Assuming the space required to run watson halves every two years and v:: of the human brain is v1 = 1500cm³, and Σv of Watson's servers = v2 = 90 x (17.5cm x 44.0cm x 73.0xcm) = 5.05e6 cm^3.
So Watson will be the size of a human brain in t = - ln(v1/v2)/ln(2).
He has already sent out an update saying they're considering making a bluetooth adapter that suits the style of the watch. I hope they do, i'm one of the people eagerly awaiting my LunaTik and bluetooth would top it off perfectly.
Every Tim Ferris thread I see on HN, has nigh 10 - 20 posts that all essentially say:
"Tim Ferris is a charlatan. He's relies on spin and marketing to sell his products. His methods encourage people to be lazy and not make a genuine effort to reach their goals. His advice is counterproductive."
But while Tim makes every effort to support his claims using facts, anecdotes and citations these sorts of comments are rarely supported by anything other than the commenter's opinion. I'm not saying people shouldn't post Tim-hating comments, to the contrary I'm asking for Tim-haters to form a strong argument against his ideology by citing studies and literature that clearly contradict what he preaches.
And when he's talking about winning the martial arts fights, he goal was to "WIN", not to play the game. And like gursikh says, either put up or shut up. We need concrete examples!
Overall, I think Tim has done a lot for a lot of people with the ideas that he shares in his books.
Exploiting rule loopholes in obscure Chinese kickboxing events doesn't constitute much of a "WIN", especially with his subsequent presentation of himself as a "world champion" and "experienced mixed martial artist".
All up, a call for "concrete examples" is exactly what should be going on. From Tim. Not from the unbeliever. The cliche is "the onus of proof is on the believer". Tim's extraordinary claims about drug-free muscle gain, for example, should have had a third-party drug test involved as well as being put in context with his previous and subsequent physique. His extraordinary claims to be a martial arts champion should come with names, dates and number of competitors in his division. Etc.
You have misunderstood me. It doesn't matter if Tim is wrong, if we don't know what is right. If you substantiate your criticisms by finding counter-evidence or disputing his evidence, you add value to the conversation by pointing people in the right direction.
I don't have to find counter-evidence. I just have to ask HIM to show evidence of his extraordinary claims. Arguably, by pointing out how vague his actual evidence is (and putting it in context, e.g. 'world martial arts champion' == 'successful exploiter of loopholes in an obscure Chinese kickboxing event') I'm sort of doing what you say, but the claim that Ferriss should be taken seriously until comprehensively debunked is rubbish. Who has time to wander around debunking every semi-popular crackpot on the web?
All I know is that when Ferriss's claims intersect stuff that I know about I can tell he's full of it. This doesn't raise my level of faith about anything else.
If he doesn't feel that as a wholly empty accomplishment, he must be a sociopath.
He didn't prove his ability to fight was superior. He didn't prove his mastery of martial arts was superior. He proved his ability to push his opponent over the line.
I'm not say the way he did the martial arts thing is the way to go. Personally, I wouldn't be able to pull it off because I don't think I would be able to face the other players and not feel bad about what I was doing.
But, by his definition, and by those set up by that martial arts sport, he did win, and he got the title/paper to prove it. What can you say, some people like titles/papers more than the actual process :)
Nope, his ability to fight _was_ superior. He used every advantage possible while staying within the rules of the game. That's how competitive games are played.
I have a lot more respect for something like Doug Lenat winning a 1981 Traveller (pencil & paper RPG) Trillion Credit Squadron space navy warfare competition by using an AI program to come up with a strategy that followed the rules but was totally unlike what anyone else was doing: building massive numbers of small, cheap, individually weak, disposable/suicidal ships, rather than designing a smaller traditional fleet of big, expensive, powerful capital ships.
For one thing, the strategy he came up with is not unlike the use of suicide bombers in real life conflicts. I expect something similar will apply when large numbers of small, cheap autonomous drones start being deployed. It has real-world applicability. It was also effective, I believe, in EVE Online. Plus, it was an interesting application of technology. It wasn't just "shoving".
By comparison, Ferris' shoving tactic is virtually useless outside of the context of a ring-based martial art competition. (Maybe if you got in a fight on the edge of a cliff, or on the roof of a building, or next to a pool of sharks...)
Perhaps, but only in a fleeting "I'm the reason they patched that map exploit in 4.01" sort of way." Exploiting a one-time temporary imbalance in a game system doesn't make you a lifelong great player. As an illustration, who's the more respected NBA champion, Kevin Garnett or Kobe Bryant?
I ask because it's not unheard of for a mass-market work to include lots of citations allegedly in support of points made in the text, but when tracked down, actually contradict the author's points.
Most of the time nobody bothers to check. Reviews will mention "19 pages of footnotes" or similar to suggest the author's arguments are well-founded. But sometimes the footnotes are just a smokescreen.
If Ferris cites scientific papers, are they in credible journals? Have they held up? Do his sources actually support the claims? I dunno. I was wondering if anyone had checked.
One of the things I appreciate about HN is that when people shoot something down, they provide an intelligent and well-researched rationale to support their arguments. With that in mind:
* Have you read the book?
* Do you have thoughts of your own about why Tim Ferris's methods cannot be applied to exercise?
If so, I would be genuinely delighted to read them.
1. The world is full of idiots who ruin the lives of others, both at the micro level of domestic abuse and the macro level of dictatorships, because of this principle.
Self-defense isn't the same as aggression, it's an act of self-preservation which is still very much a principle of civilized society. The author of the article failed to make this distinction clear. When you stand up for yourself or a friend you're sending a clear message that says "I'm not going to take this laying down."
"We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified."
-Barrack Obama, Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech
2. I do not consider it a valid way to solve problems.
The smart solution to bullying is to make it socially unacceptable.
When you're in a confrontational situation where the other party is about to beat you to a bloody pulp you can't take a time-out to establish a social stigma. Furthermore that wouldn't work. Most bullies are deviant by nature so making something socially unacceptable would just make it more alluring.
3. We live in a civilized society, where intelligence can triumph over brute strength.
But hitting back only works if you're stronger than them.
By the former statement it appears that you exclude violence categorically from the realm of "intelligent things to do." Violence, just like any other human interaction, is a language with its own inflections and subtleties. Without training and practice how do you expect to be fluent or successful in getting your point across?
Someone needs to write a chrome extension to make whitewalling and super-logoff more convenient. If users are able to forgo the annoying questionnaire that is coupled with deactivation and batch delete posts after an expiration date, these techniques become a whole lot more attractive.
Assuming the space required to run watson halves every two years and v:: of the human brain is v1 = 1500cm³, and Σv of Watson's servers = v2 = 90 x (17.5cm x 44.0cm x 73.0xcm) = 5.05e6 cm^3.
So Watson will be the size of a human brain in t = - ln(v1/v2)/ln(2).
We're looking at 11.7 years. So, 2023.
* Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watson_%28artificial_intelligen...
"Watson is made up of a cluster of ninety IBM Power 750 servers..."
* Source: http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/power/hardware/750/specs.html
"175 mm x 440 mm x 730 mm"