Another solution: train wild dolphins to recognize the goal (e.g. sunken ships), do the scan for you, and receive some compensation in exchange for the work they do (tasty food? play balls?). Should check the depth range of dolphins.
Somebody investing a zillion to hire people to train and feed dolphins most probably:
1) have enough money to buy robots instead and get rid of the legal and logistic trouble
2) would want to use the dolphins for activities that grant a better return of the investment like marine engineering or war (mining/demining).
Every major of a coastal city in California, or South-Africa (with a big beach visited by thousands of swimmers a day), would pay solid money for bay-watching and shark deterrent services that really work without the need of eyesore nets. People love to swim with dolphins too so would be another tourism resource in itself.
The time of your dolphins would be just too valuable and expensive to do Archaeology.
Given that many people experiment on themselves anyway, I feel it's a pity and a loss for science that the outcomes of those self-experiments are not collected and aggregated.
The article itself raises the issue of "lack of clinical data", given that these substances are relativelly new. But the lack of data may originate from a certain stiffness, or lack of accessibility and high cost of clinical trials. An alternative source of information are these people who self-experiment, but unfortunatelly this information is mostly lost instead of being captured.
How could this proposal work in practice? clearly the data would be noisy, contain some false reporting, biased, subjective etc. But statistical processing of a large number of reports (coming from hudreds of thousands or millions of self-reporting subjects) may still extract relevant scientific information; that we're dropping on the floor right now.
An example: I'm experimenting with a radical diet. I keep observations for myself, but they're not shared with anybody and don't contribute to science.
What the altervative would be: I would enroll on a web page, where I would describe the experiment I plan to do before I start it. I would be get a code for a blood/urine work for the "before" state, with the agreement that the results, anonimized, are shared with the platform. Weekly I would report on the platform observations, such as: got sick in this particular way, wheight variations, sleep eval, or any other changes.
At the end, or periodically I would get new free blood/urine work with the results shared.
Research institutes and pharma would get access to the data, to aggregate and denoise as they can to extract the latent information.
You REALLY don't want to open the door to "compulsory self-administration." You don't even want people to think about that door. For everyone else, there's clinical trials where you may get a $50 gift card if you're part of the test group.
> They want to repudiate foreign held debt, or devalue it, by revaluation of the USD
I don't understand, who's holding that "foreign held debt"? foreign countries I suppose, so which countries do you have in mind?
For one, it's not China, which holds a large amount of US treasury bonds (so basically, China is a lender of USD). So the revaluation of USD would work great for China: one, the value of the China-held USD bonds increases, and second, the price of Chinese exports decreases in USD terms.
So help me understand, what's the plan with the revaluation of USD?
But the US is efficiently disentangling itself from the entire rest of the world as we speak; so that argument may not hold anymore in the near future.
This is obviously an absurd overextrapolation, and it's unlikely that a significant number of people would actually change their name to exploit it, but the principle is accurate: If alphabetical is used consistently then someone with the last name Zelenskyy will consistently end up last in every list of coauthors, while Adams will consistently come near the top. Even if people intuitively understand that alphabetical ordering is used because all coauthors are equal, the citations will still be for Adams et al., and it's not hard to see how that would give an unfair non-merit-based leg up to Adams over Zelenskyy.
If applied consistently, random order would be a fairly sound way to ensure that over a whole career no one gets too large a leg up from their surname alone.
This is obviously an absurd overextrapolation, and it's unlikely that a significant number of people would actually change their name to exploit it, but the principle is accurate:
reply