There are large numbers, and then there are even larger numbers.
Academic research is roughly $100 billion a year in the US. A foundation with $2 trillion could support that indefinitely with the required 5% minimum distributions. By today's numbers, the seven richest Americans could fund that.
I don't know worldwide numbers, but 4x the US is usually a good rule of thumb. You would probably need the 100–150 richest people to support all academic research worldwide.
> By today's numbers, the seven richest Americans could fund that.
Yes, they could, by paying their taxes.
But we’ve all seen that they really don’t want to share any of their wealth for any purpose, other than propping up a geriatric orange clown that campaigned on lowering their taxes.
PS: I said their taxes, not yours. Yours are going up, they’re just called tariffs, but that’s a tax: tariffs are your money getting collected by the government.
All laws are inherently vague. Some actions are clearly legal and some are clearly illegal. Between them, there is a gray zone, where it can be impossible to say in advance what's legal and what isn't.
If you are an amoral profit maximizer, like the average publicly traded company, it's often rational to take risks by entering the gray zone. Sometimes nobody cares that you do that. Sometimes you manage to get a favorable court ruling. And sometimes the expected gains outweigh the eventual fines.
It's almost always easy to comply with the laws by playing it safe. But shareholders don't like that.
"Existing outside of the traditional publisher system, a game crafted and released by developers who are not owned or financially controlled by a major AAA/AA publisher or corporation, allowing them to create in an unrestricted environment and fully swing for the fences in realizing their vision."
In other words, "indie" means a developer-driven game independent of the establishment. It doesn't necessarily imply a low budget or the lack of professional experience.
That's a wrong way of using AI in peer review. A key part of reviewing a paper is reading it without preconceptions. After you have done the initial pass, AI can be useful for a second opinion, or for finding something you may have missed.
But of course, you are often not allowed to do that. Review copies are confidential documents, and you are not allowed to upload them to random third-party services.
Peer review has random elements, but thats true for all other situations (such as job interviews), where the final decision is made using subjective judgment. There is nothing wrong in that.
> A key part of reviewing a paper is reading it without preconceptions
I get where you are coming from here, but, in my opinion, no, this is not part of peer review (where expertise implies preconceptions), nor for really anything humans do. If you ignore your pre-conceptions and/or priors (which are formed from your accumulated knowledge and experience), you aren't thinking.
A good example in peer review (which I have done) would be: I see a paper where I have some expertise of the technical / statistical methods used in a paper, but not of the very particular subject domain. I can use AI search to help me find papers in the subject domain faster than I can on my own, and then I can more quickly see if my usual preconceptions about the statistical methods are relevant on this paper I have to review. I still have to check things, but, previously, this took a lot more time and clever crafting of search queries.
Failing to use AI for search in this way harms peer review, because, in practice, you do less searching and checking than AI does (since you simply don't have the time, peer review being essentially free slave labor).
By "without preconceptions", I mean that your initial review should not be influenced by anyone else's opinions. In CS, conference management software often makes this explicit by requiring you to upload your review before you can see other reviews. (You can of course revise your review afterwards.)
You are also supposed to review the paper and not just check it for correctness. If the presentation is unclear, or if earlier sections mislead the reader before later sections clarify the situation, you are supposed to point that out. But if you have seen an AI summary of the paper before reading it, you can no longer do that part. (And if a summary helps to interpret the paper correctly, that summary should be a part of the paper.)
If you don't have sufficient expertise to review every aspect of the paper, you can always point that out in the review. Reading papers in unfamiliar fields is risky, because it's easy to misinterpret them. Each field has its own way of thinking that can only be learned by exposure. If you are not familiar with the way of thinking, you can read the words but fail to understand the message. If you work in a multidisciplinary field (such as bioinformatics), you often get daily reminders of that.
Is joy related to happiness, or are they two separate concepts? That depends on your cultural background and the languages you speak.
The World Happiness Report can be traced back to the UN General Assembly Resolution 65/309, which was proposed by Bhutan. Therefore the intended definition of happiness in this context is similar to the one in Bhutan's Gross National Happiness index.
1) For context, that's already trivially true for all vote-by-mail voting: bring your blank ballot into the office, and give it to me signed-but-blank. Possible for in-person voting too, using the camera in your pocket.
2) Nonetheless, we have spent the last year developing advanced tools for coercion-resistance: https://siv.org/overrides. This allows voters-under-pressure to fake a vote the demanded way, then secretly get it nullified to cast their true choices — while still not allowing election admins or malware to cheat. Was available for all voters, but no one asked to use it.
Mail voting should be limited to special situations anyway, as it's obviously a bad idea when the stakes are high.
When you vote in person, there is nothing that connects the ballot you photographed to the ballot you cast. Surveillance at the polling station might notice that you requested a new ballot, but it's an even bigger problem for your override. If you were coerced to vote in a certain way, you definitely don't want to be seen anywhere near the polling station.
This was a special situation because of a mid-term early retirement. The standard practice, responsible for 25% of the current state legislature, is a handful of party insiders deciding the appointed replacement. That process has little-to-no coercion-resistance, often not even secret voting, with a lot of egos and status games in play.
I hear you on wanting to limit mail voting. I agree there are many challenges there: not only coercion, but also voter authentication, ballot chain-of-custody, and delays. Many of the summer 2020 results were delayed by 2 weeks while all the mail-in ballots continued to be counted.
With that said, there's also considerations about accessibility. In this particular case, every last voter had the option to vote in-person, with 5 different polling locations staffed by volunteers over 3 days. Despite that, 50x as many people voted digitally as came in-person. For context, this district is also very rural, spread out over a huge area. If you limit voting to exclusively in-person, some people will take the time and effort to make it work, but certainly not all. People may start using phrases like "voter suppression". :'(
To be clear, I agree with all of the issues you bring up, and care about them too. Why we spent the last year working to develop strong coercion-resistance tools. I just want to highlight the tradeoffs in play.
Re voter coercion, in-person voting security is not exactly Fort Knox — it's almost all volunteers. If a coercer really wants to force a particular vote, they can demand a video recording, not just a photo, with the voter first marking the ballot then walking up to drop it into the ballot box. Sometimes it may be caught, but it's far from guaranteed. Becomes even easier as glasses-with-cameras become more widespread (I see some for $40 on Amazon).
Re vote-by-mail— the reality is, in the 2024 Presidential election at least, the vast majority of voters had it as an option. A quick search is showing me over 75% of Americans live in states with no-excuse mail voting. It's easy to say "oh yeah, that shouldn't be allowed". But now feels like goalpost moving, and not dealing with the situation as it is.
There is more to recycling than energy consumption.
For example, wood is a limited resource. In many parts of the world, almost all growth outside protected areas is harvested and used. By recycling paper and cardboard, you make wood available for higher-value uses.
Household waste is often incinerated. Even if you are not going to recycle glass, it can make sense to separate it from general waste.
Energy is only one part. The full dollar cost should be accounted for. Wood is abundant in parts of the world. For those parts it probably makes no sense to recycling but we should let the market figure it out.
Wood is abundant in Canada, Russia, and some developing countries. Other developed countries (including the US) are densely populated enough to use everything they manage to grow.
Here in Finland, paper recycling started in the 1920s, and it was first purely for economic reasons. Household paper collection started soon after WW2.
Nordpool prices are not true market prices, as much of the demand does not participate in the market. For example, many residential customers still have fixed-rate contracts, and some power companies sell the power they generate to their owners at cost price.
With the Romans, the situation was the opposite. Their success was mostly based on the idea that conscripted peasants will eventually beat elite warriors. You just had to equip and train the conscripts instead of wasting the resources on the elites.
Because every man was expected to fight, the Romans had an effectively endless supply of experienced and well equipped soldiers. A society depending on a warrior class might win once or twice. But the Romans would still inflict some casualties. They would learn and adapt, and come back with another army next year. Sooner or later, the warrior class would be depleted, and Rome would prevail.
Eventually the Roman Republic grew large enough and successful enough to switch to a professional army. Not because it was better, but because the population was too large. There were not enough enemies to fight to make conscription useful.
Steppe nomads were far from unstoppable. They had occasional success in conquest, but their societies were set up to fail. The legitimacy of their leaders was based on personal relationships between the elites. When the leader of a large empire died, it was always unlikely that all leaders of note would support the successor. Most of the time, the empire would fracture into effectively independent polities. Sometimes there would be a figurehead leader on the top, but he would rarely have any real power over other leaders.
That's the traditional recipe for military coups. When the ones with the weapons, training, and combat experience have no particular loyalty to the regime, they often start thinking that they would be more qualified to rule.
Academic research is roughly $100 billion a year in the US. A foundation with $2 trillion could support that indefinitely with the required 5% minimum distributions. By today's numbers, the seven richest Americans could fund that.
I don't know worldwide numbers, but 4x the US is usually a good rule of thumb. You would probably need the 100–150 richest people to support all academic research worldwide.
reply