janto

Ouija boards with statistical machinery :)

I 90% agree with you, except that there is nothing technically correct about the word cis.

Causality (2000) made the topic accessible (to students and lecturers) as a single book.

I tried separating the sentences but an editor reverted my change.

Well, my take is not equivalent to OP, in that I actually don't agree :) I am a human-centered empiricist.

I think OP's logic flows the other way: skeptical of human-centeredness position (like you) and from that skeptical of going purely empirical (not like you/me).

I'd say LIGO described phenomena as gravitational waves through the interaction of the experiment. They didn't detect anything because that would go beyond empiricism into assuming the existence of a thing beyond the interaction

That was my reply to you, not the original point. If it helps:

I think the GP implied with the statement that we should subscribe to some non-empirical theories ("outside spacetime"), because the endeavour is not supposed to be human-centered.

1. You said that the observations are not human-centered since we need to make machines, so the GP does not need to be suspicious and should stick to empiricism.

2. Both you and the GP seem to assume that the endeavour is not supposed to be human-centered

3. I say it is human-centered because we make the machines for us as observers at the center, so your argument doesn't quite work

4. I think our science is entangled with us as observers on many levels, and it should be. So the GP's statement should actually be pushed through suspicion towards neccessity.

In that humans built LIGO to bring forth phenomena for them. There is no science without an observer. The universe might exist without us, but without an observer there is no-one to describe it.

And neccessary.

Sounds like premature optimization with security implications. I'm hesitant to use that.

If anything, it's an issue with a magnet's naming. My understanding is that the North pole/direction got its name first.

Sunflowers and Indian mustard do bioaccumulate lead (especially with a chelating agent).

If he breaks the server, then a callback/webhook notification for the fix won't work either.

If you want to use a callback for this I'd recommend still polling periodically anyway.

If this happened to a smaller company they would be dead.

Edit: where can I get good Mercurial hosting? F this.

Requiring to have seen it all is a big problem if you identify as a critic, in all senses of the words. It's easy to be pulled in by irrelevant novelty that is not meaningful to viewers, or become disenchanted and find your critical sensibilities turn against what viewers find meaningful. There's an ideological and philosophical component here that is at the rift between critics and viewers.

Critics are not qualified to tell me what I should watch towards developing my own character. The disconnect between what they push as best and what audiences like as good, illustrates the postmodern critic's lack of relevance. Critics are pushers of entitled cynicism and ideology, not meaningful content.

Why does language matter to you? Is it a tool to entrenching your identity and present the world as a battleground between your groups? Or does language serve you as an individual to have dialog and develop? If you choose resentment then don't pull others along with you. What meaning does language have?

You clearly have an opinion. Are you saying I should not? I don't follow.

Forcing a change in language towards social agreeableness while using a lens of "there is only power" will have bad consequences.

To understand that terms like mankind already refer to all humanity is a small part of it. Another part is that communication serves us in finding suitable mates and manipulation of language towards social goals is likely to have outcomes that are eventually counter to what is meaningful to us as individuals.

I'd also disagree that expanding a language carefully is what is being done here. It is unlikely towards the goal of expressing ourselves more clearly.

Truthful description of relevant info is most important. The constructed profile of the person I'm talking to online is uninteresting to me. You might actually be a dog for all I know. If you want me to play along so you're never confronted with being identified as a dog... then I'm not sure I'm really doing you a favor. Maybe the kindest thing is not to play along with your language game.

I don't see where you said "no, you don't" so it's unclear what you mean here. Did you mean that labelling something as misinformation is unwise? Because then I agree with you.

A family in conflict might not have a future if we "only talk about 'climate crisis'".

As someone living in the third world let me assure you those living in poverty have more pressing challenges for themselves and their children. They are fighting raw nature daily for survival and your attempt to redirect attention away from, say, business and work creation to your "end of the world (maybe)" fears is not going to go over well.

What I don't understand is your lack of doubt that they would (or should) care. The conviction is something analogous to religion.

Maybe they believe in the usefulness of the "repeating it three times makes it true" rhetorical device.

What do you do with opinions that you think are wrong? Do you place them all in an "obviously nonsense" category and slap a misinformation sticker on it so others are not tempted to look at it? Because that is what happened here. What do you do when it turns out some of those things were true? Do you continue to curate the world with willful blindness?

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Framing the dissenting opinion as equivalent to "aliens did it" is exactly the problem. When the opinion turns out correct are you going to continue making those categorization errors? What lead to that mistake in the first place?

I no longer trust them to tell the truth. Trust is what you earn when you prioritize truthfulness above all else.

They decided to spend public trust to what end?

Following to the original Reuters article

  The figures include sales of apps, in-app purchase and *app store ads*.

I would also prefer that Google have more tolerable support for publishers (and users), but it looks like those at the helm might be thinking it's irresponsible to see publishers as important customers. The publishers are not the ones providing the vast majority of the revenue - that seems to be advertiser.

The attention economy is addictive for those pushing it as well.

It depends on how narrowly focused Google's strategy and commitment to reliable income is.

Linearly scaling up on human support agents doesn't look aligned with an AI driven strategy to enable income that is only coming from their advertising services.

From https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/020515/busin...

  Google Services generated $69.4 billion, or about 92% of total revenue, in Q4 FY 2021. Advertising revenue, at $61.2 billion, comprised 88% of the segment's revenue. The segment's revenue is up 31.3% compared to Q4 FY 2020. Google Services posted operating income of $26.0 billion, up 36.3% from the year-ago quarter.

  This figure surpassed Alphabet's total consolidated operating income of $21.9 billion due to operating losses in the other two segments as well as unallocated corporate costs. Google Services is thus the only segment that currently makes positive contributions to Alphabet's overall operating income

So Google Play can only exist in ways where it supports advertising. Sales are trivial in comparison. "Delighting" every app publisher is simply distracting.

Is that a lot from Google's perspective? If apps follow some power law distribution it might only be worth providing human support to a very limited number of them.