da_dude4242

>Once initiated no Zuckerberg or Schmidt has the resources to argue with the second law of thermodynamics.

Life processes move in the direction opposite of the 2nd law. Though I generally agree, if we view the market and technology as evolving we should see oscillation between diffusion and convergence.

I'm not sure I agree with the article. I feel neutral.

I'm talking about some sort of middle ground. A concrete subset of a more capable ontology.

Imagine if we had a Smalltalk OS/platform and something like Scratch was a seamlessly integrated interface for example.

http://scratch.mit.edu/

>and this is just purely funcitonal programming language with strange ui.

That's the key here. Variables/abstractions are grasped at the "formal operational" stage of cognitive development. A functional language with concrete elements( e.g table cells ) side steps this requirement. Reduce USEFUL APIs to concrete constructs and it'll be accessible to a lower common denominator.

Not surprising. The competition to get into a quality African school or get a U.S visa is going to be greater than other areas.

>If a user can select who is in their filter layer (like in Twitter), as opposed to selecting content (a subreddit), there will be a shift away from the cycle of bread and circuses.

Are you sure this isn't already happening to some degree? What reaches the front page of my account is different from what reaches the front page with cookies cleared. I suspect reddit is already using AI algorithms to filter out what is relevant based on who I upvote, the subreddits I visit, who I interact with, etc...

>Her response was, "we've thought about that, but if we don't go to their parties, what else would we do?" There's a lot packed into that question. I didn't have an immediate answer then, and that whole conversation has stuck in my mind and comes to the fore whenever I read an article like this.

Throw your own parties.

asymmetry != inequity

Anthropomorphizing math as having a "concern" is also fuzzy thinking.

>If you want to know what something "really is", consult philosophy or something.

You mean like the "foundations of mathematics"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_mathematics

Article seems 1-dimensional to me. If defaults were really hurting the economy they wouldn't be giving out student loans so liberally. Obviously someone is making a profit from it, though it might not be trickling down.

>Much to my surprise, I soon discovered that the ways people used pronouns in their essays predicted whose health would improve the most. Specifically, those people who benefited the most from writing changed in their pronoun use from one essay to another. Pronouns were reflecting people’s abilities to change perspective.

Not surprising if you consider this idea has already been entertained. Freud's "Ego", "Super Ego", and "Id" are Latin translations for I, We, and It. Pronouns

Neo-Freudian techniques like Voice Dialogue are training in examining phenomena from all pronoun perspectives. A training tool for horizontal perspective fluidity.

"Philosophers" do care about computational complexity. System's Theory weaves through both fields in the context of "irreducible" complexity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory#Developments_in_...

In that case the inverse is also true. Computer Scientists should care about what it means for something to be irreducible or computationally complex.

Wrist pain can be a product of Thoracic Outlet Syndrome. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoracic_outlet_syndrome

The thoracic region of the spine is supposedly very sturdy and resilient to injury. But sitting hunched over with head forward over many years can catch up to you.

Not sure they are seeking vertical integration at least not at the expense of the horizontal span that has expanded the android ecosystem beyond iOS.

I think irreducibility is well received in philosophy. Evolutionary Biology not so much for political reasons. Sure there are are plenty of models that incorporate emergent phenomena but it's a heated area.

Nice try troll. Philosophy plays a larger role in the lives of mathematicians than in the lives of natural scientists. Many mathematicians have domain expertise in philosophy. Your "philosopher" is a straw-man by comparison.

It's also domain knowledge for system programming.

Meditation

scientific keyword here is "executive function"

>I think the international and domestic food policies of many countries help to cause wars and starvation

That's my point. Food production affects social stability in ways that aren't immediately obvious.

>But if I had to choose between having and eating my cake, I would prefer to let international relations slide in favor of growing food with my family, neighbors and co-workers, because I would rather increase the peace in relationships I can directly affect and growing and sharing my own food is a great way to do that

You'd prefer to let other countries spiral into war and starvation?

>In fact, I do make that choice. Because I can see its benefits directly, I also encourage others to do it.

I grow my own food as well but I have doubts as to whether it is a scalable arrangement.

Da Vinci didn't spend much time in any given direction. What I see Da Vinci doing is relating what he's learning to what he already knows.

I'm not saying it's a bad idea. But I think alot of people take for granted the role our current system of agriculture plays. International food trade plays a large part in maintaining peaceful relations. It's what props agrarian society. It's the foundation of civilization. Food plays a greater social role than just providing nutrition. Ideally, any disruption to the establishment would leverage these relationships.

>The reason why I make history videos is that many people I know (many of whom are quite educated) don't even have a basic scaffold of world events in their minds (or the potential causality between events

I think this problem can be generalized. There's a predisposition for lopsided development across intelligence domains. Like the cliche nerd that has the social intelligence of a rock and viceversa. Modern society re-enforces this tendency by rewarding people to specialize into increasingly narrower intelligence domains. This sort of tunnel vision bias just isn't sustainable in a modern democracy.

apples and oranges. Sure that's true if you want to dwindle history down to just dates and events. The value of history(I assume for most) is in the meaning and lessons we extrapolate from it. You can argue it's an objective process when at its best but it isn't necessarily consistent across all perspectives.

So who is held responsible when your spinach gives e coli? Farmers have insurance and adhere to regulations to prevent these types of situations.

That's the one, thanks.

In one of his interviews, John Mackey pointed out that there are legislative reasons for this as well. America isn't allowed to have in-house unions like those of Japan. The present laws predispose unions to antagonistic relationships.

I think a big problem here is the scaling of online communities(there was a great article out on this a couple years ago). As homogeneous online communities grow their perceived quality goes down in part due to relatively heterogeneous members disrupting the signal to noise ratio. Sites like facebook(and I assume even reddit) get around this scaling problem by partitioning members off into homogeneous sets. This problem is related to the fact that there is a dialogue happening. Dialogues within heterogeneous populations degrades into culture war. So partition the user base via filters, create structure that mediates the dialogue/interaction, or create niche communities tailored to a homogeneous community.

Makes sense. Philosophy is the root from which all rigorous knowledge domains diverged into specializations.

>Are adhoc gangs/groups that perform altruism common across genetic lines?

It's common in the sense that symbiotic relationships are common across ecosystems and probably a definitive element of what makes them a "system".

Stephen Gould took the idea further in his idea of "hierarchal evolution". Evolution isn't just happening on the genetic, individual, group, and species levels. It's happening at every level of organization.