It seems that this could be generalized to "as measurement gets more precise, what is being measured appears more fuzzy". This begins to define a sort of law and a sort of epistemological "wall" we have been bumping against for the past century or so.
Interesting discussion, and therefore, logically, interesting post. Oddly, I begin to wonder whether a variation on a bet system wouldn't be useful. Flagging or up-voting don't come with any cost attached. The only current cost I can see is related to pissing off a group or sub-group, which is not conducive to productive exchange. Just a thought from someone who has never flagged anything.
Seconding that. I have a hard time understanding why professionals would look down on an OS that gives the user pretty much all the power, which, let's remember was the seminal idea of personal computing.
Interestingly, Linux comments are about 5% of the thread, which is also roughly the market share.
I have 200 hours in a 150 and I'm your height. You'll get used to it. Keep in mind that the 150/2 is a better training plane than the 172. It will teach you to respect the rudder and the crosswinds, while a 172 is forgiving to the point that it may become dangerous. Also, anxiety is normal initially. I'm saying that because there's a difference of ... 1/4" between the two planes' cabin width (39 1/2 to 39 1/4).
Personally, I am more interested in books that "no one understands" or "everyone dislikes". It might be because they are really badly written or conceived. I might also be because they bring something really new and/or disturbing. Even if it is both, I'd still go for it any day of the week. I'd trade any defect and flaw for something that doesn't conform.
1- the differences between various types of ETOH is one major confounding variable. The benefits of red wine vs. moonshine, both in "moderate" amount, are likely to be widely different.
2- If you control for wealth, you also likely inject all the other variables associated with wealth, such as likely lower stress level, better health-care, etc., thus mainly demonstrating, again, that being poor is "not so good" for you.
3- Although not in the range of the study, the subjective element, as usual, is missing. How to quantify the temporary relief, the feeling of happiness, control or whatever, offered by drugs/alcohol, even in the face of long-term lack of benefit or even negative consequences? Would moments of happiness count in a life of misery? Could such moments postpone the onset of health issues?
4- I believe that the intent of a statistical study needs to be initially defined. I believe there needs to be a broad "idea" prior to formulating a hypothesis and churning numbers. If it is not stated, it becomes implicit and open the results to endless discussion, thereby, in effect, negating the scientific (i.e. quantitative) aspect.
Philosophy didn't become irrational on its own. It took Karl Marx's work to thoroughly debunked it as such (e.g. Manuscripts of 1844). At least the action and moral parts. The knowledge aspect remained open to speculation and reflection (i.e. epistemology).
What they have in common is the successful negation of Marx's work by placing philosophy on life-support, which it still is today, and by acting as if either the marxist critique never happened, or, it is equivalent to leninist/stalinist ideology.
I'd say anger. Close second, denial.
I am aware that these two aspects are at the very bottom of the generally accepted lists but they have been and still are my only way outs.
Anger provides the juice, denial a sense of limitless optimism. I think that without a minimum of these two, we shrivel and die.
That said, I consider myself lucky that, due to my psychological structure, anger is not turned against myself (i.e. depression) and that denial never fully violates reality (e.g. delusion).
This combination has always generated enough energy and creativity to pull me out of stagnation.
When anger runs out, because I'm tired mostly, I practice "wu-wei", do nothing.
Failure doesn't exist for me: it is but a phase of improving. The meme "failure is not an option", pisses me off because I believe in just the opposite: failure is the only option.
When I decide to make my bed first thing in the morning, as cleverly suggested by atroyn, it is out of anger. "I will not be negated". Same thing when I push through a rep that I don't want to do (at my age, pretty much every single one of them).
Denial is, I believe, vastly under-rated. It sits along the path to the solution of any problem. It is the essence of out-of-the-box thinking. It is also what prevents us to think about our death all the time.
Knowledge is seen as dangerous by people holding power over others. It always has been (e.g. the apple thing). Therefore, in an age where knowledge is more readily accessible to a much larger number of people, it behoves the groups in power to somehow thwart its development. A good way of accomplishing this is to use mass media to make the signal to noise ratio as small as possible. Which is itself accomplished nicely by paid, conscious, agents and amplified by the growing hordes of individuals humiliated, rather than motivated, by their lack of knowledge. The true becomes a moment of the false, the real a moment of the fake. I believe that "spaces", real or virtual, rather than techniques will develop for knowledge to flow and grow.
I remember coming across a site a few years ago, whose owner would kick out anyone who posted without proper grammar or spelling. To preserve the word I think there also needs to be some form of enforcement.
And I'm wondering whether this has something to do with the rhythm of language... The heart-beat would give the baseline but language would create different patterns...??
Re. intent but with regards to spelling. I often wonder if there could be rules to correct errors due to key strokes in the immediate vicinity of the intended letter (e.g. "keu" vs. "key"). Would check combination of the surrounding letters, first oin (that's an unintended addition here) horizontal axis. That happens to me all the time, probably because I'm not a good typist but still.
This problem started with the first technique that allowed the content of a communication to be physically separated from its source: printing.
The real problem is not the internet, or printing, but that communicating has become the dominant form of action, providing us with the illusion of having full control over the reality of our lives.
The point is not that "postmodernity has no cultural or intellectual value". Indeed, even a generator as exemplified in the article can be said to have such value.
Since the end of the XIXth century it has become clear, albeit conveniently ignored, that the value of interest is crucially practical. Hic rhodus, hic salta. When it's not, aside from bringing some short-lived distraction, as any other consumption, it validates and reinforces a status quo that, judging by the state of the world, is not conducive to common happiness or productivity. To say the least.
The funny thing about bias is that it was invented, technically, as a way of... improving the accuracy of data in audio recordings. By adding something (current or frequency) to the signal you could increase the quality of the output.
Without chasing the metaphor too much, it's also interesting to considerer that, maybe, adding something, yes a bias, to the data would also increase their quality.
Why did authors (e.g. Azimov) came up with fundamental robotic laws?