blueprint

yes

what's your fallacy called? i don't remember. but obviously the comment was about the circus enabling the rich kids' startups. if the circus was the rest of the us then it would be everyone's circus, not the aforementioned one. duh. now the real question is are you arguing in good faith or are you actually on, eg, the side of those rich kids? either way, fallacy is fallacy and you should be downvoted.

what universe do you live in where someone making gte 100k working the carnival is poor?

theft is theft, big guy, and you clearly are trying to misrepresent my point. try again.

ridiculous statement. you're calling physical stores of value equal to nakamoto consensus secured digital ones.

according to a master I trained under, the meditation taught today is the opposite of what buddha taught; it leads you to abandon and lose yourself, and to call the souls of the dead to come in and drive your body. they show people things, such as experiences, to trick the living person into allowing the dead soul in. they use aspects of your existing character to make you think the feelings are coming from your own self even though the impulse is environmental. for example some religious people are made to feel as if they are more special or as though they have a special connection with heaven. there are a lot of people who claim enlightenment in the world today. but none of them except for a Tathagata have actually come near to it or attained it in reality. most of them are nearly totally possessed by ghosts.

if this were not true then we would have teaching and advancements in human society from many fully realized beings. they would be able to realize anything in physics or the way and causes to any desired effect in real life. but we obviously dont have this. instead what we have left are platitudes and falsehoods which are designed to confuse the opponent.

there is such a thing as a true self and false selves. can you tell them apart?

dude, ego is a health regulating system. do not try to destroy it in others. what you should destroy are delusional words.

> that the construct of 'me' was completely false and was just a reverberation of my environment

you are mistaken as you misunderstood in a subtle but critical way. your sentence is self contradictory. for it to be true it must have some permanent existence. everything that is true does.

in the law of cause and effect there are three kinds of causes. environment is one of them. this is the law buddha told us about after he opened his eye. it reveals the entirety of existence, along with another law or two.

do not cheat yourself by thinking you can see the truth yet. we can check if you doubt this. it would be to your benefit. but few want what is most important for them.

buddha was not enlightened through meditation. that is a dangerous falsehood that has been added by monks. he was enlightened through his accumulation of virtue through his specific practices of educating others while he was in the mountains. this placed him in turmoil. he left the mountains, and sat down under a tree to collect himself. it was only after he became calm that he realized that he had already attained the supreme enlightenment. you cannot attain it through any other means than teaching after entering a samadhi. but to enter samadhi means you have to stop your karma. even then, it can be reborn, just like anything else. the final enlightenment - that of a buddha - is to burn down all your karma. the greatest way to do this is the practice of true love.

this is a path which will cause you to face inordinate difficulties and loneliness. most people are waylaid. "strait is the gate and narrow is the way which leadeth unto Life and few there be who find it."

homeland

cryptographic obscurity is like, the only way we know how to do security right now

so it's like "cyber" and "nucular"

do you drive a car, heat your home, or use shipped goods? that's about the same level of criminality as using bitcoin as far as i can tell.

Well, by doing so, they've already violated the NDA.

I'm not saying the existing solution is complete, either. But banning noncompetition itself is not the right answer. Why do contract noncompetes clauses exist? What about the small companies and inventors and IP owners? None of these replies I'm seeing have considered the side effects to the world except what would clearly also benefit giant companies.

yeah and how exactly do you prove it happened ? and where did you get all this money to litigate? I dont believe you yet understand the problem.

i'm not confusing them. i know what i wrote. humans cannot avoid using IP from previous companies. what's your background ? (are you technical?) and there's more to this than existing big companies and their disposable funding.

you're not automatically entitled to use or benefit from the IP developed by others and then disclosed to you just because you signed a paper that promises to pay you for work. maybe it makes more sense where your opponent is a horrible but huge company like facebook but this move can kill development of sensitive or novel tech by underfunded entrepreneurs. it is a mistake for the USA. maybe you guys should downvote me more while you ride around in your teslas powered by slave labor batteries.

so maybe regulators should introduce nullifying noncompetes with certain cases, not nullifying them in every circumstance. but still, they serve an obvious purpose, even if you are laid off by that company. the idea is you are given confidential info that you are not supposed to use because that's unfair competition. not that you're likely to care

this seems like a really bad idea. people can just join a company, get trained, then leave. hello corporate espionage.

because people didn't learn properly how to build object oriented code with objects. instead they made up the excuse that it's implicitly complicated when in reality they just aren't very good at factoring

> If crypto holders stop trusting exchanges and pull all their assets that will cause the exchanges to fail and those assets will then be worth nothing.

maybe you havent heard but it's possible to send "crypto" (lol) directly from person to person

Tao's blog post ("A counterexample to the periodic tiling conjecture"):

https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2022/11/29/a-counterexample-t...

Hm there are quadrillions dollars of market cap in $1B companies that we don't know about? I'm not sure about that one, personally. Curious where you find such numbers.

how many times are you going to say "aggressing"? is that even a real word?

how can you possibly say everyone is replaceable while next giving an example of a case where it's not only not true but potentially so invisible in its consequences as to make it hard or impossible to satisfactorily replace someone? a "person" can be rebuilt but not replaced. companies and societies aren't actually bose-einstein condensates. everyone is replaceable is just what different types of people say as a coping mechanism. it's a disgusting thing to promulgate too. maybe if someone is equivalent to a cog they can be replaced but humans are not exactly standardized cogs. what you mean to say, and may get in the habit of repeating instead, is that we don't necessarily need a specific person even though we are accustomed to them. it still might take you 10 years to find someone who does 80% of the same things as the other person while the missing 20% is what made that person such a unique hire in the first place. i find it a disgusting phrase that is so typical of the view of a society like ours today that is losing view of the value of life.

yes, maybe a car without mechanics rather than without a driver. drivers can be really bad, too. so bad that they forget to steer or steer badly, etc. but the steering wheel is categorically the interface made for non-engineer usage.

if 80% of knowledge is missing due to 80% of people being gone then the team who built it failed to document or automate themselves out of a job, meaning even other people on the team in the good ol' days would still have faced the same issues and merely had to chase down the original authors. that doesn't sound like it would be completely true. maybe 5-20% of un-documented knowledge walked out the door? completely rough guess. but even 0.5% of knowledge can sometimes be critical.

Not to be confused with density-functional theory, which is also DFT. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Density_functional_theory