carapat_virulat

If you choose to switch the track to kill 1 innocent to save 5, you open the door to things like a society where 1 innocent healthy person is killed to harvest the organs and save 5 innocents. The calculation is the same.

The Knife Media usually does analysis about how much spin different newspapers add to current news stories:

https://www.theknifemedia.com/world-news/pompeo-kim-jong-un-...

I am sure scientists creating a half-chimp half-human monster will make the general population trust them more and stop doubting their sanity and just put all other decision in their hands /s.

But the point of the original "manifesto" was that google makes the claim that uneven distribution of men and women is due to discrimination, and the "manifesto" explains how a 100% fair and non-discriminatory selection process may result in uneven results.

In that case, there's no reason to assume discrimination unless it's proved.

As far as I understood the original manifesto was about the average population characteristics of currently existing men and women, so those studies shouldn't have anything to do with Evo-psych, I mean they would be valid even if evolution didn't exist.

That's because she was dead and posthumous Nobel Prizes are not awarded. Not because she was a woman.

Women aren't a minority.

>Are there any countries that could serve as an counter-example? That is, has numerical parity between men and women in tech ever been achieved without implementing targeted diversity policies?

As far as I know in poor unequal societies women go more to STEM careers[1]. I'd think that's because you don't have the luxury to choose to study something that won't pay well after your parents made the effort to put you through university.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-professional/2015/jun/2...

People deserve politeness, not respect.

Yes, women are in average higher in trait agreeableness[1][2]. This is well studied cross-culturally. There's still a huge overlap between men and women in most traits so it's not useful as a rule of thumb of how people as individuals.

It can explain average population outcomes like men on average haggling for better wages as you said.

It can also explain outlier outcome, for example the most disagreeable people are mostly men. This makes men more likely to end up in prison. Which doesn't mean that the average men is much more likely to end up in prison than the average woman. But the type of person who is more likely to end up in prison happen to be mostly men.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreeableness [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3149680/

I have to say, I am impressed at how journalists are able to find new ingenious ways to write whole articles about the attacks without mentioning Islam or why it was perpetrated even once.

On a more serious note, we westerners are probably not the target audience of these attacks, so I'm not sure hiding them from our population will do anything to prevent the news from reaching their target audience. I seriously doubt ISIS potential recruits get their news from Buzzfeed.

I don't think there is. I've been trying to move from vim to Emacs for a few weeks unsuccessfully, mostly for org-mode and all the agenda stuff. I still use emacs for org-mode but I don't feel comfortable using it for normal code editing.

I am using evil mode, Helm, Projectile and Jedi for completion, and even though everything is more or less configured and took me around 300 lines of elisp I still find all the time defaults that are completely different to vim and I'll have to fix at some point and I am not sure how much time and code it will take to make it feel comfortable. Just a few problems from the top of my head:

- evil-mode "u" to undo changes sometimes works and sometimes does crazy stuff. I think it has something to do with incompatible modes, specially org-mode.

- Tab doesn't work, I'll have to investigate how to make it work properly.

- The defaults for Projectile for opening files inside a project look and feel horrible, it's configurable but I'll have to investigate and probably spend a few hours writing elisp until I have it working to my taste.

- Things like ":set nowrap" don't seem to work in evil-mode, I'll have to investigate how to do the same in emacs.

- The completion is kind of weird and it appears automatically instead of using a key to activate it. Again it's configurable, but I'll have to spend a bunch of time getting it to work as I want.

- If you do ":e path/to/file" and then you try to open another file from inside emacs using ":e [TAB]" it will work as if you changed to "path/to" instead of the original directory.

And this is just from the top of my head without having used it for a few weeks now as I don't have the time to configure all that stuff. I'd say that evil-mode is not transparent enough to make the change simple.

Reddit doesn't really work like a traditional forum. In a traditional forum everybody has the same visibility, in reddit it's very easy to create like-minded communities because anything controversial gets out of view very fast.

Well that depends, are you a singer? Then it's probably a good idea to communicate with other singers beyond the local bar where you sing now and then.

Not saying that everybody should start a blog or that most blogs are not garbage written by people that don't have anything interesting to say. But if you want to take your career further it's probably a good idea to immerse yourself in your professional community in a way that expands your reach further than your near friends and co-workers. A blog can be a way to do that.

The post speaks about "owing something to someone" but this holds even just by purely egotistical measures.

After all, communists are the best managers of capitalism.

Nice article but parts of it can be misleading. The article mentions the "fake news" polemic but the example presented are targeted ads with no fake information.

Was it the problem calling wolf? Or was the problem calling wolf and then devouring all the hens as soon as you got in power?

People are just confused with of all the rhetoric against war while the games continue in the Middle East. The war against terror while "moderate rebels" with ties to Al-Qaeda are treated as allies. The raising inequality paired with the dogma of the free market while we rescue banks as soon as the free market breaks down. Where the Democratic party approved NAFTA while being the natural allies of labor. Where Bill Clinton passed the Crime Law but is remembered as an ally of minorities.

In this climate where one position and the opposite one are true at the same time it's not strange that somebody like Trump can arrive, start spewing bullshit and still be taken seriously as long as he calls out the establishment.

> - The decline of trades unions.

That's directly linked to globalization. When you can easily move your factory to Mexico or China trade unions lost all power.

I think those kinds of plots only make sense when you lay more or less in the middle. A political position is not just how you position yourself in an objective predeterminate political space but also how you define that political space.

I guess once we have thrown away universal empathy we may as well throw away the natural numbers, the concept of a line or using categories to designate things we have never seen. I mean what's the point of calling a table a table if I will never be able to hold all existing tables in my head?

More seriously, infinite concepts are usually really simple to conceive for most human minds, it's much more complicated to look at real life objects clashing with mental objects and extract new meaningful concepts that may help solve those inconsistencies.

>And then the pendulum swung back. People do care, newspaper editorialists and social-media commenters granted. But they care inconsistently: grieving for victims of Brussels’ recent attacks and ignoring Yemen’s recent bombing victims; expressing outrage over ISIS rather than the much deadlier Boko Haram; mourning the death of Cecil the Lion in Zimbabwe while overlooking countless human murder victims. There are far worthier tragedies, they wrote, than the ones that attract the most public empathy.

>[...] If we recognized that we have a limited quantity of empathy to begin with, it would help to cure some of the acrimony and self-flagellation of these discussions. [...] We must begin with a realistic assessment of what those limits are, and then construct a scientific way of choosing which values matter most to us.

For example in the above paragraph the author seems to extract that the meaning of those criticism is that we should feel bad about ourselves. I don't think that's the point, I agree that self-flagellation is improductive, but we can rationally examine those kinds of inconsistent beliefs and emotions. Is the way we look at those other people influencing how we act towards them? Do those actions affect how they act towards us? Is there any chance of reconciliation?

The author also seems to blindly accept the belief that personal intervention is the only way to reduce misery, with no place for cold restructuring of society in a way that avoid generating that misery in the first place, done in a cold calculated way, with no need to deplete our precious, finite, empathy.

The middle ground doesn't exist in itself. To have a middle ground you need to have a previous political position from which you can measure it, the illusion is believing that you can find a universal ideological space from which you can map the rest of ideological positions.

That is, when you take a certain political position that not only determines what measures you want to apply, it also determines how you see every other political position. The center is not the same center for a conservative and for a left-winger.

Everything is possible, except any small change in capitalism. [1]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK0vRYWtcOU

Is this really relevant in any way? If celebrities want to play the internet game where everybody can answer they should get used to people complaining about insubstantial stuff.

All these mainstream culture wars are getting more and more boring as they go on. In the 90s everybody stayed in their own corners and did their own things, now every single small thing has to be relevant for everybody and all audiences want to be pandered by every single small corner of the media.

I can't take seriously any Mars project that sends people without robots paving our way there first. It sounds like romantic marketing with no real long-term expectation.

As the article says one of the main reasons is to inspire people, but the current world is structured in a way that tells a lot of people that they are out, they won't ever be part of society in a meaningful way, they'll get some money to stay alive and sort of make it through life, but they will never be meaningful members of a community.

So in this kind of atmosphere seems very difficult to convince people to participate in any kind of common project for all of us.

It seems very hard to get people involved in a project like that in the current world, there is no common enemy to unite us and even if it's possible most people feel that they won't be a part of it in any meaningful sense. And I doubt that Trickle-down-technology is going to be enough to get people interested.

But who knows, the current world is young and we still don't know the direction it will take, maybe common projects come back in a meaningful way at some point.

Many of the seminal writers of what the author calls The American cult of political correctness in universities, like Derrida, Foucault, de Bevoir, Butler, Adorno have all been influenced by Nietzsche.

I haven't read any of those authors nor Nietzsche, and I have no idea whatsoever about the political correctness that goes on in the USA so I'm not trying to make any kind of point.

I just find it funny that conservatives have a certain pop idea of Nietzsche as some kind of more serious Ayn Rand, while actual Nietzsche scholars have actualized his ideas in all kinds of directions.

Everybody is eating from the trashcan all the time [1].

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18qD9hmU9xg

Because western Buddhism has no moral commitments and that makes it a good fit for postmodern mentality, as in you can do whatever you want as long as you keep the necessary distance. It's a way to get inner peace without having to change anything about your real life behavior and beliefs, you get to have the cake and to eat it too.

You just have to see how most meditation companies sell their product, the first movement is telling you that this is a way to escape modern consumerism, the stress of modern life, a more authentic life. The second movement is telling you that with their help you will be even more productive at the consumerist game. So you get everything, you have to sacrifice nothing.

But most anti-cholesterol diets lower animal fat intake, not dietary cholesterol intake. Is this supposed not to work?

I had high cholesterol for years, I didn't take it very seriously because I'm otherwise healthy and I was eating healthy, but when I decided to take care of it I got it from around 210mg/dL to something like 140mg/dL just by changing all my meat/cheese to low fat alternatives as my doctor said. I am a big eater though, so maybe it doesn't make as much a difference for people that don't eat so much.

"I already am eating from the trashcan all the time. The name of this trashcan is ideology.

The material force of ideology makes me not see what I am effectively eating. It’s not only our reality which enslaves us. The tragedy of our predicament when we are within ideology is that when we think that we escape it into our dreams, at that point we are within ideology."[1]

This is a really nice documentary about all the unspoken assumptions that permeate our day to day lives, I would really recommend everybody to see it.

None of this is scientific or empirical, but the thing is, neither are the myriad of day-to-day assumptions that we usually take as obvious or common sense.

[1] The Pervert's Guide to Ideology (2012)