Agamus

There is a guide to the API here: https://github.com/HackerNews/API

Do any experts know if there is any overlap in this research with the study of quantum fluctuations in empty space?

https://youtu.be/zNVQfWC_evg?t=1260 (David Tong: Quantum Field Theory)

Have they ever really existed in relevant numbers? Is fiscal conservatism more of a guiding concept than a flag?

It is a guiding principle for conservatives - humans who, like everyone, also have other guiding principle which often conflict and force compromise.

The Right thinks it is focused on the less moderate Left, which makes for a less moderate Right, which makes for a less moderate Left, while the moderate Left thinks it is focused on the less moderate Right, which makes for a less moderate Left, which makes for a less moderate Right, which makes some want to shake it all about.

If I have it right, she feels a great deal of frustration and betrayal. But apparently not enough to give up hope that her idea is the best course to achieve progress for society.

Good medicine! I hope there are scores of us who see this and feel the immediate inspiration to recreate our old freak sites.

My sampling is diverse and big, in my bad opinion.

I'm in the US, born in New England, and have lived in five states throughout the Northeast, Texas, and the Northwest. I've spent a collective three years living in Germany, Switzerland, France (wife is from France). I have slept at least one night in every state in the continental US. I once hitchhiked across the US and back again, gabbing with every person I could find along the way. I lived in cities for about a collective decade, and in very, very rural settings (log cabin even) for a collective decade and a half. Lots of other stuff in between and on the sides. I communicate with diverse groups, in person and online, from right to left, nix to ms, fantasy to sci-fi, young to old. I'm a 'perspectivist', and am fascinated with the perspectives of others, especially those outside of my frame of comfort and reference. I try to push beyond 'convictions', to uncover 'opinions'; convictions are usually firmly rooted, while opinions often change. A person's background and influences are usually baked into their convictions, while opinions generally reflect where a person is in life, like the kind of music 'you're into right now'.

I was a line cook and an artist, working horrible minimum wage jobs for a decade, was homeless for a year (under a bridge homeless), started at community college, transferred to Harvard, graduated at the top, got prestigious fellowships, and now work in software development and live in a rural area that is within an hour of a big city. I still talk to everyone like they are my partner in life, I don't care what they look like or with which demographic they 'identify', or how long I have known them. I'm gabby - I talk to everyone - I make friends with everyone I meet, from the guy on the street to the gal at the grocery store, to the company leader.

Confession: I'm a thinker and writer in my free time. But I have tried to cast as wide a net in life, and have tried to engage people as people, for what I think is a long time.

My conclusion: we're being gamed. The people underneath are intact. Amazingly, when the game is lifted, the people emerge, largely unscathed, as testament to the endurance capability of our ancestral rodentia.

My sample and data have led me to hold this opinion rather strongly, for what it is worth, which is nothing.

> I reckon that even at its height the type of people likely to be labeled conspiracy theorists and white supremacists were more common offline than online.

My ~50 years of life experience leads me to suspect the exact opposite.

New fancy soapboxes have distorted our understanding of each other, deeply. They amplify, magnify, and otherwise inflate the sense that fringe ideas are more widely represented.

I manage a small wiki, and would never just open it up to the bots.

But fast is relative, no? E.g., I still use snail mail extensively to keep in touch with my friends.

You're right, people don't care. Surely, we're at a point where more well-loved quotes are represented creatively in some way than not? That has been my recent experience.

I had a friend who corrected a celebrated Ivy League professor on a quote that appeared at the top of the syllabus of seminal class that was a requirement for all students for decades. That was almost 20 years ago, and the quote is still used. I don't think I'll ever get over that one.

Asking for a friend? Or did you mean antagonist?

Precisely my thoughts, though I think this is more problematic than simple, nefarious malice.

Sometimes it is the case that no one behind the decisions is being malicious - e.g., perhaps just trying to accomplish a task at hand on a tight timeline.

As such, the default in today's society, where we are more or less 'on our own' on this issue, should be to assume that even while that vehicle over there is indeed about to plow into the crowd, there is often no one behind the wheel.

We should default to an even more suspicious approach.

I disagree, but would rather converse on the topic than argue, so that's thats.

Thank you for the reply - I very much appreciate the counterargument.

If I have it right, the claim would be to undermine (the ontological basis of) logic itself, as the flaw is found, not in math, but in the underlying assumption in material, individual things - hence the connection to field theory. It may be more accurate to say that the flaw is not in logic or math, but in ontology - our understanding of what kind of things exist. From there, logic optimistically assumes a 'flawed' ontology.

For what it is worth, Roger Boscovich speculated on similar metaphysical claims in his 19th C field theory work.

Agreed - mathematics is predicated on the idea that there are individual things, but as we are learning, through things like quantum field theory, there are no individual things, hence, no individuated 'things' to count. As such, mathematics is not the 'language of nature'.

Check out David Tang's lecture on QFT: "there are no particles, only waves" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNVQfWC_evg

Mathematics still works (at our scale); the consequence is precision.

Individuation of anything is a construct - including subjects and objects:

http://www.katabane.com/mt/ontology.html

While I certainly would not want to discourage anyone reading Fichte, doesn't the discussion of the distortion of "self" assume an ontology that cannot be demonstrated?

Social Media has not distorted our sense of "self" - quite the opposite. We have, perhaps for the first time, a clear sense that "self" has always been an illusory construct.

That said, I'm inspired to know that people are reading Fichte and engaging the topic!

If only it were that easy!

The only way to win is to bend over backwards to block all of their various tracking garbage that is hiding in the majority of internet websites.

And I suspect that even the most stalwart soldier in this fight is probably still losing somehow.

This made my day, and thank you for documenting everything so well.

The visible latency brings back warm, early childhood memories.

It's a losing battle - people are wise not to jump in. I'm even restraining myself from providing my own reasoning.

"eppur si muove"

Awesome link, thank you. Nietzsche's career was an exercise in creating and promoting the concept of 'creative nihilism' as an alternative to existential pessimism, which works for me!

Another version: no I am not.

I'm impressed with how many people really do not understand the meaning of these terms. The idea that the US is culturally divided makes a lot more sense to me now, reading all of these responses.

No, I am not.

By conservatives, do you mean the same people who believe we should be conservative in our application of government?

Are you sure you are not speaking of liberals, who believe government should be applied liberally?

Not like any of them act as they speak, but if I am not mistaken, that's what the words mean.

It's poetic, but a reader will likely understand 'hard drug' = something like cocaine, where 'soft drug' = something like marijuana.

I agree entirely, and thank you for providing a more thoughtful analysis.

My experience: when tech support are (very) competent, (very) patient, (very) people-loving people, left to do their work in a low-turnover place with no ticket system, it is (very much) more efficient in the short-term, and absolute magic in the long-term.

If you've ever worked in IT support, you know that the ticketing process is about the only thing that keeps the idiots at bay, spamming support directly with the most inane issues.

You may be quite adept with computer machines, but work a few days in IT support, and you'll understand why there is a ticketing process.

These are probably the people who work in IT, who love to fix things and solve problems. Their workplace productivity and morale may be enhanced by the inevitable IT problems that befall others.

I too would like to see this. This strange work tracks ontological implications of QFT, and extends into metaethics: http://www.katabane.com/mt/ontology.html

Excellent site - thank you!

Perhaps it is the way we think about the internet that has also changed...

Back in the day, when I wanted to find something on the internet, I knew I was going to have to dig and search and explore. My mind expected this experience.

Since web 2.0, my mind doesn't work the same way.

I assumed it was a reference to the slang movie title "Mo Better Blues".

But doesn't fundamentality in fields imply something quite different than fundamentality in parts (particles)?

I sense that the next step in physics and ontology can only happen when we have created a new linguistic approach to capture the 'fundamental' idea here.