Dudeman112

Imagine thinking parents being responsible for how their children turn out is a cop out

You think 15 years old are capable of being responsible for the level of responsibility they developed? Guess they should have made better decisions for their development when they were 10

The age-old shitting on new generations is also an age-old acknowledgement of one's own failures

You vastly overestimate your peers

Software is a subset of any context, which is why I figured it would have been fine to replace it with the more general idea

I see programmers are as good at judging whole-ass companies as hiring managers are good at judging whole-ass peoples

Which is to say, they are awful at it and will act like one observation of one characteristic is more than enough data to evaluate complex machineries

>What most people usually mean by "complex" software is that its Kolmogorov complexity

I disagree. What most people usually mean by "complex" in any context is some fuzzy not-really-defined thing they aren't really sure about. You're bonkers if you think most people's minds refer to a soft intuition for descriptive complexity when they say the expression "complex", even if the context is software

Having said that, I do agree with your original reply since you were thinking of that specific type of complexity

What, exactly, do mean by "complex" here?

Indeed. People growing up isn't a function of one variable

Is a Mechanical Engineering BSc who ends up working as mechanic on a car shop an engineer?

Yes, although those fellas mostly don't pretend their jobs involve designing and validating mechanisms with any scientific and industry regulation / standard rigour

Since you didn't specify the job_title involves any actual engineering, I'm gonna assume it doesn't... just like most job_titles

I too have a piece of paper saying I'm a Computer Engineer BSc (didn't apply for any of the electronics/CE licenses back home because wages were shit and the license wouldn't have been worth anything overseas)

Half of SEs consider the idea of written requirements needless bullshit that just drag you down. Validating your designs with any sort of rigour just isn't there for the vast, vast majority of jobs. As such, calling it "engineering" is a joke

If the activities of your regular Software Engineer can be said to be engineering, so should be changing a tyre. There isn't nearly enough rigour in the process to warrant calling it "engineering"

>Software engineer applies computer science theory in real world where he she is constrained by real world factors

A good 90% of people with that title are flying blind as if they lived the wild west

A good 90% of the rest almost never do that (regardless if because they don't know how, or the company won't let them)

The rest will make the news of they fail, so they put an amount of effort and time which reflect that

We skipped the "mechanic" equivalent in the software industry and call anyone that can pass fizzbuzz, and who does work like fizzbuzz, an engineer

Software engineers do a lot of tinkering, and almost no engineering. Which is fine by me, actual engineering is a PITA and tinkering is where the fun is at

>Waaay easier than external AI and technology intervention

RIP everyone that didn't win the normal body lottery though

I'm no genius, but in a world where I was born in a nation with UBI (or just expected a fat inheritance) I would have taken that masters in Bioinformatics scholarship and continued my research instead of writing shit code so businesses can make money

Lots of people who graduated with me followed the same path for the same reason

>being able to resolve conflict, independently

A shame sometimes the best way to resolve a conflict is eye gouging the aggressor before they permanently break a part of your body

The thing that stuck with me the most by getting the "resolve your conflicts by yourself" treatment was that no matter how much someone is being a piece of shit, the only one you can count on is yourself

Everyone else will watch as you break, and only intervene if you fight back. And punishment is only ever dished out in equal measures between aggressor and victim

Noticing that was probably the start of considering people to be rotten by default, reasons are needed to assume someone isn't

The essence being probabilistic doesn't matter for observable stuff bigger than atoms

>I'd rather there be room for people over-reacting than risk there not being room for polite suggestion

That's the thing. Usually the snark isn't followed by suggestion or anything useful at all

People being mean often do it for its own sake

Just like everything else too, most of the work out there isn't that difficult

Counter example just for argument's sake: gaming whales

There's a whole-ass industry built on exploiting them. How many of them have you personally heard of vs non-whales?

>It is all worth questioning

Only if you are happy to spend your life never doing anything but questioning what's already there

The corpus of knowledge of any one field takes more than a lifetime to properly validate by yourself, and lots of them cannot be validated at all because you don't have infinite funds

Alas mankind dropped the ball in regards to dealing with anti-senescence, so picking your battles should be self-evident

>Never assume malice etc

The assumption isn't "malice", it's "profit"

While I agree that the epistemology is shite, there actually is a limit to how much you can do by your own self

Not everybody has a large hadron collider on their garden

>I would prefer is that these people are given the tools to find the truth on their own

You have a high degree of trust in humanity's capacity for rational thought, don't you?

That trust is misplaced and will backfire if you ever have to rely on it

>Is gameplay not the most important part of a game?

It's an artist's medium. The most important part is what it does to who consumes it

>That affects people directly, the upsdie-down flags and slogans on fields along the roadside don't

Those also don't achieve anything. The only form of protesting that the population at large accepts are either illegal or useless

I think they are referring to the population at large being aware of it instead of actual actions taken

Like with the mainstream media and the fact that no one has put the Murdochs in a rocket to Mars

Am currently living in England, can confirm things they don't like didn't disappear and things have, in fact, been getting worse

But hey, happy fishes and being able to flaunt that stylish passport on the massive customs queue

Maybe I should get myself a job in the continent and move there...

"it's not the end of all life" isn't much of a consolation for those that will have to live through the shitshow

Some people are used to such a good life that the concept of actual, intense, long-term suffering doesn't even register as something that can happen to them. And even when it is pointed out to them there's no gut feeling for how shit life can be

I get a feeling the only way a school can satisfy your standard for "not cherry picking" are those armed with Omnipotence

> has been done once it doesn't need to be done again.

incoherent angry mumbling

It doesn't have to be a psychological trick. Sometimes you don't actually have evidence it was exploited - at which point what are you meant to say?

Maybe because for the vast, vast majority of people that 30% is the boring grind they have to do to survive?

Ah, being forever branded as an undesirable, being abused by staff, losing your ability to walk outside when you want and have contact with regular people, having very little to do for ridiculous amounts of time, plus having to take care not to drop the soap to not get surprise sex

Truly better and more rewarding than being marginally poorer outside

You don't need a "there is no God" experiment, at least if the only god that's actually on your hypothesis space is the abrahamic one

All other hypothesis win over an omnipotent god. That model has infinite complexity and allows every law of nature to be broken due to infinite power being an intrinsic part of that entity. You need infinite evidence to even start considering it over every other non infinitely complex hypothesis that doesn't imply everything we know about physics being wrong

And they don't even give it a good excuse unlike, for example, living in a simulation

As for the other gods... Well, whoever thinks they are likely will have to give at least some epistemologically valid argument for them. Which for the most part they don't, although I'm willing to be convinced otherwise

People require more evidence to believe a bench is wet than they do to believe in most religions. I'll convert once there's good arguments to convert, until then I'll chuck gods in the generic set of "unlikely stuff that needs more reason to be considered", which is quite the big set