proksoup

I am also curious to hear why c2the3rd is so confident about the ignorance displayed here and why silence instead of noise is the solution. Hacker news seems to do a pretty good job of at least up voting the majority thoughts, and perhaps with some effort by all of us we can respond intelligently to those popular thoughts and also get up voted. Even if ignorant, isn't it worth discussing and responding to if that's what most people are thinking?

Would an alternative be any better? Democracy seems the only way forward, the solution is education (difficult if not impossible).

The mob is ignorant so pick someone smart to be in charge? How do you pick? Who decides? Maybe the smartest people are the ones who take power already. Really the money is in charge.

Maybe doesn't qualify, but Atlassian.

Twitter even, for the most part as far as I understand gives you complete control over your feed, with the (minor?) exceptions of promoted tweets and suggested followers.

It's worth noting the candidate who has been most successful (or at least taken advantage of it) on that platform might fit the parent article's definition of conservative (or at least the sort of content they are suppressing).

I would argue it's after reproduction, successful reproduction that also has successful reproduction even.

Why do grandparents love their grandchildren? Something noble about human nature and love? Or is it evolutionary advantageous?

I consider my protests and vocal opposition to christianity being enforced on my family from my family, and my vocal opposition to its ongoing role in politics as a defensive tactic.

I am often labeled as being on the offensive, and it'd be nice to talk about this line more (when is it offense, when is it defense).

A Scanner Darkly is maybe relevant here too.

I was not familiar with those, perhaps they will. Very fascinated reading about them now. I guess I don't follow the specifics, ... to give an example of my confusion, a journalist can't livestream a protest without blurring out the faces of the protestors?

Scary, but inevitable, no?

As technology improves, it's hard to imagine regulations keeping pace with preventing this sort of thing ... And even if they did, then it would only be used by criminals and governments (while I may call it criminal, they would likely exclude themselves from any such regulation), and I'm not sure that situation (criminals and governments being the only users of the technology) is a better situation than the technology being available to all.

Is it?

Hm, okay, I think we're making progress here though. I've started and continued quite a few controversial conversations that have "harmed" some[1] relationships, but overall I think it's for the better and has improved the relationships I want to improve.

[1] https://www.facebook.com/derekbreden/posts/1670541883212714

Wim Hof is an individual case study that has done research in this area, and other related phenomena (breathing and autonomous response control)[1]

Not sure it's any more or less "bro science" then this article, but it's interesting and relevant enough to be worth talking about here I think.

[1] https://www.radboudumc.nl/Research/Pages/PNASIceman.aspx

I've been impressed with Joseph's other recent work like "hit record". For me personally I can't think of anyone better for the role.

Also maybe relevant is his opinion not an opinion after meeting Snowden for research on the role:

> "Now, as he would say, it’s not for him to say whether it was right or wrong. That’s really for people to decide on their own, and I would encourage anybody to decide that on their own. I don’t want to be the actor guy who’s like, ‘You should listen to me! What he did was right!’ I don’t think that’s my place. Even though that is what I believe – that what he did was right.” [1]

[1] http://www.ew.com/article/2015/09/18/joseph-gordon-levitt-sn...

I think this is the same link as https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11588946 I realize multiple posts are totally legit here just mentioning it because they are with a few hours of each other and neither has much traction yet.

Border radius with prefixes instead of with images felt elegant and simple and not shiny at the time (relative to what we were replacing).

The article itself seems to be talking more about the perceived sense of self is, and how that might be affected by organisms that replace our existing organisms.

The title led me to believe it might be something more like the gondii situation mention.

There is perhaps an association between gondii and schizophrenia. Here is one meta analysis[1]

"The results suggest that individuals with schizophrenia have an increased prevalence of antibodies to T. gondii. This association is consistent with other epidemiological studies as well as with animal studies."

[1] http://schizophreniabulletin.oxfordjournals.org/content/33/3...

America is not an equal system, money matters. It's a vicious cycle. If you're looking for one factor, I think it's dollars and cents.

I think exposing the rules will make them stronger.

Could you elaborate, the same principle seems to apply to me, the costs of dealing with people attacking the edge strengthens the edge, no?

Amanita muscaria.

> By your standards, if YC and Vogt were ethical actors, they'd ask GM to reduce the offer, because building things and innovating is itself an honest reward.

What do you need a reward for at all?

Why are you trying to build something?

By my standards, your motivation matters a lot, it sounds like you think people deserve rewards for doing things, I don't think that makes very much sense. Gold star you did the right thing, bullshit.

Not against anything, just think it's fair to label those seeking large amounts of money as dick'ish and greedy.

If money is your goal great, more power to ya, but I'm gonna call you a dick and not want to work with you.

The amounts of money involved make everyone involved pretty greedy, I don't understand why that's so controversial.

Ya'alls notion of "rights" is pretty disturbing to me.

Same as with patents and everything else.

The one's filing them and demanding what's rightfully theirs are selfish, the one's not filing patents are less selfish.

That is correct.

It's that "rightfully yours" bit that really bothers me. Where does that come from and why is it so obviously rightfully yours? It takes some gumption to assume you're in the right. This land is rightfully mine because I bought it from someone else who genocided a people, but okay great, it's rightfully mine, I feel super great about it.

> I don't think so, it's the right way to play it. Wait until you have maximium leverage and then play your legal cards.

That sounds like condoning exploitative behaviour to me. Is that the sentence we are both talking about?

How is that not greedy and selfish?

What you describe sounds like security by obscurity.

I guess I don't see how this was so obvious.

That's pretty crazy to me.

It indicates your attitude towards how one should act.

Obviously, one should act in their own self interest and use the law to it's fullest extent, not consider the social consequences of being a dick.

Good luck sir.