Jump to content

Erik of Hazelfield

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Erik of Hazelfield

  • Rank
    Council Member
  • Birthday 02/09/1984

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    The North

Recent Profile Visitors

5,145 profile views
  1. Erik of Hazelfield

    A question to capitalists; how much should we fear AI?

    I'll have to disagree on this one. It's a super hypothetical scenario which has little to no basis in reality. We're talking about a situation where something sudden happens, like a kid runs over the road or something, and the car CAN steer, just not well enough to avoid hitting the kid, unless it hits a grandma instead or topples the car over, risking the life of its passengers... I place this dilemma in the same category as the old railroad cart question - useful as an ethical gedankenexperiment, but not a scenario anyone is likely to ever face. There are tons of ethical issues around self driving cars that are real and will happen. Can you trust your life to a machine? Is it worse to be killed by a faulty computer than by a human that made a mistake? Can you accept just a little lower number of accidents than today or does it have to be a factor of ten or more better than for human drivers before you allow computer drivers? At which point, if ever, do we forbid human drivers altogether? And so on, and so forth. I feel that the question of "who should the car kill" has gotten far too much attention and distracts from the real issues.
  2. Erik of Hazelfield

    New Forum Census

    I'm from Sweden. Have lived in Stockholm nearly all my life.
  3. Erik of Hazelfield

    UK politics: The tale of an old (Ber)crow who flew down from the cuckoo's nest...

    I can sort of understand the issue some MPs have with the backstop: that the EU unilaterally can decide (please correct me if I'm wrong) when the UK has solved the border issue to a sufficient degree that the backstop can be dropped. If you don't trust the EU, then this is a huge problem. Even if the UK comes up with a super unicorn invisible wall which allows for customs checks without a physical border, the EU can simply say "nah, not good enough" and keep the UK in the backstop indefinitely. My proposed solution would be for both sides to agree on the requirements for such a solution, and then bind themselves to accept that the issue will be settled by a neutral arbitration court. That way the EU cannot refuse the UK to leave the backstop as long as the border solution is objectively acceptable.
  4. Erik of Hazelfield

    A question to capitalists; how much should we fear AI?

    I definitely think a general decrease of working hours is a credible way forward. It's already being done in a few highly skilled jobs to attract top talent without increasing wages. Turns out for a creative job like software development you don't actually lose that much by reducing the number of hours worked per day - productivity tends to go down towards the end of the day anyway. This will if course not work for all jobs. The problem is that businesses are competing on a global market and if they suddenly have to pay their workers the same for less worked hours, they might well take their business elsewhere. Also if you try to reduce the working hours for teachers, police officers, nurses and other publicly financed jobs, taxes will need to rise in order to support that. Even if the increased productivity should offset that, there is still the question of how we can capture and make use of that increase for the greater good. Solidarity between states is one thing that we should start working on. For instance what we see in the US where states bid under each other with tax exemptions and other deals to secure investments like a new car factory - it shouldn't have to be like that. Other examples include ships that are flagged in the Bahamas, factories run in China with minimal worker and environmental protection policies or even company headquarters located in the Netherlands in order to minimize taxes. If companies can make use of those loopholes, they will. I think future trade deals should focus on regulating the market to avoid this race to the bottom.
  5. Erik of Hazelfield

    Careerchat III

    I think that when companies write some standard stuff like "we are always interested in new talent so please send in your résumé" etc they sometimes actually mean it. The reason is that recruiting good people is hard. If during a recruitment process they find a great candidate that cannot come now but maybe later, or someone who would be perfect for another position that isn't open right now, they are happy to hold on to that contact. The next recruitment could be significantly simplified if they already have a person in mind. So her spending 30 minutes on a candidate she knew wasn't an option for this position could very well be an honest attempt to find good people for future recruitments. I would absolutely contact her again after finishing your degree (or maybe even when you're getting close). Nothing to lose and she'll probably be glad you're still interested.
  6. Erik of Hazelfield

    A question to capitalists; how much should we fear AI?

    AI is still nowhere near human level as far as I've seen. They've been talking about it forever but nothing ever happens. Maybe that's the way things go with exponential progress though. Nothing, nothing, then everything. Who knows? What I do see happening in the next 10 years is self driving cars, buses and trucks. That's not a small thing - the workforce employed in driving those vehicles is enormous, and I don't think they can get new jobs that easily. The old idea that the mundane and repetitive jobs taken over by machines will be replaced by new and more highly skilled jobs simply won't be true in this case. What demand is there for millions of people (mostly male) with a low education level and whose only experience is in a field that doesn't exist anymore? So right now is actually a pretty good time to start thinking about these issues. Basic income is an idea floated every now and then. I'm not entirely against it although I'm not sure it's politically possible. It tends to lead to absurd consequences when it comes to comparison between basic income and low wage jobs. You can't have the basic income be too low or people wouldn't be able to survive on it, but on the other hand you can't raise it too much or no one would want to work unless the pay was really good or the job really fun. Apart from the impacts on jobs, I definitely see the problem of a few AI owners raking in all the money without even having to pay any employees. That's the stuff of dystopian sci-fi novels right there.
  7. Erik of Hazelfield

    UK politics: The tale of an old (Ber)crow who flew down from the cuckoo's nest...

    I don't think I saw this posted: http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2019/01/15/gaming-a-three-way-people-s-vote It's a piece on how the ballot design and chosen system would affect a second People's Vote. Very interesting. It's really not obvious how to do this in the most fair and legitimate way.
  8. Erik of Hazelfield

    UK politics: The tale of an old (Ber)crow who flew down from the cuckoo's nest...

    Yes. This kind of feels like the intro to the first world war in that lots of people saw what was about to happen, no one wanted it to happen, yet no one could prevent it from happening.
  9. Erik of Hazelfield

    Exercise and Fitness: bro science debunked

    Dealing with hunger has always been my biggest problem as well, and I recognise the problem of being hungry after dinner. For me cheating helps some. That is, drinking diet coke or similar stuff to satisfy my craving for sweetness. Protein bars are also a life saver. I find I can use them as a late night snack instead of ice cream or cookies. The extra protein and chewy, "heavy" nature they have reduces the hunger feelings for me, plus I think they're pretty tasty. Also planning my meals and sleep so that I don't have loads of time after dinner helps. If I eat at six and go to bed at eleven that's five hours of fasting. Of course I'll get hungry then. It can be better to, say, eat a (healthy) snack at 5:30, have dinner at 8, another snack at 9:30 and then go to bed at 10:30. If you (or anyone else for that matter) have any other tips on how to combat hunger during a diet I'd love to hear them.
  10. Erik of Hazelfield

    UK Politics: Deal, or No Deal. To May and Beyond.

    Interesting feedback! I can definitely buy DaveSumm's argument about splitting the Remain vote as well. No matter how you set it up, it will give an advantage to either side. While I will readily admit that my solution isn't perfect, I do stand by the opinion that the 2016 vote was completely unfair in that it lumped a bunch of options together that were mutually incompatible. Some saw a Hard Brexit but with no idea what that meant with regards to e.g. Northern Ireland, some envisioned blue unicorns, others saw red unicorns. Many probably just wanted to get rid of all the Muslims, no matter how little sense that made. Certainly very few people saw, much less voted for, a Brexit resembling anything like May's deal. Yet this is what the UK is likely ending up with - or worse. (To be clear, I'm not British but from Sweden. I'm mostly in here to forget about our own incompetent, scheming politicians that have so far failed to form a government 4 months and counting after the election.)
  11. Erik of Hazelfield

    UK Politics: Deal, or No Deal. To May and Beyond.

    As I said - that's unfair, because it lumps together multiple options that aren't remotely similar. It'd be like first having a general election "for or against Tories" and then, if the Tories lose, an election "Labour or UKIP". You'd effectively eliminate the Tories' chances to win even if they were the most popular party. Every kind of future relationship with the EU - should it be May's deal, Norway, Canada, No deal or something else - should compete on its own terms. Remain is just one of them. It makes no sense to first pit Remain against all the others combined, and then vote between the remaining options. Chances are quite high that whatever deal wins such a vote will be less popular than Remain would have been.
  12. Erik of Hazelfield

    UK Politics: Deal, or No Deal. To May and Beyond.

    Here's my take on a second referendum: We have two different Leave options - May's deal and no deal. All others are impossible unicorns, be they blue or red ones. Lies, if you will. Therefore there should be 3 options on the ballot for a second referendum - May's deal, No deal and Remain . Of course the brexiters will cry foul, saying it's just a way to split the Brexit vote and ensure a Remain win, but is it really that unfair? After all you could equally easily claim that the 2016 vote was unfairly set up in Brexit's favour, because the Brexit option contained any possible and impossible deal you could ever think of. It was like a presidential election where you could only choose to vote either for the sitting president or for "some other person". To lessen the legitimacy of any accusations of foul play in a 3 option vote, you could have a second round like they do in many presidential elections around the world. The two top options would go to the final round, so that you won't have to worry about wasting your vote in the first run. Then we'd have either No deal vs Remain, May's deal vs Remain, or No deal vs May's deal. In addition to being more fair, this type of referendum would also have the benefit of getting a result that actually means something.
  13. Erik of Hazelfield

    UK Politics: Deal, or No Deal. To May and Beyond.

    I agree that there is a problem with holding referendums until you get the result you want. However, it's also a problem if you can never hold another referendum. General elections to the house of commons are held every five years if I understand correctly. As late as 2017 the prime minister called a new general election precisely because she wasn't happy with the result of the last one. This was well within her right to do and hardly an affront to democracy, even though the new results didn't exactly play out the way she wanted. The problem with an issue like EU membership is that it's such a huge deal that you can't change your mind all the time. Going in and out every five years would probably kill the economy even worse than a no deal scenario. So which would be the proper way of handling this kind of question? New referendum now? Deliver Brexit and hold another referendum in five years of when we know how it went? Keep the 2016 results and never hold another referendum? Calling any one of the options an affront to democracy while pushing for another seems pretty dishonest to me, because they all have problems, to put it mildly.
  14. Erik of Hazelfield

    Exercise and Fitness: bro science debunked

    I'm doing a serious calorie count diet for the first time in my life. I gained almost 7 kg (15 lbs) last year, which I'm not really ashamed of - I needed those ice creams and beers to get me through a tough time in my life - but now I really want to get fit again. Weighing in at 90 kg (198 lbs) and doing a decent amount of exercise I've calculated that 2500 kcal/day should be enough to lose about 0.5 kg or 1 lb per week. I weigh myself once a week and tomorrow will be the first time since I started, so that'll be exciting. If I don't lose any weight this time around I'll simply reduce the calories a bit further. The goal is to get down to somewhere around 82 kg (181 lbs). I used to weigh that 12 years ago when I was the most fit, so it seems like a good goal. In addition to restricting the calories I try to keep up the protein intake (counting grams) and do a lot of weight lifting to avoid losing too much muscle. In some odd way I think it's kind of fun so far, and I'm learning a lot along the way.
  15. Erik of Hazelfield

    Dating - I love the way you swipe

    Wow. That sounds like a really horrible evening. I'm sorry for you, and for her. In what way was he unpleasant company? Was it mostly because it was hard for you seeing her with him, or because the two of them ignored everyone else, or was he simply unpleasant in his own right?