mystikal

It's a pain in the ass, for sure. On the other hand, it's a good filter for finding people you want to be close to and finding people you want to avoid at all costs, that is unless you want to be punished with tedious drama. At least for me, many of my family members fall into the latter category... which is tricky to negotiate...

Oh yeah, I was conflating depolarizing with not polarized. Good point. Yes, by definition, if you are depolarizing, none of the polarized people will see you as polarized, at least in time. On the other hand, I still believe there are lots of people that cannot listen to anything that isn't what they believe (pick any hot button topic) - like it's really impossible to depolarize them.

In my experience, because they only see in black and white, polarized people see anybody that isn't polarized as belonging to the other pole. It gets boring after a while.

Some Chinese characters are pronounced differently depending on the surrounding characters. Example: sometimes in Mandarin a 4th-tone character is changed to 2nd-tone because saying two 4's in a row is hard.

No worries, I just like to argue :)

I'm long term mentally ill. You don't know what you're talking about.

Besides, our system of corporate loans and bankruptcy works so well to encourage innovation precisely because it minimizes the personal cost of failure. If you weren't allowed to fail, nobody would take risks.

Mental illness is primarily characterized by temporary states. Personally I don't think you can be "unhinged" without being mentally ill. It's better to use language that more accurately characterizes the situation, than something which is just a synonym for crazy.

I feel like there are legitimate and illegitimate reasons for privacy and the illegitimate ones are compromising the legitimate ones.

I also think that a lot of the time, we willingly part with privacy (always-on syndrome), and that you can regain it pretty easily without having to fight the government - just go for a walk without your phone.

I didn't say people in industry weren't smart. There's plenty of stuff that gets published at conferences where the industry guys are like, we did that 15 years ago.

My argument is that there's lots of great-in-theory but untested-in-practice stuff in academia, and that you can't discount something altogether just because it's untested. It's hardly fair to compare the output of a few grad students over a few years with all of the effort that goes into a major industrial product.

And anyway, the architecture of Linux originated in academia too.

There are zillions of academic solutions that if implemented properly would be better than the industrial version. Academics are just notoriously bad at building real-world systems. I think this is mostly because it's a waste of time and money as far as publications are concerned.

I see what you mean, but I think maybe "disruption" or "upheaval" is a better way to characterize the changes than "failure". Also, music videos are still made and widely watched on YouTube - again disruption rather than failure.

Shrinkage is not failure. I know plenty of pro music biz people.

The difference between man gcc and tldr gcc is dramatic.

The music industry failed?

> Still rock hard though.

I mean, Octopod Transmuter is not... easy... but all the long major roguelikes (ADOM, Nethack, DCSS, ToME) are basically games of patience. They're repeatably doable if you learn all the rules and are careful. Speedruns are harder, of course.

Whereas even if you're completely spoiled and have achieved a perfect score in the past, Brogue is still difficult because every decision matters and you can't take your time. If you don't plan the most efficient way to explore each level then you starve, and if you miss or waste a key resource then you die because you aren't powerful enough. I still love Crawl but I strongly second the recommendation to give Brogue a whirl.

Sodium isn't toxic, 5 grams of lithium can kill you.

There's a strong bias in all disciplines towards "positive" results, i.e. those that demonstrate an effect. They're more exciting, and in the short term they're usually more profitable. There isn't a lot of tolerance for thorough examination. I feel like science didn't use to be this way, or at least the romantic stories I was told about science didn't go like this.

He's a role model for this community.

How conservative is your analysis? Is it whole program? Do you look at the class library? What's the largest size of program it handles in a reasonable amount of time?

It's usually safe to break safety laws, on the road or off it. Consider seatbelts. A wide net is cast to catch the exceptions. Nevertheless I agree that egregious unimpaired bad driving should be targeted too.

Yep, makes sense. So is there some kind of data to back up the claim that a jury is wrong more often? Perhaps verdicts are more likely to be overturned for juries?

You're saying a jury will reach the wrong verdict more than 50% of the time, and a bench will reach the right verdict more than 50% of the time? I don't disagree, but are there statistics?

Some people are only able to reason about things they can measure.

Shit man, I just genuinely didn't understand. I haven't even read the article. I would probably call the yelling straightforward aggressiveness, but I'll agree that it's childish, overblown, and reactionary.

Why is that passive aggressive? Because she asks "I am?" instead of just adjusting the volume?

> I don't have a problem with wealthy people making their own call on the guns vs. butter question.

You can donate to military organizations that fund warfare directly?

The point is that you can justify lower taxes if you have private donations to charities instead of state funding.