msmenardi

Check out "No Shortcuts" by Jane McAlevey. Great book about creating a tech union, and it gives background on how other industries did it (and often where they went wrong)

I think this article is bullshit. Just because something is meaningless to the people performing the experiment doesn't mean it's meaningless to the people who heard it. Maybe these "gullible" people have a different kind of creativity that only appeals to people like them?

... Or maybe I'm one of those people and I feel attacked

I think it was difficult for you to read because you aren't viewing it from the required context. It made perfect sense to me, I was enraptured and thought it was written beautifully. But I also have the requisite beliefs to address the subject matter - sorta like trying to grok algebra without understanding division or multiplication.

>The central premise is wrong, natural theology was dicussed by hume and paley, but neither of their arguments disprove it.

This is a misunderstanding, I think, because the author was saying Hume and Paley are examples of natural theology, they weren't trying to disprove it. They were embedded in their own cultural and theological context, just as we are, and if they could view us (as we view them) then they'd understand just as little of our context as we do of theirs.

>Arguments about 'proving' god using end up being arguments about what 'kind' of evidence qualifies as proof, which is not explored here.

Right, because the piece was written to show the differing definitions of "proof" - how do you prove something immaterial using a material context? You can't, because that'd be attempting to connect two disconnected fields. It's like using math to define a word in the dictionary. The argument between spiritual and atheist people was never "does god exist", but rather "what is god's will (in relation to this phenomenon) / what is the scientific nature of this phenomenon", which is two ways of saying the same thing.

This isn't an attempt to say "Ha atheists are dumb and they suck, god rulezz" it's more of a peace offering - "Hey can we agree to focus on the authoritarian patriarchal evangelical zealots who want to condemn our children to a life of ignorance?"

>Paley's infinite regression of watches doesn't sidestep God, it moves God into the watch. Paley's argument about a stone being ultimately purposeless depends on knowledge he doesn't have.

I think you misunderstood Paley here - essentially he's saying the difference between seeing a rock by the side of the road and a watch is that with a rock you wouldn't presume any ultimate purpose, because it's just a rock. But a watch is intricate, it's mechanical, it clearly has purpose - therefore we can view other things with unclear purposes - like earlobes or mosquitos or geologic processes - as having some kind of purpose, even if we don't understand it. Therefore we shouldn't (I dunno) extinct dodos or something, because clearly there is some purpose in them simply because they exist at all.

I think it's important to note that "purpose" doesn't necessarily imply forethought, as discussed later in the article when they talk about how evolution and such is the most germane and lucid presentation of god's will.

>As soon as you start arguing logical propositions, they have to end somewhere and it's always God if pushed far enough.

Well, by arguing so, you're pushing them in a specific direction. Are you really surprised they end at the polar edge of their reasoning?

>Douglas Adams' parody argument is fun, but is just wrong as a serious theological argument.

Then give the author credit and take it as a fun burst of levity, and not as a serious theological argument.

>The 2005 version of intelligent design the article discusses was rejected from schools because it was an undeveloped young-earth creationist style religious proposition. Stephen meyer spent the rest of the 2000s debating phd scientists (buried in youtube) and found they couldnt challenge his claims and he also developed the idea into a scientific philosophy. That's the face of intelligent design the author should be addressing.

Yup. Almost as if we share a common enemy.

>It would be better for the internet community to have a wiki-like or myspace-like battleground for theological interpretation so that we can all skip to the most recent developments and see the history of it like a git changelog, without having to endlessly quiz a Dominican monk about the arguments Aquanis conquered.

That sounds good to me, but how do you distill it? I think nearly as much effort would be required in administrating and preparing the presentation of the conversation as would be in actually making them. And making arguments is the fun part.

Install mods and play custom songs. They're 100% better mapped and you have endless choices.

Maybe with eye-tracking we can help with those concerns. Altering the visual representation of text, for example, if the eye-tracker notices you're having issues focusing on it.

What about everyone between "late 20s" and "boomers"?

As soon as we know any of those truths, we can get started on the actual work of doing something about it.

I feel like the author put more effort into this than the original author of the Web5 document did.

You're right, of course!

I think they're saying we should make the tools to program more accessible and allow people to play music easier. Sorta like an electric keyboard vs a grand piano.

fight fire with fire, aggregation with...

Because I can't make any decisions. I've been robbed of the ability to express my skills using my own methods to accomplish our mutual goals.

As far as I know you'll still have to write a program for terminal applications.

Check out NotCurses (https://github.com/dankamongmen/notcurses) for some nifty functionality (including pictures!)

I also love hexes. Have you seen this guy's blog before? It's a treasure:

https://www.redblobgames.com/grids/hexagons/

Especially considering all the problems Teslas have been having. Seems like every week I read about someone being locked in a burning car or the autopilot driving into a pile of schoolchildren or something.

I think it's more for pollution than contagions...

Clarifying technical specifics for general audiences is the ethical form of marketing.

The kids who were raised in that era grew up, had kids, and passed the generational trauma down the line. We'll grow past it eventually, but it takes time for people to heal and the trauma to filter out of the population.