johnp314

The original topic under discussion is the impotence of being clever. It seems to me your cleverness (and that of others replying to the original comment) is demonstrating that.

Surely you should add Scott Aaronson to your list of world class reserchers and prolific bloggers. He's also quite often quoted in the main stream media.

"Can anyone speculate what Bankman-Fried's exit plan was?"

SBF contributed millions to democrat candidates in the recent elections. Perhaps his exit plan was legislation to bail him out.

What is the 'mission' of a news organization? There are facts, e.g. a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden was discovered with lots of unfavorable emails, an unruly group of people broke into the US Capitol on Jan 6 and wreaked all sorts of havoc, George Floyd died while in police custody, Russian troops crossed the border into Ukraine, etc, etc. But quickly after reporting these 'facts' nuance enters the discussion, why, what does it mean, what is the impact, who cause it, etc, etc. Why should we expect reporters to not view and report the nuance through their own personal filters? A reporter also lives in the country and/or community in which he/she is reporting and has their own biases and beliefs and, yes, political leanings. Why should they then report a nuance that might reflect poorly on the things they personally believe to be correct or their personal world view?

It's silly to compare money to mission of a news organization (or any other entity for that matter). It's like asking what influences a human being more, food to air? You need both. For a news organization to have impact it needs money. Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't even NPR solicit money on a regular basis - don't they have to cater to the supplier of that money to some extent to continue their service? I hear their fund raising and they often read comments from contributors which all more or less say "you give me what I want". So their money comes from those with whom their style and nuance of reporting resonates and it's reasonable to assume that NPR reporting then continues in that direction.

This incident shows just how mysterious is the inner structure of the planet that we inhabit.

Slavery existed since the dawn of civilization. The Egyptians used slave labor as did essentially all other ancient empires. Slavery existed in Africa well before 'Europeans' came along offering a market.

I thought Swedish society was rather similar to that of Finland, Norway and Denmark. Yet they each show rather significant delta-bumps whereas Sweden does not. Good science would ask what distinguished Sweden's COVID response from that of the others and did that have any effect on the difference we're now seeing.

Son of a gun, Finland and Norway are not enjoying any of that advantage that Sweden is enjoying. They show rather dramatic delta-bumps. How enlightened of only Sweden.

Has anyone looked at the Johns Hopkins COVID map and considered Sweden? Last year they were the country all the lockdown experts vilified (and libertarians envied). Today, Aug 12 2021, among most all western nations they show essentially no delta-bump. How do all you experts blaming anti-vaxers and AstraZeneca scientists looking at Israel explain this data point? What has given Sweden this apparent immunity from delta? It's annoying when inconvenient reality gets in the way of our theoretical science.

During the run-up to the November elections, it was the democrat candidates who were against vaccines. Back then they were the "Trump vaccines", still under development. It's not unreasonable to assume that should Trump have won the elections it would be the democrats who would today (still) be against the "Trump vaccines". With his loss they became simply 'vaccines' and a great idea of the Biden administration with great plans for their distribution. I see no "batting of eyes" for this change of story. This provides an example of history being written by the victors.

One explanation could be the following based on the supposition that one starts with rectangular pieces of metal. To minimize waste for a circle one begins with a square piece and cuts out the maximum circle contained therein. The waste is (area of square) - (area of circle). If the circle was to be 4 inches in diameter (2 inch radius) cut from a 4-by-4 square the waste is 4^2 - Pi2^2 = 3.43, whereas a 2 inch diameter circle cut from a 2-by-2 square has waste of 2^2 - Pi1^2 = 0.86. The cylindrical side needed to achieve a given volume is rectangular so has no waste in either case.

'abuse' is a subjective word, you could have left off the 'ab' and you sentence would still be correct, arguably more correct. Also, why not consider that by using the complex web of tax laws to their advantage allows them to sell products at a lower price. This allows folks with lower incomes to enjoy similar products to those who can afford getting their stuff from more posh places. One could judge Ikea to be more ethical for this practice.

"...make society and the world better as a whole." How exactly do 'we' (whoever 'we' is) achieve this without control? The verb 'make' assumes control, one does not make anything without having control over the ingredients, and in this case the ingredients are us.

History is replete with pure democracy leading to tyranny. Beyond just Brexit, it's not out of the realm of possibility that the 'majority' could vote to nullify constitutional checks to the power of a president, to term length, to guarantees on the protection of individual rights and freedoms, etc. Of course any such votes are deemed to be in the interest of the 'people'. The ancients and the US at its founding were wise enough to mix democracy, the at the moment will of the people, with various checks, balances and buffers. The US seems to be moving to more and more pure democracy. In my humble opinion this is dangerous, a slippery slope, a camel's nose under the tent, etc.

I did a solo cross-USA ride in 2007, Maryland to Calif. Some roads were rather hairy and frightening. I've also bicycle commuted to my work across various jobs over 30 years, from Philly to San Diego and points in between (not religiously in all weather but probably 30% of the time). I tell folks my most important safety item for bicycling is my rear-view mirror, I don't leave home without it. I don't mean one of those little things attached to the helmet, I mean a nice stable one attached to the handlebars. You may see me on occasion (especially on hot days) bicycling without a helmet, I almost never use my lights, but you'll never see me on a bicycle without a rear view mirror. I've never had to ditch because of what I saw coming at me, but many times I pull farther onto the shoulder or even stop and pause given what I saw coming from behind.

You can see my 2007 X-country day-by-day diary here: https://www.crazyguyonabike.com/doc/?o=1mr&doc_id=2579&v=LL

"...enabling any psycho to shout whatever for the whole world to hear is also a problem"

How can I be sure that it's not you that is the psycho? How do I know that your "nothing to see here folks" comment is not sponsored by the re-elected leader of Belarus? I prefer to read your comment and decide for myself to ignore it rather than have it blocked upstream by court, i.e. government, order. But yes, I am concerned also by massive Facebook censoring as well.

How do you know what the Walton's and Koch's are doing with their wealth? Perhaps they are doing the same thing as Feeny but without the fanfare. I think they are. Are you singling them out because of political differences?

Rome needed continual conquests to fund this benefit for its citizens. Margaret Thatcher said it well for governments that try to do this, "eventually you run out of other people's money."

So how do you all propose to quantify, define and draw a line on "power" and where to much must be quashed, i.e. "way more power"? If you have more friends and acquaintances who respect your opinion (and so can be influenced) than I do then do you have more 'power' than me, since your vote now can count more? How can/should I counter that so we are 'equal'. Oh that wonderful term 'equal' and how some of us wish and long for all of us to be perfectly equal.

But does not his vote count at +1, the exact same as your's does?

Using the word 'victim' biases the headline. Until an allegation is proven, the person making the allegation is an 'accuser'. So the article should state that opinion has shifted against 'accusers'. If we wish to hold to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" then we don't have a 'victim' until that proof standard is met. I don't believe that opinion has shifted against 'victims' if we adhere to the real (original?) definitions of words. Or, if we are living in a wonderland, then I guess words can mean whatever some unnamed mass media says they mean. If that's the case then like in the original wonderland "off with their heads".