the soundest methodology, "Virus cultures were negative for all asymptomatic positive and repositive cases, indicating no “viable virus” in positive cases detected in this study." Not all studies are of the same quality. Conclusions reached in high quality studies, such as the Wuhan study, are based on methodologies by which scientific and technical facts can be ascertained. That is why there can be high confidence stating it is now an established fact that asymptomatic people who test positive for COVID-19 aren't infectious. If you're symptomatic, then that's a different story.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Ded reckoner

Not all studies are of the same quality.

No kidding. And it's always problematic when an untrained layperson finds ONE study that they agree with, and they reject all others. That's why it's important that there's some sort of credible expert oversight and leadership, especially when it comes to sifting through all the available information to produce coherent public explanations and guidance.

Everyone needs to keep in mind that there are two sorts of problematic spreaders: asymptomatic, and presymptomatic.

Asymptomatic: they catch COVID-19 but do not fall ill, with any of the characteristic symptoms. They may never know that they "had" it. Yet they can still spread it; there's virus in their exhalations etc.

Presymptomatic: they catch COVID-19, but there's a lag of a few days before they develop symptoms, yet they are still capable of spreading virus in that early stage.

Question: how do we tell the difference between an asymptomatic case and a presymptomatic case? Answer - we can't.

It seems likely that an asymptomatic person is less of a spread risk than one with actual symptoms... but the symptomatic person is supposed to stay the F home and isolate til they're well again. so not normally a vector of public transmission.

When do infected people transmit the virus?

Whether or not they have symptoms, infected people can be contagious and the virus can spread from them to other people.

Laboratory data suggests that infected people appear to be most infectious just before they develop symptoms (namely 2 days before they develop symptoms) and early in their illness. People who develop severe disease can be infectious for longer.

While someone who never develops symptoms can pass the virus to others, it is still not clear how frequently this occurs and more research is needed in this area.

[AKA-None]

So does any of this mean that Central American peoples didn’t get smallpox from European sailors 500 years ago?

[GordMay]

Glow-in-the-dark sharks

Scientists have found three species of sharks, living in the deep waters off the east coast of New Zealand, that glow in the dark.

Many marine animals can produce light, through a process known as bioluminesce, but this is the first time that the phenomenon has been observed in the kitefin shark ( Dalatias licha), the blackbelly lanternshark ( Etmopterus lucifer) and the southern lanternshark ( Etmopterus granulosus).

At a length of up to 180 centimetres, the kitefin is the biggest luminous vertebrate known.

The glowing underbellies could camouflage the sharks from predators from below, disguise them when approaching prey or help to illuminate the dark ocean floor.
The sharks all live in what is known as the mesopelagic, or “twilight” zone of the ocean, between 200 and 1,000 metres deep, beyond which sunlight does not penetrate. Seen from below, the sharks appear backlit against the bright surface of the water, leaving them exposed to potential predators, without any place to hide.

In the case of the kitefin shark, which has few or no predators, it is possible that the slow-moving species uses its natural glow to illuminate the ocean floor while it searches for food, or to disguise itself while approaching its prey.

“Bioluminescence of the Largest Luminous Vertebrate, the Kitefin Shark, Dalatias licha: First Insights and Comparative Aspects” ~ by Jérôme Mallefet et al
➥ https://www.frontiersin.org/articles...0eb16-45020405

[GordMay]

Electric versus gasoline vehicles — which creates more waste?
If reducing carbon emissions is a priority, then the rising interest in electric vehicles (EVs) would seem like a positive trend. Not only are they zero-emissions, but according to a new report [1] by the European Federation for Transport & Environment (T&E), they also produce significantly less waste.

Key findings:

- Electric vehicles consume far less raw material (metals) than fossil fueled cars
When taking into account the recycling of the battery cell materials and that the majority of the metal content is recovered, T&E calculates how much is ‘consumed’ or ‘lost’ during the lifetime of an EV. Under the EU’s current recycling recovery rate target, around 30 kilograms of metals would be lost (i.e. not recovered). That's about the size of a football.
In contrast, the study shows that the weight of petrol or diesel that is burned during the average lifetime of a vehicle is around 300-400 times more than the total quantity of battery cells metals ‘lost’. Over its lifetime, an average ICE car burns close to 17,000 liters of petrol, which would be equivalent to a stack of oil barrels 90m high.

- Less raw material will be needed for batteries over time
Technological advancements will drive down the amount of lithium required to make an EV battery by half over the next decade. The amount of cobalt required will drop by more than three-quarters and nickel by around a fifth.

- Europe will need to import less raw material because of recycling
In 2035 over a fifth of the lithium and nickel, and 65% of the cobalt, needed to make a new battery could come from recycling.

- Europe will likely produce enough batteries to supply its own EV market as early as 2021
T&E calculates that there will be 460 GWh (in 2025) and 700 GWh (2030) of battery production in Europe - enough to meet the demand of electric cars.

“Batteries vs oil: A comparison of raw material needs”
About [summary] ➥ https://www.transportenvironment.org...material-needs


The T&E Report
[1] “From dirty oil to clean batteries” ➥ https://www.transportenvironment.org...port_final.pdf