The Jolly Contrarian
@ContrarianJolly
Followers
484
Following
3K
Statuses
8K
A stroll through the brambles of law, management, philosophy, language, technology, cricket, high finance and the verisimilitude of Toto’s 1981 smash Africa.
London
Joined March 2021
A thousand times this
I don’t want to connect my coffee machine to the wifi network. I don’t want to share the file with OneDrive. I don’t want to download an app to check my car’s fluid levels. I don’t want to scan a QR code to view the restaurant menu. I don’t want to let Google know my location before showing me the search results. I don’t want to include a Teams link on the calendar invite. I don’t want to pay 50 different monthly subscription fees for all my software. I don’t want to upgrade to TurboTax platinum plus audit protection. I don’t want to install the Webex plugin to join the meeting. I don’t want to share my car’s braking data with the actuaries at State Farm. I don’t want to text with your AI chatbot. I don’t want to download the Instagram app to look at your picture. I don’t want to type in my email address to view the content on your company’s website. I don’t want text messages with promo codes. I don’t want to leave your company a five-star Google review in exchange for the chance to win a $20 Starbucks gift card. I don’t want to join your exclusive community in the metaverse. I don’t want AI to help me write my comments on LinkedIn. I don’t even want to be on LinkedIn in the first place. I just want to pay for a product one time (and only one time), know that it’s going to work flawlessly, press 0 to speak to an operator if I need help, and otherwise be left alone and treated with some small measure of human dignity, if that’s not too much to ask anymore.
0
0
0
@gill1109 @douwanttea @cjsnowdon @reasonoverfear @DavidDavisMP @legalmarkmc @ClarkeMicah @LucyLetbyTrials @johnsweeneyroar It is here: Oh, hang on.
0
0
0
@MarvinEdwa0909 @DrSusanOliver1 We are all vulnerable to cognitive bias and few of us are instantly persuaded by cold logic. I find the varying techniques interesting. Pro-guilt accounts seem to be increasingly resorting to ad-hominems in lieu of substantive arguments. I think that is telling.
1
0
1
@MarvinEdwa0909 @DrSusanOliver1 Hanlon’s razor. I hold dear the illusion that people commenting on this case generally do so in good faith. I don’t think allegations of bad faith help anyone.
1
0
0
Assuming both questions were answered by the same sample, aren’t these answers contradictory?
0
0
0
RT @NeilRos55889793: Prosecutor Nick Johnson in the trial of Lucy Letby used the evidence of Child E's mother to accuse Lucy Letby of fals…
0
13
0
RT @Sunraged: @NeilRos55889793 Is that it? Is that genuinely what the prosecution has used to create some kind of case against her to argue…
0
4
0
@gill1109 @douwanttea @cjsnowdon @reasonoverfear @DavidDavisMP @legalmarkmc @ClarkeMicah @LucyLetbyTrials @johnsweeneyroar It sure ain’t in Bayesian statistics.
0
0
2
@reasonoverfear @1classico @cjsnowdon I agree. Given the quality of the evidence, inferring air embolus was highly speculative, to the point where calling it the “scientific” opinion of an “expert” went well past the point of being prejudicial. The defence could hardly lead contrasting evidence, for the same reason.
0
0
1
RT @dwarkesh_sp: I still haven't heard a good answer to this question, on or off the podcast. AI researchers often tell me, "Don't worry b…
0
704
0
Tom’s newsletter is great.
0
0
0
RT @MargotDA33: I am not a scientist or a medic and I am not going to engage in a discussion about pulmonary vascular embolism v. venous ai…
0
40
0
@reasonoverfear @1classico @cjsnowdon Expert witnesses may draw inferences and give opinions. The question is whether the science is sufficiently established for an opinion to be probative and not prejudicial. Air embolus seems highly speculative: it is very rare, there’s little data about it & only one, old, paper.
1
0
2