The open letter states the author contacted Matthew Prince (CEO, Cloudflare) 18 months ago, and received a response;
"...assuring me that the team was taking accessibility into account. In particular, you wrote the following, referring to your company’s mission: “Agree with you that it’s critical we not take a step backward as we’re working toward building a better Internet.”
I asked the same question a few years ago (tech background, needed to uplift my business knowledge/lingo). The response was "you should find a way to obtain the knowledge of an MBA, without having to do one".
As a result of searching a few years back, I ended up buying a copy of "The Personal MBA" and reading it through. This comes with the list of 99 business books, listed here; https://personalmba.com/best-business-books/
* I have no affiliation with the site, author or book. I'm just speaking from my personal experience and the benefit of business knowledge this gave me.
My prediction is that once the capability reaches contact lenses, it'll become mass adoption. The physicality of wearing a headset while walking or moving is difficult for lots of people, and tiring. Contact lenses weigh a lot less, and are less intrusive to others.
Of course, it doesn't come without pitfalls, but that's just my prediction.
I think glasses/goggles are less intrusive than contact lenses. Lenses are irritating and difficult to insert. It's also impossible to share contact lenses. I think VR is already pretty close with the Quest 2, to what it needs to be to get mainstream adoption. A little lighter, a little thinner, maybe 5-10 more years of iterative improvements and we'll be there.
I wore lenses for 4 years and couldn't stand it. So I had them blast laser beams into my eyes in an attempt to fix it, so that I never had to wear lenses again. And it worked!
We see robots in manufacturing plants (e.g. cars), but not too many visible when you walk down the street. Of course, they're there, but hidden inside various normal looking objects. Automatic street lights, driverless trains, boom gates for public transport.
Robot/bot can mean many things, but typically means a humanoid object. I suppose controlling street lights used to be an entirely human job, but when the automated version of it looks nothing like a human, is it really a robot? Chat bots lack a physical similarity to the human body, but in text mode communications do resemble human activity.
Skynet won't send terminators. It'll use invisible surveillance, and use automated control systems to gradually increase accident rates and pollute the air, water, and food supplies just enough so that death rates exceed birth rates. Skynet can afford to be patient.
No thief is going to spend 30 minutes on a suburban street rifling through a car. If it's in a secluded parking area, or behind a building, maybe. But not on a main street with neighbours and traffic.
This assumes all papers are of equal quality, peer-review and accuracy of results. Which we know they are not. Some studies should have more weight than others. Which has been mentioned in a previous comment; there is no 'right' answer, just a variety of ways to allocate different weights to papers based on various metrics.
You misinterpret the law of large numbers. What the law says is that if you have a large amount of samples, and assuming there's no pervasive bias in the samples, then any large enough sample (and often that's much smaller than you think - the classic example being election voters, with a group of only a few thousand representative voters being enough to predict the outcome of an election over a large country with millions of voters) will look identical to any other... that is, over a large enough sample, in the case of this article, the conclusion of many papers should converge to the same answer, with outliers being marked out as likely "bad" papers.
The only assumption you may reject here is that there's no systematic bias in the papers. Perhaps there is... or perhaps most papers are just very unreliable, in which case there should also be no convergence... but if you find convergence, there's a good chance the result is "real".
But the crucial bit here is the "large" in "large numbers". I expect that even for quite popular drugs the number of studies are maybe in the hundreds, which depending on statistics could well be quite a way from large enough. In particular if a significant fraction are crap studies.
@Jabo: Great site. Some errors though, for example the "4 Ingredient Sauce for Roasted Lamb" says to use 12 cups of brown sugar. The source site has 1/2 cup (0.5), so I'm guessing it's a scraping issue. Wouldn't want to give someone diabetes with their lamb!
No. Because why the child can only get attention for 24 hours per day, other tasks primarily focused on the child (buying nappies, cooking baby-friendly meals, washing bottles, etc.) are what Parent #2 is doing while Parent #1 looks after child.
"...assuring me that the team was taking accessibility into account. In particular, you wrote the following, referring to your company’s mission: “Agree with you that it’s critical we not take a step backward as we’re working toward building a better Internet.”