rofo1

I have yet to see a single communist that can discuss like a rational human being. They have no problem with contradiction, non-sense, things that plainly do not work, things that are false, things that are false sometimes (when they need them to be) but are otherwise true.

Not once, not in any debates, online, or in real life. It's truly a virus of the psyche. It is remarkable.

You say that they are "demands". As if the taxpayers should automatically give billions to Harvard, no matter what Harvard does. That's insanity (to me at least).

"Harvard has in recent years failed to live up to both the intellectual and civil rights conditions that justify federal investment."

"The United States has invested in Harvard University’s operations because of the value to the country of scholarly discovery and academic excellence. But an investment is not an entitlement. "

So basically, they are claiming that the Federal government will not invest money until Harvard gets rid of the communist/socialist rhetoric. As far as I can see, they are free to burn their money to fund communist ideals. Who says that they deserve taxpayers money by default?

It's amazing how communist problems always end with: "you eventually run out of other people's money"

I am not up to date on all details, but how exactly is it overreach? It's a good question whether government should give money (9bn but I could be wrong) for research, but lets put that aside for now. (who determines what "research" is this? it could be quantum mechanics, or it could be "gender studies")

Curious as to why do you think this is an overreach.

Trump was banned from Facebook and Twitter. They didn't seem to have a problem with this. It's interesting how the brainwashing works: they always find a reason for whatever they do. "Empathy", "sympathy", "compassion" for whatever evil they do. "We are protecting innocent people from the Dangerous Thoughts".

When other groups do it to them, then they cry in the media in which they control.

The solution is simple: we should not censor free speech. IT WILL be turned against you. This should be a principled position, not one that depends on whether you like one party or another party...

My description of NAZI Germany is downplaying the evil, if anything. They had a lot of power even before 1936 but in 1936 they openly seized the economy (completely) to prepare for direct war with the communists. This is called the Four-Year plan. I will re-iterate that they executed people regularly, for being "dissidents" or any kind of political opponents or "communists".

I am only writing this for comedic effect. One day someone will read this, and they will see a person defending NAZI Germany as a country with free markets, and in the same time blaming Elon of being a nazi because he moved the arm. Remarkable, I have to say.

Don't tell me who is expert and who is not an expert. Use your own brain - how can NAZI Germany have any degree of freedom at all and do what they have done? They could have done that only because they had full power and were brutal with any opposition. This is true for the communists, too. It is the same thing. One uses the Aryans and one uses the Proleteriat.

Why can't you discuss sincerely and directly to the point? Why do you start with: "it's a waste of time", "this is telling", "the ExP3rtz said this.."

Stop moving the goal posts - I asked for direct examples, you say why didn't he supported parties in France and Spain.

NAZI Germany had total control over the economy. If you are contesting this point, there is nothing for me to discuss further with you.

They also had total control over the social aspects and any kind of even slight criticism of anything related to their party or the way they rule, was met with severe penalties. They regularly executed people for treason cause of criticism.

They fully controlled all media and speech without exceptions. Goes without saying that they disarmed anyone that wasn't directly controlled by their party. This is what the communists did, too. This is why I maintain they are the same evil.

It's unbelievable to read that a grown person thinks that companies in NAZI Germany had any kind of freedom themselves. I disagree with that strongly, as anyone knowing anything remotely about Germany 1933-1945 would.

I am against any censorship of ideas - ideas should be discussed openly. And I am against government interference in private businesses. That is core position of freedom. If Elon or Trump endanger it, I am against that, loud and clear.

This is off topic, but are you going to say the same for what the Democrats did to Zuckerberg? Check the Joe Rogan interview for details. That's just one example, they did much more than this. It doesn't matter how they justify it ("compassion", "empathy", "we protect you from thoughts" etc.)

> The parallel with "democrats doing Nazi salute" is pretty poor: of course people will not assume it was the intention for someone who has, by the ideas they defend and by their acts, demonstrated they are strongly opposed to the Nazi ideas. But it is not the case here.

You have to prove that. You cannot just randomly keep saying it as a starting position because you hope nobody will call that out. He has shown support for free markets, reducing regulations, reducing taxes/gov. spending (within budget and small at that) and for limited government in general. How is that support for the National-Socialists?

> I'm not sure how sympathetic he is with Nazi ideas (but I would not be surprised he would be sympathetic to the core concepts, he is promoting the same family of ideas grounded in the same roots),

Again, you have to prove this. Be concrete: which ideas precisely? Which "concepts", which "family"?

I am not building anything. Perhaps you need to study history and see what happened. There is no distinction of evil between the communists in USSR and NAZI Germany. They were both clear evil. I thank God they are both history now and we should not forget it, ever.

What is there to downplay? This is why engagement hunters on Twitter/X.com made a side by side comparison of "Democrats doing Nazi salute" over the years, and there are like 10 pictures there doing the same exact thing. It would be as bizarre to say those people were supporting NAZI Germany, too.

Yes and this is the core problem.

I have no dog in this fight and I want to see all ideas surface. Then people will be able to judge for themselves. I do not want any kind of filtration by either communists or conservatives.

Do you really believe this? Sincerely and honestly?

You believe Elon Musk is somehow showing support for the National-Socialist party of the German working class?

How is it possible to get to this level? Truly amazing.

It does work, I use it regularly. However, it can hang the whole system in certain cases such as mount that went wrong, connection timeout between the servers (without -o reconect option on sshfs, but even with that sometimes).

There are many engineers that can do this, it's just that writing javascript pays 3 times or more so the focus goes there :)

If you visit #c / #asm on any popular IRC network, you'll find a lot of skilled people that can do this routinely.

CPU-Z, the Android app, can tell you this (along with a bunch of other information that you might find useful)

>Adams called Black Americans a “hate group” and suggested white Americans “get the hell away from Black people” in response to a conservative organization’s poll purporting to show that many African Americans do not agree with the statement: “It’s OK to be white.”

From the article.

"OK to be white" - is that really racist? What can the white people do, they were born that way?

Other groups of people are doing it. To me, it looks unreasonable to be proud of something you had no input in. This obsession with so called "identity" is insane - you did NOTHING to be black, or white, or anything else. You were just born that way. How can you be proud of that?

Why are people so obsessed with this? Why does the media keep pushing "identity" on everything? People are "identifying" as wolves now, btw. And dragons. No joke.

What is going on..

I have a routine for this scenario: open the windows in the morning for 1-2 hours, then close everything and clean the air internally (I have a 24/7 sensor running and know when the air is good or bad).

That seemed like the easiest thing to do without making much more complicated system. Basically risk 1hour of bad air for 23h of "clean" air.

> All success is simply relative to someone else – usually those around you. That’s important for spending money, because for so many people the question of whether you’re buying nice things is actually, “are your things nicer than other peoples’ things?” The question of whether your home is big enough is actually, “is your home bigger than your neighbor’s?”

This is pathological behavior. Unfortunately, it's ingrained in humans. We are improving the world in a faster-than-ever rate, and the objective difference between wealth classes was never lower than it is now. Not even remotely close. (see the book "Factfulness" for some interesting data)

Yet due to the way the world stopped "being huge", due to social networks and everyone being "approachable" (low degree of separation or whatever), the level of envy is at absolute maximum. This problem was always present in humans and is perhaps the primary reason (well, if we can make the jump or at least connect envy to evolutionary pressure for procreation) we have achieved so much in this world. Not knowing when is "enough" is unsolvable problem, even though philosophers wrote thousands of books on this topic.

People cannot stop being envious even if it leads to unhappiness, almost always.

For myself, if I don't have to worry about bills, buying healthy food, having shelter and I don't have to work 14 hours a day, I consider myself on par with anyone in the world money-wise.

> I think it's partly because most bullies grow out of it, and partly because as an adult you're usually afforded the agency to leave situations where you're being bullied.

It is because you can defend yourself. That's all there is to it. If you can defend yourself, people will not mess with you.

Parents that leave children into "schools" so they can get "bullied" and nobody protects them are committing cruelty of the highest order I can imagine.

> In my younger Slashdot days, I would read these polarized discussions, and it taught me about many perspectives on even the simplest thing.

I know precisely what you mean, but I'd argue that you were in a position to consider multiple perspectives in the first place. A lot of people are not. They have determined their position ahead of time, and regardless of new information, they will not change it.

They are talking about 2000-2021; what I mentioned is from 1970 (again, that is from memory, I don't have the book in front of me, at the moment). But almost surely that number is nowhere near 10% that can beat S&P in the last 50 years.

Not a lot of funds even continuously exist for 50 years - most of them closed.

Where did you find that 10% beat S&P? First of all, that's low %, but I don't think even that is accurate. So you have 1 in 10 chance of identifying who might beat the S&P. Congrats.

Can you share a source for that? As far as I remember, the odds are around 1 in 300 (this is from memory, but that information is from Bogle's books directly). I think that research was done since 1970, but I am not sure.

> I almost feel like the discussion at this point should proceed straight to "no anecdotes please, show your work" (evidence, data, the more the better).

wallstreetbets figured it out: "positions or ban" :) It's a rule there.

This is not applicable. What is your exact positions, and time frame (exactly)? Then we will see if you hit or miss.

That may be the only thing I "like" about WSB: "positions or ban". Otherwise everybody would pretend that they are a genius investor doing 50% yearly easily, etc.

Anyway, it's not impossible to beat the market, but I don't know a lot of people that beat it consistently over long periods of time. Really, a few names come to mind. That's all out of millions and millions of investors. That's hard data.

> It really drew the point home that a random non-insider individual who thinks can do that over decades is likely delusional)

You are, of course, correct, and it has been proven time and time again. People think that just because we had a few years of 0% rates that they are somehow geniuses who can do 15% CAGR for 50 years without a problem.

In reality, almost nobody can beat the S&P500 low-cost index fund, after all expenses. People still dream, though.

If anything at all is objective, it's mathematics. Anyone can verify if the statements are true, independently. Granted, some of the statements are massively complicated, so not everyone can do it reasonably fast; however when you state something, typically you need to prove it.

I (naively) thought this protected this particular discipline from "modern politics" or whatever we want to call this insanity that is spreading. I worry that we might reach a place where people believe that 1+1 is not exactly 2, it is dependent on the emotions of the person uttering the words, akin to the current discussions of male/female, genders, pronouns and so on.

It looks weird even typing this, but I am sure someone in 19th or 20th century would say the same thing about the current state of what is a man, what is a woman, who gives birth.. things that are so obvious that but yet disputed.

I don't understand what can be done about people legitimately believing insane things. I have no doubt that they believe what they are saying. We ought not to fund it with tax $ at least.. disappointing.

> The QAA’s benchmark document that defines the common mathematics curriculum has grown in length by 50 per cent in just three years, but not because of any radical shift in the nature of the mathematics. Instead there has been a been a decision to introduce teaching on diversity,

Just like the communists forced Marxism upon everyone, and Nazi Germany did the same thing to their youth. I expected Math would be the last place to be infected with this, but it has happened. We'll see how much it spreads.

> Activists also have statistics in their sights. One academic review of school statistics textbooks ‘with a theoretical framework of queer theory and critical mathematics’ notes disapprovingly that ‘pregnancy was used frequently in problems involving females/women.’

Cannot be distinguished from pure comedy. What a reality we are living in.

Haha, I am global / ~3000 ELO Faceit player, curious what do you do with regards to CS?

Same exact story - I was perhaps 9 or 10 and got to Beej's work on sockets. It was one of the more accessible things available to me (or known to me). I remember reading Stevens books next.

So interesting that so many people have the same experience

I think most chess players are comparing them in the same circumstances, e.g on pure skill.

So for example Fischer said Capablanca and Morphy, under the same circumstances, could beat anyone (if they were born in the same era, using the same tools, etc.)

Why don't people start off with their own sons and daughters, I wonder?

I want to see the man here that wants to give his daughter to the world, to be used by all kinds of men for some cash.

I've got a hard trouble believing any well adjusted, sane man (or woman) will have no problems with it. Doesn't matter what adjective we use ("you are not progressive enough"). Nobody cares.

Well, these "sex workers" are someone's daughter, too.

I wish I could grasp just how much % of people exist that actually believe this insanity that is rampant in 2020's.

Is it a case of a loud minority, or (majority of) people really believe this is how life should be lived?

It's very similar to not promoting the software engineers that fix bugs, and keep everything stable, but promoting the ones gaming the metrics, when you think about it.