In this blog site, I frequently discussion my own fantasy government that I called a dedomenocracy. One key feature of this government is that instead of asking the population to democratically choose policy, it asks the population to demographically define how to measure the greater good. When some future crisis occurs, what does the population prioritizes and what is the population willing to sacrifice. In such a government, I can not imagine that we would agree to sacrifice our younger people (and especially not our young women) for the benefit elderly people (and especially not old men). We do not live in a dedomenocracy.
We are told with remarkable unison across all governments, as if instructed by a solitary God, that we need to be protected from nature, and against or own nature. The current tablets come in the form of mandatory schedule of vaccines and mandatory social-credit passports. Those governments are presenting these tablets to the people and are observing a similar incongruity Moses faced. They are rapidly approaching the moment that will forever define their character. Will they smash their tablets like Moses did his?
The continued obsession on COVID19 is shining a bright light on this very fundamental fact: we are asking the young to sacrifice their future calendars for the sole sake of preserving the future calendars of the retirement-age group. Eventually, that light will shine on the massive qualitative difference of those calendars.
let’s act in a way so our children can have a prosperous future.
Another advantage of the dedomenocracy is that it would allow more vigorous future-tense science of making risk based decisions. Like for present-tense science, this is a subtle consequence of how the dedomenocracy would operate. The dedomenocracy only enforces rules for the short period of time that the population expresses an urgency for such action. This gives the population to opportunity to decide that when the urgency is over.
Vaccination works by using the body’s natural immune response systems. The history of the evolution is that any particular individual would only encounter a few viruses that it would need to find an immune response to. We should worry that there is an upper limit of the number of immunities that the body can have at the same time.
We lack the leadership with the courage to govern by telling the medical advisers that we fully understand the concept of flattening the contagion curve, but the medical advisers do not understand that the capacity curve can not remain flat indefinitely.
Legacy applications can benefit from big data approaches without the need to replace the legacy architecture with new technologies. Instead the big data can augment the application by collecting higher volume, variety, and velocity data about the user’s activity using the application. Analysis of this data can inform decision makers where there may be problems with the work-products. Correspondingly, it can provide requirements analysts with information about where improvements are needed or with more complete library of edge cases to consider for new designs.
When we look to data technology to solve problems, we should permit the technologies to identify the problems that can be solved with the current capabilities instead of demanding that the technologies evolve to solve the hard problems we have been working on. There are many opportunities to make progress even if we don’t touch the hard problems. Allowing technology to solve what it can solve now may transform the hard problems to be narrower, or possibly even less visible. For example, there are other ways we can improve overall life expectancy without curing any cancers, perhaps with investments in areas unrelated to health care. It is our nature to focus on objectives that catch our attention. This focus can blind us to immediate opportunities that are realistic given our current situation.
If someone wants to cause trouble for the big data owner, they can leverage the known missing data to raise accusations that the big data owner will not have any data to use in defense. The accusations can suggest cheating, fraud, criminal activities, etc that can harm reputations or invoke costly and lengthy investigations that can deny the owner of realizing the potential benefits of the big data analytics.