🌟NFDI4Health announces funding for Local Data Hubs🌟
📢Exciting opportunity: #NFDI4Health is offering 6,000 € to support the prototypical implementation of a Local Data Hub. The Local Data Hub serves to present and exchange your projects, studies, publication and (bio)medical data based on the #FAIR principles.
⏰ Application Deadline: 30 June 2024
⏰ Information Event: 18 June 2024
⏰ Announcement of Funding: 15 July 2024
Please find the entire announcement here: https://www.nfdi4health.de/en/news-eng/calls.html
NFDI4Health at the Research Data Day in Bremen! 📊🔬
Do you live in #Bremen or in the surrounding area🗺and are interested in #FAIR health data⚕? Then meet #NFDI4Health at the Research Data Day. We are represented with the following contributions:
🔵NFDI Information Booth
◼ Talk on Record Linkage
🔶Evening Event and panel discussion”. ❓🌟
We look forward👁to participating in the Research Data Day and shaping✂ responsible and collaborative🤝data-driven research together!
the #SbD4Nano project is really ending soon now. We're working out the final details, writing the final deliverables. It's been fun doing the #openscience but it has also been a challenge finding enough #FAIR and open data to feed into our knowledge base to support the safe-by-design for nanomaterials.
The three papers this month tell that story: the hard work, the solutions that only lead to more closed data, and the needs for more FAIR
Folks, I'm starting my post-#PhD job search low-key on the side while I write up my #thesis.
I have an odd collection of skills - #Linux, #Python, #Jupyter, #pandas, #DevRel, and I've done a lot of work in team leadership and management, and have led a multi-million $ not for profit in the past. Keynote speaker.
I'm looking for something that harnesses all of these skills - and it will be a senior role with senior pay, given my experience, qualifications and proven capability. I have time and will be discerning about my next step.
Job titles that might fit here would be Senior Research Engineer, Engineering Lead, Lead AI Engineer or similar.
Looking for fully remote work, with one day a fortnight max in #Melbourne, AU. If you don't believe in #RemoteWork or #WFH, we're not a good fit.
Super keen on something full time rather than splitting my attention over multiple part-time roles.
Looking to start around August, so a fair amount of lead time.
Keen on organisations that have strong values alignment - #FAIR and #CARE data use, #EthicalAI, AI for social good.
We cordially invite you to the online seminar "PID for instruments". You can expect an interesting program with informative presentations and the opportunity for an exciting and productive exchange.
Welche #powerbank kann man guten Gewissens kaufen?
Leider gibt es weder von #fairphone noch von #shift was zu kaufen. Wäre ja toll, wenn man die kaufbaren Ersatz Akkus einfach in einer leerpowerbank packen könnte...
Der Onineshop #Anifree-shoes (von animal-free), der ausschließlich #vegane #faire #nachhaltige #Schuhe und Accessoires anbietet, schließt leider. Inhaber Sören freut sich über #weitersagen und gibt ne Runde Rabatt: 40% auf alles.🥲 Das lohnt sich richtig, siehe Preisvergleich im Netz. Ich brauchte dringend neue #Sneaker und habe dort wunderschöne hochwertige gefunden. Noch ist auch bei stark nachgefragten Größen eine gute Auswahl gegeben. #preistipp#schnäppchen#sparen https://www.anifree-shoes.de/
Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) currently lack a clear & comprehensive definition that works for the academic community of scientists, engineers, & clinicians 🧠
Want to help us change that? Take a minute to fill in this survey!
The event will focus on how Germany, and NFDI in particular, is moving forward with the definition and setting up of #FAIRDataSpaces as common, cloud-based data spaces for industry and research in compliance with the #FAIRPrinciples.
Ich war letztes Jahr auf der @FORGE23 in Tübingen und habe mit meinen Kolleg:innen von @Textplus einen Workshop zu #FDM für #FAIR#Editionen gehalten. Darüber könnt ihr jetzt im Blog lesen
In "Theory Of Games And Economic Behavior" by John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern, the authors discuss the card game of poker. There are dozens of variations of poker, each with their own intricacies. But they all boil down to the same pattern - is my hand stronger than your hand?
Here's how the authors frame it:
Since a “square deal” amounts to assuming that all possible hands are dealt with the same probability, we must interpret the drawing of the above number s as a chance move, each one of the possible values s = 1, • • • , S having the same probability 1/S. Thus the game begins with two chance moves: The drawing of the number s for player 1 and for player 2, which we denote by s1 and s2. 19.1.2
Essentially, in two player poker, you could distribute cards labelled 1 - 100 and have people bet / bluff on whether their number is higher or lower than their opponents. That might not be a fun game - but it is a useful toy example for thinking about formal rules for a game.
It is sometimes helpful for us to reduce the complexities of the real world into simple examples. It allows us to examine our base assumptions about reality without getting bogged down in messy practicalities.
Let's take Spotify as an example. I often hear that artists complain that they get paid micro-cents per listen and that streaming is destroying their livelihood. I've no idea how much a recording artist gets every time their song is played on the radio, and I've no idea if Spotify is better or worse than the record deals generated by corrupt studio bosses.
So let's reduce Spotify to a toy example. Imagine a streaming service where people pay a fixed monthly subscription to get unlimited access to media.
This streaming service has only two users. They each pay £10 for the service. The service has no operating expenses and takes no profit. That money needs to be fairly split between the artists. We do not care about record companies, publishers, contracts, fees, taxes etc. We'll ignore copyright lengths as well. Some media is more expensive to produce than others, again ignored. We're assuming all things are equal.
So, what should happen in this scenario:
User 1 listens once to a 3 minute song by Ariana Grande.
User 2 listens once to a 3 minute song by Billie Eilish.
That's all they do for that month.
I think most reasonable people would say that artists A & B would split the money evenly. All things being equal, they each get £10.
Now let's take a different scenario.
User 1 listens to 90 songs by Ariana Grande.
User 2 listens to 10 songs by Billie Eilish.
How should the money be fairly split? 50:50? 90:10? Something else?
What I find interesting is that there isn't an obviously fair split. Some people think the service should pay out proportional to total consumption across all users. But a significant minority think that the money should be split per individual customer. Both positions are reasonable and I can see the arguments for each.
Is it fair for some users to subsidise others? Is it fair if artist A gets paid less per stream than artist B? Should there be a maximum or minimum amount an artist can earn? Would people accept a logarithmic formula which decreases the profitability of an artist the more times they are streamed?
When artists complain about fairness in streaming, they're probably right; it is unfair.
But when pundits start saying there is an obviously fairer solution, they're probably wrong.
And that's the purpose of this exercise. Even at the most reduced example, there isn't an obvious way to pay artists fairly.
Once you scale up to millions of users, in different countries, interacting with complex licencing regimes, exclusive deals, songs of varying lengths and of varying copyright, etc then it becomes unsolvable without radically reconfiguring how we approach consumerism.
I've written before about the Feynman Algorithm which is a universal method for solving any problem. It goes:
Write down the problem.
Think real hard.
Write down the solution.
I think step 0 needs to be a von Neumann reduction:
Reduce the problem to its very simplest use case.
Write down the problem.
Think real hard.
Write down the solution.
Return to step (0) and increase the complexity.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is if you can't handle me at my worst, you don't deserve me at my best if you can't solve a problem at its simplest level, you can't solve it at its most complex.