Interesting point - I think the Ted Chiang novella 'The Lifecycle of Software Objects' also include AI pets that develop to the point that they start asking their owners that they be incorporated so they may be given basic rights.
It might seem a bit exaggerated, but I'd expect that's because he's comparing it to growing up in a generic suburb where going on simple errands likely requires a car, and anything other than rows of similar looking houses can be miles away. So, the pastry shop on the corner/ supermarket down the street that the author mentioned are likely inaccessible to those in their childhood days.
That might not immediately seem so bad, but imagine that you didn't own a car (due to being too young or too poor). Then, suburban life may start to feel positively suffocating.
I see what you're saying, but the oddness may feel apparent even to those growing up in suburbia. I can distinctly remember watching miles and miles of suburban settlements sprawl out from where I grew up and telling a friend that I felt like I was in the book 'The Giver,' which included a barren and (literally and figuratively) color-less landscape filled with occasional identical towns. This was exacerbated by the fact that quickly-developed cities had roads in perfect grid systems and public buildings/schools that adopted the same architectural styles. During travel sports season one could get on a bus, take a nap, and wake up in a town completely indistinguishable from the last...
Furthermore, there is a distinct lack of independence for teens who can't drive - the nearest non-residential building can be more than a mile away. Even if you can drive, the popular destinations for errands are big-brands like starbucks, walmart, and CVS. Public transport is practically nonexistant.
This is obviously anecdotal and I think you make a good point, but it should still be considered that being familiar with American suburbia does not mean that it's impersonal and almost surreal nature is invisible to those who grew up there.
I met Dr. Murphy through a mutual friend in 2018, and attended a presentation that he gave about his prTMS treatment. I thought it was a bit odd that someone who had a radiology / oncology background would be pushing TMS, and was very disappointed by the rigor of his presentation. I wish I had the slides to show, but it appeared to be something out of a pop science article, and lacked much scientific background other than a sort of 'drugs are harsh and non-specified, but I have a personalized treatment that works much better.'
This set off the crank alarm for me, which got even louder when he made claims about it being a sort of cure-all for psychiatric and even non-psychiatric problems (depression, PTSD, anxiety, concussion recovery, and even cognitive performance). Furthermore, he appeared to lack a technical or mathematical understanding of the technology itself, using only vague analogies about aligning the frequencies of different parts of the brain and whatnot. However, I'm not the one with titles and prestigious academic positions, so my complaints about his lack of evidence weren't taken too seriously.
I asked him direct questions, but he didn't answer much other than that his brother, a chiropractor, had helped him write the software for prTMS and designed the protocol (which I thought was very odd). Furthermore, he described prTMS as TMS-like treatment that was based on EEG readings and supposedly personalized, but given at a fraction of the intensity of usual TMS treatment (which made me skeptical that it would work).
I'm surprised that he was able to attract so many big-name patients and supporters - which included the Notre Dame University football team too. And, given that his lofty claims about prTMS are completely unsupported by research, I'm not surprised that it has reached the public eye.
Some of what was discussed in the article was news to me ($10 million in funds he said was for him, claims about Newport's surveillance, etc) However, none of it was surprising. He appears to have a history of disputes with his partners and employees (including at other offices that offered prTMS not mentioned in the article) and Notre Dame (he 'treated' their football team). It's a bit ridiculous to hear him claim that people's lawsuits and complaints are simply a result of jealousy and malicious behavior, considering his history of deceit.
The article mentions that, if you are not free to go, then the police must read you your Miranda rights. This appears to be a common understanding as well.
- they don't have to Mirandize you even if arrested or detained. If they don't, your answers and evidence based on them will probably be inadmissible, if your lawyer is not an incompetent boob.
- they don't have to Mirandize you at all with no penalty unless you are detained or arrested. If you are "free to go", for example if asked a question at a traffic stop, Miranda is irrelevant. What you say will always be used against you.
- always, in all circumstances, assume that your statements WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU.
- At a traffic stop, you say "here is my license and registration" and "please, thank you, have a nice day". NOTHING else, which is quite a bit harder to do than it sounds.
When in an adversarial position with the police, it's best to remember that it is literally not their job to be helping you. It's not their job to be "fair" or to be your ally. They are ALLOWED TO LIE to your face, and might do so.
But the rest of the time, which is most of it, they are your ally. You will know which time is which - act accordingly. In all cases, respect is wise, is warranted, and is well deserved. Remember the number of our friends in blue who have died because of some bad person. And note that until they understand you, they may quite reasonably assume you are one. Don't be an A-hole and prove it to them. Don't lie, it would be obvious, suspicious, and insulting. Just say nothing or shrug. Don't be a dick and try to argue - save that for the courtroom which is when it is appropriate.
But you still don't ever have to say things like "Gee I thought I was only doing 80" or "I didn't see that guy, he musta came outa nowhere"...
I was surprised too, but it appears that the post has negatives votes, so I take it that it wasn't quite rational enough for the rest of the community.
"Gore Vidal, who’s had his dick sucked more than a few times and been taken to task for it, has written far more persuasively that the novel as an art-form has become a cultural irrelevance, but you don’t hear him whingeing about ‘artistic invalidation’."
It's not too often that I see words like 'tentacular' and 'bathos' in the same article as phrases about metaphorical dick-sucking (see above).
More seriously, I've been getting more into literature and literary critique recently, and am a bit surprised about how personally affronted he seems by the book - is this sort of reaction common in literary criticism?
The problem with any big book is that, at the end, the author has you over a barrel: either you loved it and the author is a genius, or you hated it and you are a sucker. Lots of people claim to love long, ponderous books just to avoid being the sucker or for fear of appearing unsophisticated.
I prefer great authors who were serialized, e.g. dostoevsky. The works are brilliant, but the individual chapters read well, so you rarely feel like you have to just slog through the damned thing.
> The problem with any big book is that, at the end, the author has you over a barrel: either you loved it and the author is a genius, or you hated it and you are a sucker. Lots of people claim to love long, ponderous books just to avoid being the sucker or for fear of appearing unsophisticated.
I think this all the time. If you've made a huge commitment to something that turned out to be worthless, it's tough to admit that to yourself and others. So I'm a bit more skeptical when I hear positive reviews of long books, colleges, investors, religions, marriage, having kids, etc.
The massive belief in the curative power of science for all ills is what I find so alluring in the early 20th century posters. They're engaging to me because there's an inherent optimism in many of them!
I know it's the way they talked and thought back then, but so much emphasis on Men of Science, with emphasis on Manliness in those ads. "Men who think", etc. Pretty jarring for recent times.
