classicsnoot

I think it is very telling that none of the seemingly scientific claims or measurable assertions in this piece have any citations. "Diversity of (x)" may cause opportunities to arise, but Diversity itself, in this piece, could probably be replaced with "better pay," or "better work conditions," or any thing that most people believe to be good. It is an interesting piece because it reinforces the ascendant commoner ideology of the US: stuff i like is good, and here is a list of bullet points as to why good stuff is great."

EDIT: grammar

I am fairly confident this will be flagged, and i may be censured, but i found it massively interesting and i would like to see it discussed dispassionately by a community of analytical thinkers, so i will take the chance.

I am not posting this to divide, diminish, disparage, or depress. if no one finds this piece interesting and/or worthy of discussion, then i will of course accept any and all consequences for my decision to post it.

Okay, I am tipsy enough to post this. I had an absolutely brilliant idea a few years ago and I'm going to share it, knowing it will probably be disregarded and certain it will never be realised.

Commercials/ads should be patterned after a weather model. 9 months out of the year, consumers pay it no mind, and when it happens, it is a hard shock, meaning some people push through and others avoid it entirely.

In the 3 "bad" weather months, there is a rise (1), a sustain (2), and a decline to normalcy (3). Month 2 is wall to wall commercials. Everyone knows August, for the sake of example, is just commercials.Everyone knows July and September are lousy with commercials. Consumers and producers adjust accordingly.

In the 9 month normal, there are scattered showers of commercials, maybe the occasional thunderstorm (elections, sporting events, mass shootings, etc.). In the 3 month bad weather period, the paradigm is Superbowl.

By scheduling the big ad push, companies and producers will be motivated to create content worth watching. I abhor sportsball of any type, but I watch Superbowl commercials religiously. They (we) spend ludicrous amounts for the Superbowl because of the guaranteed eyeballs. This model leverages that concept. Imagine ad campaigns with real story arcs. Good acting, exquisite props and locations, viral explosions of excellent ads. Of course some people will just check out, but most people will flock to a 1-3 month period of atraditional media.

I'm sorry you have been censored.

Controlled opposition and provocation are tried and true methods for controlling narrative and spin balancing. Unfortunately, the silicon valley bubble crowd can neither be disabused of their fantastical notions of reality nor can they accept that their unwashed heros may in fact be a part of the machine they tacitly support.

You are always so quick to shut down discussion. You always ring the flame war warning bell, then I watch people of a "certain" political flavor signal and counter signal their righteousness when it comes to climate change or any other settled topic. Maybe you guys should just add a "no unpopular or uncomfortable thoughts" rule instead of pretending you are saving the discussion from certain doom by soft censoring unpopular opinions.

This is just my opinion, as well it is a dead'd thread, so please don't shadow ban me. Again.

>Terry Gross is the best regular interviewer in the US.

This is the part i disagreed with. All of your other statements serve to qualify this assertion. I have great respect for her staff, but i find her interview style over-the-top and self aggrandizing.

I could not disagree more. She talks far too much. I think she lets her personality as a Personality get in the way.

I know this is subjective, and I don't need you to agree with my opinion. I'm only responding because I listened to her for almost two decades and have never been able to tell anyone these thoughts except for an undeserving ex-gf and a hapless hitchhiker.

~50% of this archive is just Terri Gross telling people about themselves to them. I was always so perplexed at how she could secure interviews with so many interesting people, then just talk through the whole thing, literally talking over interviewees to tell interviewees what they said or what happened to them. I miss pre-Trump NPR so much, but Fresh Air has always been an immensely frustrating program.

As interesting as a lot of these interviews might seem based on subject, I think many people would get a lot more out of a Big Broadcast with Ed Walker archive.

From the page/producer:

" A neural network imagines a person. Then, one by one, neurons in the network are being switched off... Project page: https://aitold.me/portfolio/i-will-not-forget/ The audio track Dark Love For Love was created here: http://computoser.com/track/100 "

It is probably a good thing that Asimov, Clarke, Feynman, Sagan, and Tesla don't have to see who inherited their legacies of thought, ambition, and deed.

Imagine explaining to any one of them that the imagination and impetus of the future man, imbued with technology and options, is completely given over to spam email, ICOs, and dressing up 90s code as "innovation" so they can cash out early.

I've been feeling this place degrade over time, and this thread is a red flag.

SlackerNews: we know better; we won't change.

What are the "qualifications of a journalist?" They are people with opinions that write stuff. If you think journalism and writing departments are teaching rigor and factual veracity, you are mistaken. I've only come to it recently, but Gell-Mann Amnesia Affect is something to be aware of and avoid.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect?wpr...

Remember kids, if it isn't the science you like, it isn't science at all.

For me, the best thing about this person's interview from TFA is their call for others to do the same. Just like me ubering to school or work is not science, the mass collection of data points yields opportunities for better studies down the road.

> centers power in the hands of the few

Power inevitably becomes centered in a small group. This seems to be an immutable trait of either power itself or people-groups in general. Regardless, it is unavoidable everywhere except on paper, which is to say conjecturally.

Also, billionaires dying don't kill industries. They might kill devastatingly expensive pet hobbies,but not industries.

It always feels good to predict that humans would be getting along swimmingly if it weren't for a handful of bad actors, but there really isn't a case for this expectation based on history. What there is a case for, as has been demonstrated countless times in literally every human endeavor, is an ordered hierarchy pursuing a declared set of goals and reaping unintended/unexpected benefit and detriment along the way. It is like pushing a boulder from point A to B; sometimes it needs to be pushed up hill and other times it must be guided downhill. The idea that "it would be so great if we stopped pushing boulders up hill and only guided them downhill" (a metaphorical interpretation of the happy, co-equal group of like minded workers) ignores the topographical reality of effort, endeavor, intention, and challenge.

Carrying a smartphone is exactly that.

That fairness effect is downstream from the expectation of self-interest being the primary motivator behind market decisions.

Thank you for the well worded responses. I was responding in good faith, and herein also.

>isn't consistently This is the beautiful thing about socialism. It need not be perfect, or even dominant. It just needs a foothold. From there, it is purely a game of time. Put another way, socialists wait for other viewpoints to come around to theirs (Christianity, Academe, Business) or disappear. They do not become Less Left.

>cladistic Ah. See you too are a person of depth. Yarvin's work on the neo-Protestant clade is exceptional but not for the faint of heart. I recommend Spandrell's Bioleninism piece.

>falsely generalizing A salient point. Where are the gulags of the social democrats? Where are the legions of thought police? Where are the desperate informers turning in their neighbors? I know this will be an ugly statement, but I believe the mass murder inclination of socialists is more than saitiated by rampant abortion. It fulfills the same methods and motivations of Holdomer and any other incident of mass death from Lenin or Stalin or Pot or Mao; the greater good. People often forget that the motivations behind the mass death perpetrated by these men and, more importantly, their regimes always had a logical source, for some definition of logic. Socialism doesn't cause mass murder; it justifies it. And to the socialist society, the justification is always good.

>socialist religiosity So what? Capitalism is faith in the selfishness of man. Socialism is faith in the rightness of good. Cargo Cults use the same parts of their brains for reasoning as Catholics. The question, for me, is not the How, but the What. More directly, To What End and For What Purpose. Objectively, the merit of capitalism vs. the merits of socialism a matter of historical record. Put another way, the same god concept that causes a genocide can also cause, quite literally, science. Equivocation has its value, but in the frame of your chosen context it is relatively valueless.

I point out the religiosity of socialism not to say it is singular, rather to demonstrate that it is typical.

Why would you? The zealous are continually perplexed by the lack of natural conviction they witness. I am adamant in my interpretation, but I am very aware of how much of an edge case my perspective seems to be.

Democratic Socialism is socialism, and socialism always finds a way to murder people and increase poverty in the name of equality.

Socialism is a deeply religious belief. It has its priests (professors, journalists, entertainers), its churches (campuses, museums, protests and benefit rallies as outdoor/big tent revival analog), its core beliefs predicated on faith that unite the fervent and ostracize the skeptical (diversity is always beneficial, climate change is the fault of the successful, racism is original sin, privilege creates winners and losers in spite of actual value, religions of the oppressed are blameless, etc.), and its intangible and perpetually just beyond The horizon utopia. In every important way, socialism is a religion. It has a general hate for "gods" which functions as a smoke screen for the incorporation of American Protestantism into its modern day Progressive skin suit.

You can see the energy of the faithful when technical questions are provided emotional responses, when differing opinions about generalities are met with personal assertions regarding psychological well being ('burn the hetetic' transmogrified into 'you need medical attention because you have (x)-pathy), and, always everpresent in Leftward arguments,appeals to authority that the one appealing doesn't recognize.

Your use of the term "evil" says a lot about the warped Western perspective. Without diving too deeply into pedantry, it is the West that claims the cognitively dissonant idea that religiosity is subject to the State while also demanding the State act religiosly (just wars, responsibility to protect, etc.). For all the pseudo-commie bluster, China is a Han ethnostate. Lies that benefit the State are just. Brutality that protects the State is just. China has decided that a Muslim population in its borders requires brutality, and this rubs westerners wrong. China has decided that mass surveillance should be open and accepted, and this rubs westerners wrong. But the West is very comfortable with destabilizing Ghadaffi and instigating regional chaos, which was and continues to be incredibly brutal. The West appears to be quite comfortable with mass surveillance so long as nudes abound, food arrives at our doorsteps, and ideologies we collectively find icky are suppressed.

Moralising is a habit of those who lack the strength and/or will to get what they desire through other means. The West dethroned its warriors and elevated its priests; China is dethroning its priests and raising up its warriors. Time will tell which class of leader shall overcome, but history is pretty clear about what kind of societies rise or fall.

You are making the assumption that criminals pay taxes. I'm sure some of them do, but I would be interested to see some real numbers on it.

Then what was it? I get that it holds a special place in peoples' hearts, but her best on offer was Azkaban and the transition from 04 to 06 is evidence that she started writing for the screen. She had a great idea. She had excellent response. She got bamboozled by billions and what could have been an English language epic became a pop culture touch point. Look at the desperate cloying for more bux via the continued franchise prequel, replete with woke characters and a-canonical bullshit. To top it off, she's one of the few people to become a billionaire and lose said status (and before anyone throws out the "muh charity" defense, her becoming less able to be generous doesn't help in the long run). HP was deligitimized by appealing to the LCD. To circle back, it obviously started as an appeal for attention; that is true of all art. But by trying to capture the world, she lost her frame, thereby relegating herself to the pop culture rubbish heap.

I am not surprised that people think this is new. Open source Intel, counterintel, and subversion SOP is to use media to find the pulse as well as set the tone of a society. The idea that evil Russians despoiled a pristine US media environment is laughable. The only reason this is a big deal at all is that the status quo kingmakers got pwnd in 2016 by internet trolls. They can't handle the fact that memes and propaganda destroyed their billion dollar consent manufactory so easily, so it obviously has to be "hackers" and the death of democracy ala cold war hegemonic struggle.

I have yet to have it coherently and completely explained to me how the Russians "hacked" the election. Everything I've read is long on exclamation and short on facts. Is running disingenuous ads and starting Facebook groups really hacking?

I haven't read the paper yet, but the headline/summary keeps getting bandied about reddit, imgur, facebook, and twitter.

The implication seems to be that because complex society formed without complex religion(s), said religions are superfluous and maybe even unnecessary or deleterious to said society. I may be reading the implication incorrectly.

If I am not, then I'm quite puzzled by this line of inference. If complex society formed prior to complex religion, and the only complex societies still around* today hold, or used to hold until very recently, a complex religion as a core element of societal identity, would the implication be that complex religion is an evolved trait of successful complex societies?

*Around of their own volition, not relegated to reservation regions or whose cultural pelt is being worn by its vanquisher.

You've been given evidence ITT and you've shifted the goalposts. From your posts here it is very clear that you are making a concerted yet subtle effort to minimize an issue at least 4 other posters and myself have had direct interactions with. I'm sure you have subjectively good reasons for playing this game.

This isn't a problem, though. This is probably what happens when it turns out the Russian bogeyman was just a fever dream. Indeed, being in a public University in the North East as well as 2 of my 3 concentrations being in the liberal arts, I'm quite used to people ignoring actual fires as they continuously harangue everyone about potential fires.

It feels like you keep moving the goalposts and your initial argument was "I have no personal experience with [x] so I don't believe [x] is a thing."

I can't leave links to my life experiences, but as I finish my undergrad I have heard every type of teacher and student maintain that the only differences between men and women are socially constructed. It is common knowledge and thus not really debated. The one time I saw a teacher maintain otherwise, it was a guy in the biology department who was retiring. The class session dissolved into a shouting match between students with the teacher looking on.

More than a few comments here lay the blame on "puritanical Americanism" and, as an American, I'm wondering where these so-called Puritans are when it comes to gay wedding cakes, homeschooling, residence based cotton industry, Christian expression, and gun rights.

America is neo-Protestant, not puritanical.

If you lay down with dogs...

Or the botnet that appeared and disappeared in a few hours back in 2008.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraken_botnet?wprov=sfla1

Your guess is as good as mine. It looks like a MTO kiosk. It feels like an ATM. According to [redacted] their money went straight ether.

Here[1] is the United Nations definition of genocide. Do you think what is occurring in South Africa (or what occurred in Rhodesia-Zimbabwe specifically as well as in Zimbabwe ~2 decades later) qualifies?

[1]https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/genocide