How long will it take China to rebrand these apps under a different name ?
87 karma · joined November 19, 2018
Unnecessary use of the 'paradox' label.
If a criminal shoots a cop, that is violence.
If a cop shoots the criminal back, is that the 'paradox of violence' ?
If a surgeon cuts open a patient with a knife, to treat a tumor, is that the 'paradox of violence' ?
Violence used to curb violence is peace. Peace used to ignore violence is violence.
There is nothing 'paradoxical' about not tolerating the intolerant. That is basic justice.
Unnecessary use of the 'paradox' label.
If a criminal shoots a cop, that is violence.
If a cop shoots the criminal back, is that the 'paradox of violence' ?
If a surgeon cuts open a patient with a knife, to treat a tumor, is that the 'paradox of violence' ?
Violence used to curb violence is peace. Peace used to ignore violence is violence.
There is nothing 'paradoxical' about not tolerating the intolerant. That is basic justice.
but to reach Senior, you must head nod a lot when you're junior (and then later research it yourself if interested), because otherwise you'll likely be deemed stupid and won't make it to Senior.
There is always a power dynamic as long as you have desires.
Even the state employee with a gun has someone else he needs to answer to, or that someone else with a bigger gun will show up at his house.
To the saint/monk/yogi who needs nothing but a fruit a day from a nearby tree, no power on earth has a "power-dynamic" over him.
"need to accept" is a "subjective" consensus - meaning it is useless if the terminology is not accepted.
Acceptance is a subjective decision, at which point you're simply going by majority vote. And majority is not a barometer for truth.
Science absolutely cares about subjective acceptance, and faith in experts.
False. If you did not do the study/experiment yourself, you are putting your faith in scientists that did. This is philosophically equivalent to someone putting their faith in, say a monk, or a pastor.
If you go one level deeper, the monk might say, 'do X penance for Y years to verify Z claim', then it's up to you whether you want to follow that route or not. Until then, his claim is not unfalsifiable, like many skeptics claim.
Even for mundane day-to-day claims, 'science', as commonly understood, falls short.
e.g. Science cannot prove to me that a mango tastes sweet, without putting the condition that I must taste it. The only 'proof' it can provide is 'Taste it and see for yourself'. If I say, 'I will only taste it AFTER you prove it is sweet', then nothing will happen. Because Taste is subjective. Yet, everyone, 'miraculously' is able to come to a consensus.
There are truths that are individually/subjectively verifiable, but collectively/objectively unverifiable.
The denigration of the former type of truths is something armchair scientists must avoid. Real scientists never denigrate them.
You are voluntarily & temporarily handing over that power to someone else in exchange for money.
The moment you renounce your desire for money from that company, you get back that power you handed over.
And that was, is, and will, always be your decision. Thus, the power never left your hands.
They're not forbidden to learn the meaning of Vedas. That is universal to all, as evidenced by the Dharma-Butcher - a butcher by profession who solves all philosophical doubts of saints. And he did speak in Sanskrit to the Rishis.
What they're forbidden is to chant the Vedas with original incantation. Because those chants have the power to invoke deities who control the forces of nature itself.
This is no different from restricting access to firearms for the general public. While most citizens shouldn't operate them, they are entitled to the protection offered by others who wield them. And those who wield them must have extreme restraint.
Brahmins, are known for self-control, patience, begging for alms, vegetarianism, and study of scriptures. Atleast, that was the case until a few generations ago. Now, they've left their traditional professions and gone into the IT industry, so they too lost the qualities/restraint needed to be entrusted with Veda mantras.
Particularly, Hinduism has its highest corpus of philosophy devoted to the question - What next ?
In fact, that is literally the question the treatise starts with 'After enjoying all material desires, what next ? let's start with God'
for all the lofty scientific & neutral ideals that rational/atheistic/left/liberal people chest-thump, they should be able to judge an idea for its content and not for the person.
but since we know that no one is that scientific, just post views under a pseudonym, unless you plan to run for political office.
if the idea is acceptable, it will be accepted.
but not leetcoding. get on it.
Tomorrow I can come up with a new word called 'oogabookga' which means invention/discovery/creation, and then make enough people accept it so it makes it into the dictionary, and then 20 years later, 2 other folks like us will argue about the semantics between oogabookga and invention and discovery.
That's exactly what happened with invention/discovery 20 (or 200) years ago, and we are those 2 people now.
To a scientist/saint who has done a lifetime of study/penance on the past, present and future, every invention is predictable. To a goldfish with 5-second memory, every sunrise, why every breath, is a discovery.
Look at it another way. A scientist 'discovers' the atom. He didn't 'invent' it, right? Now, how did he discover it ? Using a microscope that another scientist 'invented'. So far so good?
Now go down the chain to that scientist. How did he 'invent' the microscope ? Did he make it out of thin air ? No, he was one day playing with 2 optic lenses that another scientist 'invented', and when placed in a line, he 'discovered' that they magnified it 100 times what one lens did. And he told everyone that 2 lenses together is called a microscope that he 'invented'. So far, so good ?
Now, go down the chain to that scientist. How did he 'invent' the optic lens ? Did he create it out of thin air ? No, he was one day playing with glass which another scientist 'invented', and when looking through it, he 'discovered' that they magnified it things 10 times their size. And he told everyone that looking through a glass lens is a 'magnifying glass' that he 'invented'. So far, so good ?
You see the pattern here ? Every permutation combination of nature exists. In other words, all possible inventions already exist waiting to be discovered by humans, or all possible discoveries are waiting to be invented.
The 2 words are synonyms.
Something 'new' that you 'discovered' was someone else's 'invention'. And once you go beyond the deepest chain that your senses can reach, even the physical laws that govern our universe that were 'discovered' are an 'invention' of God. Where did God discover it from ? We can ask Him.
Baseline for you, luxury for another.
A homeless person would say you're a slave to having a house, 3 meals, heating, tap-water.
Funnily, a saint would say the same.
The only difference is desire+inability (hobo), detachment+ability (saint)
TripleByte ?
So, where did that $20 go ? To some other team, right ?
What about the reverse scenario? If I cannot do all my work with $80, I ask for more, say $100. Then my budget for next year becomes 100.
I don't see a problem with this. Budgets are fluid and change from year to year. Because I saved the company $20 in year 6, I will be rewarded with $20 in year 7 if I ask for it.
This entire anti-CAA protests are organized and funded and instigated by Opposition parties to create a Muslim vote bank, because they're upset that the ruling party consolidated the Hindu vote bank.
By your logic, those who are 'protesting' in support of the CAA must also be allowed to occupy public highways and disrupt everyone's lives.
Just because democracy tolerates protests, it doesn't make the protestors automatically correct or moral.
The 'minority' protestors are against a law that actually helps minorities of their neighboring countries. The hypocrisy is high.