basetop

I love these fake feel good stories. In other words, britain offloaded energy intensive manufacturing and its coal burning to china, india, etc.

Just like how ireland "recycles" most of its plastic by shipping them to china.

https://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-plastic-waste-3786393-Jan2...

And of course how norway is doing wonders by buying electric cars and investing in "clean" energy using the money they got by selling oil.

I just can't stand the self-aggrandizing bullshit from northern european countries.

People care about it. It's the wealthy elites who don't care about it. The problem is that through control over media and social media, the elites can make it seem like nobody cares about it.

Also, the relentless censorship has been a fairly recent phenomenon. Oddly enough, pushed for by media elites like the nytimes and others.

It is a strange time where both the "left" and the "right" want censorship. But I doubt it will last too long. People are going to start pushing back sooner or later.

Man, if only the nytimes and the media was more concerned about censorship here in the US. But then again, it's the nytimes and the media championing censorship at home.

If you have to use windows, I'd suggest ConEmu.

Is it just me, or are all critical comments being downvoted here. It seems like this thread is overrun by PR folks and microsoft employees.

In the techcrunch windows terminal thread, one of the top comments starts with "I've been developing on both MacBook Pro's and Windows laptops for 15+ years now, on a daily basis, and I can confidently say that Windows laptops are superior to MacBook Pro's for development in every way.".

It reads like an infomercial. What is going on? Did the "hacker" community suddenly fall in love with Microsoft?

Another gem: "Satya seems to be the rare visionary CEO of a megacorp, instead of just defaulting to a defensive and reactionary stance like most other leaders."

But isn't winforms pretty much legacy? Microsoft has been encouraging the use of WPF.

What? Satya didn't invent .Net. The idea of .Net, like the JRE, was to write once and run everywhere. What's visionary about it?

It's sad how so many articles and comments come off just pure PR now. Not saying your comment is, but I have to wonder how much of the "news", comments and internet content is now just PR.

To start off, I'm vaccinated and I think people should be vaccinated for the most contagious and deadly diseases.

But following your logic, should 80 million people get vaccinated just because a few thousand might be affected?

Also, science ( especially politicized science ) is on the side of vaccination. But science was on the side of performing hysterectomies on women, using leeches and blood letting, experimenting surgery on black slaves, etc. When it comes to things like rights and bodily autonomy, we shouldn't solely appeal to science because it has a nasty habit of going horrible ( aka nazi germany ).

Yes. I agree that sometimes you have to make hard choices. Authoritarianism is always the easy choice. Freedom is the hard choice.

It's incredible how the same people who proclaim a woman's body is hers to do with as she wants and yet, when it comes to vaccines, nobody has bodily autonomy.

I'm always wary of "everyone has to do X" for the benefit of the few. Strange to find so many pro-authority sentiment on a hacker news site.

dupe

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19838229

Wonder if it's harder to buy your way into a good prison or the ivy leagues.

If people liked this paper, I suggest reading "The Two Cultures" by CP Snow which is not as technical but more expansive, cultural and philosophical.

I agree. This article is a philosophical text delving into the mind, soul, consciousness, determinism, ethics, etc and the difference and similarities between humans and animals. It references Nagel ( "What is it like to be a bat?" ), Descartes ( Mind, Body dichotomy ), etc. The article pretty much addresses what first year philosophy majors discuss.

There are references to literature ( Pope ) and scientists ( Darwin ) and elephant researchers, but the central themes of this article is a philosophical one. The ethical and metaphysical questions that cannot be answered by science or emotions.

I don't want to get into specifics because I don't think criticizing individual journalists is allowed here. Especially journalists from establishment media.

So how about a nytimes opinion on the matter?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/23/opinion/covington-twitter...

If you've followed the news to any degree or any of the controversies in the past few years, you'd realize there is incredible bias and agenda. Whether it is jussie smollet, covington, trump, campus rape crisis, etc. And hate can be doled out if to the right enemy. You can mock climate science denial while rejecting biology and gender. I don't see any objectivity or fairness or decency in media organizations today - left or right. Just politics and agenda. But that's just me and maybe my bias is clouding my judgment. Though I'm not sure who or what I am biased towards...

At the same time, they demand less swearing for everyone but themselves. They have "civility" rules for their comments and also use their bully pulpit to demand social media also censor "uncivil" speech everywhere. They attack Trump for being crude while they themselves are crude. They demand "hate speech" be banned while they themselves partake in "hate speech". They accuse others of being anti-science, while they themselves reject science. Twitter has really pulled the veil from the ivory tower that was media. It just shows that these people can be just as hypocritical, biased and vicious as everyone else. But they demand special treatment, which is also what everyone wants. Journalists are human beings after all.

Better yet, why don't we have mobile hospital units. Rather than bringing all the sick people and disease into one place, why not go to the place of sickness. Perhaps it's economically not feasible, but I've always it made more sense.

Initially, I found your story a bit incredulous. But then again, there are significant outliers amongst humans. Is your situation any more extreme than adult humans who are 2 feet tall and some who are 8 feet tall?

I wonder if there is the other extreme. Are there people who need 20 hours of sleep to feel rested? I also agree with many of your respondents in hoping you'd have scientists study your condition.

Centralization is fundamentally important, don't you think?

Conflating Usenet with reddit is like conflating the Internet with AOL.

I'd say it's bad for the readership because it gives them wrong information. I always feel it's better to have no analogy than a bad one.

Politically expediency. Neither the democrats nor the republicans want to go after the elites. So naturally they take turns attacking illegal immigrants. But it's all lipservice. Neither the republicans nor democrats want to stop illegal immigration. They want to use it to get votes.

Stopping immigration isn't an inefficient game of whack a mole. It's been done before through american history. And it's been done in most countries around the world. If the political and business elites wanted to end illegal immigration today, we'd end it easily. It's really not difficult to stop illegal immigration if we wanted to.

The older you get, your "highs" are never as high as in the past, but your "lows" are also never as low. You'll never be as happy or excited as you were during your first christmas. But you'll never be as disappointed as you were when you didn't get what you wanted. You'll never be as happy or excited as you were on your first or the first few dates. But you'll never be as disappointed as you were when you were first rejected or had your first breakup. Christmas and dates, like life itself, becomes transactional. The great joys and disappointments are gone. At some point society beats you down, you gain experience and life goes on autopilot. You've pretty much seen it all and done it all and there isn't any more "magic" or disappointments.

And I agree that "nothing is really new anymore".

Nihil sub sole novum.

Are they putting them in "concentration camps" because they are muslim or because they are separatists? The headline seems to imply something ( like ww2 nazi germany scenario ) that is not true. Wouldn't it be more correct to say they are putting uyghurs ( or uyghur separatists ) in "concentration camps" rather than muslims? That's bad too, why escalate it to muslims? Because the largest muslim ethnic group in china ( the Hui ) are not being put in "concentration camps".

I don't condone putting anyone in "concentrations camps" or "reeducation camps", but reuters, like many of their british counterparts, are playing a dangerous clickbait game at best or a dangerous propaganda game at worst. The worrying part is that they know better and yet this still did this.

I wonder if reuters ever had a headline "Britain mass murdering muslims" when britain helped invade libya, iraq, etc. Or did they choose a more benign, neutral, or even pro-british headlines instead?

If there was a time when news was a public service ( at least in the US or even anywhere in the world ), I'd be interested to find out. My take on news has been that it's always been about influence, power and control. Public service ( like the weather ) are secondary considerations. And profit isn't a real consideration for major news companies.

It why the guardian can exist for 20 years without a profit.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19799893

It's why WashingtonPost is bailed out by Bezos. Do you really think Bezos bought the WashingonPost to make money?

The first newspapers in the US and during colonial times were created by wealthy landowners and business elites to push their views and ideology. Fundamentally, I don't think much has changed, but I'm open to having my mind changed.

I agree. The pre-ACA healthcare system worked well ( maybe not great but well ) for 80% of the population and not so well for 20% of the population. We paid less premium for far less co-pay, deductible, etc overall. Feels like the ACA made things worse for the 80% in order to make things better for the 20%.

I'm not too familiar with postgresql, but isn't that serializable snapshot rather than serializable? I'm pretty sure all RDMBs have deadlocks in serializable. But in serialiable snapshot, a transaction doesn't deadlock, but simply fails.

Wasn't 1998 the midpoint of one the greatest economic booms in history? Kinda like the one we are currently in? As a 90s kid I remember hearing about how record unemployment and stock records on TV back then. It's amazing that the guardian hasn't had a profit in 20 years.

This just shows that major news companies are not real companies, but state or systematic enterpises. I can see microsoft or google going out of business sometime in the future. But I can't see the guardian or the nytimes or any of the major news companies going out of business. Because they are part of the system though they claim to be the ones keeping an eye on the system.

If I were a betting man, I'd bet that in 100 years, amazon won't exist. But I'd never bet that the nytimes wouldn't exist. Though amazon may be a trillion dollar company, it's still a company. Whiles the nytimes is more than a system. It's part of the power structure.

It is pretty much every industry. The tobacco industry pushed studies and advertising claiming smoking was doctor approved and "healthy". The food industries/companies and their studies claiming cereal and orange juice constitutes a healthy breakfast. The oil industry, pharma, etc.

I think the diminishing value of humans/individuals is a result of overpopulation and industrialization. I don't remember who said it, but cities are now industrial farms for humans and a human being is a commodity/resource. In an industrial society, a human being is fundamentally no different than a cow or a pig on massive industrial farms. Our value is our commoditize productive value.

No need for name calling. With a stable population, no tax incentives, no legal or government incentives, etc, your home is a depreciating asset. If you've owned a home, you realize it is constantly breaking down and you have to constantly fix it. A home isn't a productive asset like a business. It isn't making you any money "productively". The only way homes become appreciating asset is purely through external manipulation. Increasing population, limiting development, tax incentives, legal incentives, etc. This isn't a secret.

I don't think we are anywhere close to Jarvis which is general AI ( aka real AI aka "conscious" AI ) no more than we are anywhere close to building Ironman's nanotech suit. But we are improving on "dumb/unconscious" AI like Alexa, Siri, etc that could help with day to day life whilest spying on you 24/7.

Isn't the author and the nytimes part of the attention economy? By reading the article and commenting on it, aren't we partaking in rather than resisting the attention economy? It's put us in a bind. In order to learn about resisting the attention economy, we have to join it.

Which is what paperbacks, newspapers, radio, tv, movies, etc were/are called at one time or another. I bet in 20 years, smartphone and social media companies and everyone else will be ranting about VR being a distraction.

The premise of housing depends entirely on how society or more specifically the government or even more specifically banks/business want it to be.

The only true purpose housing serves is shelter. That's it.

Any other purpose is artificial. Housing normally is a depreciating asset, like cars. Normally it shouldn't be a hedge against anything, including inflation. It normally shouldn't be an asset of speculation, no more than tulips or bitcoin. And as for security and stability, you can get that from renting ( especially if you live in rent controlled apartments ).

The idea of a house as an asset or investment is due to government and business policy decisions. Increasing immigration, limiting development via zoning laws, creating tax incentives, advertising pushing home ownership, laws favoring home owners and landlords over renters, etc.

All the premises we believe are premises we are taught. Your premise is just as false as anyone elses. It's entirely artificial. Policy decisions could make renting more favorable than owning. Policy decisions could actually make owning a home near a coal mine more stable than owning a home in silicon valley. Policy decisions could make home prices decline considerably by encouraging overdevelopment so that supply outstrips demand.

Fundamentally, as I stated before, the only purpose of owning a house is shelter. Everything else are "false" premises we've been taught.