Anne van Rossum

Rotterdam, Netherlands

Someone is shy

Anne hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

44541
Anne van Rossum
Posted 7 months ago
Dan Pallotta: The way we think about charity is dead wrong
We are having this conversation on the internet. I don't even have US television or US newspapers or US radio stations. I totally agree that content is key. If people get good quality content about the real causes, and people engage each other in giving to those causes, I am all for it. Personally I think we should get ethics in normal commercially operating companies, rather than getting financial motives in ethically operating companies. If large companies will pay school for the kids of their workers, and come up with all kind of initiatives to put the power in the hands of the people, that would really change the world. Just my two cents. I am not important, I am not an engaging speaker, I am not a motivational speaker. So, don't worry, nobody will listen.
44541
Anne van Rossum
Posted 8 months ago
Dan Pallotta: The way we think about charity is dead wrong
I've never heard anyone say that "the internet is not scalable". I am sorry if this will costs you people your job, but traditional ways of advertising is not gonna be forever. Online services will reach MORE people with LESS money. So, go ahead advertising the old-fashioned way, but know your competitors will do better cheaper. Anyway, it's becoming quite off-topic. :-)
44541
Anne van Rossum
Posted 8 months ago
Dan Pallotta: The way we think about charity is dead wrong
I am working for a for-profit start-up. We are working on something new and big scale. Our goal is to work on something qualitatively good. There is no reason to spend BIG MONEY on public relations, advertisements, etc. The new thing is called the internet, youtube movies, virals. Good luck with bringing your old-fashioned business models to the non-profit sector. :-) You seem like an admirable person and the end justifies the means, or in puritan Dutch: het doel heiligt de middelen. I'm afraid your approach will not work for much longer however... A Dutch company "that did it wrong": http://bit.ly/1bf68q3
44541
Anne van Rossum
Posted 12 months ago
Massimo Banzi: How Arduino is open-sourcing imagination
A lot of unfair comments. I like how this guy seems like a validly nice person aiming for the best and surpassing his own expectations. I know a lot of people around me that are in electronics themselves and I sometimes think they are so critical/vocal w.r.t. Arduino because it "comes too close to them". If people see a nice youtube movie of a kid making a cool project and ask them "why don't you do that, it is your profession!", they probably have to come up with ideas to defend themselves. People, you don't need to be defensive! It is pretty obvious from this talk the Arduino serves a purpose, and a lot of people benefit from its existence. My 2 cents (from an electrical engineer, Delft).
44541
Anne van Rossum
Posted 12 months ago
Eleanor Longden: The voices in my head
I think there are many, many people not diagnosed* with anything who have a so much more occluded insight of their own mental make-up than you do, Eleanor. * Diagnoses are just as granular as the medical world is advanced. I'm pretty sure I would be diagnosed, if I would have lived sometime in the future.
44541
Anne van Rossum
Posted about 1 year ago
John Searle: Our shared condition -- consciousness
Really engaging talk, I liked it a lot. As robotics researcher I have trouble however in his statement that we might have conscious robots in the future (he says, we do not have them yet) and on the other hand his statement about that having an underlying binary code means automatically that a computer has only syntax and no semantics. I don't understand why a robot would not be able to provide its own semantics. There are robots that learn to distinguish themselves by "motor babbling" (see e.g. the iCub movie on youtube) from the rest. It learns to couple its actions with its perceptions by first moving at random and then discovering the correlation. Moreover, if you solve a simultaneous localization and mapping (SLAM) problem, the robot has a (subjective) perspective on where he is on the map. That this is subjective does not seem to include consciousness. As a roboticist I would love to hear what misses in the current approaches. Perhaps a robot should not only learn its own embodiment by correlations between its sensors and actuators, but learn actual causal relationships (in the sense of interventions, see Pearle). Or, perhaps a robot should have a better awareness of the different timescales things can happen. Or, perhaps a robot should be able to set its own goals, like tried with maximizing empowerment (Polani) or homeokinesis (Der). Any pointers would be appreciated! Last, but not least. I think a lot can be gained by learning from the consciousness of animals.
44541
Anne van Rossum
Posted about 1 year ago
Two young scientists break down plastics with bacteria
Let's hope it is not gonna be a problem! One interesting observation is that e.g. nylon-digesting bacteria arose "in the wild", an argument in the - admittedly boring - creationist-evolutionist debate, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria_and_creationism. On the moment I am more woried about human created pathogens (the ones that are already diseases such as SARS or MERS), then human created bacteria that eat plastic. Let's hope time doesn't tell that you're right in this. Taleb tells us that the British let sleep the families of the builders of the bridge under that same bridge for a few months. That indeed will make them building more robust bridges. I don't think however that it will be "simple" to come up with methods that will force these girls to face the consequences of their research if it turns out to be harmful... Not that I say you would! I think it will be hard to judge the risks involved!