SpaceCowboy @ SpaceCowboy @lemmy.ca

Posts

2

Comments

2,622

Joined

2 yr. ago

Im saying those factors should be understandable

There's the hubris. You're assuming "we got this" on something that isn't going to be understandable until after the animals escape.

Science is about trial and error. Zoos function because over a very long period of time mistakes have been made and we learned from those mistakes. We've learned these lessons over centuries.

You're talking about a zoo where every animal in it we have zero experience with handling.

You're thinking handling animals we have centuries of experience with is the same as handling animals we have zero experience with because there's a tendency in the science community to be reductive towards other disciplines. Just as you might think that running a zoo is super easy - barely an inconvenience, an expert in genetic engineering (but no experience in running a zoo) might think the same. And the guy running the company might think "well he's an expert that saying it's no problem" and think they don't need to put any effort into studying the behavior of the animals. The "clever girl" dude warns Hammond they should put just down the velociraptors because he spent time watching the animals and studying their behaviour (they never attack the same place twice). But I don't think that guy had a PhD, so he was ignored.

Right now we have occasional one off story about a tiger jumping higher than tigers were known to be able to jump, getting out and mauling some people. That's one mistake on one animal. An animal we have centuries of experience in handling, and we still get things wrong sometimes.

A zoo trying to contain many different animals that we have zero experience in handling would have these kinds of events happening constantly, and possibly have multiple issues happening at once possibly resulting in a cascading system failure. Which is what the story portrays. But all it takes is one scientist acting like they're experts in a subject they look down their nose at other disciplines (how many zoos have you run that qualifies you to say it's not a problem?) to convince an owner there is no need to worry about those naysayers who aren't brilliant genetic scientists.

There would definitely be some people in the Pentagon that would try to weaponize velociraptors after seeing what they're capable of. Dogs are used in war, and there have been attempts to use dolphins and other animals.

An animal that can go into buildings, open doors and methodically search rooms? Yeah they'd definitely be putting some DARPA money into seeing if they could be trained to go into combat situations.

…but they swap it to occuring to basically a completely innocent family who is vacationing on a nearby island, just a totally different and made up set of characters, where its now just some random assholeish wealthy corpo father who is being hubristic, and iirc, a little girl is seriously injured, but not killed…

I recall the last chapter of the first book (it's been awhile since I've read it tho) mentions reports dinosaur attacks in nearby villages. But movies are "show don't tell" so a similar scene is shown. Spielberg isn't going to show a child being killed, but the point is the same.

Also I think Spielberg making Hammond be for the most part a kindly grandfatherly kind of guy was a smart move. We do see him as being a ruthless kind of person when talking to Nedry, but super kindly when dealing with customers. Many times that's how it goes, people have said Donald Trump is a nice guy when they meet him in person. And many times billionaires will talk about their lofty altruistic visions, like Mark Zuckerberg talking about wanting to "help the world communicate."

Hammond being a mustache twirling villain isn't as interesting as Hammond being a billionaire wanting to secure his legacy by making something the world has never seen before while being out of touch with reality.

You don't become a billionaire without being able to get investors to buy in to your "vision". Elon Musk was really good at getting people to invest in projects that'll never work (like Hyperloop and Starship) by promoting a a rose tinted vision of these projects working. Could even get scientists on board with these projects because those scientists are just thinking about specific problems. not how the whole thing will work together. At least until Musk freaked out about his kid being trans and started hitting the drugs. Hammond in the movies is somewhat similar to Elon Musk before he went nuts... or before he started became very public about how nuts he is.

Eccentric billionaire that seems altruistic, but in the end just an arrogant asshole that gets people killed because of their negligence.

Where I'm from, when engineers complete their certification they get an iron ring made from the material of a collapsed bridge. This is remind them to not become arrogant and think about everything that could go wrong.

You wouldn't be able to find a good engineer to design a park for animals no one really knows the behaviour of. Hammond would have to hire the people in this thread who think "yeah we could design something that will contain these animals, no problem at all!"

It's Frankenstein... scientists creating life from the parts of dead animals without any regard to the consequences.

Zoos can be poorly built and which can create horrible conditions for animals, but at least with with living animals we know what they eat and how they live in the wild and we can attempt to construct a micro-habitat for them to have decent lives in. With dead animals brought back to life, we wouldn't know how to do this.

What does a Triceratops eat? Why is that Triceratops sick? Will a T-Rex be happy living in a paddock being fed goats, or will it be trying to escape? Certain animals are very skilled at escaping enclosures and you have no idea which animals fall into that category. Which animals are going to be afraid of humans? Maybe none of them, maybe all of them, maybe some of them? If the goal is to make a zoo where people can actually see the animals that might be relevant to how the zoo is designed. Which animals will throw things at people, or spit at people?

I think you're showing the hubris of science that both Frankenstein and Jurrassic Park are warning against. There's a whole science involved with designing a zoo and they often get things wrong like the maximum height a pissed off tiger can jump. With genetically engineered animals that resemble dinosaurs, there would be more unknown variables than known variables. You're assuming you know those variable are irrelevant because apparently "good engineers" don't need to care about factors they don't understand?

Yeah but I find code generation stuff I've used in the past takes a significant amount of configuration, and will often generate a bunch of code I don't want it to, and not in the way I want it. Many times it's more trouble than it's worth. Having an LLM do it means I don't have to deal with configuring anything and it's generating code for the specific thing I want it to so I can quickly validate it did things right and make any additions I want because it's only generating the thing I'm working on that moment. Also it's the same tool for the various languages I'm using so that adds more convenience.

Yeah if you have your IDE setup with tools to analyze the datasource and does what you want it to do, that may work better for you. But with the number of DBs I deal with, I'd be spending more time setting up code generation than actually writing code.

People are like children with their cars. If you were an adult you'd understand you're less likely to get into an accident when driving at lower speeds, and you'd want everyone else to drive slower so you wouldn't be holding up up traffic by driving safely.

But nah... vroom vroom I want car go fast! I'm perfect driver so those laws aren't for me!!! EVs suck because don't go vroom vroom! Waaaaahhhh!!!

It's that same as dealing with children.

It doesn't have to be boring to make a story about people who always makes the right choice it's just more challenging to write. You need to write scenarios where it's not clear what the ethically correct choice is and have the the hero have to figure that out.

A large part of Star Trek (at least back when they had good writers) revolves around that. In fact movies like Captain America Civil War also revolve around a bunch of people wanting to do the right thing, just not agreeing on what that is.

When the writing is bad, stories about a character being bad then learning to be good can be just as boring as a story about someone being good from the beginning. It's just generally easier to write a story with character learning something because you don't need to do all that much world building to create an interesting ethical dilemma.

You shouldn't think of "AI" as intelligent and ask it to do something tricky. The boring stuff that's mostly just typing, that's what you get the LLMs to do. "Make a DTO for this table

<paste>

<paste>

I just have a bunch of conversations going where I can paste stuff into and it will generate basic code. Then it's just connecting things up, but that's the fun part anyway.

I'm pretty sure it's just Trump breaking the world order and eroding the freedom of Americans.

When the Israel-Hamas war is over do you really think everything is going to go back to normal in the US and the rest of the world?

The Palestinian people deserve a lot of apologies from a lot of assholes on the internet that have monetized their suffering.

And a lot of people in the Arab world deserve an apology from the Ayatollah of Iran for using them as meat shields in their failed attempt to wipe Israel off the map.

I think Israel is foolish. They are protected by their international support and not viable on their own. Trump is unpredictable and nationalistic.

That's weird logic. If we're going with Trump being unpredictable, then it really doesn't matter what Israel does in terms of maintaining support from Trump.

And countries don't base foreign policy based on what teenagers on the internet want. They base it on interests. What has Israel done that goes against anyone's national interests? Iran is a thorn in everyone's side, and Hezbollah has been weakened and cut off from easy supply from Iran because Assad's regime is gone. It's not in anyone's interest for Iran to have nuclear weapons, and Israel has proven their capability in taking out Iran's air defenses. The Houthis are a problem for global trade and Trump isn't going to hit them as long as they keep to their deal and not hit US shipping.

So given everyone's interests most countries might wag their finger at Israel publicly for political reasons, but people in power know that if their people were taken hostage by terrorists, they'd do much the same thing as Israel has done. The US has become unreliable in dealing with the middle east (not really caring about Houthis attacking other country's shipping) so they need an ally in the region to keep Iran and their proxies in check. And Israel has demonstrated a lot of capability in that regard. So do you think countries are going to isolate Israel for the sake of a small group of protesters constantly shouting insane slogans?

The only way Russia can win is if Trump bails them out. Which is a possibility, but that would just be Trump breaking things.

They should just have Trump's dumbass UCW event end with a fight between Trump and the Ali Khamenei. Both are demented authoritarian old fools, and it would be funny to have these "tough guys" in a ring barely able to stand up before a punch is even thrown.

But they're both cowards that make others do violence for them so that'll never happen.

You're assuming Iran has competent leadership.

Do you think lemmy sets public policy? The only thing that happens here is people comment on shit. So you're bothered by comments to the effect of "influencers tell kids to do stupid shit and sometimes kids die because of it, and this is bad."

Why do you think that freedom of speech means no one is allowed to criticize speech? Criticism is also speech.

It sometimes is. The character Shylock was Jewish. He was also someone who loaned money at high interest rates.

Trump was talking about borrowing money, not about Jews. So in that context, probably not antisemitic. Though given the audience, it could be a dog whistle.

It's mostly a nothing burger.

So just another case of attacking Trump on something unimportant and diverting attention from the actual terrible things he's doing.

Your TikTok addiction may have turned you into a psychopath. "Kids die all the time, what's the big deal?"

The gun rights crowd has better arguments about why their hobby is more important than kids dying.

Cowards bending the knee to the idiot king.

I think at this point we're just buying time to diversify trade. It's incredibly stupid to to think factories can be built in two weeks or even that businesses can source products from suppliers in other countries in that time frame. This is seemingly what Trump thinks, but yeah, it's stupid.

So I'm hoping they're doing everything needed to end dependence on the US in the background while mitigating the impact of Trump's nonsense in the short term. But as @sbv@sh.itjust.works says, we can't really know we're just reading tea leaves.