6AA4FD

Props for making a falsifiable claim, noticing it was falsified, and owning up to it.

There has always been more nuance. The notebook is basically air gapped, but since using it is painful, most will rely on shorter, simpler, passwords and reuse them. That practice is highly insecure and was even more problematic in the days before widespread 2FA on the more crucial online services. As a teen I could have had for instance blizzard get breached and collaterally lose all of my csgo skins.

We been doin that

I think basically capitalist oversimplifies a bit, both because private business holds no monopoly on exploitation of labor in any society, and because many of their large businesses are wholly owned by the state with the CEO appointed by the party. Here is an interesting interview on the subject with a relevant timestamp. https://youtu.be/e297mEZ479E?si=ASV_u9ZoN36wI4M5

The nuance that capitalist businesses do not hold an exclusive interest now or historical pioneering of labor exploitation is valuable to keep in mind because no matter how far the project of labor power spreads, all we workers must keep in mind that we have a primary and vested in empowering the most diminished of our society.

The value of currency like other things is governed by supply, so destroying some does not damage anything real in the world, just increase the purchasing power of the other dollars in circulation.

We are playing with two sets of dice, I realize mine are weighted and rolling higher than yours. Do I A- offer to switch dice B- not say anything C- offer to share D- decide not to play?

Great works on this subject, to my mind refuting your nebulous thesis, include Debt by Graeber, Dawn of Everything by Graeber and Wengrow, and Mutual Aid by Kropotkin.

Always vim, never really understood why people use anything else for a dumb ide.

Many if not most intelligent and skilled people are highly motivated by money, not just in pursuit of material comfort but security for their spouse, offspring, and extended family.

I am skeptical of an arrangement where those incentives are at odds with care for critical infrastructure like our political process.

That being said, the current arrangement makes it vastly more profitable to destabilize the economy and sell short than stabilize it and buy long, which is clearly unacceptable to me.

I believe it! But I was talking about my philosophy research, in value theory and art history. I don't see the irony.

I can give it a shot. I don't want to butcher it, but I feel like attention spans on here are pretty short for philosophy so here's the short version. Many continental philosophers appear to be skeptical of the separation of form and content necessary for logic to "work" in the context of another subject of study (Deleuze), interested in presenting tensions between ideas that do not clearly adapt themselves to exclusive truth or falsity (Derrida), or interested in presenting things that do not pretend to be particularly abstract or logical (Levinas).

On a personal note, I want to say that I drifted to continental philosophy in my undergrad after studying and appreciating formal logic. I realized that mainstream analytical philosophy had a lot less to do with logic than I had imagined (no symbolization, no commonly agreed upon rules of deduction), and at a certain point the question of "why logic" presented itself. I haven't found many opportunities in my writing to use the more technical concepts of modality or nth-orders, let alone anything from category theory.

e: Replaced induction with deduction, a typo

I'm not saying it's fair, but is is probably better financially for current home owners. Sell faster, with fewer/no contingencies and waiting periods, and Zillow may potentially price "hassle" lower— making deferred maintenance less expensive to take care of.

Is it better for people who are trying to break into the housing market now? No. Is it better for people who are trying to sell and move out in a low-demand area? Probably not, except it might speed up the process.

This is probably because it is relatively easy to add more elisp flourishes, another seven major modes for editing JavaScript, much harder to actually improve the core.

A lot of the people I know who still have an account, and are aware of Facebook's track record, use it for maintaining contact with friends and status updates, I don't think there is a whole lot that will get those people to drop, they would rather try to further close off the flow of information into Facebook, and they are already not trusting the service or what it does with the information it gets.

This has always been my problem with emacs. The basic interpreter and interface design is phenomenal, but it is so bogged down and buggy it is frustrating to actually push it to the limits of capability. I wish the devs would just drop support for stuff that can be maintained just as well as a plugin.

Do you not use motions? I use stuff like `dfXa` where X is the character I want to delete to, for example. I could do 23x, d6w, or d/foo<CR>, depending on the information I have, either way this is light-years faster than what I can do without motions. Macros and programmability are great, but they are more for boilerplate stuff than just one-off mangling text fast. You can also hit the arrow keys in sed mode to reuse old commands, a lot more painless than recording and storing a macro in my imagination.

Why would you? The reviewers would just bounce your paper, perhaps as the other commenter alluded to, in part due to fair use concerns.

I'm not sure why it follows that only one of the two matters, or exactly what that even means in this context.

Synching will also do the trick, with more configuration involved perhaps.

You mean like american soldiers wouldn't store sensitive nuclear info on public Quizlet decks? Hmm

Yup. We don't need to demand privacy as a means to an end, it is just respect I want from my belongings.

More importantly, our financial system needs protection from runs, and it seems like tether has not been doing a good job of handling that, they should at least be regulated like banks in terms of cash on hand requirements and the necessary auditability to verify that regularly.

Visa and Mastercard aren't currencies, they are payment systems. Furthermore, max TPS and day to day average utilized TPS are very different, that is a weird comparison. The confusion is that USD can change "hands" in so many different ways, it does not have a set transaction latency or bandwidth, if we did a best case analysis the latency would be me handing a tenner to the guy at the grocery store, with the bandwidth of 3.5B people handing a tenner to the other 3.5, that is a lot better than 50K TPS. Obviously not a serious suggestion, just trying to explain why the question of speed needs to be nuanced.

Like the other poster said, this is all about transmitting money, which is very different than keeping it, reinvesting it, and handing you a certificate/credit for it.

This is the same way with any kind of control the state has, it is ultimately based in violence.as you say, the jurisdiction you wanna live in and use your funds in, can pretty easily abduct you for defying a court order on those funds.

What a depressing situation... having to protect a bunch of people on a get rich quick mission from themselves. Of course you can adapt that argument to people buying cheap food, clothes, housing, etc. A lot of people do these things because they are in situations where they have very real fears about their future safety and solvency, so it is not an argument against consumer protection by the state but an expression of frustration I guess.

It intuitively seems to me like "what it means for x" is not clearly one or the other, ontic or ontological. At a kind of indirect approach, the ambiguity whether we are actually investigating something ontically or ontologically is kind of a problem for the ontic approach... are we picking out Natural Kinds, or are they just the categories with the greatest utility and/or intelligibility to us?

Anyways, MH says 'so if we should reserve that term "ontology" for that theoretical inquiry which is explicitly devoted to the meaning of entities' (page 12 of the German edition). Wouldn't the meaning of being, as one of those theoretical entities, be an ontological question? Ontic being, on the other hand, would be ontic man, or the subject of the sciences? It could also be presence in the Derridean sense, but that is not really meaningful in the ontic register, since negation necessitates a Being...

I am not really a Heidegger guy so I would love some insight here.

He and Husserl has similar "differences" from my memory. The same for Arendt, I think.

With regards to Lacan, Heidegger, and Derrida— each in their own way, they hold off philosophical decision. Lacan stylistically (he sucks, but is pretty structural and emphatic about his registers, sexual distinctions, mirror stage, etc) and Heidegger and Lacan through their interrelated development of the problematic of closure and archi-writing, right? But Heidegger doesn't consign himself to closure, he very emphatically sees a way out in death, the condition of possibility for the authenticity of being. Derrida does not take a way out, but also does not write or reason arbitrarily, his process rests on the simultaneous articulation of a straightforward and historically oriented commentary, and a counterpoint exposed through the repetition of the language of the commentary back at itself until underlying confusions are revealed. This is the basic knowledge I assume you have after 10 years. If you are not familiar, I recommend Simon Critchley's 'Black Socrates', and 'The Ethics of Deconstruction' in addition to the Seminars, Being and Time, and Violence and Metaphysics obviously.

The way it reckons with your question, is that these points of tension, even when they are not fully resolved, allow us to come to a place of improved understanding about the systematic and historical functionality of the language and culture that produced them. This is really nothing new: we do not need to come to the same conclusion about any other subject, anthropological, historical, even hard-scientific, to deploy our provisional understanding. A concrete example of this is talking about moral reasoning- considering similarly non-philosophical work by Levinas, I have come to the conclusion that many of the ethical dilemmas I struggle with in my health care work are not neatly decidable, and are frequently more a question of how much of myself am I willing to sacrifice for my clients... or how much I can hold back for myself in good conscience, rather than a logically and arithmetically guaranteed minimum or maximum fair ratio. This is why deconstruction + pragmatism is such an interesting subject for people like Brandom and Rorty, I imagine.

I largely agree- especially yes, we do have to fix poverty itself if we want to fix the disturbing racial skew in our justice system. However, when I think about the wars on drugs and terror, I think that they are heavily supported by xenophobia and racism. I don't think incredibly highly of the voting public in general, but it strikes me that there might be a much greater voter pushback against our foreign interventions if they were occurring in predominantly white countries, and prominently affecting white people.

I think similarly of the war on drugs. Sure, we absolutely need to fix the precursors to addiction and the things that keep it entrenched, in order to keep black people from being victimized by addiction and imprisonment at such a high rate, but isn't the fact that this obviously unjust, bastardized, and warped form of health policy is at all acceptable to many voters, partially because a lot of white voters don't see it as affecting their communities (even though it definitely does, trust me).

You can say the same thing about the basic conditions of poverty- if a huge chunk of the population did not identify the injustices faced by those who are impoverished as "black people problems", and if the other enormous chunk of americans didn't identify them as "white trash and black people problems", maybe our policies about for-profit schools, food stamps, and HUD, would look a little more promising.

I'll lay my cards on the table, I believe that most structural exploitation occurs on an economic basis, for economic reasons. I think economic class is the primary stratification that supports most of our unjust political structures. However, it is also clear to me that, at an ideological level, these unjust measures hide themselves behind racial boundaries and political borders, so they can remain palatable to those who might have the power to change them. In other words, racism wasn't a motive, but it is a hell of a shield.