chickenimprint

I mostly agree with your comment which echoes the sentiment in the article: Things are meant to be used. Don't fall for the psychological trap, that makes you never use your best items.

The point I was making is that the inference, from seeing examples of to worn gear to assuming rough handling is fallacious.

Inappropriate use usually leads to failure far before many signs of wear appear. The person who mistreats his tools is more likely to be seen with new tools, since they had to replace them, while the professional who takes care of his tools is most likely to be seen with worn tools, since they survived in his care long enough for wear marks to become obvious.

This is why I say you extracted the wrong lessons. System 1 thinking matches two intensities: wear and usage. The conclusion seems plausible but is wrong.

Professionals might appear to be unconcerned, but it's more likely the "making it look easy"-effect. The accumulation of decades of experience leads to a trained and steady hand, intimate knowledge of how fragile, grippy, heavy, etc. each part is, and an almost instinctive feeling of handling the tool as an extension of the human body. They won't drop the camera, but you might.

Professionals have worn gear because they know how to handle it without breaking. Looks like you extracted the wrong lesson from photographers.

You failed to understand the meaning of his comment on the political structure.

Basically it comes down to this: The easiest way to gain the favor and unquestioning loyalty of citizens is by antagonizing an outside power. All missteps can be excused by evoking the enemy. The need to justify policies that are usually politically costly drops sharply. Coalition building becomes irrelevant. The best part is, that the feedback loop of attacks between opposing states, verbal or otherwise, keeps the system running indefinitely. Take the lazy, incompetent and corrupt governments of Abbas, Netanyahu and Hamas for example. This is politics on easy mode.

You can identify dozens of examples of this dysfunctional dynamic. Some are internal, like in Belgium or Bosnia, others external, like Serbia vs Kosovo or Azerbaijan vs Armenia. The reason Erdogan, possibly one of the worst statesmen in world history, has clung on to power, is that he can antagonise both the Greeks and the Kurds.

It's inherent to the geopolitical system and there is little that can be done about it.

There's plenty of Musilm-majority areas in India that Pakistan could have made a fuss about, if Kashmir had never existed.

Are you claiming that the perception of retributive justice being served is not a factor at all in current justice systems?

This is as preventative, restorative and rehabilitative as it could ever be?

The Great Courses are a real gem. It's a shame they continue to shorten and clickbaitify their lecture series.

Oh, prescriptions, that makes a lot more sense. As you rightly point out, science is not prescriptive, only descriptive.

Thanks!

I don't see any difference. I concur with your assessment on the ToC, but my main complaint is that monolinguals seem to have decided for the rest of us that changing language should involve multiple clicks in the top right corner.

What do you mean by P(TheScience) ?

It wasn't worth pushing through. The other arguments are equally as incoherent until it gets to the hard problem of consciousness, which seems to a problem for the author to explain concisely.

Tipping also makes sure every restaurant is slowly turning into a Hooters. When was the last time you've seen an unattractive nonwhite male waiter?

> You got it right the first time. No, I gave an example of inductive reasoning common in science. Induction means concluding from the particular to the general. So in this case we might have observed something happening in the past, induced it happens in all of time, deduced that future time is part of all time by definition, and finally concluded that it will happen in the future. Induction is not restricted to time, it can equally be a generalization over time or any circumstance really.

We don't check each and every room in the country to see if general relativity holds there, and then fall in despair once we realize it might have randomly stopped holding in one of them yesterday.

> No, it does not. It observes that the world behaves according to general rules. It does not presuppose that it does.

I'd like to see you explain how you can you observe a rule. Are you God? Can you see all of space and time and all possible dimensions? Science observes particulars and tries to formulate general rules based on these observations. If science would not use induction, any observation would be meaningless, because the exact circumstances the observation was carried out in would cease to exist the moment the observation was concluded.

Therefore, science is susceptible to the induction problem.

>Science is the business of finding the best explanations that account for all observations.

This is exactly what induction means. Even your wording is almost identical to that of the Wikipedia page on "Inductive reasoning".

> One of the consequences of this methodology is that it turns out that all known observable phenomena can be described by fairly simple mathematical laws. But science does not assume this.

I'm not sure you fully comprehend, it's much simpler. Science does presuppose that observations mean anything related to more general rules, otherwise what would be the point of observations, right? Otherwise all data would be equivalent to TV static and to build a house we would just hope it builds itself. The way you hedge your bets with phrases like "can be described by" and "appear to" makes me think you intuitively understand the limitations of science when it comes to capturing absolute truths, such as analytical a priori truths (e.g. all bachelors are unmarried), which are correct by definition.

See, there's the problem. You called it almost certainly false, but what are the criteria of truth?

Science uses induction as a measure, meaning it presupposes that we have faith in the proposition that something will happen again because it has happened in the past. That would be akin to claiming to be immortal, because every time someone died, it wasn't you. With a little additional information, such as the recognition that you are an animal and that most animals seem to have not been immortal in the past, a good hypothesis would be that you will die, but how can you be sure that you're not the first immortal one? It might seem silly, but how can we be certain that the entirety of physics in the universe is not milliseconds from unraveling, that we're not a metaphorical barrel at the crest of a waterfall without knowing?

In epistemology, only logical truths are certain, anything else is an attempt to put a confidence rating on a proposition, be it through science or religion. Neither can reach 100%, but both can certainly be 0%. There aren't even objective measures for such confidence ratings, statistical modelling is the best we have.

The scientific method explicitly excludes unfalsifiable claims from its purview. If you have ever argued with a religious person, you will realize how easily deflected the argument is, that there is no evidence for divine inspiration. You could mention billions of recorded scientific findings that point toward a material world without supernatural events and still be rebuked by "So what? That doesn't mean it's untrue. You can't disprove that it happened that one time."

I'm not saying that science is a pointless endeavor, just that it can never be an objective measure of truth.

You concluded a biblical text was fantastical, due to it's literal reading being physically impossible?

I suspect this is due to a difference in ideology.

American ideology seems seems to be stuck in enlightenment ideas when it comes to philosophy of mind, which is likely due to the veneration of the founders and political system, which is based on Cartesian dualism.

Religious Americans are more likely to believe that there is such a thing as free will and people could have made a different choice, while atheist Europeans tend more towards eliminative materialism, where there is no magical soul that makes unbiased decisions, and folk psychology (concepts like beliefs and wants) are merely inadequate descriptions of behavioral patterns or post-hoc rationalizations.

An American would likely view a murderer wholly responsible of a gun murder. No fault could be ascribed to the gun manufacturer, legislation, or any other external factor. Retributive justice calls for the death penalty.

A European would be slightly more likely to see the murder as a chain of events in a deterministic world, without agency. Assuming the European wants to decrease murders for some reason, they would advocate rehabilitative justice, meaning a short sentence mainly there to prevent future murders and preventative measures all the way up the chain of events, such as reducing guns and increasing psychotherapy.

If you think about it, a trinary bit is much less information than another sound would be. It's really quite easy to remember, but english minds seem to exclude articles from making it into memory, since they are usually not necessary. Change your mindset to include the articles as part of the word.

There's a bunch of easy sound patterns that will make a German guess the right gender of a new word 99% of the time, like -er being masculine or -nis neuter. You can look them up, but it's much easier to form that intuition by learning vocab the right way.

I'm immensely skeptical of anything self-reported. I don't want to invalidate other's feelings, but we constantly hallucinate firm, certain seeming memories and emotions into existence with barely any suggestion. Unless you double blind test HRT there is no way of knowing if it is not entirely socially conditioned. Trans women don't have the same hormonal cycles as women, and I don't thing there's anything inherently feminine about knitting.

My carrier literally bugs me about giving away more and more personal info for 5 bucks every 2 months. They must have heard of the same research. They also ask for consent to receive "advice" and term it "our gift to you". I wonder how many people must fall for it.

Portuguese claims are pretty legit, the Azores and Madeira were previously uninhabited and settled by the Portuguese before the Eastern Roman Empire even fell.

Excluding small island states, the seafood consumption per capita is the highest in the world, you can literally smell it in their supermarkets, and this traditional diet is supported to a large degree by the fishing industry within their EEZ.

The proposed EEZ forms one continuous area with the mainland, something that can't be said for US, UK and French posessions.

Which relevant island is uninhabited? Go through them on maps right now, you'll be surprised. There's really nothing there to justify Erdogans neo-Ottomanist jingoism.

Sometimes it's valuable to question the underlying motives of leadership. He's not blinded enough to believe he has a leg to stand on, but perceptive enough of the intense nationalism that pervades Turkish society (to be fair the same can be said about Greek and the rest of the Balkan society). It's really not a novel insight that exploiting those attitudes, pushing those buttons, distracts from mismanagement at home and guarantees reelection.

I regard this feedback loop as one of the fundamental flaws of democracy. Echoes of every antagonising remark, every urealistic demand can be heard in Serbia, Palestine, Pakistan and wherever else there is a border dispute, causing perpetual bad governance and keeping the people riled up.

The Greek claim is entirely reasonable, uncontroversial and correct according to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. These islands have been continuously inhabited by Greeks for millennia. The border is drawn exactly according to the proximity to land.

It's not some artificial pile of sand on a bank that will erode away if you look at it wrong, or an uninhabited atoll in the middle of nowhere, first discovered a century ago.

I can't believe I'm reading someone earnestly disputing Greece's sovereignty on HN. Either there has been a lack of information or we're dealing with a case of rampant chauvinism and historical enmity.

You should overlay the Greek EEZ on Japan's or China's claims to see how little it really is. Take a look at the US, UK and France in the Pacific for god's sake!

The difference in user experience reflects the difference in incentives. The lack of an obsequious welcome is as much a feature as the uncurated timeline. Mastodon is infrastructure, a tool, not a skinner box duct taped to a monstrous data combine harvester, like every other site with a profit motive has become.

What's wrong with supporting the first Gulf War, NAFTA or neoliberalism? These are all popular and reasonable positions.

A profitable byproduct shifts down the supply curve, leading to a greater market equilibrium. That doesn't mean we shouldn't use it, but we should be cognizant of the fact that in a world without leather, there would be less cattle farming. We can therefore unequivocally say that leather is not environmentally friendly.

The best world would have leather, but also its externalities priced in.

Why would the WTO and World Bank stop working with Ghana? Who would invade Ghana and why?

I remember playing soccer with completely smooth rubber balls as a kid, and this effect is definitely noticeable. Feels a bit like kicking a beach ball. It's like they stop in midair.

I fear that if there is hundreds of thousands of dollars in demand pressure on getting some rich guys in, the chain will break somewhere. Maybe they'll bribe the entrance staff, or someone sells access to a VIP guest list, but it's bound to happen eventually.

I use Enhancer for Youtube to disable shorts.

Will you endure the longer hours which will be implemented at your job also, for it will appear evident, that the tech worker is unperturbed by diminished working conditions?