The Silk Road was designed and marketed explicitly towards criminals to facilitate crime and AFAIK had practically no other uses. So, it's not a reasonable comparison.
No it doesn't. If you set up PGP or SSL you'll be able to encrypt things and might even misuse this capability for crime, but you won't have installed a platform where crime is openly advertised.
I like Telegram, a lot, but if you're ignoring the fact that large parts of it openly function as a mall for criminal services (and it's 100x easier to find that stuff than via Tor, for example) you're not being honest with yourself. A lot of people here are just reflexively assuming its mean cops vs encryption because that's an issue tehy personally care about, and ignoring any other context.
> If the average user is fine with their data being sold in exchange for a service, then why not let them?
But they are not okay with it. I understand why Corporations like to insinuate that people who click OK to twenty pages of legalese in an EULA really are okay with whatever clauses in it, but in reality this practice is an abuse of contract law and exploiting asymmetric power relations. In theory, a potential customer could print EULAs out, suggest changes, and send back the revised contract for approval or further negotiation. In practice, nobody ever does that and corporations would freak out if it happened on a large scale.
The problem does not just occur with new big tech. Banks have been doing the same for decades. I recently put some money on a savings account and was greeted with pages and pages of fine print that literally only a lawyer can understand. Normally, nobody in their right mind would accept this. However, the bank serves as a utility, changing banks is very difficult where I live and they all have the same kind of contracts in their favor. There is no alternative. The same is true for social networks and other big tech. It's not really a free choice for a small business owner to have a Facebook account or for a self-published author to put their books on Amazon, for instance.
That's why strong regulations, good customer protection and privacy laws are needed.
That's in my opinion what reliable / unrealiable mean in this context.
reliable = it either succeeds or you get an error after some time, unreliable = it may or may not succeed
I concur with the people who think "best effort" is not a good term. But perhaps TCP streams are not reliable enough for TCP to be rightly called a reliable stream protocol. As it turned out, it's not really possible to use TCP without a control channel, message chunking, and similar mechanisms for transmitting arbitrary large files. If it really offered reliable streams that would its primary use case.
Science might have some problems but these are nothing in comparison to philosophy. That's what I think after 16 years of working in the discipline. To quote one of my colleagues, who made a great career: "Who cares if it's wrong, it's another publication!" I'll be happy to leave when my current contract runs out.
This is really more a problem with our University system and how academics gain prestige though publication. The more you publish the better for your career and this applies to many fields, not just Philosophy. The reduction of tenure positions also plays into this as it ramps up the competitive aspect. Actually doing anything that makes a real contribution to your field is of little consequences.
Did you weight your measurement by magnitude of influence (including negative reactions from "non-fans", to both science itself but also scientism, and the behavior of science's fan base) they each have in the world?
Some people think science has a proper lane, and that it (and those who speak on its behalf, cheerlead for it, etc) should stick to it in a more disciplined manner.
These bombs are launched from planes. Patriot missiles can take down those planes but need to be very close to the frontline and therefore are vulnerable. Ukraine lost part of a Patriot system at the Eastern front that way. AFAIK, fighter jets are commonly regarded as the better solution to that particular problem, though these are in turn vulnerable to enemy AA, of course.
Intentionally targeting civilian areas with those bombs is a war crime. Ukraine avoids committing war crimes, Russia has committed many of them. There will be charges against Russia. There is even some evidence that Russia commits genocide: forced kidnapping of children, forced reeducation, some ethnic cleansing with deportations (though not very systematic), mass killings of civilians, and public speeches by government officials who deny Ukraine a right to exist and therefore can serve as proof of intent.
I believe that computationalism is by far the best foundational explanation of higher cognitive phenomena, as all other explanations involve some unscientific form of mysticism at one point or another. From this perspective, the answer to the question in the paper's headline is trivially true. Computationalism implies multiple realizability.
It's worth noting that computationalism is independent from physicalism and monist materialism in general. It's not surprising that it's always paired with physicalism, but IMHO it's also the best foundational explanation for dualists.
Science and math should always be the default hypothesis. It's irrational for people to jump to mysticism which is basically another form of god-of-the-gaps.
