What's the pyramid scheme here? The Netherlands are the top producers of tulips today, seems like a sustainable business. A temporary inefficiency in markets does not make a pyramid scheme.
Pyramid schemes are defined by the price and structure. A business that sells knives is a fine business. A business that sells overpriced knives by promising that you can then find someone else to sell more knives for you at an even higher price is a pyramid scheme.
Selling tulips is a fine business. Selling tulips at an insanely high price by promising that the market for tulips will keep on expanding and increasing the price of tulips is a pyramid scheme. (Well, maybe not quite a pyramid scheme, the structure isn't right. But it certainly wasn't a sustainable business model.)
For whatever reason apple required passes to be digitally signed with an apple developer certificate. On the other hand a screenshot/pdf is "good enough" that they didn't bother fixing it.
> For whatever reason apple required passes to be digitally signed with an apple developer certificate
Apple uses every opportunity to try to increase developer and user lock in. This was no exception. I see this new move as begrudgingly opening the doors to all as not enough people were signing with Apple Developer Certificates.
Unfortunately, they're not even good at it. Setting up a custom CI chain today as a brand-new member of the Apple Developer program, I found out that they have at least 9 different certificates to generate with no explanation which one you need on the page, and after I had generated one, downloaded it, and imported it into the keychain, the certificate was invalid. I additionally had to go to some cryptic looking page[1] and manually download the "right" in intermediary certificates.
QR code definitely in focus, lighting good, the screen will brighten automatically for maximum contrast, and it will be in an easy-to-find location (especially handy if location services knows you are near where you need the pass and suggests it automatically).
You can double tap the lock button to open your wallet with all your passes. Also it automatically raises the brightness for QR passes to make it easier for readers.
You could do the same thing with shortcuts I guess but using the first class feature is nice.
If you want to know what the science says on some topic, you have exactly two valid options:
1. Become an expert in said topic, reading the broad literature, becoming familiar with points and counterpoints, figuring out how research actually works in the field by contributing some papers of your own, and forming your own personal informed opinion on the preponderance of the evidence.
2. Look at the experts' consensus on said topic
Of course, you have other options. A popular one is to adopt the view of one expert in the field that you happen to like, who may or may not accept the consensus view - but this is far more arbitrary than 1 or 2.
If you are not in the field, consensus is often almost impossible to figure out. Remember what gets published is things that are controversial. Thus, things that have consensus are things that are going to be silent in literature if you search for it. Thus, if you're searching for something, you may not actually find the consensus if you're looking, and so the study is hard when you're not already an expert.
This is quite false and the opposite of what is actually true. Textbooks and other teaching materials are entirely based on consensus science, surveys report on consensus, meta-analyses identify consensus, the abstracts of novel studies lay out the consensus that they are reconfirming, adding to, or challenging. Your statements about "what gets published" and "things that are going to be silent" are completely nonsensical and have no relationship with reality. There isn't a single field where there is a consensus where I can't immediately find out what it is.
"Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the vast majority of active, qualified experts on a conclusion in a specific scientific discipline.[1] Scientific consensus results from the self-correcting scientific process of peer review, replication of the event through the scientific method, scholarly debate, meta-analysis, and publication of high-quality review articles, monographs, or guidelines in reputable books and journals to establish facts and durable knowledge about the topic."
The whole point of that publication is to make the "durable knowledge" accessible.
> Thus, things that have consensus are things that are going to be silent in literature if you search for it.
Not really; generally consensus ideas will be mentioned in passing while discussing something else. You can get a strong sense of the consensus that way.
For example, I bought several textbooks on early Mesopotamian history, which taught me that Marxism enjoys a strong consensus in that field. And it's not even relevant to the field!
As a Canadian I love the US, think of them as family, but also view them as some sort of relative which has lost their senses. Before most recent times, we'd sadly shake our heads, as this relative does weird things, yet still hope for the best for them. Yet while rambling blathers about invading Canada and compelling 51st statehood would be fondly tolerated in grandpa, not so much for a nation with a massive army and a joy in using it.
So I purpose we strengthen another aspect of American "democracy" that Canadians find amusing, the concept of "hiring people for popularity not competency". Americans, especially at the local level, vote for judges, police chiefs, even dog-catchers, so why not a local scientist! Rather than 1 or 2, we can conjoin this concept with your third option, yet with the officiousness that only a vote can provide!
Each municipality can have a local head scientist, which will proclaim what scientific fact is correct. People can vote on such candidates, and their platform of scientifically correct "things" during election time.
It will all work out very well for them I'm sure, and hopefully, with science thus democratized, perhaps they will be less of a threat over time.
(Sorry, I don't know why your comment made this pop into my head)
Consensus in science has nothing to do with voting. It's a consequence, not a cause, and arises when the accumulated evidence is clear enough and unambiguous enough that there is general agreement among experts in the field--that is, those who are intimately involved in the production and tracking of that evidence.
Of course science is consensus based ... consensus is a fundamental part of the scientific process, which is conducted by a community of scientists. Consensus is the end result of attempts at reproducibility and falsification, of the ongoing process by which scientists challenge the claims and purported findings of other scientists. Without it, all you have are assertions from which people can pick and choose based on their biases (as we see, for instance, with people who deny climate or vaccine science by cherrypicking claims).
And even if you reject consensus as being essential to science, calling the consensus view "the non scientific view" is obviously mistaken, a basic error in logic.
This is all well understood by working scientists so I'm not going to debate it or comment on it further.
Here's a thought experiment for you: if "fiat currency=bad" and "hard money=good", why did the world collectively switch? Where are all the prosperous societies that held the line?
> Both ethical and safe conduct depend on context and intent.
That entire line of reasoning is absurd. You can get information from books, they don't know context and intent either. Books will never be ethical or safe.
I have also switched from claude to codex a few weeks ago. After deciding to let agents only do focused work I needed less context, and the work was easier to review. Then I realized codex can deliver the same quality, and it's paid through my subscription instead of per token.
reply