dbasedweeb

“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them. In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-ge...

Working harder too, and in a single very specialized field. So you take that away, what skills do they have? What choices are they free to make?

Often those fighting the hardest are doing so because they have a sweet deal.

The sweet deal of working deep underground on a coal face, in dirty, dangerous conditions? Uh huh. Besides you’re proving their point, when people out there just shrug and say “fuck ‘em, not my problem,” who wouldn’t fight? They don’t owe you anything either.

Not to mention that your “average salary” bit is deceptive. The average salary for a coal miner is around $65,000, while the average salary for a recent college grad with a bachelor’s is $50,000. Obviously that includes everything from engineering to expressive dance, and there is no definite ceiling. A coal miner is stuck on the low end, period, and painting them as privelaged... on HN... is pathetic.

There’s faith that big rockets somehow are the missing link to living on Mars. Otherwise reasonable people hang up their skepticism in favor of ignoring the evidence that Musk craves money and power, in favor of believing that he has a master plan to save the world. It’s infuriating, and ironically in a few years they’ll be the first screaming bloody murder when he fails to live up to their impossible dreams. Of course by then he’ll have enough money that he won’t need to care, and rockets working LEO rather than Mars.

I guess it’s easier praying that a billionaire has a vision to save us from ourselves without us having to make any sacrifices, than it is to do the hard work of saving ourselves.

Edit: Your state of being persuaded is immaterial, because what I said isn’t really controversial. One known alternative to herbacides is tilling, hardly a radical new invention and notably not carcinogenic. As I said up front, it would take more effort to produce crops, but simply by reducing waste you can more than make up for that. The use of ground cover, litter, and other established techniques all allow for large scale farming without herbacides.

There are other alternatives, and adjunct techniques as well, for example:

http://plen.ku.dk/english/news/2015/crops/

Stop wasting so much food because it isn’t pretty enough, and you can stop truffing carcinogens. That seems fair.

Every time the jury is out on a topic where one side has a vested interest and a billion dollar budget to protect it, you can be reasonably sure what the outcome will be. See: pesticides and bees, fossil fuels and climate change, food packaging plastics and cancer, pain treatment meds and addiction. The answer in all those cases is the harmful effects eventually became known, but the jury was out long enough for the vested interests to make a ton of profit and cause a ton of damage which they'll never pay for repairing. All made possible with a series of comparatively small investments to buy scientific research to keep the jury out.

Even in non-borderline cases like tobacco, lots of money and power can really confuse the issue. This is definitely not as clear cut as tobacco, and I’d like the option to opt out of the lengthy, massive “trial period” in which the public gets to play guinea pig. The problem with this is that it’s very difficult to do that when the compound in question is unexpectedly ubiquitous.

Sure, if they’re on a private network. If you’re broadcasting though, hell no. It would be like a tv network demanding that you don’t use a DVR because it lets you skip ads. If you want the benefits of broadcasting to the open web, you’ve already tacitly agreed to let people consume that the way they see fit. You don’t get to set the volume of their audio, or anything else, including what gets displayed.

Women often have to go by their gut instinct with guys, because if they don’t it can end in them being very badly hurt. Any heuristic is likely to generate false positives. Someone who is very anxious or socially awkward may come across as dangerous simply because of the heightened emotional state and failure to respond to social cues. It may also be that there is a strong correlation between “socially awkward” and “unattractive” for obvious reasons.

So again, I wouldn’t assume that looks represent cause rather than correlation. For an analogy, it could be like someone who is afraid of dogs being disproportionately bitten by dogs who react to the fear that person has of being bitten.

Needless to say, this creates a host of issues you won’t find in Helsinki, where 1.2m of Finland’s 5m inhabitants live. A bunch of very similar people living in the equivalent of one American state or small Canadian province, speaking the same language and sharing the same culture and weather can make roads and cycling a priority. Good luck scaling that.

Tl;Dr don’t put up with that shit. Ever.

In warm and dry parts of the world with good roads. You try biking in Toronto in the winter! Some people also understand that roads are dangerous, and being hit by a car when you’re on a bike is very bad news.

Sounds like my personal library actually.

Second, the PDFs aren't the actual books. They are just short blurbs describing the book and containing download deep links into bookfreenow.com. A couple examples [1] [2]. Clicking to create an account so you can start downloading redirects through some ad companies (and possibly some shady affiliate marketing companies), eventually reaching some download site (I think) that tells you no free slots are available and asks you to make an account.

Well that’s a lot harder to explain in charitable terms! So is this even piracy, or just some kind of scam based on the promise of piracy?

At the end of the day, someone or a lot of someone’s need to take or share responsibility for the circumstances of the less foruntate, because the alternative is terrible for everyone.

It’s not as though there’s a lack of data for outcomes here, and it’s weighed against slippery slope fallacies and “what if’s.”

We shouldn’t short sell just how tricky hydrogen can be.

Now, it is very easy to get hung up on this "Is it real or not" thing, and most people do for at least a while, but please just put it aside. When you peer really hard into the depth of the theory, it turns out that it is hard to say for sure that stuff is "stuff". It is tempting to suggest that having a non-zero value of mass defines "stuffness", but then how do you deal with the photo-electric effect (which makes a pretty good argument that light comes in packets that have enough "stuffness" to bounce electrons around)? All the properties that you associate with stuff are actually explainable in terms of electro-magnetic fields and mass (which in GR is described by a component of a tensor field!). And round and round we go.

Light doesn’t propagate in empty space, because space isn’t empty, it’s permeated with quantum fields in constant flux. What light doesn’t require is a medium, and a field is not a medium. The problem here is that these theories are really described in terms of a bunch of math, and when we use words to describe those theories, something is lost in translation. There are no words that fully capture what a field is in QFT, you must use math.

Once you adopt that perspective, inflation would just be the result of another field with particular properties (esp. a given range of potential energy curves). Of course, inflation is an untested theory, and there are competing ones which try to explain the apparent homogeneity and isotropy of the universe. Inflation is probably the most popular, but it doesn’t rest on the kind of firm foundation that QED does.

The problem Einstein and others grappled with was different, and concerned the fact that according to relativity nothing should exceed c. Entangled particles seemed to violate that principle, because the collapse to a given pair of states was instantaneous. The modern resolution to that is more practical than philosophical, and points out that information isn’t transmitted faster than light in entangled particles. Information propagates at or below c, even though at some scale entangled particles are statistically correlated. Relativity is only violated, and causality threatened if information is transmitted FTL, but entanglement doesn’t allow for that. You need a classical channel make entanglement work for communication, and that classical channel is going to be no faster than light. Without a classical channel, entanglement just gives you random noise.