Given that you do work at Google and Google does have the software to do the job as shown by the fact that the Pixel works so well, maybe you can get access to the software that runs on the pixel on the desktop? (Maybe as some sort of 20% project)
Once one person anywhere in the world gets all the pieces just right, then it will be obviously good and quickly spread.
Unless the innvention destroys everything when it quickly spreads. When we want to prevent X-risk from unfriendly AI we do need some unity.
The advice seems to me like it's advocating cultism too much. I have plenty of relationships that have nothing todo with the rationality community and I would hope the same is true for most members of our community.
They’re necessarily indifferent to the truth, and attached solely to the outcome: the beliefs they wish to plant within the minds of their targets.
How do we know whether this claim is false news? How would we go about checking?
If that claim would be true then you would find fake news providers be willing to do things that reduce their traffic in return for convincing more people.
For a good chunk of problematic outlets I doubt that's the case. There are many different actors that have very different motivations. Supplement salesmen like Mercola or Alex Jones spread a lot of stories that are false but they work very different then no-name outlets and bot farms.
To actually tackle the subject in a fact based way, it necessary to seperate the players and look at their agenda.
To me "The important actors care more about the beliefs they are spreading then they care about making money" seems problematic bullshit.
You don't need an increased amount of cell deaths for the cell deaths to become an issue without regeneration.
I would expect that some cells regularly die to all kinds of injury.
there is an enumerable list of key causes
It seems to me unclear why loss of neurons and muscle cells which both are not much newly generated in human adults are not on that list. It would surprise me if the same wouldn't be true for a bunch of other cell types as well.
Cell happens to be a fairly straightforward abstraction in biology. If you however more a bit further out to concepts like muscle things become less clear.
A layperson might think that a muscle is a unit that can be activated as one unit. That's not true and it's possible to activate parts of a muscle. The unit of a muscle comes from what makes sense for surgeons to cut with knifes. It's quite possible that in many applications where you don't cut people apart with knifes you could find a better abstraction.
After ICD-10 added important classifications such as W59.22 Struck by turtle our main ontology for illnesses, the ICD-11 just added SG29 Triple energizer meridian pattern and SF57 Liver qi stagnation pattern I think it's clear that there are many possible ways to model reality.
But the way these taxonomies are designed does not seem immediately obvious, nor does it seem like one of the fundamental questions that their respective fields struggle with.
If I inquire "why is life classified the way it is ?", I think the best steelman of a biologist my mind can come up with will answer something like:
I think that ignores what happened in the last two decades. We do have the OBO Foundry ontologies that follow the explicit framework of Basic Formal Ontology as layed out by Barry Smith et al.
As far as the domain of species go, as we got efficient DNA sequencing we changed our way of classify species to be more centered around DNA.
There's a good chance that the last encounter with the quote (Axiomata spells it out) was my post https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/ZFpA3ZbKndRpNbpXg/in-defense-of-politics which quotes Friedman.
The difference between people who I would call ratioanlists and "Philosophical techno-nerds" in general is that for rationalists their rationality actually affects the way they act. Rationalists do a lot more sport then your average "philosophical techno-nerd".