One of the advantages of machine intelligence over human intelligence is that machines are not driven toward poetry. To me, poetry captures the scientific appreciation for the simplest explanations with the fewest number of terms. Humans are innately poets by nature, and even the objectivity of science can not escape the human delight in well-crafted poetry, or human disdain for inelegance in descriptions.
There is an inconsistency on advocating for Net Neutrality for Internet access while advocating for non-Neutrality for medical provider networks. At some level, both are dealing with the same fundamental problem of needing to trade-off the cost and delivery of satisfactory content. I’m content with the choice of having non-Neutrality for medical networks. I do not see the value of having Internet access options being restricted to a much higher Neutrality standard than what I accept for health care.
Consider the case of a big-data store the was able to store all of the individual answers keyed with sequence numbers, time stamps, and specific individual identification. I don’t think anyone would voluntarily discard that data in exchange with anonymized data consisting of just a few categories. The value of data reduction into categories is for people who don’t have access to big data. Those people are the consumers who wish to have an external assessment of what kind of person they are, allowing them a shortcut to introducing themselves, similar to the 1960’s approaching of introducing oneself as a zodiacal sign.
In the analogy of the recent sexual controversies coming out of Hollywood, the repeated behavior by one individual results in the group ostracizing the offending individual even though each of his transgressions were satisfactorily settled individually. When it emerges that the group is not adequately policing itself, that offends an external group such as one part of the industry versus another. This becomes a new injustice requiring a settlement between groups. This process of cascading continues with every larger groups demanding some type of settlement from the other group.
Government of data and urgency permits as bright-data the observations of events leading up to the then-interpreted injustice and the observation of the terms of the subsequent settlement. The only data that is excluded is the dark-data of the now-settled prior-claim of injustice.
The delusion of injustice is that there cannot be privately negotiated justice that may be acceptable only to the private parties based on the particular context that they agree to keep private. As a result of this, we overrule such private agreements and require a fresh trial in a public or formal setting based on current sensibilities and on lost information about the full context of the earlier event. In the re-airing of past events, society regresses to a more immature level where every human interaction needs adult supervision and every offense be reported to authorities for a formal justice.
A conflict may be brewing, but it is not going to be like the Civil War of the 19th century. The groups are not concentrated in states and certainly not in contiguous states. Instead a better analogy is a divorce from the existing arrangement for coexistence of men and women in society.