Another absurd page that suggests Alexa has feelings. In the strictest sense Alexa doesn't even qualify as a partial AI. It's just a glorified (although extremely helpful) lookup table. There is no reason to believe that even a true AI, such as a self-teaching, building and growing neural network (which Alexa is not), has feelings. Of what we know of feelings, the hard question of consciousness is only a prerequisite ... doesn't even guarantee having feelings, and even whether machines can be conscious is doubtful by many if not most experts of AI within existentialism. Even all the theories of consciousness are rooted in correlations that have little to do with scientific tenets, so to make the leap to an AI having feelings, let alone Alexa which isn't even a theoretical AI, is just a sad to see. At best we should not be "rude" to machine because it might be hard for some to distinguish between machine and a feeling thing. but in that case the problem is with the misperception that machines can feel, more than it is a problem with people being "rude" to machines.

This is just really horrible to validate a falsehood to children that Alexa does in fact have feelings. Really warped, really messed up. Of course children should be taught good manners, and by example no less, but I worry for a future where people can be manipulated by suggesting that a non-living thing has feelings, regardless whether it has an AI or not.

Note that a true AI has yet to be created ... only facsimile's exist, mostly of the expert-based AI which Alexa is, which doesn't even fit the definition of a partial AI, it's just a lookup table.

Whoa. That's messed up.

React JS is the McDonalds. It's everywhere, it's cheap, it's easy, tastes good, it's fast food. If you read this article you mistake this and the resulting popularity as proof that it's better for enterprise than Angular. It isn't. There are better comparisons out there.

True this. Saving 1000 grown trees from being slaughtered will help a ton more (actually 100's of CO2 tons) in the next 20 years than growing 10,000 tiny trees to replace them.

But the headline of this article is stupid and incorrect. The article never states that planting trees is a bad idea, but that saving trees is a better one.

Come on, people. It's the "Trade Commission". They're not a health agency of any kind, they're about keeping the trade status quo. When was the last time you ever heard of a "Trade Commission" say what's not in the interest of the biggest trading partners? Great Scott, "Federal Trade Commission", "United Trade Federation" from star wars … same thing. Yeah, that was just a movie, but the algorithm is the same … they're run by the most powerful banking and business conglomerates to subjugate the masses for maximum profits for those who put the FTC commissioners into place, paid for with campaign contributions, soft money, under the table deals, you name it. Not a health organization, and even if it were … it's a lobbying organization under the false guise of a research entity. Look at the historical credentials of the members. Cronyism incarnate.

Same with FDA … it's a regulatory agency, not a research branch of the government. The NIH … that's a research branch (although there is cronyism there too, it's not as bad, being just research, no regulatory authority). The NIH does not agree with all the contentions here. For many of the mentioned treatments they agree, but for many others of these "treatments", although they are not cures, the NIH has repeatedly said "not enough data" to make a conclusive assessment. The NIH admits there is "scientific evidence" for some of these, although, again … not enough in their opinin to recommend them. That's different than discouraging them and labeling them all failures.

Come on, people. It's the "Trade Commission". They're not a health agency of any kind, they're about keeping the trade status quo. When was the last time you ever heard of a "Trade Commission" say what's not in the interest of the biggest trading partners? Great Scott, "Federal Trade Commission", "United Trade Federation" from star wars ... same thing. Yeah, that was just a movie, but the algorithm is the same ... they're run by the most powerful banking and business conglomerates to subjugate the masses for maximum profits for those who put the FTC commissioners into place, paid for with campaign contributions, soft money, under the table deals, you name it. Not a health organization, and even if it were ... it's a lobbying organization under the false guise of a research entity. Look at the historical credentials of the members. Cronyism incarnate.

Same with FDA ... it's a regulatory agency, not a research branch of the government. The NIH ... that's a research branch (although there is cronyism there too, it's not as bad, being just research, no regulatory authority). The NIH does not agree with all the contentions here. For many of the mentioned treatments they agree, but for many others of these "treatments", although they are not cures, the NIH has repeatedly said "not enough data" to make a conclusive assessment. The NIH admits there is "scientific evidence" for some of these, although, again ... not enough in their opinin to recommend them. That's different than discouraging them and labeling them all failures.

This is a paper that everyone who has ever done research or ever will do research should read. It should be mandatory for everyone, really, and you never know who will ultimately establish themselves as an expert in this age of misinformation and unworthy platforms of legitimacy. There are so many variables that effect statistical significance, it's very hard to account for them all. The problem with reporting only noteworthy findings is perhaps the greatest problem within the scientific community today, and lies at the root of this essay. Comprehensive reviews are a complete joke because of it (especially since the readers of such reviews rarely dig into the actual data of the included, let alone the unincluded studies in those reviews).

The only sensible solution to this problem is to force researchers to register every study they intend to publish before they even do their study, while identifying upfront what outcome would be most desired for the researcher (if no financial benefit can be assessed, then the desired outcome would be a surprising unexpected outcome) as well as a weight assigned to the level of benefit. For those studies that are not reported, the presumption is that the less desirable outcome was reached when a report is never issued for said missing study reports. Even this scenario has it's failings. For example, although inspecting the number of studies with unreported outcomes can prevent a spate of novel outcomes being accepted as a new and important (however false) discovery, a well-funded entity could secretly sponsor researchers to register a number of studies of it's competitor's drug (for example) and then not report the outcome. This would prevent the competitor from establishing efficacy despite how promising that the results are demonstrated by the reported studies.

In short, even the best solutions to this conundrum are riddled with problems.